Friday, September 29, 2017

Henry Reed Farley - Death Of A Lawman 1899

Here's a story about the needless killing of a County Sheriff in 1899. His murder sent local vigilantes on a frantic search to lynch his killer. 

According to the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, Henry Reed Farley was born in Salinas, California, in March of 1870. He was Michael and Rodalee Farley’s fourth of six children.

Henry's father was a lawyer originally from Massachusetts. His mother was originally from Alabama. Henry grew up and lived in Salinas. He attended school there, and while not yet 24 years of age, Henry was appointed Postmaster of the small town of Gonzales, California. That was on January 11th, 1894.
Gonzales is a town in Monterey County about 17 miles Southeast of Salinas. At the age of 26, Henry was said to be a journalist for a local newspaper in Gonzales.

On January 1st, 1899, at age 29, he became the Sheriff of Monterey County. He may have been the youngest man to ever be elected County Sheriff in the State of California up to that time.

He had only been with the Sheriff’s Department for 9 months when he was shot and killed while attempting to arrest a suspect. He was 29 years old when he was killed. Newspapers stated "never before has this county seen such a large funeral." All stores, saloons, and schools were shut down from 9 am to 12 pm, and all flags were flown at half-staff. At the time of his death, Sheriff Farley was survived by his mother Mrs. Rodalee Farley.

Among other newspapers such as the San Francisco Call, Monterey County Sheriff Farley's death was in the Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 98, Number 29, September 19th, 1899. It ran the following story.



Shot and Killed by a Man Whom He Attempted to Arrest — Talk of Lynching the Murderer.

SALINAS, Sept. 18. H. R. Farley, Sheriff of Monterey County, was shot and killed at 11 o'clock to-night by George Ceasar, whom he was trying to arrest for arson.

Ceasar, who is a German, aged 22 years, had been drinking heavily, and threatened to shoot four officers and burn up the town. About 10 o'clock an alarm was turned in, and it was found that a barn was on fire. Soon afterward fire was discovered in an adjoining cottage, and it was at once suspected that Ceasar was carrying out his threat.

Sheriff Farley, accompanied by former District Attorney Zabal, went in search of Ceasar, who had run home and armed himself with a double-barreled gun. As Farley entered the house Ceasar advanced a few feet, fired, and shot the officer through the head. Farley died in a few minutes.

While Zabal was administering to his dying comrade the murderer escaped. The entire country was soon aroused, however, and posses went out from near and far to search for the assassin. An hour after the shooting he was discovered hiding in a cellar.

The mob frantically proclaimed its intention to lynch him, and a posse of Deputy Sheriffs and Constables had a most difficult time in protecting the prisoner. While argument ran high one of the Constables, unobserved, managed to smuggle Ceasar into a buggy and drove off at a gallop to the County Jail before the mob realized the ruse. 

Sheriff Farley was perhaps the most popular man in Monterey County. He was 29 years of age, and last November was elected Sheriff by a large majority over John Matthews, who had filled the Sheriff's office for twelve years. 

Prior to his election Farley had been a newspaper man, his last journalistic venture having been the editorship of the Gonzales "Tribune." 

His murderer was as much despised in Salinas as the Sheriff was beloved. He has been considered a worthless character. He has no occupation. 


Sept. 19—1 a. m. — The revengeful men of Salinas declare that they will hang Ceasar to-night, provided he does not die from the loss of blood. He was shot in the stomach by Constable Allen, and when captured in the cellar was weak from loss of blood. It is also believed he shot himself, but inflicted only a flesh wound. 

No one in Salinas now knows whether Ceasar is dead or alive, because he was driven off by a Deputy Sheriff to protect him from the certain vengeance of the mob.

It now transpires that Ceasar was never in the jail, although many for a time believed him to be there. The officers, knowing that they could not protect their prisoner, drove him toward the hills, and it is generally believed the murderer was taken to Hollister, as it is said he would have been safe nowhere in Monterey County.

Meanwhile the crowd has never left the jail. They are all armed with ropes as well as pistols and shotguns, and they say the murderer of the youngest Sheriff in the State will be summarily punished.

The town, and in fact the entire county, is aroused as it never was before. The men who are trying to lynch Ceasar are not the disorderly element, but comprise some of the most important citizens of the county. They are firm in their resolve to promptly avenge the death of Sheriff Farley, and say they will remain at the jail all night. 

Detachments of citizens mounted and in buggies are scouring; the foothills, and they say if they find the murderer in charge of his guardians the latter will be forced to give up j their prisoner to swift punishment. At 2 a. m. excitement in Salinas has in no wise abated, and many still hope to avenge Farley by lynching his murderer.

Frederick Ceasar, a brother of George, came into town about 1:30 a. m., proclaiming that he was the "brother of the man who killed Farley." Had he not been hustled away he would certainly have suffered violence at the hands of the infuriated citizens.

-- end of Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 98, Number 29, September 19th, 1899 article. 

Besides a few different newspapers of the times to compare stories of his death, and since the standard line of "he was shot and killed while attempting to arrest a suspect" really doesn't sit well with me, I dug deeper to find out how Sheriff Farley died.

On the night of September 18th, 1899, George Ceasar tried to ditch the pursuing officers and eventually made it to his father's house on Pajaro Street. Sheriff Farley and Deputy Keef arrived on the scene close behind him.

As soon as they arrived, the Sheriff came face to face with Ceasar in an alley behind his father's house. George Ceasar was indeed armed with a shotgun. And yes, reports state that Sheriff Farley made a number of attempts to defuse the situation and talk Ceasar into surrendering.

Sheriff Farley was heard to have said, "George, George, be quiet, keep cool."

To which Ceasar reportedly replied, "Stand back or I'll shoot you."

Sheriff Farley's last words were "No you won't George, you know me."

Ceasar fired both barrels and killed the young Sheriff.

A newspaper stated, "The Spirit of Henry Reed Farley winged it's flight to the Great Beyond".

Monterey County Sheriff Henry Reed Farley's life was cut short on September 18th, 1899. He had only been County Sheriff for 9 months when he was senselessly murdered by George Ceasar.

Newspapers like the Sacramento Daily Union and the San Francisco Call reported that the Sheriff had been murdered. Citizens in the town of Gonzales were angry and wanted to lynch Ceasar. A few newspapers reported how, among other things taking place, gun shop owners opened their doors and  passed out rifles and pistols and shotguns to local vigilantes that were out beating the bushes looking for Ceasar. Hardware store owners are said to have passed out lanterns and ropes so that he could be lynched.

George Ceasar was arrested by Salinas City Marshal William Nesbitt and Deputy Keef. Nesbit himself later became County Sheriff. Deputy Keef was the officer who took Ceasar to the jail in San Jose to avoid the vigilantes that had surrounded the county jail in Monterey.

Ceasar was hanged at San Quentin Prison on July 15th, 1904. It's said that the people of Monterey County celebrated when they got the word that George Ceasar had finally been hanged. Yes, they loved Sheriff Farley that much.

Tom Correa

Monday, September 11, 2017

Wisconsin Native Americans Ate Their Enemies?

Dear Friends,

I'm sure it's obvious that I love history. More specifically I love American History. I love reading about cowboys, cattle drives, and settlers coming West. I love researching outlaws and lawmen, gold strikes, silver strikes, cattle towns, boom towns, wagon trains, and learning more about ships making the journey around the horn. I love reading about the Civil War, slavery, and I love researching Indentured Servants since my grandfather was just that. I love researching Native American tribes, especially about the way they lived pre-European contact .

I love visiting historic sites. I love visiting Civil War battlefields, ghost towns, old towns, and hardly there towns. I love whaling ships, clipper ships, and old steamboats. I love old graveyards, old gravestones out in some pasture in the middle of nowhere or in some forgotten cemetery, inscriptions about loved ones long forgotten, and I love the places that only locals know about.

I loved seeing the wagon ruts of the Oregon Trail that are still visible near a rest stop in Idaho.I loved walking on the boardwalks of Virginia City, Nevada, and touching the Red Dog Saloon doors in Juneau, Alaska. I love knowing that I'm visiting the same places where others lived and worked back when America was young and not so full of stifling rules.

Yes indeed, I love stopping at places where I've only read about, and places that I didn't know existed. I love confirming stories about the history of the Old West, but also about other eras in our history. And yes, I love being shocked by what I didn't know. Or more honestly, being surprised at what I should have been taught in school but wasn't. I love learning how truly full of shit Hollywood truly is, and wonder why can't they get it right since the real story is right there in front of them?

Yes, I'm the guy that loves reading road markers. I'm that guy who sees a sign that says to this or that point of interest and takes it. In fact, I was going through some of my old notes from my travels and found something that may interest you.

It has to do with a historic site that I found just outside of Madison, Wisconsin, if I remember right. That place is the Aztalan State Park. It is about 172 acres and is the site of an ancient Native American Indian village. An ancient village that existed before Europeans ever stepped foot on the North American continent.   

Back in 1836, an American settler came across a number of earthen mounds on the west bank of the Crawfish River. The mounds are part of what was the actual village. The village is said to have had anywhere from 500 to a thousand or more Native Americans of the Mississippian culture there. The village is believe to have flourished from around the year 900 AD to about 1300 when they just disappeared. 

Yes, their disappearance is just one of a number of mysteries related to that site. As for the people who vanished before any contact with Europeans, no one knows why they vanished suddenly. While one mystery has to do with the question as to why it's original inhabitants suddenly disappeared, another has to do with the stockade walls that they built to keep out other tribes? Was it breached somehow by enemy Native American tribes? Was it finally breached and were they slaughtered?
Of course if that were the case, then why hasn't the bones of the original inhabitants been found there?

Another mystery is why build the mounds? We do know that the people who lived there built those earthen mounds, which resemble the work of the Aztecs -- hence the name given to that area. Over time, since no one was interested in maintaining the mounds or the remnants of the stockade walls that surrounded the area, sadly it was plowed over for farming. In the process of being plowed over, a number of the mounds were actually leveled. Today, two of the three large ceremonial mounds are still intact. 

It is said that the first really formal archaeological excavation of Aztalan was in 1919. That excavation established the actual perimeter of the stockade and that it had watch towers. It was then that they also found evidence their homes, along with pottery pieces, tools, and even weapons. 

Aztalan 1850 Map
Researchers also found fire pits and what is believed to be piles of refuse. In those areas researchers found butchered and burned human bones, including the heads of men, women, and children. They ascertained that people who inhabited that area had actually eaten people.

But actually, it is said that soon after its discovery in 1836, it was already determined back then that the mounds were used for religious ceremonies which included human sacrifice. And that leads us to the final mystery of why they ate their enemies?

Those human sacrifices are said to have been part of the cannibalism of that tribe. But since food is said to have been abundant there, why resort to cannibalism? Why eat your enemies? 

Historian David Scheimann wrote, "Of all the North American Indian tribes, the seventeenth-century Iroquois are the most renowned for their cruelty towards other human beings. Scholars know that they ruthlessly tortured war prisoners and that they were cannibals; in the Algonquin tongue the word Mohawk actually means 'flesh-eater.' There is even a story that the Indians in neighboring Iroquois territory would flee their homes upon sight of just a small band of Mohawks. Ironically, the Iroquois were not alone in these practices. There is ample evidence that most, if not all, of the Indians of northeastern America engaged in cannibalism and torture -- there is documentation of the Huron, Neutral, and Algonquin tribes each exhibiting the same behavior."

Robert Birmingham, a professor of anthropology at University of Wisconsin in Waukesha, wrote a book entitled "Aztalan: Mysteries of an Ancient Indian Town", published in 2006.

He is quoted as saying, "Aztalan was the northern outpost of a great civilization comparable to other great early civilizations in the world. We call them the Mississippians; they rose after AD 1000 and had, at its center, the first city in what is now the United States – that’s Cahokia, in present-day Illinois. It was a very large city and had a society that was very complex. It was similar to Mayan cities in Mexico. They built large earthen mounds as platforms for important buildings. The major mound at Cahokia, where the ruler probably lived, is 100 feet high and greater in volume than the Great Pyramid of Egypt, though built of earth."

Birmingham said those there were a farming society. The Aztalan village is said to have lasted anywhere from 100 to 150 years. It is said that around the year 1200, the Mississippian civilization eventually collapsed in the Midwest for unknown reasons.

War with other tribes is thought to be a factor in their disappearance. Birmingham says, "The Mississippian culture was aggressive and expanding. Aztalan is one of most heavily fortified sites in the archaeological record of Eastern North America."

Since we know human remains were found at the site in 1919, what are Birmingham's thoughts about their cannibalism and if it was all about "ritual cannibalism"? Well Birmingham says those remains "Have been analyzed and don’t fit the pattern of cannibalism, at least for food." 

So I have to wonder what's it all about if not for food? Why eat your enemies if there was available sources of food and the inhabitants were not starving? Why was that a Native American trait of so many tribes?

Birmingham explained that eating others, particularly your enemies, is an ancient consequence of warfare that is certainly not restricted to Native American Indians. He said, "The taking of trophy heads, cutting up the bones of your enemies and eating them ritually -- taking the power of your enemies -- is well-documented in many cultures. In Wisconsin, the Ho-Chunks themselves recite a story in which they greeted some Illinois people who were potential enemies by killing them, putting them in a pot, then boiling and eating them. It was not for food, but to show great disdain."

He thinks that the Mississippians at Aztalan co-existed fine with some Woodland tribes, but others may have been seen as trespassing. 

While that's the reason for the walls and for the wars, I can't help but wonder if the idea of eating one's enemy to show disdain is too easy an answer and there's more to it. My skepticism comes from the fact that while I see torturing an enemy as an act of vengeance, I've read where eating of one's enemy was actually a religious ritual of many Native American tribes. 

So all in all, the tribes who practiced ritual cannibalism did not so for food. Instead it was more about their belief in the supernatural powers held within the souls of their enemies. A power that they wanted to harness by eating their enemies. Imagine that.    

Tom Correa

Sunday, September 10, 2017

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?

Slave Ship
The following comes from an article entitled How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?

Amazing Fact About the Negro No. 1: How many Africans were taken to the United States during the entire history of the slave trade?

Perhaps you, like me, were raised essentially to think of the slave experience primarily in terms of our black ancestors here in the United States. In other words, slavery was primarily about us, right, from Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Banneker and Richard Allen, all the way to Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass. Think of this as an instance of what we might think of as African-American exceptionalism. (In other words, if it's in "the black Experience," it's got to be about black Americans.) Well, think again.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.)

Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.

In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.

Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans. And I, for one, find this amazing.

By the way, how did historian Joel A. Rogers — writer of the 1934 book 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof, and to whom this series is an homage—do on this question? Well, incredibly, in his "Amazing Fact #30," Rogers says, "About 12,000,000 Negroes were brought to the New World!" Not even W.E.B. Du Bois got this close to the most accurate count of the number of Africans shipped across the Atlantic in the slave trade.

-- end of article written by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

The above article was written for PBS. It was originally posted on The Root, a website created by Professor Gates and others. If Gates name sounds familiar, it should. In 2009, after a problem with the police at his home, the local police detained Gates.

President Obama called the police having to detain Gates, "a stupid act." The incident resulted in what the media called a "Beer Summit" between Gates, the responding police officer, and President Obama. Professor Gates is a personal friend of former president Obama.

While Gates's numbers are correct, there are a few errors regarding dates of what took place. One huge error regarding this article is its title. How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?

From 1655 to 1783, slaves were not brought to the United States. Fact is, during that time period, the United States did not exist. The United States only became a sovereign nation when we officially won our independence from England in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. So in reality, slaves were legally transported to the United States for only a 25 year period. That was from 1783, when we separated from Great Britain, to 1808 when U.S. law made it illegal to import slaves into the United States.

A second error is that slavery officially ended in the United States in 1865 and not 1866. A third error is his reporting that the entire era of the African slave trade took place from 1525 and 1866. We need to make a distinction between the lawful importation of slaves versus the illegal importation of slaves from Africa. And of course, when did it really start.

The African slave trade started with African chiefs selling their own people to whites in 1516. But it should be noted that the first slave ship from Africa did not arrive in North American continent until 1655. And as for the legal importation of slaves to North America, that took place from 1655 to 1808. It was illegal to import slaves to the United States from 1808 to 1865, just as it is today.

Of the 388,000 slaves that were landed in North America between 1655 and 1865, there were 93,185 that were brought to the United States after we declared our independence from England. Those 93,185 were shipped here from 1783 to 1865.

Breaking it down further, we can see that during the 25 years from 1783 to 1808 when President Thomas Jefferson banned the import of slaves to the United States, there were 45,846 slaves brought to the United States legally. From 1808 to 1865 when the slave trade was illegal in the U.S., there were 47,339 slaves smuggled into the United States in violation of Federal law.

One other point, of the 10.7 million slaves who actually survived being shipped west across the Atlantic Ocean, only about 388,000 were off-loaded in North America. Yes, that's less than 5% of the original 12 million slaves brought from Africa to the Americas. As Gates stated in his article, "Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage." 

These numbers are not mine. I didn't pulled them out of thin air. These numbers come from Professor Gates's source, The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database.

Basic math tells us that the remaining 10.3 million of those shipped west across the Atlantic Ocean, the 95% rest that didn't land in North America, were actually off-loaded in the Caribbean and South America. This proves that the great majority of African slaves were not brought to the United States of America, or the North American continent. In reality, most all were shipped to South America to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and Brazil.

What may surprised many is that slaves were in huge demand in South America and the Caribbean. In fact, much of the slave trade in the United States had to do with American slavers buying and selling slaves to ship out of the United States -- destined for Brazil and other Latin America countries.
Tom Correa

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Liberals Have Zero Respect For Others

Dear Friends,

I was asked to pull my last post from a group that I belong to on Facebook because it's discussion was pulled off topic.

My last article was about child slave labor in the North during the Civil War. The point of my article had completely gone over the heads of some Liberals who branded it a "racist post".

The point is regarding child slave labor during the Civil War in the North. It is about the hypocrisy of those in the North who were against slavery in the South, but were OK with it taking place in the factories and the mines in the North.

Their hypocrisy is in regards to what offended them. It was selective at best. While they were rightfully offended by blacks in chains, they were hypocrites in that they should not have turned a blind eye to the child slave labor practices that were in fact taking place around them in the North at the same time.

Those labor practices, while no longer applied to blacks, were certainly applied to children until it stopped in the late 1930s. And the only reason it stopped is that adults needed jobs. Adults saw children as taking jobs away from adults during the Great Depression, and that's when it stopped.

So how is it a racist post? Well one Liberal wrote to me and put it this way, it "detracts from the suffering of blacks". Imagine just how dumb you have to be to say such a thing. Talking about child slave labor in the North, detracts from the suffering of blacks in the South? Is that dumb or what!  

Of course, from a Facebook discussion and the comments that I've recieved, it's very apparent that the name callers and the holier-than-thous on the Left refuse to allow anyone else to have an opinion of any sort. Especially an opinion that is polar opposite to their own.   

An opinion, the dictionary defines as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Opinion is synonymous with belief, judgment, thoughts, way of thinking, mind, point of view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective, persuasion, standpoint.

Instead of respecting the opinions of others, Liberals always resort to name calling and threats instead of discussion. I'm not talking about Republicans or Democrats who respect each other. I'm talking about Liberals who hate for the sake of hating.

When Obama was in office, I wrote about his inept job performance, his expensive vacations, the over-regulation, the wasteful spending, the divisiveness of President Obama. And yes, I was called a racist. One person actually wrote to tell me that I can't criticize him because he is black. Another jerk actually said that it's OK to criticize a white president, but not Obama because he's black. Talk about racist.

When I wrote about my favorite quote from Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, when he said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," I was called a racist because I said that I judged Obama by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

Friends, I really believe that I could have written about how I like white peaches and be called a racist. No, that wouldn't have surprised me.

When I talked about the statue of Robert E. Lee and how 200 Confederate troops protected the town of Charlottesville from being burned to the ground by 1,600 Union troops under the command of General George Armstrong Custer, I was called a racist. I said that I really believe that we don't know the exact motivations of those who erected those statues after the Civil War. And because I said that, I was called a racist. I said that I believed some of those statues were put up to salute those defenders of towns and cities in the South during the Civil War. Yes, I was called a racist. 

Friends, the term racist is losing it's meaning. And no, I have no idea what they call a person who is really and truly a racist. When everything can be labeled racist, the term racist means squat.  

As for the Liberals who attack my blog, both on Facebook and here in the comment section? They don't like my research, they don't like my sources, then they resort to personal attacks after I've given them my sources or the links to some of my research material.

Of course, they don't like the fact that I have friends who work as Wikipedia contributors, friends who are historians of merit, friends who have spent their lives researching history. They don't like that I have friends who know guns even better than I do, friends who are ranchers who I've helped over the years, friends who raise and breed horses.  

They don't understand that I pick the brains of my friends for information if I need to. They do help me with finding information whether it's about cattle or horses or history.

It amazes me that Liberals don't understand that people can talk about all sorts of things and actually learn from each other. They refuse to understand that during the course of a conversation, that people can have different views than their own and actually learn from each other. Yes, I repeat myself because I'm amazed that Liberals are so narrow minded and shallow, so filled with hate for others who don't think like them.

If they believe that the cause of the Civil War was ONLY slavery, then fine. If they believe everything that Hollywood and Left has to say about how things were in the Old West, that's fine as well. So why not take their narrow minded points of view somewhere else! Why bother coming here just to put in their political spin and pick arguments is beyond me.

So now, I want to known why do they stop here? Why bother reading what I have to offer if it angers them so much? Why bother reading and writing comments filled with swearing and hate? Comments that I will not allow posted on my blog. 

Why not just start their own blogs? Why not open another Liberal blog where they can put out more hate and politically correct crap? Why not cater to fellow hate mongers on the Left?

My advice is simple, if you want to make your voice heard, check out the New York Times Facebook page. Go to some other venue with a giant readership. Go somewhere where your hate and shit disturbing is appreciated. 

I have a small blog that I use to talk about things that interest me. Things that I hope others find interesting. And since I've visited a great number of different places around the country, I want to share the true stories about the history that I find amazing. Yes, things that Liberals refuse to even consider in the slightest. 

They call themselves "progressives," but that's a joke! They are stuck looking at things in their politically correct hate filled minds. They refuse to expand their horizons and see things with fresh eyes. They have a total distaste for thinking for themselves. They accept the standard line even if it is wrong. And yes, from my experience with them, especially lately, I find they refuse to allow any other way of looking at things to enter their minds. But worse, they want us to shut up and not speak our minds.

And while this is a rant, I may as well tell you what really bothers me. It is their hate. They venomously hate others who try to look at things differently then the way they do. Because I'm not into their hate, I ask only this, if someone doesn't like what I post, instead of coming here with a political agenda, just go away. 

I would rather have readers that are open to thinking about things that they may not have considered, right or wrong, off base or not. Readers who are not tied to political correctness. Readers who want to explore history, talk about things that some people want covered up, maybe even learn something that wasn't known before. As the saying goes, the possibilities are endless. 

For the Liberals who sends me hate mail and messages about how screwed up I am, for you Democrats who don't want me to write about the Civil War for fear of "stirring the pot," go somewhere else. 

There are all sorts of Liberal blogs out there that preach nothing but hate and political correctness. If you are a Liberal, a person who hates others who do not think the way you do, you will be more at home there. Those blogs are filled with people who also can't think for themselves and simply drink the Kool-Aid. 

Tom Correa

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

The Civil War: Did The North Use Child Slave Labor?

Since I've now been forced to be blunt about the point of this article, I can tell you now that it is about child slave labor in the North during the Civil War. Because of discussions where people are trying to turn this article into something that it is not, allow me to also say that this piece is about the hypocrisy of those in the North who were against slavery in the South but were not bothered by the child slave labor going on around them.

So now, let's talk about the child slave labor that took place in vast numbers in the North during the Civil War. We've all heard of the "Industrial Might" of the Northern states during the Civil War compared to the South's agricultural base. So now let's talk about the child slave labor behind that "Industrial Might" in the North. Yes, let's talk about a subject that no one seems to talk about. Let's talk about the North's use of slave labor in the form of forced child labor. Let's talk about the forced child labor that accounted for 45% to 55% of all of the labor used in the North during the Civil War.

No one talks about who worked in the factories in the North. No one talks about the huge percentage of child labor that took place in those factories. No one talks about how the North used child slave labor before, during, and after the Civil War. No one talks about how the emancipation of children did not come about until decades after slaves in the South experienced emancipation.

Let's point to the fact that young children routinely worked in the United States legally for many years before and after we became a nation. Some have indicated that black slave labor in the South does not compare to child slave labor in the North because the children were not property as the blacks were. Though that was the reality of black slaves, when looking at how children in the factories and mines were treated, one has to ask if the children were treated the same or worse than property?

Children were enslaved, they were separated from their families, they were certainly exposed to serious hazards and health risks, and they were left to fend for themselves. Child labor abuses were plentiful during the Industrial Revolution from 1820 to 1870. But it did not end in 1870. It continued for another 60 years.

Industrialization attracted workers and their families. Many relocated from farms and rural areas to cities to do factory work. In factories and mines, children were actually preferred by businesses because owners saw children as more manageable, a lot cheaper, and unwilling to strike.

Our children worked in mines, manufacturing plants, factories of all sorts, textile plants, and agriculture in various ways, including harvests and canneries all over the North. And yes, they were newsboys, peddlers, messengers, and bootblacks. The lucky ones swept the trash and filth from city streets, stood for hours on street corners pushing newspapers, and delivered messages for pennies. Others worked in the mines and coughed up coal dust all through a 10 to 12-hour shift in the heat of the dark. Others sweat to the point of passing out while tending factory furnaces. 

Overall, child laborers were the sons and daughters of poor parents, and of course, recent immigrants depended on their children’s measly wages to survive. They were the children of industry and large cities in the North during the Civil War. What black slaves were to the South, child slaves were to the North. 

The fact is forms of child labor, including indentured servitude and child slavery, have existed throughout our history. It actually predates our independence. Some were lucky and were treated easier than others. Others were treated as property.

Fact is, we can trace child slave labor back to before the United States was founded in 1776. It's true. There was child slave labor in the 18th century. From farms to factories, young children were used as laborers. 

As British colonies, long before our independence, English laws allowed children to work in everything from farms to manufacturing. By 1833, when the British outlawed black slaves, child slavery in the form of indentured servants and forced child labor was commonplace in England. 

Of course, American colonial laws modeled their laws after British laws. So yes, similarly American laws forced many children into workhouses, factories, and mines. In fact, those laws allowed for orphan boys to be placed into apprenticeships in trades. Orphan girls were sent into homes to do domestic work, work in laundries, and of course, work in sweatshops.

After we broke away from England, American industry kept up the practice and sought out children to use in all sorts of manufacturing facilities throughout the former colonies. Child labor served Alexander Hamilton's vision of America. He saw child labor as providing increased labor to support industry. 

According to his vision, when Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, he actually stated in a 1791 report on manufacturing that "children who would otherwise be idle could become a source of cheap labor." 

Around the same time, a national newsweekly printed their opinion stating that "factory work was not for able-bodied men, but rather better done by little girls from six to twelve years old."
Besides advertisements seeking children from the ages of 8 to 12 to work in a cotton mill in the North, it's said that by 1820 children made up more than 40 percent of the mill employees in at least three New England states. So while it is said that the manufacturing industry that grew following the Civil War required children as young as 8 years old, we should recognize that forced child labor in factories, in retail stores, on the streets, on farms, in mines, and elsewhere, took place long before the Civil War.

This was so much the case that in 1842, a few Northern states began to limit a child’s workday. Massachusetts lowered a child’s workday from 14 hours to 10 hours, but most laws were not enforced. And Massachusetts was not the only state to use forced child labor, child slavery in the industrial North during the Civil War.

It is a fact that women and children dominated pre-Civil War manufacturing in the North. It is a fact that the number of children used in the North actually increased during the Civil War because of the need for everything from uniforms to shoes and belts, hats, and hardware. Yes, the beans, bullets, and bandages that keep an Army functioning.

So please make no mistake about it. While the South had black slavery that they considered property, the North had child slavery that they considered property. In the North, children replaced the need for adults as many Northern men were pressed into service in the Union Army.

And while the North was afraid of the influx of freed slaves fleeing the South, Northerners, in fact, re-enslaved many freed slave children just as they did the children of immigrants during the Civil War. It's true as the children of freed slaves in the North were treated the same as other children in that they worked 10, 12, or 14 hours a day and six days a week. And while those children were, in essence, re-enslaved through forced labor and apprenticeship agreements, they were bound to companies no differently than they were to their slave masters in the South.

In 1870, the first U.S. census report on child labor numbers accounted for 750,000 workers under the age of 13. These figures came mostly from the Northern states. These numbers did not include children who worked for their families or on farms.

For many years, not much changed in the North regarding the use of forced child labor. But after the Civil War, forced child labor abuses became a routine nationwide as more cities adopted the practice. And yes, the scams to get more children increased. For example, in New York City in the 1870s, there was a scam going around that had to do with Italians who secured employment for Italian immigrants. The scam was child slavery under the guise of apprenticeship.

The people responsible for that scam deceived Italian parents still living in Italy into willingly sending their children to America to begin an apprentice program. Once agreements were signed, then the children were shipped to America. At the docks, they met and were immediately forced to work in horrible conditions. And as was the case throughout the North for many years, if the children failed to comply, they were beaten and starved.

This was happening so much so that in 1873, just eight years after the Civil War, the New York Times stated, "The world has given up on stealing men from the African coast, only to kidnap children from Italy."

While forced child labor was pretty much restricted to the Union during the Civil War, it became more and more commonplace throughout the nation after the war. Southerners followed the example set by Northerners and filled the openings left by freed black slaves with women and children. And yes, forced child labor and apprenticeship agreements extended to businesses in the South after the war. 

It is said that freed slaves willingly exchanged the labor of their children for "training" provided by their former slave owners. So yes, after the Civil War, black freed slave parents forced their own children into re-enslavement. Imagine that.

Slavery comes in several different forms. Forced Marriage, Domestic Servitude, Indentured Servants, Forced Labor, Bonded Labor, Child Labor, and Sex Trafficking are all forms of slavery. As for "chattel slavery"? Chattel slavery is the "owning" of human beings as property. They are bought, sold, given, and inherited. Since slaves in this context have no personal freedom or recognized rights to decide the direction of their own lives, isn't that comparable to what they did to children until the 1930s? 

The child slave market was filled by hiring others to find them and detain them. In some cases, it was from orphanages. Other times it was from a destitute family. They were lied to, held prisoner, and even kidnapped. They were sold into bondage and stolen. They had no personal freedom or recognized rights, were beaten and starved, had bounties put on their heads if they escaped from where they were housed or worked, and were in some cases shackled to machinery and given a coffee can to urinate in. To me, that's slavery. That is certainly not the life of a free person.

As for child labor laws, in 1904, Federal child labor reform laws began to take shape. But that didn't stop employers from putting children to work. In fact, by 1911, it is said that more than Two Million American children under the age of 14 were working 12 to 14 hours a day for six days a week. 

And yes, well into the 1900s, children worked in unhealthful and hazardous conditions and always for what was known as slave wages. As for unhealthful and hazardous conditions, even into the 1900s, young girls continued to work in mills and garment factories. They faced the danger of losing fingers or even a foot while standing on top of machines to change bobbins. They risked being scalped alive if their hair got caught in the machinery.

As for the children younger than 10 who were forced to work in the coal mines, they were known as breaker boys. They were smothered and crushed by piles of coal. They fell down shafts. Breaker boys faced the threat of cave-ins, gas leaks, explosions, and other hazards that adult miners did. But let's be honest and talk about their slave wages. They made 10 times less than the adults they worked beside. 

While black emancipation came about in 1863, it wasn't until 1938 that Federal regulations of child labor were achieved in the Fair Labor Standards Act. And, while it did not emancipate children completely, it limited the minimum ages of employment and hours of work for children through Federal law. But, unfortunately, such laws were violated all the time.

The point of my article has gone completely over the heads of some folks. I've never condoned or tried to downplay the suffering of black slaves in the South. I have never ever tried to defend slavery of any sort, nor would I ever. I certainly would not defend slavery in the South. This article is not about slavery in the South. 

The point is regarding child slave labor during the Civil War in the North. It is about the hypocrisy of those in the North who were against slavery in the South but were okay with what was happening in the factories and the mines in the North.

Their hypocrisy is in regards to what offended them. It was selective at best. While they were rightfully offended by blacks in chains, they were hypocrites in that they should not have turned a blind eye to the child slave labor practices that were taking place around them in the North at the same time.

While no longer applied to blacks after emancipation, those labor practices were certainly applied to children until they stopped in the late 1930s. And the only reason it stopped was that adults needed jobs. Adults saw children as taking jobs away from adults during the Great Depression, and that's when it stopped.

Tom Correa