History's Greatest Crimes
🔎 Uncover the crimes that shaped history. From daring heists and political scandals to conspiracies and cover-ups, History’s Greatest Crimes takes you deep into the world’s most infamous criminal events. Hosted by two historians, Dr. Michael and Dr. Alana, each episode dissects a historical crime, revealing its impact on society, the people involved, and the larger forces at play.
🎙️ Whether it’s the FBI break-in during the Ali-Frazier fight, the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, or the Pentagon Papers, we go beyond the headlines to explore the context, the evidence, and the lasting consequences. With expert analysis, gripping storytelling, and a touch of suspense, we uncover the true stories behind history’s greatest crimes.
🔔 New episodes drop bi-weekly! Subscribe now and join us as we unravel the past—one crime at a time.
🎧 Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and wherever you listen.
🔗 Follow us for updates and exclusive content:
📌 Instagram: @historys_greatest_crimes
📌 Website: https://historysgreatestcrimes.buzzsprout.com
📢 Got a case suggestion? Email us at [historys.greatest.crimes@gmail.com.
History is full of crimes—let’s uncover them together. 🔥
History's Greatest Crimes
Episode 7: Blood on Easter Sunday: The Colfax Massacre
Easter Sunday 1873 in Colfax, Louisiana became the site of one of America's deadliest acts of racial violence when a white paramilitary group led by Christopher Columbus Nash slaughtered over 150 Black Americans. Armed with rifles and even a cannon, these men attacked a courthouse where newly appointed Black officials had taken office, setting it ablaze and shooting those who attempted to escape the flames. This wasn't random violence but calculated terror designed to overthrow Reconstruction's promise of racial equality.
The Colfax Massacre erupted from a powder keg of political tension. During Reconstruction (1865-1877), the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments had abolished slavery, guaranteed citizenship with equal protection, and secured voting rights for Black Americans. Yet Louisiana's disputed 1872 gubernatorial election created parallel governments, with both Republican William Kellogg and Democrat John McEnery appointing competing officials throughout the state. In Grant Parish, deliberately created with a narrow Black voting majority, this contestation proved deadly.
Though nearly 100 white men were indicted for the massacre, only three were ever convicted. Even this small victory was nullified when the Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) overturned these convictions, ruling that the federal government could not prosecute individuals for violating citizens' constitutional rights. This devastating verdict effectively removed federal protection for Black Americans and gave what one historian called a "green light to terror" throughout the South.
The massacre wasn't an anomaly but part of a systematic campaign of violence designed to suppress Black political participation across the former Confederacy. For nearly 150 years, a Louisiana historical marker mischaracterized the event as a "riot" that "marked the end of carpetbag misrule"—a blatant celebration of white supremacist violence. Only in 2021 was this marker removed, and in 2023, a proper memorial finally honored the victims.
As descendants of both victims and perpetrators now work toward reconciliation through truth-telling, the Colfax Massacre reminds us how fragile progress can be and how vigilantly we must protect our hard-won civil rights.
Imagine Easter Sunday not filled with the usual rebirth and hope, but marred by unspeakable carnage. In 1873, in Colfax, louisiana, the joyous celebration of a holiday was brutally shattered in what became one of the bloodiest episodes of racial violence in American history. Welcome to History's Greatest Crimes. Today we delve into the Colfax Massacre as a lens to understand the tumultuous Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War.
Speaker 2:Hi everyone. I'm Elena, and alongside me is Michael. On that fateful Sunday morning in central Louisiana, 1873, a white paramilitary group under the control of one, christopher Columbus Nash, arrived in Colfax with a cannon, among other types of serious ammunition. 150 men, many on horseback and armed with rifles, soon grew to 300 as more locals joined in. The group headed to the courthouse where the newly appointed sheriff and his officials were located. There, they fired their cannon into the courthouse building and set the building on fire. As people attempted to escape the flames, christopher Nash and his men shot them.
Speaker 1:But the violence didn't stay contained. Nash's group spread out throughout the town and began targeting black residents. In the end, three white men and over 150 black residents and officials were killed. News of the massacre spread in newspapers across the nation, but ultimately only three white men were subsequently prosecuted and convicted in an 1874 court trial and ultimately the infamous Supreme Court case of the United States versus Cruikshank overturned the conviction, allowing the men to walk free.
Speaker 2:Wow, that's pretty bad. More broadly, this horrific incident took place during a period of American history known as Reconstruction.
Speaker 1:That's right, elena. Reconstruction spanning the years 1865 to 1877, was meant to rebuild a fractured nation after the Civil War and integrate newly freed African Americans as citizens. Yet beneath the surface of this ambitious project lurked deeply entrenched white supremacy, economic chaos and a relentless scramble for political power in the South. This era wasn't merely about new policies and legislation. It was also defined by unprecedented social and political violence, and the Colfax Massacre stands as a stark, terrible testament to that violence.
Speaker 2:What makes Colfax so significant is how it exposes the contradictions inherent in Reconstruction. On one hand, you had the promise of freedom and equality enshrined in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, guaranteed citizenship and equal protection and secured voting rights. Yet the resistance to these sweeping changes was fierce and, as we'll explore, the federal government's efforts to enforce these rights ultimately faltered.
Speaker 1:Precisely this is a story of hope betrayed and justice denied, a chilling reminder of the fragility of progress in the face of deep-seated prejudice.
Speaker 2:Stay with us as we unravel the events of that fateful Easterax Massacre. It's crucial to have a clear picture of what Reconstruction itself entailed. Can you give our listeners a brief overview of this period?
Speaker 1:Absolutely, elena. Reconstruction, generally dated from 1865 to 1877, was an incredibly complex and contested effort to rebuild the southern states after the Civil War and, perhaps more significantly, to integrate the newly freed African Americans into the nations as citizens with rights. The very term reconstruction implies a need to rebuild not just the physical infrastructure ravaged by war, but also the social, political and economic fabric of a nation, completely changed by the abolition of slavery.
Speaker 2:And at the heart of this effort, what, or who were the driving forces?
Speaker 1:Well, initially, as the Civil War was going on, politicians offered different visions and plans for how to reunite the nation again. For example, lincoln himself promoted his 10% plan, which aimed for a lenient reintegration of former Confederate states back into the Union. Once 10% of the voting population took an oath of allegiance to the United States, that state would be enfolded back into the nation. But as the Civil War concluded and the realities of emancipation sank in, a faction within the Republican Party and Congress, often called the Radical Republicans, pushed for a more transformative reconstruction. Their aspirations went beyond simply reuniting the nation. They sought to secure genuine freedom and a measure of racial equality to the formerly enslaved peoples. The belief that black men should have the right to vote was not merely a courtesy, but it was a means of political participation and to ensure the loyalty of the South to the union. In 1867, the radical Republicans in Congress pushed through the Reconstruction Acts that required the political inclusion of African Americans and men, especially in local, state and federal elections.
Speaker 2:But it wasn't a straightforward path, was it? There were immense obstacles along the way.
Speaker 1:Indeed, the inherent challenges were staggering. First and foremost was the deep-seated racial prejudice prevalent throughout the nation, particularly entrenched in the South. Many white Southerners resisted the idea of Black equality and political participation, and this resistance manifested in various forms, from the enactment of Black codes that restricted the rights of African Americans, to outright violence and intimidation.
Speaker 2:And beyond racial animosity, there were also significant economic and political challenges.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. The Southern economy was in ruins after the war, heavily reliant as it was, and had been, on enslaved labor. The transition to a free labor system created massive upheaval and uncertainty. Politically, the struggle for power was intense. The old Southern elite sought to regain control, often by supporting candidates in the Democratic Party who would reestablish and enforce the traditional economic and racial hierarchy. At the same time, newly enfranchised African Americans, along with their white allies, attempted to create a path to civil rights and some semblance of racial equality, often through participation and support of the Republican Party. This clash of interests often led to instability and conflict, and this entire period was marked by tremendous social and political violence. One historian has described it as quote violence as real politics in an attempt to take back control of the political South end. Quote.
Speaker 2:And to address some of these fundamental issues, the Constitution itself was amended during Reconstruction.
Speaker 1:Yes, the Reconstruction amendments were truly foundational the 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which conferred citizenship on African Americans and guaranteed them equal rights and due process under the law. Finally, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, explicitly extended the vote to all male citizens, regardless of race or previous condition of servitude.
Speaker 2:Yet, despite these ambitious goals and monumental constitutional changes, Reconstruction is often viewed as a period that ultimately fell short of its promise.
Speaker 1:Tragically. That's true and, as we've discussed, there were significant achievements, especially in establishing basic rights and witnessing a period of brief Black political participation in state and federal governments, but the resistance from white supremacists, coupled with a waning commitment from the North, led to the end of Reconstruction, at least when it came to intervention from the federal government.
Speaker 2:And once federal troops were withdrawn, there wasn't as much manpower or effort to enforce Reconstruction laws, which led to a reversal of progress for Black Americans in the South. The seeds of the failure of Reconstruction effort were sown early, amidst organized violence and the systematic undermining of Black rights.
Speaker 1:So, elena, having painted the broad strokes of Reconstruction for our listeners, let's zoom in on Louisiana, a real powder keg during this tumultuous period of the 1860s and early 1870s. The struggle for control here was particularly fierce.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, Michael. The sources paint a picture of intense political polarization in Louisiana, with Republicans and Democrats locked in a bitter life and death struggle for power and Democrats locked in a bitter life-and-death struggle for power. One source explicitly states that, quote Reconstruction Louisiana is most remembered for the political violence that made the state a battlefield. End quote. This wasn't merely about different policy visions. It was a fundamental clash over who would govern and what the very definition of citizenship would mean. Who would govern and what the very definition of citizenship would mean. Louisiana had long been divided, and Reconstruction only stoked those existing tensions into a boiling point.
Speaker 1:And then we come to a pivotal moment that really intensified these fires the election of 1872 for the office of Louisiana governor. That election threw the entire state into utter disarray governor.
Speaker 2:That election threw the entire state into utter disarray. That's right. The 1872 election was a complete mess. Both Republican candidate William Kellogg and Democratic candidate John McEnery claimed victory in the election. Both men then proceeded to each appoint their own slate of local officials, which of course ran according to political party lines, slate of local officials which, of course, ran according to political party lines. This unprecedented situation led to a lot of uncertainty and dueling claims to government offices. In fact, it wouldn't be until September of 1874, over a year and a half later, that Democratic candidate John McInerney would finally concede the election to William Kellogg.
Speaker 1:And it's within this chaotic environment that Grant Parish emerged as a flashpoint. Elena, can you tell our listeners what made Grant Parish so significant and why it became such a magnet for this conflict?
Speaker 2:Certainly, michael. For our listeners out there unfamiliar with Louisiana, even today, the counties and the state are referred to as parishes. Grant Parish, located smack dab in the middle of the state, was actually a product of Reconstruction, as one source explains. It, quote was one of a number of new parishes created by the Republican government in an effort to increase local control in the state. End quote. Interestingly, it was the brainchild of Republican planter William S Calhoun, a former slaveholder who became a staunch unionist and embraced the Republican Party early on. The Grant Parish borders were even drawn to quote ensure a narrow black voting majority. End quote. And the town of Colfax became the parish seat. In total, for the parish, there were 2,400 Black men eligible to vote, most of whom voted Republican, and there were 2,200 white men eligible to vote, most of whom voted Democrat.
Speaker 1:So here we have a newly formed parish, a shining symbol of reconstruction project, yet also a place where competing interests were destined to collide. On the one hand, you have Black Republicans eager to exercise their newly won rights, especially the right to vote in a parish where they held a demographic advantage.
Speaker 2:Exactly. But on the other side, white Democrats were determined to restore white supremacy and regain political control. They viewed the Republican ascendancy, especially with active participation by Black voters, as quote unnatural and untenable. End quote this fundamental disagreement over who should hold power and along which racial lines set the stage for inevitable conflict.
Speaker 1:At that. Conflict is clear throughout the records for Grant Parish and the town of Colfax. For example, in the parish elections of 1868, the ballot box had to be moved to ensure black residents could vote. The box had previously been located in a local store in the town of Colfax, but the store owner publicly threatened to whip any black man who voted Republican. And when the vote count later showed that the Republican candidate had won, a group of white residents seized the ballot box and threw it into the Red River.
Speaker 2:Yikes. And adding to this tension, it was also around this time that we start to see the emergence and increasing organization of white supremacist groups, groups that weren't shy about using intimidation and violence to achieve their aims.
Speaker 1:Precisely. Our sources mentioned groups like the Knights of the White Camellia and the Ku Klux Klan filtering into Grant Parish. Their tactics were squarely aimed at suppressing the black vote and undermining Republican authority. This atmosphere of constant intimidation, with the ever-present threat of violence, created the true powder keg in Grant Parish, just waiting for a spark.
Speaker 2:As we mentioned before, the election for Louisiana governor in 1872 led to both candidates proclaiming victory over the other. In early 1873, the Republican William Kellogg and the Democrat John McInerney both held their own inaugural ceremonies and certified their lists of local candidates, declaring themselves to be the true governor of Louisiana. Among this list of local candidates was the offices of judge and sheriff for Grant Parish. The Republican William Kellogg appointed fellow Republicans Robert Register to be the judge and Daniel Wesley Shaw to be the sheriff of Grant Parish. In contrast, the Democrat John McInerney appointed fellow Democrats Alphonse Casabat as judge and Christopher Columbus Nash to be sheriff.
Speaker 1:Keep Christopher Columbus Nash's name in mind as we move forward. He was a former Confederate veteran who had been a prisoner in Ohio for a year and a half during the Civil War.
Speaker 2:They had to know that trouble was coming.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, and in fact. The federal government sent a Black Union veteran named William Ward to be the commanding officer of a new Louisiana state militia unit. That unit would be based in Grant Parish to help control the violence there. When William Ward arrived, he immediately called for more troops to help keep the peace. It was apparently very clear that this wasn't going to end well.
Speaker 2:In early March of 1873, the officials nominated by Republican Governor William Kellogg arrived at the courthouse in Colfax, louisiana. First, although, to be more specific, the Republican officials found the doors to the courthouse locked, but were ultimately able to enter through a window. They immediately occupied the courthouse and took their oaths of office, and black residents, feeling this tension beginning to rise, started digging trenches around the courthouse. They formed militia groups and started to drill, and this went on for three weeks. They formed militia groups and started to drill, and this went on for three weeks.
Speaker 1:On March 28th, christopher Nash and other Democratic officials arrived and began making plans to retake the courthouse from the Republican officials Over the next few days. Gunfire erupted occasionally between black and white militia groups, with the threat of violence in the community.
Speaker 2:black women and children began to join the men at the courthouse for protection. And, adding to the tension, christopher Nash and his supporters began spreading rumors that black men were preparing to kill all the white men and take the white women as their own. It also didn't help when the Daily Picayune, an anti-Republican newspaper in New Orleans, distorted events with a headline that claimed that a riot was being carried out in Grant Parish by Black men who committed quote fearful atrocities. End quote. Such news attracted more people from the region to Grant Parish to join Christopher Nash.
Speaker 1:Many of those supporting Nash were themselves former Confederate veterans, while many of the supporting Republicans in Grand Parish were former Union veterans. Things were bound to get violent.
Speaker 2:Nash and his men acquired a four-pound cannon that fired iron slugs. As the Klansman Dave Paul said at the time, quote boys, this is a struggle for white supremacy. End, quote Boys, this is a struggle for white supremacy end.
Speaker 1:Quote On Easter Sunday, april 13th of 1873, Nash and 300 armed men, most on horseback and armed with rifles, arrived in front of the courthouse in Colfax. Nash reportedly ordered the Republican defenders of the courthouse to leave and when that failed, nash gave the women and children in the area 30 minutes to leave.
Speaker 2:Nash and his militia then rolled the cannon up to the front of the courthouse and fired it. When some survivors attempted to flee the courthouse, nash sent men on horseback after the fleeing men and they killed most of them on the spot. Nash's group then called again for those inside the smoldering courthouse to surrender. What happened next isn't entirely clear. To surrender. What happened next isn't entirely clear. According to some reports, someone within the courthouse shot and wounded one of Nash's supporters standing outside. According to other reports, the men in the courthouse were stacking their guns, ready to give up, when the man himself was just shot by friendly fire by an overexcited member of his own force.
Speaker 1:Regardless of what caused it, Nash and his men began shooting, and the massacre didn't stop until over 150 Black residents and officials were killed.
Speaker 2:A few days later, two companies of federal troops arrived in Colfax. They searched for Nash and his supporters, but most had already fled to Texas or elsewhere. The officers filed a military report in which they noted the number of bodies found in and around the courthouse and the river. They also noted the savage nature of many of the killings, suggesting an out-of-control situation.
Speaker 1:The sheer brutality of what happened at Colfax. It caused a national uproar, correct?
Speaker 2:In the wake of the massacre, the event was framed in sharply divided racial terms. Democratic newspapers predominantly referred to it as the Colfax Riot. This terminology significantly downplayed the scale and nature of the killings, often minimizing the number of Black victims and sometimes even portraying the armed white men as heroes who were quelling a disturbance or putting an end to carpetbag misrule. On the other hand, Republican newspapers labeled the event a massacre. They shocked readers with gruesome details and illustrations. These visual representations and the accompanying narratives fueled a sense of outrage in many parts of the North. The disparity between calling it a riot versus a massacre underscores the fundamental disagreement over its meaning and the culpability of those involved.
Speaker 1:And what was the immediate federal response? Was there an attempt to bring those responsible to justice?
Speaker 2:Yes, there was a significant effort spearheaded by James Roswell Beckwith, the US attorney based in New Orleans. Beckwith sent an urgent telegram about the massacre to the US Attorney General and tried to bring indictments and prosecutions. Federal marshals were commissioned to arrest the white organizers and, as a result of Beckwith's efforts, nearly 100 white men were indicted for their involvement in the massacre.
Speaker 1:Of those 100,. However, only three men were ever found guilty. These convictions were based on the Enforcement Act of 1870, which had been specifically designed to provide federal protection for civil rights of freedmen by the 14th Amendment against actions by terrorist groups such as the Klan. However, this very small legal victory proved to be short-lived due to what would become a landmark legal challenge.
Speaker 2:Ah, this leads us to the infamous Cruikshank case, doesn't it? What happened with the appeal?
Speaker 1:The convicted men appealed their case and this eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. In the case of the United States v Cruikshank, which was decided in 1876. The Supreme Court ruled that the Enforcement Act of 1870 applied only to actions committed by the state, and that it did applied only to actions committed by the state and that it did not apply to actions committed by individuals. This meant that the federal government could not prosecute cases such as the Colfax Massacre. Instead, people who believe their rights have been violated had to seek justice from a state government, not the federal government.
Speaker 2:So the Supreme Court's ruling essentially gutted the ability of the federal government to intervene in such cases. The implications of that ruling must have been devastating for Reconstruction.
Speaker 1:The impacts of this decision were indeed devastating. It significantly weakened the federal government's ability to protect Black citizens from the violence and effectively undermine the entire project of reconstruction. As one historian has noted, the decision essentially blocked federal government from enforcing laws against violence in the South, and thus this ruling essentially gave a quote green light to terror in the states where local governments were unwilling to do anything about it. In short, the Cruikshank decision severely curtailed the reach of the federal power to ensure the civil rights of formerly enslaved peoples. Colfax might seem like an isolated incident, a gruesome anomaly in an otherwise hopeful chapter in American history, but was it truly an exception or merely the tip of a much larger, darker iceberg of violence during Reconstruction?
Speaker 2:Sadly, michael, the Colfax Massacre was not an isolated event at all. It was a horrific manifestation of a deeply entrenched wave of white supremacist violence that swept across the South during Reconstruction. Organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and later the White League didn't just act out of isolated rage. They employed systematic terror tactics to suppress Black political participation, undermine Republican rule and restore white supremacy participation, undermine Republican rule and restore white supremacy.
Speaker 1:And the motivations behind all that brutality were predominantly political right. It was all about the disenfranchising of Black voters and regaining control of the South.
Speaker 2:The violence was fundamentally political. The goal was straightforward to intimidate Black voters and Republican leaders, effectively nullifying the hard-won gains from emancipation and the constitutional amendments. Paramilitary groups used violence and murder to terrorize leaders among the freedmen and white Republicans, as well as to repress voting among freedmen during the 1870s. This was violence as real politics, a brutal bid to seize control of the South by any means necessary.
Speaker 1:It sounds like there was a climate of absolute lawlessness, a raw, unchecked impunity that allowed for this terror to flourish.
Speaker 2:Indeed, there was a significant climate of impunity. Democratic newspapers not only failed to condemn the violence against Black people and Republicans, they often expressed sympathy for the attackers. Threats against black and white Republican officials and supporters were rampant. In fact, there were there was a sufficient number of murders of white Republicans and black activists to lend a high level of credibility to these threats. Activists to lend a high level of credibility to these threats. For example, in Grant Parish in 1868, the election commissioner, a Black Republican, was murdered by a group of white residents leading Democrats across Louisiana and the South openly to declare their determination. To quote force the white leaders of the Republican Party in with us or run them out of the country or kill them. Black residents will give us no trouble without their white leaders. End quote.
Speaker 1:Were there other events out there that demonstrate just how colossal and brutal this terror really was, beyond just Colfax?
Speaker 2:Yes, unfortunately, colfax was just one of many grim examples of mass violence during Reconstruction. Consider, for instance, in October of 1868 in Caddo Parish, also in Louisiana, rumors of Black insurrection led to multiple mass murders of Black residents, black men being shot as they tried to swim across the Red River, and in another 30 black individuals were tied together and shot. In a particularly chilling episode, seven black individuals were chained inside of a building and burned alive.
Speaker 1:That's almost beyond belief.
Speaker 2:It gets worse. In August of 1874, in the town of Cushota in Red River Parish, the White League expelled Republican officeholders in a violent rampage, assassinating six white men and killing between five to 15 Black witnesses in the process.
Speaker 1:And while all of this is awful, of course such events weren't restricted to just Louisiana. A governmental report on murders in Texas between 1865 and 1868 documented 379 murders of blacks committed by white residents, while armed organizations like the Ku Klux Klan actively terrorized black communities and union sympathizers. And in Arkansas, during the 1868 terror campaign, over 200 political murders were recorded. These horrifying instances, along with Colfax, then paint a grim picture of the pervasive and systematic violence of black communities and their white allies that they were forced to endure during Reconstruction.
Speaker 2:Exactly. This widespread terror was not random. It was a calculated effort that played a crucial role in the eventual collapse of Reconstruction and the rise of Jim Crow South. The consistent pattern of violence and intimidation forced Black Americans and their progressive allies into increasingly perilous positions, ultimately undermining the very promise of equality that the Reconstruction amendments had sought to establish.
Speaker 1:So what we're seeing here is not just a series of isolated incidents, but indeed a pattern, a deliberate, systemic campaign of terror designed to maintain white supremacy at any cost.
Speaker 2:That's right, michael. The Colfax Massacre was a particularly brutal example. The Colfax Massacre was a particularly brutal example, but it was emblematic of a much larger, deeply entrenched legacy of racial violence during Reconstruction. It stands as a grim reminder of how fear and hatred can be weaponized to obliterate progress and suppress marginalized voices in America.
Speaker 1:And I think we should also note that the Colfax Massacre in 1873 continued to stand as a symbol of racial prejudice and violence even into the 20th century. In 1950, the Louisiana Department of Commerce and Industry erected a state quote On this site occurred the Colfax Riot, in which three white men and 150 black residents were slain. This event on April 13, 1873 marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South end. Quote this marker celebrated white supremacy by framing the massacre as a positive turning point that ended Reconstruction efforts, naming the massacre as a positive turning point that ended reconstruction efforts.
Speaker 2:That's incredibly biased, but thankfully, on May 15th 2021, the old marker was finally removed by the state after years of persistent activism by scholars, activists and students who recognized the harmful, inaccurate narrative that it presented. Then, on April 13th of 2023, the 150th anniversary of the massacre, a new memorial to the victims was unveiled. This seven-foot granite monument lists 57 Black people confirmed to have been killed and features powerful artwork that captures the experience of Black people during Reconstruction. This new memorial is a crucial step in correcting the record and telling a more accurate, inclusive story.
Speaker 1:It's powerful to see this collaborative effort to change the narrative. Why is the distinction between riot and massacre so important in this context?
Speaker 2:The distinction is vital because it reflects two fundamentally different interpretations of the event. The term riot suggests a chaotic, mutual outbreak of violence, potentially implying shared responsibility. In contrast, massacre accurately describes a one-sided, brutal slaughter of defenseless people, emphasizing the intentionality and racial terror behind the attacks.
Speaker 1:Regarding that topic. It appears that residents and descendants of the attackers and victims of the Colfax Massacre are attempting to come together in a quest for the truth. Two of the primary activists who worked together to bring the old monument down were Reverend Avery Hamilton and Dean Woods. Hamilton is a descendant of the first man killed in the massacre, named Jesse McKinney. Dean Woods, on the other hand, is the descendant of one of the attackers. In one interview, Dean Woods explained that during the Reconstruction era, any conflict involving black people were frequently mislabeled as riot. By reclaiming the term massacre, descendants and historians are not only honoring the victims, but also confronting the true nature of the violence. This shift in language is a key element of the ongoing quest for truth.
Speaker 2:Another descendant Glacian, toby Shelton, added that the people who were massacred needed to be honored, their names needed to be called and the world needed to know that they mattered. He very significantly stated that quote this act of memorialization isn't about assigning blame to the present. It's about reconciling with the past through truth-telling. End quote.
Speaker 1:Indeed, the legacy of the fading dream of reconstruction reminds us that history is not simply a record of past events. It's a living dialogue that continues to shape our present and our future.
Speaker 2:Exactly, and as we reflect on these events, we understand that the struggles for voting rights and protection against discrimination are not relics of a bygone era, but part of a continuing battle for justice. The lesson learned from the Colfax Massacre and the ultimate collapse of Reconstruction still speaks to us today, urging us to hold our institutions accountable and to never forget that progress must be fiercely protected.
Speaker 1:With that in mind, dear listeners, we conclude this dramatic moment in history. I'm Michael.
Speaker 2:And I'm Alina.
Speaker 1:Until next time, stay curious. Bye.
