Hey, everyone. Welcome to the show. Glad to be
here. Imagine surrendering. You're under a flag
of truce. You think safety is finally at hand.
Yeah. Only to be met with just, well, a brutal,
merciless slaughter. It's hard to even picture.
That betrayal, that kind of unpunished violence,
it really lies at the heart of the historical
account we're delving into today. This deep dive
explores a really pivotal period in American
history, the tumultuous Reconstruction era. It
was such a complex time. Yeah, full of political
intrigue, the struggle for civil rights, and
fierce contests over how the law itself was applied.
Absolutely. So if you're ready to unpack this
critical and frankly often overlooked chapter,
definitely hit that like button and subscribe
for more explorations into the stories that shaped
us. And today we're digging into unpunished murder.
By Goldstone Lawrence. We've put a link in the
description below if you want to check it out.
Great recommendation. Yeah, it's a vital work.
And this book isn't just, you know, a dry list
of dates and facts. It's really an unflinching
investigation into the raw exercise of power,
the fragility of newly won rights. Especially
then. Exactly. And the enduring consequences
when justice is denied. particularly in that
long pursuit of equality. So we'll be focusing
specifically on the Colfax massacre and its aftermath.
We'll draw on Lawrence's detailed research to
understand this pivotal moment. And the cast
of characters is, well, diverse presidents, Supreme
Court justices, but also just ordinary people
fighting for their place. OK, let's set the scene
then. Grant Parish, Louisiana. Right. Now, this
wasn't some old established place. It was actually
created pretty recently back in 1869. By the
Republican controlled state legislature, which
is key. Explain that significance. Why was that
key? Well, the intent seems pretty clear. It
was a deliberate effort to carve out a space
where a newly freedman could actually exercise
political power. And they even named it after
President Grant and Vice President Colfax. Yeah.
Nailing their colors to the mast, so to speak.
And what's really striking is the contrast, isn't
it? Between Grant Parish and the surrounding
parishes like Wynn and Rapides. Oh, absolutely.
Those were predominantly white, much more aligned
with the old order. Grant Parish was sort of
an island. And a significant chunk of it was
land formerly owned by Willie Calhoun. Tell us
about him. He's a fascinating figure. A southern
white man, which was rare in this context, who
genuinely seemed to believe in equal rights.
Really? Yeah, he actively championed creating
this new parish. He was definitely an outlier
for his time and place. His actions must have
really stood out. I bet. And within Colfax, the
main town, there was an armed black militia.
That's right. Armed with Enfield rifles, trying
to protect the new Republican leadership there.
So it paints a picture of a community actively
trying to, well... Defend the foothold they'd
gained? Definitely. Building a foundation for
their rights, but doing so against some serious
and growing opposition. Which connects to the
bigger picture that contested 1872 governor's
election in Louisiana. Exactly. Kellogg, the
Republican, versus McHenry, who led a fusionist
ticket. Fusionist. So like a coalition. Yeah,
basically a mix of Democrats and anti -Grant
Republicans, anyone opposed to the Reconstruction
government. It created this incredibly fractured
political environment. And that played out locally.
In Grant Parish. Directly. You ended up with
two sets of local officials claiming legitimacy.
The Republicans held the courthouse, the official
seat of power. But the fusionists organized their
own shadow government, essentially challenging
them at every turn. Wow. So competing authorities
right there. And the white opposition, people
like Hadnot and Nash, their response wasn't just
political debate, was it? Not at all. Lawrence
details how they were actively using intimidation,
direct threats, trying to undermine the Republican
officials. And this is where groups like the
Klan come in. Yes. The Klan and the Knights of
the White Camellia were very active, especially
in neighboring Rapides parishes. terrorizing
black voters, trying to stop them from participating
at all. Just creating this pervasive atmosphere
of fear. It wasn't just disagreement. It was
a deliberate campaign of violence, trying to
dismantle the progress made during Reconstruction.
And then there's Dallas White, the unionist sheriff.
Right. He was appointed because the previous
sheriff, Shelby, had actually sided with the
opposition. So White was trying to protect the
freedmen? He was. He was committed to it. And
tragically, that commitment cost him his life.
He was murdered by C .C. Nash. The same Nash
leading the opposition. The very same. White's
murder was a huge escalation. Really showed how
dangerous things were getting for anyone standing
up for black rights. And that happened right
before. Right before. Had not a Nash attempted
their coup, as Lawrence describes it, trying
to physically seize the courthouse just before
Easter Sunday, 1873. Making a direct, forceful
move. No question about it. They wanted control.
Which brings us to that horrific day. Easter
Sunday, April 13th, 1873. The Colfax Massacre.
A heavily armed white mob led by C .C. Nash descended
on the courthouse. And the difference in firepower
was just stark. Completely overwhelming. The
attackers didn't just have rifles. They brought
a cannon. Like a cannon. Yeah. The black men
defending the courthouse, mostly the militia
we mentioned, they were just outgunned. So eventually
they surrendered. They did. Under a white flag.
Yeah. Believing they'd been promised safety.
But that promise. It was a lie. A complete devastating
lie. Once they surrendered and gave up their
weapons. Oh no. They were executed. Just shot
down in cold blood. How many? The accounts, including
reports in the New York Times that eventually
came out, are just harrowing. Over 100 black
men. Over 100? Brutally shot after they had surrendered.
Some were trapped inside the courthouse when
it was set on fire. Burned alive. The killing
didn't stop there. The mob hunted down others
who tried to flee into the woods. Just went on
through the night. It's almost impossible to
comprehend that level of brutality. And because
Colfax was so remote. Right. You mentioned that.
It took days for army units or reporters to even
get there. Imagine what they found. The Times
called the details positively appalling in their
atrocity. And didn't one of the mob leaders had
not get killed? Ironically, yes. James Hadnott
was likely killed by friendly fire in the chaos.
Just underscores the sheer frenzy and lack of
control. That there were survivors, people who
saw what happened. Yes, crucially. Levi Nelson's
testimony is incredibly powerful. He survived
being shot after the surrender. He testified
in court? He did. He witnessed the whole thing,
the surrender, the killings, and he identified
the men responsible. That must have taken immense
courage. Unbelievable courage. And there were
other accounts, like from Clement Penn's partner,
who witnessed his execution. Just heartbreaking.
And the physical evidence, the discovery of the
remains. Dozens of black men, some burned so
badly they couldn't be recognized, in and around
that courthouse. It paints a truly gruesome picture.
So after this massacre, who tries to bring these
people to justice. That enormous task fell to
J .R. Beckwith, the U .S. attorney. An almost
impossible job, you'd think. Absolutely. Trying
to prosecute these men in a climate. just steeped
in white supremacy, where witness intimidation
was basically guaranteed. How did he even get
witnesses? It was incredibly difficult. People
were terrified, and for good reason. The first
trial really relied heavily on Levi Nilsen's
testimony. The survivor. Yes. He recounted everything
and identified the defendants. But even then.
What happened? It ended in a mistrial. The jury
was divided. Tells you a lot about the biases
of the time, doesn't it? Yeah, clearly. But Beckwith
didn't give up. No, incredibly. He pushed for
a retrial. He even tried to get a more representative
jury pool, which was a battle in itself. But
then a Supreme Court justice got involved. Yes,
Joseph P. Bradley. And his intervention was,
let's say, unexpected and ultimately devastating
for the prosecution. How so? Mid -trial, the
second trial. Bradley allowed the defense to
suddenly argue that the federal government had
no jurisdiction, that this wasn't a federal case.
Wait, mid -trial? Yes. It completely disrupted
things. And Bradley, well, he had strong states'
rights beliefs. He wasn't a fan of reconstruction
measures. So he was predisposed against federal
intervention? It certainly seems that way. He
even thought former slaveholders should be compensated.
So his allowing this jurisdictional challenge
wasn't entirely surprising, perhaps. So what
happened in the second trial? Did they get convictions?
They actually did. Guilty verdicts for Cruikshank
and two others. So some measure of justice. You'd
think so. But then Justice Bradley himself overturned
the convictions. He overturned them? On what
grounds? His reasoning was very narrow. He argued
the federal government couldn't prosecute because
the victims' rights weren't violated solely because
of their race. What does that even mean? They
were targeted because they were black men trying
to hold political office. Exactly. But Bradley
used this incredibly restrictive interpretation
of the 14th and 15th Amendments, basically saying
private individuals attacking other private individuals,
even racially motivated, wasn't the federal government's
problem unless the state itself was involved
or the motive was only race, nothing else like
politics. That sounds like a legal loophole to
deny justice. It effectively acted as one. And
it was a huge blow. Then came the full Supreme
Court decision in United States v. Cruikshank,
led by Chief Justice Wade. What did that do?
It cemented Bradley's view and went even further.
It essentially bedded the Enforcement Acts of
1870. Those were the laws meant to protect civil
rights. Yes, meant to give the federal government
teeth to prosecute Klan violence and protect
black voting rights. Cruikshank severely limited
federal power to protect citizens from violations
by other individuals. It basically said protecting
citizens from each other was the state's job.
Not the federal governments. Even if the state
was unwilling or unable to do it. Precisely.
Which was often the case in the South. So these
Supreme Court decisions, they just pulled the
rug out from under federal protection for African
-Americans. In many ways, yes. They dismantled
a key part of the legal framework of Reconstruction.
It sent a clear signal that the federal government
was backing away from protecting black citizens
in the South. How must the white community there
have reacted first to Beckwith trying to prosecute
and then to these rulings? Probably with initial
outrage at Beckwith's efforts, followed by, I
imagine, relief and a sense of vindication when
the convictions were overturned and Cruikshank
came down. It essentially validated their resistance.
And this all fits into the broader context, doesn't
it? The shift in the political climate. Definitely.
Support for Reconstruction was fading up north.
People were getting tired of the cost and the
conflict. And in the South... The Redeemer movement
was gaining steam. Right. Democrats aiming to
restore white supremacy and redeem the South
from Republican rule. Violence and intimidation
were key tools. Then came the 1876 election.
Highly contested, messy, leading to the Compromise
of 1877. Which effectively ended Reconstruction.
That's the general consensus. Federal troops
were withdrawn from the South in exchange for
Hayes getting the presidency. It basically left
Southern Republicans and African -Americans to
fend for themselves. And C .C. Nash, the leader
of the massacre, faced no real consequences,
remained a powerful figure in Grant Parish. It's
a stark reminder of where the power truly lay.
It's also important, isn't it, to push back against
that old narrative that Reconstruction was just
a total failure doomed from the start. Absolutely.
That narrative was often pushed by those who
wanted it to fail. There were genuine efforts,
real progress made towards equality, even if
it was ultimately rolled back by violence and,
well, decisions like Crookshank. And that monument
in Colfax erected decades later in 1922. Yeah,
presenting a completely biased pro -white mob
version of events, calling it a riot where black
people died, not a massacre. It just shows how
contested this memory still is. So how do we
grapple with this, with moments where justice
was so clearly denied? That's the crucial question,
isn't it? Yeah. I think understanding events
like Colfax and the legal decisions that followed
forces us to see how fragile justice can be and
how the fight for equal rights is an ongoing
process. It wasn't settled then and it requires
constant vigilance. Absolutely. Well, thank you
for joining us for this deep dive into the Colfax
massacre. Really powerful and disturbing history.
Important history to confront. definitely what
stands out to you most from this we'd love to
hear your thoughts on the unpunished violence
and its impact let us know in the comments below
yeah please share your though and if this deep
dive sparked your curiosity or maybe anger or
just a desire to know more please share it with
others let's keep these vital conversations about
our past going agreed because the story of colfax
really is a stark reminder isn't it how fragile
justice can be how the struggle for equality
needs that constant vigilance you mentioned maybe
consider how the echoes of this unpunished murder,
this denial of rights, might resonate even today
in our ongoing pursuit of a more just society.
Something to think about.