Friday, June 30, 2023

What Is Juneteenth? And Why That Day?

As most everyone knows, Juneteenth Day is a National Holiday in the United States. It is a day that is celebrated today on June 19. It is supposed to be a day to commemorate the emancipation of slaves in the United States. From what I gather, even though I'd never heard of it until it was made into a National Holiday, supposedly it's been a day that many Black Americans have called "Black Independence Day," "Emancipation Day," "Jubilee Day," "Juneteenth Independence Day," and even "Juneteenth National Independence Day." Yes, in reality, it was a day celebrated in Texas and not very many other places to my knowledge. 

Why Texas you ask? Well, on September 22nd, 1862, with the Civil War raging, Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863. It declared slaves living in the Confederate states to be free. 

President Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation which was an edict to free the slaves of the Southern states of the Confederacy which also included Texas. As most know, President Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation, that Executive Order, did not free slaves in border states of Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia. In fact, as many will point out, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the states that remained in the Union during the Civil War -- only in the Confederate states.

To be historically correct, while the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves of the Southern states of the Confederacy, the rest of those enslaved and those in "forced labor" were not freed until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution on April 8th, 1864. Democrats who were fighting for the Confederacy and tried to keep chattel slavery intact were out voted by Republicans who fought to free slaves.

So again, why Texas you ask? That has to do with how the news of the Emancipation Proclamation spread and where it spread to. 

So how did the word spread that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, and that slaves in Confederate states were freed? Well, it is said that news of President Lincoln's proclamation relied mostly on the advance of Union troops during the Civil War. 

Because Texas was the most remote Confederate state at the time, the folks there were among the last to get the news about the proclamation. Supposedly, as the legend goes, it took more than two years for news of the Emancipation Proclamation to reach the state of Texas. And frankly, that didn't happen until Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, on June 19th, 1865. That was the day that the people in state of Texas were informed that slavery had been abolished in Confederate states. It happened to be the same day the folks in Texas were told that the war had ended. 

On April 2nd, 1865, Richmond, Virginia, which was the Confederate capital had fallen to Union troops. Officials in the Confederate government, including President Jefferson Davis, fled as fast as they could while evading arrest and the possibility of being shot. After Richmond had fell, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered the Confederate Army at Appomattox on April 9th. So, when on June 19th, 1865, Union General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, to proclaim the war had ended, he also advised those there that slavery had ended in the Confederate states. 

Legend says that the free slaves in Galveston, Texas, immediately began to celebrate with song and dance. Since that was one of the last places to get the news of the proclamation, June 19th is now celebrated as a Fedearl Holiday. It's official name is Juneteenth National Independence Day.

While Juneteenth is now seen as the "National Independence Day" for some, I will always refer to July 4th as America's National Independence Day. 

After all, the 4th of July is the day that we Americans commemorate the Declaration of Independence, which was ratified by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. It is that day when Americans put everything on the line to establish our great nation, the United States of America. And yes, it is a day when we remember how thousands of Americans died to establish our freedoms. 

Now, before someone writes to tell me that there is nothing wrong with Black Americans having their own separate Independence Day from the rest of America, the only question that I have is why descendants of slaves, whether they are African slaves or Irish slaves or Chinese slaves, celebrate the start of their freedom on the day the proclamation was read instead of on the day it was issued. 

I cannot understood why June 19th is celebrated as "Black Independence Day," "Emancipation Day," "Jubilee Day," "Juneteenth Independence Day," and even "Juneteenth National Independence Day" by Black Americans -- when in reality, September 22nd was the day when President Lincoln freed the slaves in Confederate states? Of course, the answer to that question is something that I will never understand.

Tom Correa

Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Decision of Judge Wells Spicer after the Preliminary Hearing in the Earp-Holliday Case

November 30, 1881
Judge Wells Spicer

Territory of Arizona
Morgan Earp, et al Defendants

Defendants Wyatt Earp and John Holliday, two of the defendants named in the above entitled action were arrested upon a warrant issued by me on the 29th day of October, on a charge of murder. The complaint filed, upon which this warrant was issued, accuses said defendants of the murder of William Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Thomas McLaury on the 26th day of last month, at Tombstone, in this County.

This case has now been on hearing for the past thirty days, during which time a volume of testimony has been taken and eminent legal talent employed on both sides.

The great importance of the case, as well as the great interest taken in it by the entire community, demand that I should be full and explicit in my findings and conclusions and should give ample reasons for what I do.

From the mass of evidence before-much of which is upon collateral matter-I have found it necessary for the purposes of this decision to consider only those facts which are conceded by both sides or are established by a large preponderance of testimony.

Viewing it in this manner, I find that on the morning of the 26th day of October, 1881, and up to noon of that day, Joseph I. Clanton or Isaac Clanton, the prosecuting witness in this case, was about the streets and in several saloons of Tombstone, armed with revolver and Winchester rifle, declaring publicly that the Earp brothers and Holliday had insulted him the night before when he was unarmed, and now he was armed and intended to shoot them or fight them on sight. These threats were communicated to defendants, Virgil Earp and Wyatt Earp.

Virgil Earp was at this time the chief of police of Tombstone and charged as such officer by the city ordinance with the duty of preserving the peace, and arresting, with or without warrant, all persons engaged in any disorderly act, whereby a breach of the peace might be occasioned, and to arrest and disarm all persons violating the city ordinance which declares it to be unlawful to carry on the person any deadly weapon within the city limits, without obtaining a permit in writing.

Shortly after noon of October 26th, defendant Virgil Earp, as chief of police, assisted by Morgan Earp, who was also at the time a special policeman in the pay of the city and wearing a badge, arrested and disarmed said Isaac Clanton, and in such arrest and disarmament, inflicted upon the side of his head a blow from a pistol-whether this blow was necessary is not material here to determine.

Isaac Clanton was then taken to Justice or Recorder Wallace, where he was fined and his arms, consisting of a revolver and Winchester rifle, taken from him and deposited at the Grand Hotel, subject to his orders.

While at Justice Wallace's court and awaiting the coming of Judge Wallace, some hot words passed between Isaac Clanton and Wyatt Earp. Earp accused Clanton of having previously threatened to take his life, and then proposed to make a fight with him anywhere, to which Isaac Clanton assented, and then declared that "Fight was his racket," and that when he was arrested and disarmed, if Earp had been a second later, "there would have been a coroner's inquest in town.”

Immediately subsequent to this, a difficulty occurred in front of Judge Wallace's courtroom, between Wyatt Earp and the deceased Thomas McLaury, in which the latter was struck by the former with a pistol and knocked down.

In view of these controversies between Wyatt Earp and Isaac Clanton and Thomas McLaury, and in further view of this quarrel the night before between Isaac Clanton and J. H. Holliday, I am of the opinion that the defendant, Virgil Earp, as chief of police, subsequently calling upon Wyatt Earp, and J. H. Holliday to assist him in arresting and disarming the Clantons and McLaurys-committed an injudicious and censurable act, and although in this he acted incautiously and without due circumspection, yet when we consider the conditions of affairs incident to a frontier country; the lawlessness and disregard for human life; the existence of a law-defying element in [our] midst; the fear and feeling of insecurity that has existed; the supposed prevalence of bad, desperate and reckless men who have been a terror to the country and kept away capital and enterprise; and consider the many threats that have been made against the Earps, I can attach no criminality to his unwise act. 

In fact, as the result plainly proves, he needed the assistance and support of staunch and true friends, upon whose courage, coolness and fidelity he could depend, in case of an emergency.

Soon after the conclusion of proceedings at Judge Wallace's court, Isaac Clanton and Thomas McLaury were joined by William Clanton and Frank McLaury, who had arrived in town. In the afternoon these parties went to [the] gun shop, where they were seen loading their guns and obtaining cartridges. These proceedings were seen by Wyatt Earp, who reported the same to Virgil Earp, chief of police, said Wyatt Earp at the time being a sworn policeman.

After this, the Clantons and McLaurys went to the Dexter Stables, on Allen Street, and shortly after, crossed the street to the O.K. Corral and passed through to Fremont Street. With what purpose they crossed through to Fremont Street will probably never be known. It is claimed by the prosecution that their purpose was to leave town. It is asserted by the defendants that their purpose was to make an attack upon them or at least to feloniously resist any attempt to arrest or disarm them that might be made by the chief of police and his assistants.

Whatever their purpose may have been, it is clear to my mind that Virgil Earp, the chief of police, honestly believed [and from information of threats that day given him, his belief was reasonable], that their purpose was, if not to attempt the deaths of himself and brothers, at least to resist with force and arms any attempt on his part to perform his duty as a peace officer by arresting and disarming them.

At this time Virgil Earp was informed by one H. F. Sills, an engineer from the A. T. & S. F. R. R., then absent from duty, on a lay-off furlough, and who had arrived in town only the day before and totally unacquainted [with] any person in town, or the state of affairs existing here. Sills had overheard armed parties just then passing through the O.K. Corral say, in effect, that they would make sure to kill Earp, the marshal, and would kill all the Earp.

At the same time, several citizens and a committee of citizens came to Virgil Earp, the chief of police, and insisted that he should perform his duty as such officer and arrest and disarm the cowboys, as they termed the Clan tons and McLaurys.

Was it for Virgil Earp as chief of police to abandon his clear duty as an officer because its performance was likely to be fraught with danger? Or was it not his duty that as such officer he owed to the peaceable and law-abiding citizens of the city, who looked to him to preserve peace and order, and their protection and security, to at once call to his aid sufficient assistance and persons to arrest and disarm these men?

There can be but one answer to these questions, and that answer is such as will divest the subsequent approach of the defendants toward the deceased of all presumption of malice or of illegality.

When, therefore, the defendants, regularly or specially appointed officers, marched down Fremont Street to the scene of the subsequent homicide, they were going where it was their right and duty to go; and they were doing what it was their right and duty to do; and they were armed, as it was their right and duty to be armed, when approaching men they believed to be armed and contemplating resistance.

The legal character of the homicide must therefore be determined by what occurred at the time and not by the precedent facts. To consti­tute the crime of murder there must be proven not only the killing, but also the felonious intent. In this case, the corpus delicti or fact of killing is in fact admitted as well as clearly proven. The felonious intent is as much a fact to be proven as the corpus delicti, and in looking over this mass of testimony for evidence upon this point, I find that it is anything but clear.

Witnesses of credibility testify that each of the deceased or at least two of them yielded to a demand to surrender. Other witnesses of equal credibility testify that William Clanton and Frank McLaury met the demand for surrender by drawing their pistols, and that the discharge of firearms from both sides was almost instantaneous.

There is a dispute as to whether Thomas McLaury was armed at all, except with a Winchester rifle that was on the horse beside him. I will not consider this question, because it is not of controlling importance. 

Certain it is that the Clantons and McLaurys had among them at least two six-shooters in their hands, and two Winchester rifles on their horses. Therefore, if Thomas McLaury was one of a party who were thus armed and were making felonious resistance to an arrest, and in the melee that followed was shot, the fact of his being unarmed, if it be a fact, could not of itself criminate the defendants, if they were not otherwise criminated.

It is beyond doubt that William Clanton and Frank McLaury were armed, and made such quick and effective use of their arms as to seriously wound Morgan Earp and Virgil Earp.

In determining the important question of whether the deceased offered to surrender before resisting, I must give as much weight to the testimony of persons unacquainted with the deceased or the defendants, as to the testimony of persons who were companions and acquaintances, if not partisans of the deceased. And I am of [the] opinion that those who observed the conflict from a short distance and from points of observation that gave them a good view of the scene, to say the least, were quite as likely to be accurate in their observation as those mingled up in or fleeing from the melee.

Witnesses for the prosecution state unequivocally that William Clanton fell or was shot at the first fire and Claiborne says he was shot when the pistol was only about a foot from his belly. Yet it is clear that there were no powder burns or marks on his clothes. And Judge Lucas says he saw him fire or in the act of firing several times before he was shot, and he thinks two shots afterwards.

Addie Bourland, who saw distinctly the approach of the Earps and the beginning of the affray, from a point across the street, where she could correctly observe all their movements, says she cannot tell which fired first-that the firing commenced at once, from both sides, on the approach of the Earps, and that no hands were held up; that she could have seen them if there had been. Sills asserted that the firing was almost simultan­eous. I could not tell which side fired first.

Considering all the testimony together, I am of the opinion that the weight of evidence sustains and corroborates the testimony of Wyatt Earp, that their demand for surrender was met by William Clanton and Frank McLaury drawing or making motions to draw their pistols. Upon this hypothesis my duty is clear. The defendants were officers charged with the duty of arresting and disarming armed and determined men who were expert in the use of firearms, as quick as thought and as certain as death and who had previously declared their intention not to be arrested nor disarmed. Under the statutes [Sec. 32, page 74 of Compo Laws], as well as the common law, they have a right to repel force with force.

In coming to this conclusion, I give great weight to several particular circumstances connected with [the] affray. It is claimed by the prosecution that the deceased were shot while holding up their hands in obedience of the command of the chief of police, and on the other hand the defense claims that William Clanton and Frank McLaury at once drew their pistols and began firing simultaneously with [the] defendants. Wil­liam Clanton was wounded on the wrist of the right hand on the first fire and thereafter used his pistol with his left. 

This wound is such as could not have been received with his hands thrown up, and the wound received by Thomas McLaury was such as could not have been received with his hands on his coat lapels. These circumstances being indubitable [indubitable] facts, throw great doubt upon the correctness of the statement of witnesses to the contrary.

The testimony of Isaac Clanton, that this tragedy was the result of a scheme on the part of the Earps to assassinate him and thereby bury in oblivion the confessions the Earps had made to him about "piping" away the shipment of coin by Wells Fargo & Co. falls short of being a sound theory, [on] account of the great fact, most prominent in this matter, to wit: that Isaac Clanton was not injured at all, and could have been killed first and easiest, if it was the object of the attack to kill him. He would have been the first to fall; but, as it was, he was known or believed to be unarmed, and was suffered and, as Wyatt Earp testified, told to go away, and was not harmed.

I also give great weight in this matter to the testimony of Sheriff Behan, who said that on one occasion a short time ago Isaac Clanton told him that he, Clanton, had been informed that the sheriff was coming to arrest him and that he, Clanton, armed his crowd with guns and was deter­mined not to be arrested by the sheriff-or words to that effect. And Sheriff Behan further testified that a few minutes before the Earps came to them, that he as sheriff had demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and that they "demurred," as he said, and did not do it, and that Frank McLaury refused and gave as a reason that he was not ready to leave town just then and would not give up his arms unless the Earps were disarmed-that is, that the chief of police and his assistants should be disarmed.

In view of the past history of the county and the generally believed existence at this time of desperate, reckless and lawless men in our midst, banded together for mutual support and living by felonious and predatory pursuits, regarding neither life nor property in their career, and at the same time for men to parade the streets armed with repeating rifles and six-shooters and demand that the chief of police and his assistants should be disarmed is a proposition both monstrous and startling! This was said by one of the deceased only a few minutes before the arrival of the Earps.

Another fact that rises up preeminent in the consideration of this said affair is the leading fact that the deceased, from the very first inception of the encounter, were standing their ground and fighting back, giving and taking death with unflinching bravery. It does not appear to have been a wanton slaughter of unresisting and unarmed innocents, who were yielding graceful submission to the officers of the law, or surrendering to, or fleeing from their assailants; but armed and defiant men, accepting their wager of battle and succumbing only in death.

The prosecution claims much upon the point, as they allege, that the Earp party acted with criminal haste that they precipitated the triple homicide by a felonious intent then and there to kill and murder the deceased, and that they made use of their official characters as a pretext. I cannot believe this theory, and cannot resist the firm conviction that the Earps acted wisely, discretely and prudentially, to secure their own self preservation. They saw at once the dire necessity of giving the first shots, to save themselves from certain death! They acted. Their shots were effective, and this alone saved the Earp party from being slain.

In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the threats made, the character and positions of the parties, and the tragic results accomplished in manner and form as they were, with all surrounding influences bearing upon resgestae of the affair, I cannot resist the conclusion that the defendants were fully justified in committing these homicides-that it is a necessary act, done in the discharge of an official duty.

It is the duty of an examining and committing magistrate in this territory to issue a warrant of arrest in the first place, whenever from the depositions given there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed a public offense [Sec. 87, page 111 of Compo Laws].

After hearing evidence, however, the statute changes the rule, and he is then required to commit the defendant only when there is "Sufficient cause to believe" him guilty. [Sec. 143, page 111 of Compo Laws].

My interpretation is that the rule which should govern an examin­ing magistrate is the same as that which should govern the conclusions of a Grand Jury. That such as prescribed by statute [Sec. 188, page 121 of Compo Laws] is: "The Grand Jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them, taken together, is such as in their judgment will, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.”

The evidence taken before me in this case, would not, in my judgment, warrant a conviction of the defendants by trial jury of any offense whatever. I do not believe that any trial jury that could be got together in this territory, would, on all the evidence taken before me, with the rule of law applicable thereto given them by the court, find the defendants guilty of any offense.

It may be that my judgment is erroneous, and my view of the law incorrect, yet it is my own judgment and my own understanding of the law as I find it laid down, and upon this I must act and decide, and not upon those of any other persons. I have given over four weeks of patient attention to the hearing of evidence in this case, and at least four-fifths of my waking hours have been devoted, at this time, to an earnest study of the evidence before me, and such is the conclusion to which I am forced to arrive.

I have the less reluctance in announcing this conclusion because the Grand Jury of this county is now in session, and it is quite within the power of that body, if dissatisfied with my decision, to call witnesses before them or use the depositions taken before me, and which I shall return to the district court, as by law required, and to thereupon disregard my findings, and find an indictment against the defendants, if they think the evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction.

I conclude the performance of this duty imposed upon me by saying in the language of the Statute: "There being no sufficient cause to believe the within named Wyatt S. Earp and John H. Holliday guilty of the offense mentioned within. I order them to be released."

[Signed] Wells Spicer, Magistrate

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party

The description of the video below states: 
Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? 

Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.

I hope this video has sparked your interest in learning more about the Democratic Party's legacy of racism, segregation, and connection to prolonging slavery in America. If it has and you want more in-depth information than that of what is presented in the great video, I have written several articles about slavery in America. 

I have taken an honest look at the relationship between the Democratic Party and slavery, the desire of the Democrats to ensure the continuation of slavery, that political party's efforts to kill any and all legislation that would have provided Equal Rights to both Women and Blacks for the last 200 years.

Below are some of my articles on slavery and the Democratic Party's legacy pertaining to its connection to slavery, as well as other aspects of slavery in our history. 

I hope you find this information interesting.

Tom Correa

Monday, June 19, 2023

Extraordinary Before-And-After Photos Show How Full Lake Oroville Is Today (2023)

Story by Katie Dowd, SFGATE
June 19, 2023

California’s second-largest reservoir is unrecognizable when compared to photos taken just a few years ago — a reassuring sight for Californians accustomed to exposed lake beds due to years of drought.

Lake Oroville is a human-made lake created in the 1960s by the construction of the Oroville Dam. When it’s full, it offers more than 160 miles of shoreline, but in recent years, it’s been so bone-dry that boats couldn’t even use some of the launches. Getty Images photojournalist Justin Sullivan visited the lake last week and photographed the remarkable rebound after a rainy winter.

As of June 17, 2023, the California Department of Water Resources has listed Lake Oroville at 100% of its total capacity. That’s 129% of its historical average for the date. In contrast, conditions were dire on Memorial Day 2021 at Lake Oroville. 

At that time, the reservoir was at 37% of capacity. Boat ramps were closed, 120 houseboats were pulled from the marina and there were even worries the power plant would have to shut down. In December 2022, before the winter rains came in force, Lake Oroville was at 27% of capacity.

In an aerial view, the Enterprise Bridge crosses over a section of Lake Oroville that was previously underwater on July 22, 2021, in Oroville, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

In an aerial view, the Enterprise Bridge passes over a completely full Lake Oroville on June 15, 2023, in Oroville, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Low water levels are visible at Lime Saddle Marina at Lake Oroville on July 22, 2021, in Paradise, California.  Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

A parking sign stands in the water at Lake Oroville on June 15, 2023, in Oroville, California. 
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

2021 Lake Oroville. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

2023 Lake Oroville. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Water levels have risen dramatically at Lake Oroville between 2021, and June 2023, as seen in photos by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

California drought officials warn we shouldn’t get too lax about water conservation, though. It takes more than a year to recover from a drought, especially one as severe as what California has seen in recent years.

Ryan Endean, a spokesperson for the California Department of Water Resources, told SFGATE in January, “It’s just really important to remember that we are in a continued drought emergency; we’re kind of dealing with this extreme flood during an extreme drought. And so we’re of course encouraging Californians to continue to conserve water and make conservation a way of life.”

A picnic table sits partially submerged in the waters of Lake Oroville on June 15, 2023, in Oroville, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Sunday, June 18, 2023


 I received this story from Stetson with a suggestion that my readers would ejoy it. Well, after reading it, I agree. This is from Stetson. And frankly, I don't know who wrote it. But, you may like it this Father's Day.


Happy Father’s Day from all of us at Stetson. In celebration of all the fathers and father figures out there, we’re honored to share the story of fourth-generation Wyoming rancher Luke Long, who’s looking forward to carrying on the Stetson tradition with his own newborn son, Stetson Long.

My great-grandparents arrived in Jackson Hole in 1912. Homesteading in those days required determination and toughness, qualities my great-grandfather possessed. That same year my grandfather was born. Over the course of his life he became a renowned bronc rider, which landed him as a member of the Wyoming Cowboy Hall of Fame. His legendary status was well-deserved.

Long's grandfather Walter (left) and father Richard (right)

My father moved to Wyoming shortly after college, drawn to the state's pioneer spirit and vast open spaces. My fondest memories are assisting my grandpa and dad on the ranch, where knowledge was passed down through hands-on experience; riding horses, caring for the land and cattle.

Richard Long with young Luke and his brother, Peter.

This year, my wife and I joyfully welcomed our son, Stetson, into the world. We named him after the cherished Stetson cowboy hats worn by generations of our family. The name symbolizes western values such as hard work, integrity, stewardship, and a pioneering spirit.

When the time is right, I will proudly pass down my Stetson hat to my son. It’s an item that represents our heritage—four generations that have embraced the spirit of the cowboy.

Luke Long and his family own and operate Diamond Cross Ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Saturday, June 17, 2023

Murder Or Suicide In Colorado Springs? 1876

On September 12, 1876, The Colorado Daily Chieftain newspaper reported the following:

Singular Occurrence at Colorado Springs 
Body of A. L. Soblessinger found near a Deseerted Cabin 

Yesterday afternoon a rumor reached this city that Mr. Schlessinger, the private secretary to Gen. Palmer, had been killed in a duel at Colorado Springs.  During the afternoon, a telegram was received here directing the arrest of "a person of good address apparently in good circumstances, either a Frenchman or  German, who might take passage on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe train for the East." It is needless to say that upon this description, no arrest was made. 

The finding of the body of A. L. Schlessinger in a ravine some two hundred yards from a deserted cabin, upon the ranch of Mr. Lawson, about sixteen miles East of Colorado Springs, is associated with a mystery that a coroner's jury is now endeavoring to unravel. 

Schlessinger is a young man about nineteen years old and came to Colorado Springs last April. He is an Englishman by birth, but of German descent. His uncle is said to be of the firm of Schlesslnger & Nailor, iron dealers, in John Street, New York. _

Schlessinger, the deceased, was the private secretary of Gen. Palmer, president of the Denver and Rio Grande railroad, at the time of his death, which is believed to have taken place yesterday, Sunday, September 10th, after twelve o’clock, noon. 

He was seen leaving town between ten and eleven in the forenoon, and his body was found between four and five o’clock the next morning. It appears that two letters were taken from the post office by Dr. S. E. Solly at about four o’clock on Sunday afternoon. 

These letters, which purport to have been written by Schlessinger, informed the doctor that he was going out to fight a duel near Lawson’s Cabin; that he would be killed as he did not intend to fire at his opponent, and wished him to come or send for his body if he did not return to town by half past four p.m.; and further, they request the doctor to never let any person see or read the letters, but to inform his uncle that he had been killed in a duel. 

A little further on, in one of the letters. he informs the doctor that he can use the letters to show that he came to his death in a fair and honorable way. 

There is a rumor upon the street that this boy- had a personal difficulty with his tutor in England, a few years ago and that his tutor had crossed the Atlantic, came to Colorado Springs, and called him out to fight a duel. Englishmen say that no such person could have come to Colorado Springs without being known as a stranger to some of them. The boy was well known here to be a quiet, harmless person, never known to have had any difficulty with any person. He was not known among the young men of the town, as an associate — being of a reticent turn of mind — with a habit of making remarks that would seem to indicate a disturbed mind.

The story of a duel is strongly suspected to have been gotten up to arrest inquiry and conceal the cause of his death. The evidence as far as brought before the coroner’s jury goes to show that there could not have been suicide committed, but that all the appearances and indications in the vicinity of the body appear to have been made after the death occurred, and with the view to leave the impression that a duel had been fought. 

Two lines had been drawn in the sand about twenty yards apart, the dead body was found 1ying upon its face, stretched out along one of these lines, so that the line was concealed from view. The two marks in the sand appeared to have been made with a boot heel, his pistol lay about six feet from the body, and a white handkerchief lay about where he stood, as though it had been dropped as a signal to fire, which if placed there by design, was intended to leave the impression that there was no third person present. 

On the line in point, twenty yards distant from the body, were two footprints standing side by side, upon the line, with the toes pointed towards the dead man. There was a depth of their impression that would go to show that they were made by design, and not in accordance with the position of the duelist. 

There was a buggy track, with no indications of there being but one person besides the deceased. The murder was evidently not for money, as a valuable watch and pistol were not taken. 

The coroner’s jury is composed of six of our most intelligent citizens and it is believed that they will give the matter a careful and thorough investigation.

In an extra edition of The Gazette, the editor reported the following statement by a first-hand witness Mr. H. A. Risley:

When found, the dead body of Mr. Schlesinger was lying face downward, stretched at full length, with a pistol by his side and a white pocket handkerchief. On examination, a wound was found in his breast, and evidently, a ball had passed into his body in the direction of the heart. From the stiffened appearance of the body, the doctor said he must have been dead for several hours. 

A line was made in the sand across the gulch where his body lay, as if by the heel, and twenty paces Westerly in the gulch was a like line found across it with steps upon it, and the heel sunk in the ground, where it was very evident that a man had stood.

Our supposition was that the parties had paced the distance and marked the line where each was to stand, that Schlesinger had dropped the handkerchief as a signal for firing, and that after the fatal shot, the survivor fled. No horse could be found, and nothing more was found to throw further light on the subject. 

After consultation, we concluded that it was our duty to leave everything exactly as we found it, and give immediate information to the coroner. We drove into town at a rapid pace, Coronor Taylor was summoned, and together with Dr. Solly and Mr. R. F. Weitbree, treasurer of the Denver & Rio Grande Railway, returned to take possession of the body, over which an inquest will be held this morning, either on the ground or in this city, where all obtainable evidence in regard to the transaction will be disclosed. 

Mr. Schlesinger was a young man of intelligence and promise, who is understood to have relatives of high character and standing in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, and he came here in April last from Philadelphia with Gen. Wm. Palmer, president of the Denver and Rio Grande railway company, and has since that time acted as his private secretary. 

It is believed, and some evidence will be disclosed, that the transaction grew out of an old quarrel and that he was killed by some stranger, perhaps from Europe, who came here for that purpose. No clue has yet been obtained in regard to him.  

-- As reported on September 12, 1876, The Colorado Daily Chieftain newspaper.

This is a great example of the sort of information that would be gathered while investigating a crime scene in 1876. Frankly, it is pretty thorough. 

As for the mystery of who killed Schlesinger, what reason was there for their duel, and the bigger question of why did he leave a letter saying that he would not defend himself in a duel? From my research, it appears his killer was never found. As for the reason for it taking place and the reasons for him saying in his letter that he "would be killed as he did not intend to fire at his opponent"? 

We will never know the answers to those questions.

Tom Correa

Saturday, June 10, 2023

September 1897, Five Lynched In Indiana

On September 15, 1897, The New York Times reported:

FIVE LYNCHED IN INDIANA; Wholesale Killing by a Mob of Men Suspected of Numerous Robberies. TAKEN FROM JAIL AT NIGHT Four Hundred Men Ride into Versailles, Overpower the Sheriff's Deputies, and Wreak Vengeance on a Party of Prisoners.

OSGOOD, Ind., Sept. 15. -- Incensed by numerous depredations, repeated burglaries, and daylight robberies, the people of Ripley County. Indiana, last night lynched five men who had long been a terror to the citizens of the county. When the citizens of Versailles, the county seat, arose this morning they found the bodies of the five men dangling from as many limbs of an elm tree in the center of the public square. -- reported by The New York Times on September 15, 1897.

Believe it or not, while the headline in The New York Times was slightly misleading, this story was reported across our nation. But what's the full story of what happened? 

Well, The San Joes Herald reported the following:
Four Burglars Hanged in Indiana.
People Determined to Make an Example of Them.
Citizens of Versailles Declare That No Troops Are Wanted. — Over Two Hundred in the Mob. — The Lynchers Are Not Known. —  Trouble May Follow.

Versailles, Ind., Sept. 15. — Four hundred infuriated men last night lynched Lyle Levi, Bert Andrews, Clifford Gordon, William Jenkins, and Hiney Shuler, arrested for burglary. 

Ripley County for a long time has been terrorized by a gang of bold robbers and burglars. 

Versailles is the county seat and when the citizens arose this morning they found five corpses dangling by the necks from an elm tree in the center of the public square. Their feet were but a few inches from the ground and their hands and feet tied by stout ropes. 

For four years the people of the county have been subjected to outrage and robbery. Farmers were held up, beaten, and robbed, women tortured to make them tell where money was concealed, being compelled to stand on a red hot stove. Many arrests have been made but the guilty parties always managed to escape conviction.

Last week robberies were frequent and on Saturday the Sheriff was informed that an attempt was to be made to rob a store at Correct, Indiana, a mere ten miles away. 

Securing five deputies Sheriff Bushing went to the place, concealed himself and his posse in a cellar, and waited for the burglars. They came at midnight. 

Clifford Gordon entered first and as soon as he did the Sheriff grabbed him. Both drew pistols at the same time and opened fire. The robbers and the deputies followed suit and thirty shots were fired. 

The Sheriff was shot in the hand and in the body four times. The robbers escaped but were subsequently arrested and taken to the Versailles Jail. Others of the gang were arrested later and the citizens soon gathered -- determined to make an example of them. 

Shortly before 2 o’clock this morning a crowd assembled quietly and compelled the Jailor to deliver the keys and open the Jail. The mob filed in and took Henry Schiller aged 24, Lyle Levi 67, Clifford Gordon 32, Bert Audsome 30, and William Jenkins 27. 

Three of them showed fight. Levi was shot through the breast and the skulls of Jenkins and Schiller wore crushed with a stool. A rope was put over the neck of each of the five and after their hands and feet were pinioned -- all were dragged 200 feet to an elm tree from which they were suspended. 

The hanging of two or three more of the gang is already talked of and the citizens say that no troops are wanted. None of the lynchers are known. 

-- Reported in The San Jose Herald, Volume LXIII, Number 65, 15 September 1897

First, there is a question about whether or not Ripley County Sheriff Henry Bushing was killed. Well, from what I've been able to determine, though the newspaper stated that he "was shot in the hand and in the body four times," it appears he survived the shooting. 

As for 67-year-old Lyle Levi who was the first to be shot and hanged, it appears he was a member of a group of counterfeiters and highwaymen known as the Rittenhouse Gang in Southern Indiana. It also appears he "surrounded himself with desperate young men who terrorized the community." Levi became linked to the gang when it was learned that Levi's wagon was used by his gang when they robbed the store -- the place where the shootout took place. 

Also, in a short opinion piece posted on September 25, 1897, in The Atlanta Journal, the Editor of that paper wrote the following: 

In the state of Indiana last night a mob lynched five men charged with burglary. This beats anything the South has ever done. Men are not lynched down here for burglary and they are not hung five at a time. It shows that mob law is not sectional. The spirit of lawlessness is likely to break out anywhere, and no state or section can afford to lecture another upon it. 

I guess the Editor of The Atlanta Journal missed the report about how the five "burglars" were in fact more "terrorists" than mere burglars. He may have missed reading about how that gang held up, beat, and robbed farmers, and tortured elderly women to make them tell where money was concealed -- like making women stand on a red hot stove to get them to say where their family's savings were kept. 

Maybe, just maybe, the Editor of The Atlanta Journal didn't read about that or about how members of that gang shot up the Sheriff of Ripley County, Indiana, and his posse.  Maybe if that Editor had learned more of the facts, then just maybe, he would have understood why the citizens of the town of Versailles, Indiana, were angry over how even after arrests were made -- the guilty parties were always acquitted and let go to rob and terrorize again. Maybe the Editor should have researched why citizens, because no convicted ever followed the arrests, became fed up and decided to do away with such criminals themselves.

As for Indiana Governor James A. Mount who called for those responsible for the lynchings to be brought to justice? As with most politicians then and now, he saw those who lynched the criminals as criminals themselves. And yes, I can't help but wonder how much political pressure he was under to catch the men who lynched those criminals. 

After all, he did write a personal letter to Ripley County Sheriff Henry Bushing ordering him to "proceed immediately with all the power you can command to bring to justice all the parties 'guilty of participation in the murder' of the five men alleged to have been lynched." The governor closed his letter by saying, "Such lawlessness is intolerable." 

While thankfully, the identities of those responsible for lynching those brutal criminals were never discovered, I find it very interesting that Governor Mount didn't see the actions of the criminals involved in that campaign of terror in the same light that he saw those who lynched those terrorists. Maybe he should have said about those criminals, "Such lawlessness is intolerable. Their crimes must be stopped." But of course, he didn't. He only became concerned when citizens decided to stop the crime spree. 

And really, why is that? Why was Governor Mount so concerned about apprehending the citizens who stopped the criminals who were known to be terrorizing that part of Indiana at the time? Why didn't he see the horrendous acts of those criminals in the same way that he saw those who stopped them?

My thought is this, just as we see taking place today, some politicians see citizens getting involved as being a threat -- worse or as bad as that of what criminals do. They scream that the public has an obligation and absolute need to uphold the rule of law while criminals refuse to observe any laws. 

In the case of that criminal gang in 1897, we know that those criminals were arrested time and time again but never convicted. We also know that those citizens took action for their own protection. The 400 or so citizens who took action in order to remedy the situation became the very people who worried Governor Mount at the time. The reason is that politicians become frightened when citizens act to remedy a broken justice system. 

In today's society, citizens who take decisive action against criminals are the very people who worry some politicians the most. Even though we see so many murders, assaults, and blatant robberies taking place these days, all happening while law enforcement is being defunded and demoralized, and while criminals are not being charged and simply being set free to act out and commit more crimes, citizens taking action is something that some politicians don't want to see happen.

In fact, we have politicians who believe that citizens who defend themselves are themselves criminals -- even though those citizens have defended themselves against criminals who have absolutely no regard for the law. And sadly, we have politicians who refuse to acknowledge the untapped asset of an available armed citizenry. An armed citizenry can make a difference by taking part in protecting our communities, including backing up our law enforcement when needed.   

And really, while I believe armed citizens are a threat to criminals, it's sad to think that there are some politicians who believe armed citizens are a threat to them as well. Instead, I'd love to see a politician who would say, "Lawlessness is intolerable. Crime must stop. And frankly, armed citizens can help solve the problem." 

But no, I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. 

Tom Correa

Tuesday, June 6, 2023

Climate Change Crazies Destroying Food Supplies In A Hungry World

Like many people in our late 60s, I remember when it was considered a sin to waste food. Because my grandparents raised my parents during the hard days of the Great Depression, and because my parents certainly remembered the food shortages and rationing of World War II, food was not something to be thrown away. 

During the Cold War years of the 1950s and early 1960s, the fear of being attacked and nuclear war had many people putting food and other supplies aside. I remember how my family had canned goods and dried foods like beans and rice stored for such an emergency. Of course, growing up in Hawaii during the days when labor union strikes in California and the rest of the West Coast could shut down food shipments to the islands was also a lesson that I've never forgotten. 

We were also taught that famine around the world was a real concern and not something to be taken lightly. I believe our view of a hungry world also contributed to our seeing food as something precious. Because of world hunger, we were taught that food was something not to be wasted. And while we all know very well that food is essential to our existence, today world hunger is still very real. 

In fact, it is estimated that there are almost 900 Million hungry people in the world. Of the approximately 900 Million people facing hunger, it is also estimated that just over 9 Million people around the world die from hunger every year. To add to this concern, it's estimated that there are 2.3 Billion people facing less extreme levels of food insecurity. One source reported that roughly "29% of the global population" might not know where their food is coming from tomorrow.

Why people go hungry has everything to do with the following: 
  • Food availability: Is there a sufficient amount of quality food available to sustain communities?
  • Food access: Are people able to access the amount of food they need to maintain a nutritious diet for themselves and their families?
  • Food utilization: Can people use the food available to meet their nutritional needs? 
  • Food stability: Will people have access to an adequate amount of food even during times of cyclical weather conditions such as periodic or long-term draughts? 
World hunger is obviously impacted by famine taking place in various nations around the world. As most of us know, famine describes food crises of varying size and scope. The United Nations established that a famine is when at least 20% of a population is suffering extreme food shortages, 30% of children under the age of 5 are suffering acute malnutrition, and the death rate in an area doubles. In general, famines take place in areas where there is a lack of infrastructure coupled with the following contributors: 
  • Government Controls Create Limited Food Availability 
  • Government Regulations Limit Food Production
  • Government Controls Limiting Water Allocations To Farmers
  • Government Controls Create High Food Prices
  • Government Controls Create Limited Food Access 
  • War / Armed Conflicts
  • Government Corruption / Bribery
  • Limited Humanitarian Access
  • Natural Disasters
  • Cyclical Weather Conditions
Looking at the above, you may notice that some of these causes of hunger in the world are connected. This is one of the biggest reasons that a hunger crisis becomes a famine. In such situations, there is never an easy fix. The United Nations says that the causes of famine are largely man-made, meaning that people can control the outcomes.

So now, we know hunger and famine take place because of government corruption, draconian government controls and over-regulation, war, natural disasters, and cyclical weather conditions which many today want to call "Climate Change."

Since we know this, why is the Irish Government planning on slaughtering 200,000 cows? Believe it or not, as crazy as it sounds, in a hungry world, Ireland plans to slaughter 200,000 cows because they "Fart." 

200,000 Farting Irish Cows Slaughtered In The Name Of Climate Change

Yes, in their minds, as insane as their thinking is, they believe that they need to kill a "farting" food source to save the planet. It's all about the hoax that more of the world is learning is the biggest hoax ever played on the entire world. 

Because someone said a "farting cow is bad for the planet," the Irish Government will slaughter 200,000 cows. But make no mistake, the Science that they adhere to is nothing less than the "Global Warming" data which have been proven to have been altered -- for the financial gain of those who pray at the altar of Climate Change and Communism. 

Such is the work of Globalist Fanatics who are now after our food supplies. Those who want to see an all-powerful world government of globalists are now targeting food production. Of course, crooked government officials who are easily bought through bribes and "campaign contributions" are assisting in the extermination of the world's food supplies. 

If you've read this far, you're probably thinking that I've finally lost it. But hear me out, it's not merely the crazies in a corrupt Irish government who are doing what they can on behalf of their Climate Change benefactors.  

Government officials in the Netherlands, a major European Union food producer, forced the shutdown of over 3,000 productive farms to comply with Global Warming mandates in November 2022. And in December 2022, a supposedly "democratic" Germany "ordered" its farmers to slash fertilizer use after the Dutch farms were shut down -- all to comply with Global Warming mandates that were agreed upon by Climate Change proponents within the European Union.

To adhere to what the European Union wants, their Irish lackeys within the Irish Government will reduce the number of dairy cows -- and consequently, Ireland's food production -- in order to reach the European Union's Climate Change mandates.

Is the Irish Government made up of lackeys of the European Union? Well, yes, since they have shown the world that can be bought off like servants to the EU. All while using the excuse that they are reducing emissions from farming in Ireland. 

And by the way, as insane as it might sound, one proposal in the Irish Government is to reduce their entire nation's dairy herd by 10%. That means the Irish will intentionally cut their food supply to appease the Climate Change fanatics. That's the equivalent of removing 65,000 cows a year for three years, according to The Irish Independent.

As sad as it is for food to be targeted, that's what's going on. The Irish Minister of Agriculture Charlie McConalogue told an Irish radio station RTE Morning Ireland that a dairy vision group with farmer representatives has been looking into a range of options to reduce emissions on farms. And no, the Climate Change crazies who want this really don't have an answer to why only attack "farting" cows and not farting sheep, goats, horses, pigs, or animals in the wild. 

According to The Irish Mirror, the Department for Agriculture has said a report outlining a 200,000 reduction in dairy cows was a "modeling document." And really, let's remember that computer modeling has not been very accurate -- even after Global Warming proponents were caught altering the Climate Change data to fix it in their favor. 

Of course, those like me who argue against Climate Change are called "deniers" and "skeptics." But really, I'm not a "skeptic." I go beyond that. I believe the scam that the Left is calling Climate Change, also known as Global Warming, is a hoax just as a hoax is defined: an "act intended to deceive or trick. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means." 

Fraud involves deceit with the intention to illegally or unethically gain at the expense of another. For example, in finance, fraud can take on many forms including making false insurance claims, cooking the books, pump & dump schemes, and identity theft leading to unauthorized purchases. Fraud costs the economy billions of dollars each and every year, and those who are caught are subject to fines and jail time. This describes the Climate Change scam and its proponents who are perpetrating fraud.

Of course, the same people who call me a "denier" seem to conveniently forget that none of the "predictions" that they have made millions of dollars predicting have ever come true. And worse, their computer models were rigged to disregard data that was not accomplishing their prediction that the sky is falling when it hasn't. But then again, that's how scams work. All someone has to do is say that something will happen, and get people to believe it -- it never has to happen for the scam to work. 

And yes, over the years, I've seen the Global Warming hoax as no different than the Y2K scam back in 2000. Though "experts" assured everyone that Y2K meant that our computers would crash and our society would collapse, it didn't. And while it became something that people soon forgot, we should remember that a lot of crooked people made a lot of money getting people to believe that Y2K would be the end of humanity.  

If that sounds familiar, it should since that's exactly the sort of scare tactics the Left is using to get people to believe that the Climate Change scam will do the same thing. Yes, even though nothing that the Climate Change proponents have predicted has ever come true.

In fact, really thinking about it, such scare tactics in regard to Global Warming have never come true! None of the Left's predictions about climate and environmental disasters that were supposed to take place have ever come true. None! 

The seas have not risen. The snow has not stopped falling. Islands have not disappeared and have been wiped off the map. We have not been met with extinction in 500 days, 2 years, 12 years, 20 years, or 50 years. After we were told that the world would end as we know it, and on and on, none, not one single prediction, computer or otherwise, has ever come true. And frankly, I've been hearing about it for over 50 years.

Although, after this year 2023 with more snow accumulation than ever noted in recorded history -- something that Global Warming fanatics said would never happen -- I might be ready to accept the 1975 prediction of a New Ice Age just around the corner. And yes, I sort of wish the Irish Government would do the same and prepare for food shortages -- instead of creating them.

And yes, their lies are part of the irony of all of this. We are told by Climate Change proponents like John Kerry that Climate Change will result in crops being ripped away and more hunger will take place.
It's true, we have been told that Climate Change would lead to our extinction because it would wipe out or curtail food production. 

First, if that's so, why wipe out the agriculture that is doing fine right now? Why eliminate the existing dairy production, cattle production, and crop production that is presenting taking place? If they know it's in danger, why attack it and work to eliminate farms and food production?

And that goes to the Second part of that question, why are they themselves attacking agriculture worldwide? What they didn't tell us is that they themselves, those who advocate all of the draconian measures to alter the Earth's temperature, are the very culprits to wipe out or curtail food production. They didn't tell us that it would in reality be Climate Change crazies themselves who would be totally responsible for destroying food supplies during a time of widespread World Hunger.

Of course, we need to recognize that it's fanatics like the Climate Change crazies in Ireland who are bowing down to their European Union Masters and attacking their own food sources. Let's not even start to guess how bad that's going to turn out in the future -- especially when European food shortages start taking place. And frankly, I never thought the Irish were so dumb as to kill their own food supply over a computer prediction -- or to suck up to the EU. 

It's 2023, and so the scam goes on!
Tom Correa