Mothers Who Kill Their Children

Maternal filicide which is the term used for "Mothers who kill their children" occurs roughly 200 times each year in the United States. That accounts for approximately 40% of the nearly 500 total Parental Filicide arrests annually.

As shocking as it might be, parents are arrested for filicide around 500 times a year in the United States. And while fathers account for about 54% to 58%, mothers commit roughly 40% of these horrible crimes.

Parental Filicide and Maternal Filicide are considered rare if we compare how many times that takes place with the entire population of the United States. Because the nearly 500 total Parental Filicide arrests annually taking place are happening in our population of approximately 342.6 million people, that's considered something extremely rare.

Of course, that 500 figure is probably low because it's a crime that's likely underreported. And then there's this to think about, when a crime is severely underreported, its presence in official police registries or databases can make it appear deceptively rare, unusual, or virtually non-existent, when it shouldn't be.

Other categories of crimes that are considered rare in official datasets primarily because they are heavily underreported are "Corporate and White-Collar Fraud" like embezzlement, insider trading, corporate fraud, and wage theft appear to happen infrequently. They seem rare because victims are often completely unaware they have been defrauded, such as in the case of identity theft or small, incremental financial skimming.

Another reason that they are unreported has to do with settling such matters privately or terminating the employee without involving law enforcement to avoid public embarrassment, stock drops, or damage to their brand reputation.

Another heavily underreported crime is "Labor Exploitation and Modern Slavery."
Official reports of human trafficking, forced labor, and modern slavery are relatively low, that masks the fact that they are actually taking place. The reasons that go unreported has to do with victims often being physically or socially isolated, and they have problems speaking English. Some victims suffer such crimes because they had their identification documents confiscated by the very people who are exploiting them.

Another reason that many victims don't say anything has to do with them being threatened, blackmailed, are coerced into believing that contacting the police will lead to their own arrest or deportation rather than them receiving justice. That all helps the modern-day Slave Traders to keep their crimes almost entirely invisible to local law enforcement.

Fear is one way of keeping their victims silent. Victims fear retaliation from the perpetrators within their own neighborhoods or assume the police will not take the crime seriously.

I was told many years ago that "Domestic Abuse and Violence" was only second to Rape when it comes to unreported crimes. While violent offenses like commercial robberies or vehicle thefts have higher tracking, non-fatal domestic abuse, coercive control, and stalking appear disproportionately lower in baseline arrest statistics than they are in anonymous household victimization surveys.

The problem is that victims are frequently financially, emotionally, or socially dependent on the abuser. And yes, the fear of escalating violence, retaliation, or a sense of deep personal shame prevents victims from bringing law enforcement into their private homes.

 
As for the crime of "Rape (Sexual Assault)" being seen as the most underreported violent crimes in the United States and globally, that's just a fact. In fact, it is believed that between 65% and 80% of all sexual assaults go unreported to law enforcement.

Estimates indicate that only 20% to 37% of sexual assaults are ever formally reported to police, which means that that's only a fraction of actual occurrences. Just on college and university campuses also, studies show that more than 90% of survivors do not report the assault to authorities. The result is that because of underreporting and barriers within the legal system, it is estimated that only about 5 to 6 out of every 1,000 perpetrators (less than 1%) will ever face prison time.

Why not report the crime? The process of reporting, and undergoing invasive forensic medical exams, and navigating the legal system often causes survivors to fear secondary victimization or re-traumatization. And really, the culture of "Self-Blame" has many survivors falsely blaming themselves for the assault.

Another reason for Rape going unreported has to do with survivors fearing that they won't be taken serious of believed. The fear of not being believed, and facing social stigma is very real. Of course, victims of Rape also stay quiet because there's the very good probability that they will experience some sort of physical retaliation from the perpetrator.

Let's remember that in approximately 80% of Rape cases, the victim knows their attacker. He is usually an acquaintance, family member, or intimate partner, which of course makes the decision to report what happen even more complicated as well as traumatic.

As for Parental Filicide, which is "child murder by a father," and Maternal Filicide which is "child murder by a mother," they are significantly underreported because in many cases their were inaccurate Coroner rulings, concealment of pregnancies and births, and the misclassification of fatal abuse as accidental deaths.

The majority of homicides in very young children stem from severe domestic violence. Sometimes it's physical discipline that "goes too far". Because parents often claim the resulting trauma was an accident, such as a fall down the stairs, choking, or "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome," Medical Examiners and Coroners usually have a hard time distinguishing between intentional physical abuse and accidental injuries. That's one reason why without definitive proof of intent, many of these deaths are ruled accidental rather than homicides

Then there's what's called the "Extended Suicide Phenomenon." That has to do with when a severely depressed or psychotic parent believes they are saving their child from real or imagined suffering by killing them. The act of killing their own children is immediately followed by the parent's suicide.

Because the perpetrator is deceased, these cases don't usually result in a criminal case. In fact, when a parent kills themselves and their child, the incident is often coded differently in medical or localized databases. In some cases, they are coded as a "double suicide" or an "unspecified murder-suicide" rather than explicitly indexed under standard criminal filicide arrest statistics. That in itself screws up the statistics of how often such a crime occurs.

And there's this, because filicide takes place entirely within the private domain of the home, there are rarely outside witnesses. Victims are highly dependent on their caretakers, and children under the age of five often do not have regular contact with school systems or mandatory reporters who might otherwise notice signs of danger.

In fact, when a child disappears from an isolated household under the guise of "moving away" or "being sent to live with a relative," the crime can go unnoticed for years.

As for mothers killing their children? And no, I'm not talking about mothers who kill their unborn babies. Actually, mothers who kill their children under "Maternal Filicide" does not generally apply to the killing of an unborn fetus, as legal and clinical definitions restrict filicide to a child who has been born alive. 

The distinctions are subtle. Filicide is the murder of a born child (infant, child, or adolescent) by a parent. Neonaticide is the killing of a newborn within the first 24 hours (or up to 28 days in some definitions) following a live birth. Infanticide is the killing of a child within the first year of life. 

As for the termination of a pregnancy and the destruction of an unborn child, that falls under separate legal frameworks such as abortion, feticide, or homicide statutes, instead of filicide or neonaticide because the legal system still fights over when life begins. Of course while there are people like me who believe life starts at conception, there are others who see an unborn child as nothing but a "clump of cells" that they can kill even up to the day of birth. 

Frankly, I go by "Cowboy Logic" when understanding when life begins. As a boy, I was thought that cows are considered "carrying a calf" or "carrying a life" when they get pregnant -- either naturally or by insemination. Today, a cow is still considered "carrying a calf" as soon as she becomes pregnant. That is a fact of life regardless of whether she was bred via artificial insemination or being serviced by a bull.

A cow "carrying a calf" means that cow is "carrying a life." In livestock and veterinary terms, "carrying a calf" refers strictly to bovine pregnancy (gestation). Because a live developing fetus is inside the cow's uterus, it is biologically and functionally considered carrying a life. 

That's what I was taught as a boy, and it still holds true today. Biology is biology. In livestock production, once a pregnancy is successfully established and confirmed, which is typically through ultrasound or rectal palpation, the cow is referred to as "bred," "pregnant," or "carrying a calf." The method of conception does not change her pregnancy status, the biological gestation process, or how she is managed leading up to her calving. That's why I see women as "carrying a child" if she was "bred" via artificial insemination or a husband. 

Of course, if a woman carrying a child is not considered carrying a life, then why is it that someone who kills a pregnant woman can be charged as a double homicide? 

In fact, under the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, harming or killing an unborn child during a federal violent crime is recognized as a separate distinct offense. The penalty matches what the punishment would be if the same harm happened directly to the pregnant woman. More than 30 states have laws that allow prosecutors to charge a suspect with two murders, or a separate fetal homicide offense, if a pregnant woman is killed during the commission of a crime.

So now, while I'm almost certain that I'm going to get hate-mail saying that I'm comparing women to cows, let's remember that biology is not that hard to understand as far as when life begins. In all honestly, the same people that can't tell us when life begins -- are the same people who believe gay men should be considered women and can't define what a woman is. 

 

As for mothers who kill their children even after years of giving birth to them? Mothers are statistically responsible for a higher share of infant homicides and younger children. Fathers are known to more frequently kill older children. Over 70% of all Maternal Filicide victims are age 6 or younger, with about one-third being under 1 year of age.

What are the common motives for Maternal Filicide? Mental illness and psychosis are blamed a lot for mothers killing their children. In fact, a significant portion of Maternal Filicides involve severe "Postpartum Depression," "Postpartum Psychosis," or some other supposed mental illness. 

But does "Postpartum Depression" and "Postpartum Psychosis" make mothers want to kill their children? And really, since some mothers who kill their children even after years of giving birth -- how long is that "postpartum" excuse good for? 

How long does "Postpartum Depression" last? Supposedly, experts say it can last anywhere from several months to a year or more if left untreated. But, treatment can help symptoms improve within weeks or months. As for "Postpartum Psychosis." experts say with prompt medical treatment, the acute symptoms of Postpartum Psychosis typically resolve within two to 12 weeks, though a full recovery can take six to a year. 

From what I've read, both of these postpartum issues are rare medical conditions that occur shortly after childbirth. It is believed that mothers can experience hallucinations, severe confusion, and extreme paranoia. 

Do women who suffer for that mental illness lose the ability to function as "normal"? Believe it or not, according what the research says, a mother "suffering" from these postpartum issues is still able to function in every way that's "normal." 

But at the same time, experts say she can still "lose the ability to understand the consequences or wrongness of her actions, and be detached from reality." 

Wow, I find that incredible. And frankly, I find it completely unbelievable. To me, to say that postpartum issues still enable someone to function in every way that's "normal" but they would still "lose the ability to understand the consequences or wrongness of their actions" and are somehow "detached from reality" is not only unbelievable -- I see it as someone's attempt to use a mental issue to excuse doing wrong. 

Think about it, we're to believe that a mother with mental health postpartum issues, knows enough to understand that it's wrong to get scalded with hot water in a shower; knows enough to understand that it's wrong to go out of the house without dressing first and not naked; understand why is is wrong to drive on the wrong side of the road into on-coming traffic; understand what wrong means in every aspect of life -- except when it come to killing her children? 

Supposedly, she didn't understand that it was wrong to kill her children because of postpartum issues. That sounds like bullshit. And yes, it goes to my question: Do mothers who kill their children know what they are doing?

I'm told that whether a mother knows what she is doing when she kills her child depends entirely on her mental state. But the fact is that most perpetrators act with clear awareness and malicious intent, and have specific motives at the time. They want to kill their children and do it as if they know what they are doing.

Frankly, everything that I've read on postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis all say that neither mental illness automatically turns women into killers. In fact, research shows that the overwhelming vast majority of mothers who experience these mental health conditions never harm their children at all. And really, only a tiny percentage voice wanting to harm their newborns after giving birth.

Here's something else, while severe psychiatric emergencies can distort reality, today we live in an era where mental illness is treatable. I know for a fact that PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), depression, and anxiety are all mental health issues that are treatable. Not curable, but treatable.

As for the excuse that "Postpartum Depression" and "Postpartum Psychosis" made a mother kill her children? That is proven false by research that shows that neither mental illness is considered a blueprint for violence. In fact, research and medical experts indicate that neither Postpartum Depression (PPD) nor Postpartum Psychosis (PPP) functions as a blueprint or predictable pathway for violence. While both are serious mental health conditions that occur after childbirth, the vast majority of women who experience them do not harm themselves or others.

The idea that a person can murder someone and claim insanity, while still being cognitively able to handle basic daily routines like getting dressed and not driving in the wrong lane is hard to accept. Frankly, the excuse of being driven by intense or some fixed delusions to commit murder, but being able to "function normally in every other way," sounds like someone is trying to use an insanity plea as an excuse to avoid prison.  

Mothers Who Kill Their Children Usually Commit Suicide

Between 16% and 29% of Maternal Filicides end with the mother completing suicide or attempting suicide. While we will probably never understand it, some mothers abuse and neglect their children to the point of killing them. Some mothers view their children as burdens and unwanted. Some mother kill their children as spousal revenge. And sadly, some mothers kill their children because they wanted to. 

Below are some news reports over the years of mother who killed their children. Everyone of them did so for unknown reasons. There was speculation on the part of some after the fact, but no one knows for sure why they did what they did.

The following was published in the Los Angeles Herald, Volume 33, Number 35, on November 5,1905:

MOTHER'S TERRIBLE CRIME

Kills Two Children, Wounds Two, One Fatally, and Then Kills Herself

By Associated Press.
MINNEAPOLIS, Nov. 4, 1905 — Mrs. James D. Brennan of this city quarreled with her husband last evening and after he had gone to work attempted to kill her four children and herself. She shot and killed two of the children and wounded the other two. One of these died at the hospital and the other cannot live. The mother shot herself in the left breast and it is believed will die.

The dead: LIZZIE, aged 15, shot through temple. ALICE, aged 6, shot back of right ear. ARTHUR, aged 13, shot in the head. Other child, Thomas, aged 13, also shot in the head, will die. Appearances indicated that the boys had struggled desperately to escape.

___________________

The following was published in the Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 209, Number 30, on July 30, 1919:

Mother Kills Self and Seven Children

NELSONVILLE. Ohio, July 29, 1919 — Several hours before authorities were to take them to the Athens County home today, seven children ranging in age from six weeks to ten years, were found with their mother, Mrs. Tony Stravisar burned to death or asphyxiated in their home at Kimberly, a small mining town near here.

The children were tied to their beds and coal oil had been sprinkled over the room. It is supposed that worry over the separation caused the mother to destroy herself and the children.

___________________

The following was published in the San Francisco Call, Volume 111, Number 69, on March 27, 1922:

Mother Kills Her 3 Children, Suicide  

GREENWICH, Conn.. March 27. — Mrs. Henry Barker. 32, wife of a carpenter, killed her three children. Margaret, 5, Johanna, 3, and Henry, 18 months, in her home here late last night, and then took her own life. The three children were killed with a knife and the mother took her own life in the same way.

___________________

The following was published in the Imperial Valley Press, Volume 36, Number 216, on November 1, 1937:

Mother Kills Five Children, Herself

NORWALK. Iowa. Nov. 1 (UP)— Mrs. Elma McAninch. 35. and the five children she killed will be buried as she requested, without an inquest, Coroner C. H Mitchell said today. "There is no doubt that the five children were murdered and the mother committed suicide.” Mitchell explained.

___________________

The following was published in the San Pedro News Pilot, Volume 11, Number 157, on September 8, 1938:

Fearful Mother Kills Children

OLD WESTBURY, N. Y. (JP)—A mother who feared her two small children might inherit her ill health was said by Police Inspector Harold I. King to have stabbed the children to death today and then plunged a carving knife into her own body four times. The woman, Mrs. Helen Novinski, 27, wife of the chauffeur for Karl H. Bissell, New York broker, was critically wounded.

___________________

The following was published in the Imperial Valley Press, Volume 38, Number 122, on July 10, 1940:

MOTHER KILLS SIX IN SUICIDE PLOT

NEW YORK. July 10. (UP) Police smashed the lock of a flat in the Bronx today and found six children dead on the floor and their mother unconscious from gas fumes. Investigators said Mrs. Louis Nickosia apparently had killed her children because, as a note indicated, she was “disgusted with life."

___________________

The following was published in the Desert Sun, Volume XXXIII, Number 76, on November 11, 1959:

Mother Kills Three Children

ROCKY HILL, Conn. Mrs. Norma Grimes, described by neighbors as a model mother, strangled three of her five children late Monday with a bathrobe cord.

___________________

The following was published in the Napa Valley Register, Volume 163, Number 90, on March 9, 1954:

Mother Held For Drowning 3 Tots 

WATERVILLE, Maine  A distraught young housewife who wrote a message that "God told me," today faced a murder charge in the bathtub drownings of her three children. County Atty Joseph B Campbell said Mrs. Constance Fisher, 24, would be arraigned in Municipal Court. 

Richard Fisher, 6, his brother Daniel, 4. and their sister Deborah, 1, were found dead in their home yesterday by their father Carl Fisher, 33, who smashed a door to gain enhance.

___________________

The 1950s case of Constance Fisher from Waterville, Maine, is being compared to the recent case of Lindsay Clancy who confessed to strangling her three young children in January 2023.

Constance Fisher drowned her three young children (Richard, Daniel, and Deborah) in a bathtub and left a note saying she did it to "Save them from evil". Fisher attempted suicide after the killings by drinking shampoo. Fisher was declared legally insane. She supposedly suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. 

As for parallels to Lindsay Clancy? Both cases involve a mother killing multiple young children while her husband was away. Both multiple murders were followed by a failed suicide attempt by the mother. Both legal defenses centered heavily on severe debilitating mental illness which they said made the mothers detached from reality. 

As for Lindsay Clancy having a "debilitating mental illness which made her detached from reality," she knew enough to use her exercise bands which is an ordinary household item that she kept in her family's home gym. She couldn't have been that detached from reality if she knew to take the cylindrical, loop-style resistance bands that she used in her Beachbody workout videos to kill her children. 

She maintained a home workout area in their basement. She knew enough to supposedly plan for the children to be in the basement when she strangled them using the exercise band. Because these items were readily accessible within the household, they did not have to be purchased or sought out specifically for the crime -- but she knew how to use readily available items to kill her kids. 

Her attorney argued that Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. Her defense presented testimony stating that Clancy claimed to hear a "male voice" commanding her to kill 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. Her defense asserted she lacked criminal responsibility due to a complete break from reality. 

But, to me, just my opinion, it seems her supposed "break from reality" was very selective since she functioned fine putting her crime together. And yes, her actions were methodically planned out. 

She deliberately sent her husband out of the house on specific errands, to pick up a prescription and food, to make sure she would be left alone with the children. She made sure he was not there and unable to stop her. If that's not premeditation, I don't know what is. 

Because of her planning it out, to me, it certainly looks like Lindsay Clancy was aware of the wrongfulness of her actions. It certainly looks like she acted with deliberate intent to commit murder. Researching mothers who kill their children shows the common thread that they all planned their murders. 

To prove Lindsay Clancy planned it out, authorities have cellphone records showing she timed the killings by sending her husband, Patrick, away to pick up dinner and a prescription. They know she used that time, when he was away and unable to stop her, to use the bands as a continuous-pressure mechanism to ensure the act was finalized before attempting to end her own life. That's why I say her supposed "break from reality" appeared to be very calculating and selective. 

As for her suicide attempt? I'm not saying that Clancy faked it to go along with her sanity plea later. I'm just asking if a woman "suffering" from mental issues can fake a suicide attempt? 

Research says the answer is yes. While postpartum psychosis is said to involve a break from reality, including hallucinations, delusions, or severe confusion, experts agree that an individual experiencing postpartum issues can engage in behaviors that appear to be, or are classified as, "feigned" or "faked" suicide attempts to be deceptive. 

In Constance Fisher's case, she drank shampoo to try to commit suicide. But, for someone like me who questions details like that, I wondered if drinking shampoo is lethal. Frankly, drinking shampoo can make you sick -- but it's generally considered relatively non-toxic. That's not to say it can't make you sick, and extremely uncomfortable, but it has to be taken in very large quantities to be considered dangerous. That's why some people speculated that Fisher was trying to fake a suicide attempt. Some say she mimicked a suicide attempt without the genuine intent to die.

So as for Constance Fisher, instead of seeing what Fisher did as calculated malice, her defense convinced a jury to see as a victim of mental issues. That's why she was committed to an insane asylum instead of going to prison. It was the believe of the people who ran the asylum that she was "cured" at some point. That's why Fisher was declared "cured" and released in 1959. Yes, just a few years after killing her children.

It was after her release that Constance Fisher remarried Carl and that had three more children. Then, in 1966, she murdered those three children too in the exact same way that she killed the first three. 

She used the same insanity defense at her second trial. As a result, she was recommitted Augusta State Hospital again. It's true. Following her drowning her second set of three children on June 30, 1966, she was hospitalized at Thayer Hospital, held for legal deliberations, and eventually deemed competent to stand trial. 

In January 1967, a jury took 20 minutes to formally find her "innocent of murder by reason of mental disease." This resulted in her being recommitment to the state psychiatric facility.

In October 1973, she escaped from the Augusta State Hospital in Maine, where she had been confined following the second set of child murders. While some sources say she died of suicide, Constance Fisher died by drowning in the Kennebec River after escaping from that state hospital. 

In fact, duck hunters found her body days later in the river, approximately seven miles downstream from the mental institution. Officials officially ruled her death as an "accidental drowning." Constance and second husband Carl are buried in the same family plot as the six children who she murdered twelve years apart. Richard, Daniel and Deborah in 1954, and Kathleen, Michael and Nathalie in 1966.

So rather than facing a traditional murder conviction each time and being placed behind bars in prison for life without the possibility of parole, a place where she could have only hurt herself, she was committed to the Augusta State Hospital both times. As a result of that decision by a judge and jury in the 1950s, she was set free when she was deemed "cured" by Psychiatrists in 1966. It was because she was set free that Constance Fisher was able to kill her second set of 3 children. 

Tom Correa

American Can-Do Optimism Beats Defeatism Every Time

Don't Accept The Defeatist Lie That Poverty And Social Circumstance Holds People Back. 

Today, there are people who have never accomplished a thing in their entire lives -- but they'll try with all their influence to tell others that passion to pursue a goal and having true individual grit is somehow bad. 

In fact, I've read where some teachers are against telling students to "work harder" to get their grades up because those teachers didn't believe that hard work accomplishes anything. They validate the belief of some folks like me who believe that some folks live to make excuses for people who lack any sort of grit.

For folks who might not know what having "grit" is all about, they need to understand that grit is the passion and long-term perseverance that you put out to stick to your goals, those difficult goals in life that only you fight to achieve.

Grit is an American trait that should be celebrated because it is at the core of the American spirit and the pursuit of the American Dream. 

You can tell if someone has true grit. They have grit if they have courage and are not afraid to fail, instead of not trying. They are people who learn from setbacks. And yes, they are conscientious, reliable, hardworking, and pretty disciplined. They usually have long-term goals and stay focused on what they are striving for. Of course, they are resilient. In fact, their attitude is one of maintaining confidence and optimism during hard times.

Sadly, there are nay-sayer people in our midst who tell others that having grit, passion, and the ability to stick to goals doesn't matter. Those nay-sayers relish telling others that those attributes don't matter because they came from poverty, or they lacked "stable housing," or were "victims" of some imaginary thing the Left calls an "unfair social structure."

Those nay-sayers work at convincing Americans that giving a project all you have is just too hard -- unless you get support from others. They are defeatist who will tell you that you're stuck where you're at in life no matter how hard you work to better yourself. For me, I feel sort of sorry for people with such "defeatist" attitudes. Really though, I feel bad for those who agree with their defeatist attitude.

In reality, American history has all sort of stories of self-made individuals, immigrants, and workers who faced steep odds, but still prevailed in the end. Most came from poverty. Most lacked "stable housing." 

None of the stories that I've ever read described men and women with grit, as "victims" of some imaginary thing the Left calls an "unfair social structure." The fact is, most would tell you that it was their lousy circumstance growing up that made them push themselves. It's true, poverty, or fear of poverty, can be a great motivator for people to work harder to excel in life.

Many bootstrap entrepreneurs of 1800s America rose from humble beginnings to become influential figures in the industrial landscape. These individuals exemplified the spirit of the American Dream. They did so by leveraging hard work and innovation to achieve success. 

As an example, let's look at the famous John D. Rockefeller who started from very modest beginnings. Born in Richford, New York, in 1839, he grew up in a family that moved a lot and lived from hand to mouth. His family finally settled in Strongsville, Ohio, in 1853. It's a suburb of Cleveland.

At age 16, he took a bookkeeping course. Some say he completed it, but some say he didn't. Either way, he spent weeks walking Cleveland's streets in search of work which was hard to find. He finally landed a job as an assistant bookkeeper for a produce firm called Hewitt & Tuttle. He began working for them on September 26, 1855. And yes, he earned .50 cents a day, which was $3.50 for a 7 day work week. And believe it or not, he also "tithed" 10% of his earnings to charity.

 
By age 20, John D. Rockefeller had enough personal savings to start his own produce-shipping business. Even making that sort of money, and working at other jobs, he was able to save $1,000. 

He combined his savings with a small loan from his father to build capital. In the end, he founded Standard Oil, which dominated the oil industry and made him one of the richest men in history. In fact, John D. Rockefeller rose from modest beginnings to become the world's first billionaire.

Let's look at Andrew Carnegie who was born into a poor family in Scotland. It's true, Andrew Carnegie was born into poverty in a one-room weaver's cottage in Scotland. His family immigrated to America in 1848. At age 13, he started working as a "bobbin boy" in a Pennsylvania cotton mill. He earned just $1.20 per week at that job.

Andrew Carnegie didn't let his poor start in life stop him, the same as how he didn't let making $1.20 a week stop him, from pursuing bigger and better things. He had the personal drive to teach himself to use the telegraph. And with that, he caught the attention of railroad executives who made him a telegrapher.

 
By the 1860s, he had investments in railroads, railroad sleeping cars, bridges, and oil derricks. He built Pittsburgh's Carnegie Steel Company. He sold his Carnegie Steel Company to J. P. Morgan in 1901 for $303,450,000. 

Carnegie Steel Company was the basis of U.S. Steel Corporation. After selling Carnegie Steel, he surpassed John D. Rockefeller as the richest American of the time. It's said that his passion to never be poor again, drove him to work tirelessly. In the end, the poor uneducated boy grew into one of the wealthiest men of his time.

Cornelius Vanderbilt started out as a poor farmer. In fact, he was born to a poor, illiterate family on Staten Island, New York. He had to quit school at age 11 to go to work to help feed his family. He gave his wages to his mother.

At age 16, he "borrowed" $100 from his mother to buy a small perch boat. After that, he spent his teenage years ferrying passengers and cargo across New York Harbor. He worked relentlessly through brutal conditions until he amassed enough capital to buy more boats. In the end, Cornelius Vanderbilt build a global shipping and railroad network. He made his fortune in shipping and railroads. It's said he transformed American transportation.

From America's early frontier pioneers to modern entrepreneurs, we rightfully credit individual determination for overcoming major economic and social hurdles.

Messaging to say otherwise is a lie told by those without the sand to get off their collective asses and follow their passion. For those nay-sayers who don't try, they will never know the sacrifice and hard work that it takes to fight the good fight. 

The spirit of Americans with grit is at the foundation of our country's success.

Frankly speaking, my belief that a defeatist attitude is un-American is a sentiment deeply rooted in traditional concepts of American identity, culture, and history. I'm not the only person who believes that. It's connected to several of our core beliefs as Americans.

For example, America's "Frontier Spirit" is about early Americans who emphasized overcoming harsh conditions, exploring the unknown, and persevering through grit and determination. Early Americans relied heavily on the idea of overcoming seemingly insurmountable geographic and environmental obstacles. This goes to the heart of our American cultural expectation of perseverance, ingenuity, and a refusal to give up when facing hardship.

"American Exceptionalism" is the belief that the United States has a unique mission and destiny in the world. Within this framework, failing or adopting a defeatist attitude is often viewed as a rejection of one's higher purpose or potential.

The "American Dream" is the foundational belief that anyone, regardless of their background, or their start in life, can achieve success through hard work and optimism. The traditional idea of the American Dream says that anyone can succeed through hard work and determination. These ideals inherently reject defeatism. And frankly, defeatism can be seen as a personal flaw in one's character.

American culture has historically prized practical action and problem-solving. We admire people with a "can-do attitude." It reflects on our cultural preference to focus on solutions rather than dwelling on limitations.

America's cultural identity traditionally rejects defeatism. Our mindset instead to practice resilience and hard work. Look at our history, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War I, and World War II are rightfully thought of as victories achieved by refusing to give up in the face of overwhelming odds.

As motivation, our strengths to prevail through challenges has been used as a rallying cry in politics, sports, and business to inspire resilience, unity, and a proactive approach to solving major national or personal challenges. Folks like me who label pessimism and defeatism as "un-American," truly believe that hard work produces rewards that only others with a positive attitude can understand. And yes, in case you're wondering, I really believe that skeptics who see America in a negative light truly lack patriotism.

Growing up poor and wanting more in life should motivate us to work harder and pursue our dreams even harder than ever. People will never achieve success with a defeatist attitude. A person who tends to expect bad things to happen and focuses on the negative parts of a situation usually get exactly what he or she focused on -- failure.

Let's remember, big and small bootstrap entrepreneurs built America. It was the individual determination of self-reliant settlers, merchants, railroad men, saloon owners, the man or woman who started a laundry, the guy who had a single wagon who started a freight company, the woman who started a diner in a tent in a mining camp, the lone prospector who followed his dream of striking it rich, the cattlemen who started with nothing other than a desire to round up viral cattle and feed them to hungry miners, and yes, the cowboy who saved his money instead of drinking and gambling it away because he hoped to one day have his own spread, they build America.

All of those who built businesses from scratch using minimal personal resources, a whole lot of grit, and a total willingness to give an extreme amount of hard work to their business, in fact built America. They had the determination to stick to it, ride it out, and start over again if that's what's needed.

Bootstrap entrepreneurs in the Old West were no different than today's bootstrap entrepreneurs in that they built businesses from scratch using personal grit, minimal capital, and local opportunities rather than large outside capital. Those folks were self-reliant. They pushed themselves to build businesses from scratch using minimal personal resources, a whole lot of grit, a total willingness to give an extreme amount of hard work to their business, and the determination to stick to it, ride it out, and start over again if that's what's needed.

Most operated on shoestring budgets, reinvesting early profits directly into supplies, livestock, or storefront expansions. They were frugal and repurposed everyday materials and solved immediate regional shortages, such as tools, flour, and clothing, while tailoring goods to local frontier demands.

While I believe the best example of bootstrap entrepreneurs in the Old West is the American cattle rancher of the 1800s, the men who went to Texas with the dream of rounding up viral Longhorn cattle and getting them to market took a lot of guts, there were a lot of tough Americans in the 1800s that followed their dream of freedom and independence by being their own boss.

General Store owners in some towns across the West often started with a single wagon of dry goods, trading directly with miners, trappers, cattlemen, cowboys, and incoming homesteaders before building permanent timber storefronts. Traders often bartered goods for labor, pelts, or future harvest shares when hard currency was scarce.

As for Outfitters and Blacksmiths, it is a fact that skilled tradesmen utilized basic hand tools to service wagon trains, build towns, repair mining equipment, dig wells, all the while keeping their business alive with whatever they made a day.

As for trailblazing merchants, like Levi Strauss who started with modest dry goods wholesale before identifying and funding specific frontier clothing needs like durable riveted pants made out of tent canvas for miners.

John W. Mackay was known as "The Miner Turned Silver King." He arrived in Virginia City, Nevada, as a penniless Irish immigrant. He began working as a common, manual laborer in the silver mines. Instead of spending his wages in the saloons and gambling halls, Mackay worked double shifts and used every spare dollar to buy up tiny, fractional shares of unproven mining claims from discouraged miners.

He pooled his bootstrapped equity with three partners in order to form the Bonanza Firm. In 1873, they hit the "Big Bonanza." It was the richest concentration of silver and gold ore ever discovered. That event made John W. Mackay one of the wealthiest men in the world. He later used his fortune to build a global communications network that challenged the Western Union monopoly.

Another example is Biddy Mason who was born a slave. It's true. She was born into slavery, and arrived in California in 1851 after walking 2,000 miles behind a pioneer wagon train. After legally winning her freedom in a landmark 1856 court case, she found herself in Los Angeles with no money, assets, or property.

She didn't simply give up. Instead, she took up being a Midwife and nurse. She saved her money and over time she reinvested her cash into low-cost downtown Los Angeles piece of property that no one else wanted. That led to her creating a Real Estate empire. Before she passed, she was known for her philanthropy.

Fred Harvey was known as "The Civilizer" of the West. He was a British immigrant who worked his way up from working as a dishwasher in New York City to becoming a railroad clerk. He noticed that the food options for railroad travelers were consistently pretty poor. He took note of the fact that the men's meals often consisting of rancid meat and stale beans served in dirty shacks.

He partnered with the Santa Fe Railway to build the first restaurant chain in the West. His sweat equity and railroad partnership paid off. He reinvested his restaurant cash flow into a standardized chain called Harvey Houses which was the first restaurant chain in the United States. He transformed roadside hospitality through disciplined low-cost expansion.

Robert Massie became known as "The Sheep King." In 1883, 16-year-old Robert Massie arrived in West Texas completely broke and signed on as a lowly hand herding sheep. Taking payment in livestock. He bred his own flock. He ended up owning thousands of acres of Texas cattle ranching, and got into banking.

Seth Bullock and Sol Star were known for hardware and hospitality. They were merchants, partners, in Montana. They recognized a massive cash-flow opportunity during the 1876 Black Hills Gold Rush in Deadwood, South Dakota. With one wagon of hardware, and a quick inventory turnover, they funded a permanent storefront. They built the Bullock Hotel and were in cattle ranching.

What made America's 19th-Century Bootstrap Entrepreneurs successful was self-reliance, passion, and determination to better themselves and their families through hard work. We know that being born to poverty didn't stop them. Instead of stopping them, in many cases, they packed up whatever they had and migrated West.

Settlers coming West started businesses, farms, took up trades, created stores and services all with little money and little to no outside funding. They relied entirely on sweat equity, and maybe used trade credit. Early ventures focused on immediate survival needs like general stores, blacksmithing, freight hauling, saloons, and a lot more businesses.

Owners who survived and prospered are the ones who learned to pivot quickly when mines closed and people started leaving, when booms went bust, when railroads changed routes and towns died because of it, when cattle drives ended and that well went dry for cattle towns that depended on the money that those drives brought in.

The core reality of economic survival in the American frontier was adaptability. The historical boom-and-bust cycles forced business owners and communities to constantly evolve. Towns built around gold, silver, or copper, like Tombstone, Arizona, and Bodie, California, could turn into ghost towns overnight once the veins ran dry. Surviving businesses had to move or shift to supplying agriculture instead of mining.

The railroad was the lifeblood of 19th-century commerce. If a railroad bypassed a town, that town often withered and died. Prosperous owners literally packed up their buildings and moved them closer to the new tracks.

The end of cattle drives and open-range cattle drives, like the Chisholm Trail, ended in the late 1880s due to barbed wire, expanding railroads, and harsh winters. Cattle towns like Abilene and Dodge City had to pivot from wild transit hubs to settled farming and ranching communities to survive.

The lesson was hard for some to learn: those who cling to a dying industry perish, while those who pivot survive. It's ultimately a lesson that still applies today.

The 19th-century Old West was a prime landscape for bootstrap entrepreneurship, where individuals with zero funding relied entirely on personal hard work, sweat equity, and cash flow to build commercial empires in some cases. Without venture capitalists or traditional banking networks, these founders utilized creative funding, resourcefulness, shear determination, and a lot of guts to make their businesses a success.

That's why we can say without hesitation that America's 19th-Century Bootstrap Entrepreneurs built America. That's why we should remember and admire those men and women. Their grit should influence others to never give up.

Tom Correa

World War One Was A Huge Consumer of Horses -- A 1914 Perspective

Did World War I need horses? Absolutely. World War I urgently needed horses because early mechanized transport like trucks and tractors could not handle the deep mud, ruined roads, and vast supply needs of the front lines. Horses were vital for both logistics and transportation needs. 

That's why millions of horses and mules were used in World War I to carry food, water, mail, the wounded, ammunition, and medical supplies to the trenches. Heavy field guns alone required teams of six to twelve horses just to move a single piece through the mud. 

The nations involved in the war deployed millions of animals. The British Army alone utilized over one million horses and mules during the conflict. In fact, Britain shipped more hay and oats by weight to the Western Front than it did ammunition.

The cavalry quickly found out that there were limitations to fighting a modern war. In fact, while mounted troops remained vital in open terrains like the Middle East., cavalry officers soon found out that traditional cavalry charges quickly became obsolete on the muddy machine-gun-defended Western Front.

Great Britain and the British Empire entered World War I on August 4, 1914. King George V declared war on Germany at 11:00 PM on August 4, 1914, after an ultimatum sent to the German Empire expired. Britain used the Treaty of London from 1839 as its legal justification, stating it had a duty to defend Belgium as a perpetually neutral state after German troops invaded. 

Britain also entered the war because it wanted to stop a total French defeat and prevent an aggressive Germany from taking complete control of Western Europe. When Britain entered the conflict, the rest of the British Empire, including nations like Australia, Canada, India, and New Zealand were automatically brought into the war as well. 

Though the United States officially entered World War I on April 6, 1917, after nearly three years of staying neutral because President Woodrow Wilson wanted to avoid the conflict. Britain bought hundreds of thousands of horses and mules from the United States during major global conflicts, specifically World War I. 

In fact, before entering the war, America supplied the British and Allied armies with more than one million horses and mules. Massive depots, such as one in Lathrop, Missouri, collected the animals before shipping them through ports like Newport News, Virginia, to Britain and the Western Front. 

Below is a news article from Morning Press, Volume 43, Number 38, October 9, 1914. It talks about the need for America to supply horses for what would later become known as World War I. I think you may find it interesting.

War Expected to Bring Increased Demand for American Horses

WASHINGTON. Oct. 8. During the next decade there will probably be an increased demand for American horses in the countries now engaged in the European war.

The demand may even continue much longer, according to investigators of the United States department of agriculture, as not only will horses be needed for armies, but when peace is restored, more will be needed for agriculture. 

Already European agents are said to be endeavoring to purchase horses in this country' and Canada, and there is an increased interest in many sections in horse breeding. To meet this Increased European demand American farmers may well endeavor to raise well bred horses, although the department of agriculture does not advise them to purchase a surplus of homes merely for breeding purposes. 

It merely advises that ordinary farm work should be done whenever possible by good mares which should be bred to good stallions. It also desires to emphasize, the fact that only horses of high quality may be profitably raised today. Inferior horses are a drug on the market, and their production is to be discouraged as mud as the production of good horses should be encouraged. 

U. S. Previously Drawn On 

The United States has previously been drawn on to supply European countries at war. In the Boer War over 100,000 horses were bought here by the British government. It may be doubted whether a foreign government could now obtain a similar supply in this country, except at excessive cost. 

However, if farmers take pains to utilize their good mares during this winter to breed them to good stallions, in the course of several years (time enough for the foals to develop), America will be better able to meet the European demand. 

It is natural that European countries should look to the United States for horses, as next to Russia it has more of these animals than . any other country - In the world! 

The United States and Russia possess 58 per cent of the world supply. Strange to say. however there were no horses originally on our continent and the present supply comes from stock brought over from Europe, Canada's supply is small compared to our own. 

War As Consumer of Horses. 

The German army requires for a complete mobilization 770,000 horses, and the French army is said to require 2 50,000, which figure, however, probably includes only those for the cavalry. It is conservatively estimated on good authority that 1,000,000 horses are now engaged in the European war. 

As the great majority of these horses are not included in the permanent military organization, but are used for farm work and are requisitioned by governments only when needed for military purposes, the countries of continental Europe will certainly face an acute shortage of farm horses before the next planting season which will seriously affect the price of horses the world over, as soon as peace is declared. 

According to the best information horses in the countries of Europe now at war number as follows; Great Britain 2.231,000 France 3,222.000 Belgium 363,000 Germany 4,323,000 Austria-Hungary 4,374,000 Russia 24,632,000 Total 39,263,000 In addition England has a supply of about 6,000,000 to draw on in her various dependencies. 

Russia has about 10,000,000 in Asia and France probably 300.000 to 1,000,000 in her colonies. The rapacious consumption of horses in war is illustrated by figures from our own civil conflict. 

During his Shenandoah valley campaign, Sherman was supplied with fresh horses at the rate of 150 per day. In his report for the year 1863, the quartermaster general of the United States army slated: "The service of a cavalry horse under an enterprising commander has averaged only four months.” 

During 1864 there were 300 horses consumed per day in the northern army, without considering those captured and not reported. During eight months of that year, the cavalry of the army of the Potomac was remounted twice, nearly 40,000 horses In all being required. 

Our Own Army Desirable Market. 

Our own army furnishes a desirable market for well-bred horses, there being under the remount system at least 3,000 horses required annually to supply both the army and the national guard. 

There are now about 20,000 horses in our regular army on a peace basis. In war, many more would be required before the first engagement. There is, therefore, a steady market for good horses independent of the European demand. 

Even the invasion of motor power which has reduced the number of horses on our streets, has not influenced this demand. In fact, the price of horses has advanced along with other commodities during recent years. 

The bureau of animal industry of the United States department of agriculture, Washington, stands ready to aid any farmer desiring to breed high class horses. 

As the day of the large horse ranch is practically gone, any increased demand will have to be met by the farmer. There are certain localities more suited to horse breeding than others and places where certain breeds do better. 

Such details may be obtained for the asking. Even in the south, where mules are bred in preference to horses, an increased production of first class animals should find it , ready market abroad, although the mule is not used on the continent to the extent that it is used here. 

-- end of news story as it appeared in 1914. 

For nearly three years, America stayed neutral because President Woodrow Wilson wanted to avoid the conflict. But, three main events changed the minds of Americans and pushed our nation into that fight: 

First, a German submarine attack sank neutral American merchant ships. In fact, in January of 1917, Germany broke its promise and announced it would sink any ship heading toward Britain. Second, Britain intercepted a secret message from Germany proposing a military alliance with Mexico against the United States. Known as the "Zimmermann Telegram," it asked Mexico to invade the United States and join the war against America from the South. And third, after German U-boats sank several American merchant ships, there was a threat to trade in that German actions made the Atlantic Ocean unsafe for American travel and commerce.

It was because of these things, and the fact that Americans were in support of the war, that made President Wilson ask Congress to declare war. Congress voted to approve the war on April 6, 1917. 

As for the cost in casualties of how many horses were killed during that war? An estimated 8 million horses died from shellfire, disease, exhaustion, and starvation across all nations during World War I. That's a lot of horses killed.

Tom Correa

American Ranchers Define Bootstrap Entrepreneurs

Bootstrapping means launching and growing a business using existing resources and minimal outside capital. The term "bootstrap entrepreneur" perfectly describes the modern American rancher. After all, the reality of running a successful ranch, as with any successful agricultural operation, requires attention, intense innovation, self-reliance, personal grit and determination, and a lot of hard work. 

Today's Ranchers

Ranchers today must master a wide range of practical, financial, and technological subjects to run a successful cattle operation. As for their sweat equity, most of America's ranchers operate as the CEO, veterinarian, mechanic, laborer, and accountant all at once to keep their overhead low. And yes, since it is said that "true entrepreneurs find opportunity where others see waste," American ranchers are masters of optimizing thin margins through creative problem-solving.

As for pastures and grazing, pasture cycles and rotational grazing maximizes the efficiency of the land to reduce the need for expensive commercial feed. Rotational grazing methods keep pastures healthy and reduces expensive feed costs. And let's not forget feed and supplements, today's ranchers know how to balance rations, provide necessary mineral supplements (like copper, selenium, and salt), and source backup hay or silage which is essential during droughts.

Today, veterinary care and preventive medicine is vital to sustaining a herd. To do it right, today's ranchers establish vaccination schedules, parasite control programs, and biosecurity measures prevents costly disease outbreaks. And yes, most ranchers today have Calving Programs for managing breeding seasons, performing pregnancy checks, choosing between natural service or artificial insemination. And let's keep in mind that handling difficult births can dictate one's herd productivity.

As for infrastructure and equipment, fencing and water, reliable perimeter and cross-fencing alongside dependable, freeze-protected watering systems prevents escapes and dehydration. Of course, that takes constant maintenance.

As for today's rancher having business savvy? Today, they track and monitor daily expenses, feed price fluctuations, profit margins, labor costs, and every dime they can't afford to spend. There is a reason for their vigilance, they practice maximizing the lifespans of their asset. In fact, from fixing decades-old tractors, welding broken gates, and repurposing materials, they repair instead of simply replacing by buying new equipment. Why? To save money and stay afloat.

Silicon Valley startups face market uncertainty, but ranchers face market uncertainty plus how unpredictable Mother Nature can be. Yet, they manage cash flow through severe weather events like blizzards, droughts, and floods that can wipe out their inventory overnight.

And here's something else to think about, instead of taking massive payouts like other business owners do, ranchers define what it is to be bootstrap entrepreneurs by pouring their profits straight back into their business. 

For today's ranchers, every successful season means investing in long-term infrastructure of their operation. Whether it's building better genetics to improve their herd, or fixing fencing, repairing barns, or maintaining their tractors, or maybe improving their water systems, it's all done to ensure the operation survives for the next generation.

Old West Ranchers

Old West ranchers were the definition of bootstrap entrepreneurs. They operated in a high-risk capital-intensive industry with zero safety nets. And while pop culture often paints them as simple, rugged cowboys, successful Old West ranchers were actually shrewd business strategists who managed complex supply chains and volatile markets. Please don't make the mistake of thinking ranchers lack knowledge.

To successfully raise cattle and run a cattle operation in the Old West, a rancher needed to be a master of survival, business, and animal husbandry. The frontier lacked modern technology, fencing until the late 1870s, and there was no easy access to veterinarians. This means that a rancher's knowledge had to be incredibly broad.

Of course, besides protecting their primary assets which were their livestock from theft, predators, injury, and environmental hazards, ranchers had to recruit, pay, and manage a highly specialized workforce of cowboys. With no access to easy credit, keeping overhead low was a matter of survival. In most cases, there ranchers and their small crews built their own homesteads, dug their own wells, and broke their own horses.

Old West ranchers needed to know about cattle management and husbandry, breed selection and traits. Ranchers understood that they needed to fund a year's worth of supplies before to make a cattle drive -- and that was before the cattle were sold.

They also had to understand how to handle Texas Longhorns, the dominant breed of the era. Longhorns were chosen because they were hardy, immune to certain tick fevers, and though they were wild and dangerous to handle, they could walk thousands of miles. Herds traveled about 10 to 12 miles per day to keep the cattle fed and watered.

Operating on the literal frontier, ranchers in the Old West utilized "Open Range" tactics, which essentially meant they leveraged their use of public land before investing heavily in private land ownership and barbed wire. Open Range branding was going on and ranchers had to know how to design, register, and apply a unique brand and earmark to identify ownership of their cattle. Because cattle roamed free on the open range, branding during the spring roundup was the only way to prove property ownership and deter thieves.

As for range and resource management, and water rights? Ranchers had to also know how to evaluate the prairie grass (like buffalo grass or grama grass) to know how many acres of land were required to feed a single cow without overgrazing. Ranchers back then also had to locate and secure access to natural water sources like rivers, creeks, and springs. In the more arid parts of the West, controlling the water meant controlling thousands of acres of surrounding public grazing land.

As for basic veterinary medicine at the time, treating common ailments without a vet was an art form to ranchers and cowboys during that period. Ranchers had to treat screw-worms, blowflies, lameness, and injuries from predators, as well as handle difficult births in the field.

So yes, ranchers in the Old West had to solve massive logistical challenges. Of course, before railroads expanded, ranchers had to organize long-distance cattle drives which moved thousands of head of cattle across hundreds of miles of hostile territory to railheads in places like Abilene or Dodge City.

As for the logistics of a Cattle Drive? Trail drives were all about navigating the famous cattle trails like the Chisholm Trail or the Goodnight-Loving Trail to move thousands of cattle from Texas to railheads in Kansas, Colorado, or Wyoming. Moving thousands of head of cattle and remuda of horses 12 to 15 miles per day over several months while balancing grazing needs, water access, and strict crew organization was a huge task.

Daily pace and route planning was important. Herds moving too fast caused cattle to lose weight, and that lowered their value at the market. So no, no one want that. Crews navigated dangerous river crossings, dry stretches of land, and the constant threat of stampedes. At night, the crew would rotate shifts and stand "night watches" around the clock to calm nervous animals, prevent stampedes, and be on the lookout for rustlers.

The "Trail Boss" was the boss. He managed the entire operation, chose campsites, and handled negotiations when needed. Trail Bosses scouted ahead of time to ensure adequate grass and a reliable water source. The "Point Men" rode at the front of the herd to control speed and set direction. The "Swing Riders" and "Flank Riders" kept the middle and sides of the herd bunched together to prevent strays. 

The "Drag Riders" stayed at the very rear to push slower cattle along. That was an exhausting dusty job. It was the position for newer crew members. The "Wranglers" cared for the remuda which was their spare horses. The Cook traveled ahead using the Chuckwagon to prepare three hot meals a day and act as the trail drives medic.

Imagine putting that together, and logistically moving thousands of head of cattle through terrain that may be hostile both from Indians, outlaws, and Mother Nature. 

As for dangers on the way, stampedes in the dark also vied for the title of a cowboy's worst fear, a sudden noise or crack of lightning would trigger a runaway herd in seconds. Second to stampedes at night were river crossings. They were among the most perilous challenges on cattle drives. They were extremely dangerous. Crossing swollen rivers like the Red or Brazos required strategic timing to protect livestock and crew.

It's true. Swift currents and swollen waters could quickly sweep away both men and cattle at any given moment. The steep banks, muddy, with sharp drop-offs made it hard for cattle to enter or exit the water safely. These were horrible situations where thousands of uneasy Longhorns could panic in the water -- which led to mass drownings or crushing each other.

The Red River marked the boundary between Texas and Indian Territory, which is modern-day Oklahoma. That river was feared for its sudden rises and treacherous bottoms. Old-timers noted that more trail men drowned in the Red River than on all other western rivers combined. 

 As for the Horsehead Crossing, the Pecos River, thirsty herds crossing that stretch often rushed wildly into the water. As you can imagine, that caused congestion, pile-ups, lost equipment, crushing, and drowning losses exceeding a hundred head at a time.

Of course, Mother Nature can be tough. On cattle drives the weather could change in a minute. And, because droughts forced long dry spells for the land and detours for whatever water there was, prairie fires threatened entire herds.

Large-scale cattle drives came to a virtual halt when the Civil War began in 1861. That's why there were so many massive herds roaming and multiplying untended in Texas until the famous post-Civil War cattle drives began. That's also what in the post-Civil War American West, trail drives were massive.

Ranchers moved millions of cattle from Texas to northern railheads between the 1860s and 1880s. As for the Chisholm Trail, it ran roughly 800 miles from San Antonio, Texas, through Oklahoma (Indian Territory) to Kansas railheads like Abilene and Dodge City. It was the busiest and most famous route. The Western Trail later replaced the Chisholm Trail, running north from South Texas through Dodge City all the way to Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, and Canada.

As for the Goodnight-Loving Trail, blazed by Charles Goodnight and Oliver Loving, it headed West from Texas along the Pecos River through New Mexico before turning north into Colorado and Wyoming.

The Shawnee Trail was an earlier eastern route used before the Civil War that led herds into Missouri and Illinois until "Texas fever" quarantines shut it down. The Shawnee Trail was actually the main pre-Civil War route running from Texas through eastern Oklahoma into Missouri, Illinois, and Ohio. Of course, during the California Gold Rush in the early 1850s, cattle drovers herded cattle across deserts and mountains to supply high-priced beef to West Coast mining camps.

And yes, to supply local and military contracts, ranchers also trailed cattle to supply frontier forts and Indian reservations in Texas and neighboring territories. This was done to supply cattle to hungry Americans. It was also to make money and stay afloat.

Let's remember, Old West ranchers faced constant threats of total business failure. True entrepreneurs adapt when their initial market shifts. For ranchers back in the day, they faced constant volatility from weather, disease, and fluctuating market prices. 

If ranchers in the Old West were hit with a single harsh winter, like the devastating "Big Die-Up" of the Winter of 1886–1887, or disease outbreaks like Texas Fever, or a sudden market crash, their entire operation could be wiped out overnight. This all meant that ranching was a huge gamble back in the day.

As for insurance? Ranchers in the Old West generally did not buy formal commercial insurance for their herds. Instead, they relied on mutual associations formed starting in the 1870s to combat cattle rustling and recover stolen property.

In 1877, forty Texas cattlemen formed the group that became the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association to hire special rangers, track stolen livestock, and protect assets. From the 1880s to the 1890s, similar regional Stockgrower Associations popped up across the Great Plains and the West. These groups acted as a functional safety net rather than traditional insurance companies.

As for losing cattle, like what happened in the "Big Die-Up" of the Winter of 1886–1887, a lot of ranches went under because there was no such thing as insurance for a herd at the time.

So, as for actual insurance on their herds, commercial livestock mortality policies existed in the Eastern United States, such as the horse and cattle associations in Pennsylvania and New York, but they were rare and extremely expensive. Also, insurance companies who may have been willing to provide coverage for a small "cattle farm" in New York or Pennsylvania, would refuse to cover a rancher's operation in the West because traditional corporate insurers considered open-range cattle operations too high-risk and difficult to monitor.

As for modern coverage, federal multi-peril crop insurance did not arrive until 1938, and federally supported livestock risk programs did not begin until 1999.

British and Scottish Investors

When the original venture Capitalists invaded the Old West, it didn't take long for independent ranchers to sell out. That happened when the cattle industry grew and attracted the attention of global investors from Great Britain and Scotland. 

Those investors were fueled by popular books like The Beef Bonanza, or How to Get Rich on the Plains. That's what pushed syndicates from London, Edinburgh, and Dundee poured an estimated $30 million into western ranges by 1882. So yes, by the early 1800s, British and Scottish investors poured millions of dollars into American ranching to create conglomerates. 

They made offers for ranches that seemed too good to pass up. And yes, those investors turned local bootstrap ranching operations into some of the earliest multinational agricultural corporations. As for the original owners and local ranch managers, after they cashed in their interests, it's said they frequently reinvested their newfound fortunes into smaller regional ranches, expanding local infrastructure, or backing emerging western boomtowns like Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Let's keep in mind that during the 1870s and 1880s cattle boom, many Old West ranchers sold their extremely profitable spreads to British and Scottish investors for millions of dollars. Then, they often used that capital to launch new livestock operations. Although, some invested in railroads. Of course, others simply retired extremely wealthy.

That era marked a massive turning point in the history of the Old West by transforming traditional open-range ranching into a highly commercialized global business. So while those folks who actually defined what "American Bootstrap Entrepreneurship" is all about built the American cattle industry, the "Beef Bonanza" of the 1870s and 1880s, drove European investors and investor syndicates to invade the American West.

They saw huge profit potential in the grasslands of the Great Plains, and they wanted in on that. When they arrived, they had the funds to buy ranches, cattle, crews, and form politically powerful land and cattle companies. Some of those companies were the famous the Matador Land and Cattle Company, the Swan Land and Cattle Company, and the Prairie Cattle Company.

Founders Henry Campbell and Alfred Britton sold the Matador Ranch to investors in Dundee, Scotland, for $1.25 million in 1882, transforming it into the Matador Land and Cattle Company, Ltd.  That company acquired the Matador Ranch in Texas. It grew into a massive multinational corporation, expanding its holdings across several states and Canada, and operated continuously until its lands were sold in 1951.

The Swan Land and Cattle Company was organized in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1883. That mega-corporation controlled millions of acres across Wyoming. It was one of the largest foreign-owned ranching outfits in American history.

The Prairie Cattle Company was called the "Mother of the British Companies." It was established in 1880 in Edinburgh, Scotland, and managed colossal tracts of land stretching from Colorado and New Mexico to Texas.

Many of the physical ranches established or expanded during this corporate boom, such as the historic XIT Ranch or portions of the Matador Ranch, laid the structural groundwork for modern American corporate agribusiness. And, believe it or not, some of those historic tracts are still operated by large agricultural firms today.

Of course, though those foreign-backed conglomerates bought up millions of acres, introduced fencing, industrialized meat production, and connected remote American rangelands directly to British dinner tables. 

Mother Nature changed everything when she burst their speculative bubble following the devastating "Big Die-Up" of the Winter of 1886–1887. That event wiped out massive herds and forced many of these early multinational corporations to restructure or collapse altogether.

The legacy of the Old West rancher is carried on by ranchers today. They prove that successful entrepreneurship isn't about having the most funding. It is about managing scarcity, managing risk, having pride in what you do, being determined to succeed, not being afraid of hard work, being responsible, and wanting to create value out of a rugged landscape that many would never be able to handle.

Tom Correa

Let's Talk About 9/11

It 's said that people never forget where they were when big events in history happen. For me, on September 11, 2001, I was called at home that morning by my brother-in-law who was exciting about a jet hitting a building in New York City. 

When I turned on my television, I found that almost all of the television stations were reporting that a passenger plane, a huge Boeing 767 jetliner, had slammed into a building in New York City. It was commercial airline wide-body jetliner, specifically a Boeing 767, that hit the North Tower of the twin towers. 

At first, I thought they were talking about a small jet plane. Then I found out it was a jetliner. A jet is any aircraft powered by a jet engine. A jetliner is specifically a large commercial passenger or cargo airplane. A jetliner is a specific type of jet built strictly to carry large groups of passengers or cargo commercially. Jet planes include military fighter planes and private business jets, those are usually small jet aircraft. Jetliners are very large wide-body aircraft designed to hold hundreds of people. Jetliners are huge in comparison to tiny one-seat military jets.

Jetliners serve scheduled public airline routes and global mass transit. At 8:46 am, a large jetliner, an American Airlines Boeing 767, its Flight 11 in route from Boston to Los Angeles, slammed into the North Tower, 1 World Trade Center, that morning on September 11, 2001. 

For Flight 11, it was only 47 minutes between leaving Boston and smashing into the North Tower in New York City. The timeline of American Airlines Flight 11 on the morning of September 11, 2001, details the events from its departure to the moment of impact: 

5:45am – Muslim terrorists Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al-Omari clear security at Portland International Jetport in Maine to catch a connecting flight to Boston. 

7:59am – Flight 11 takes off from Boston Logan International Airport, bound for Los Angeles. 

8:14am – The Muslims begin their attack on the plane. The aircraft fails to respond to instructions from air traffic control. 

8:19am – Flight attendant Betty Ann Ong alerts American Airlines ground personnel via an inflight phone. She reported that the cockpit is unreachable, that a passenger had been stabbed, and that Muslim terrorists were hijacking Flight 11.

8:24am – Muslim terrorist Mohamed Atta mistakenly transmits a message to air traffic control while trying to address the passengers, stating: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay."

8:32am – Flight attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney reaches a flight services manager at Boston Logan to provide critical details about the Muslim attackers, the hijacking, and the emergency on board.

8:37am – Boston Air Traffic Control alerts Northeast Air Defense Sector, (NEADS). And in five minutes, Air National Guard jets are in the air heading to intercept Flight 11. 

8:46am – The Muslim terrorists were on a suicide mission and force Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The huge jetliner slammed into floors 93 through 99. Yes, instantly killing everyone on board. 

All 92 people on board were killed when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center that morning. Of those aboard, there were 81 passengers, including the 5 Muslim attackers who hijacked the jetliner to use it as a weapon of war, and 11 crew members. As I'm sure everyone can understand, when the airliner slammed into the building, it instantly killed hundreds of innocent people inside the North Tower.

Television stations broadcasting what happened initially reported that it must have been some sort of an accident. Then, a few minutes later, at 9:03am, 17 minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, America and the world watched on television as United Airlines Flight 175 was purposely piloted into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. 

United Airlines Flight 175 was the second jetliner used as a weapon of war on September 11, 2001. 

Flight 175 Morning Timeline

7:15am – The five Muslim terrorists, led by Marwan al-Shehhi, clear security at Boston Logan International Airport.

8:14am – Flight 175 takes off from Boston, bound for Los Angeles, roughly 15 minutes after Flight 11.

8:42am – Flight 175 makes its final routine radio transmission after flight controllers report hearing a suspicious, heavily breathing voice on the frequency.

8:42am – 8:46am – The Muslims onboard start their attack. They breach the cockpit, stab the pilots, and force passengers to the back of the jetliner.

8:47am – The plane's transponder code changes twice, and the aircraft begins deviating from its assigned altitude and flight path.

8:52am – Passenger Brian David Sweeney calls his wife, Julie, leaving a final voicemail, and then calls his mother to report what's taking place. About that same time, passenger Peter Hanson calls his father and describes the chaos and stating that the Muslim attackers stabbed a flight attendant.

8:55am – It was at that time that a New York Air Traffic Control Center controller notes: "We may have a hijack or problems over there with another aircraft."

9:03am – Flight 175 is purposely piloted into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. It slams into floors 77 through 85. All 65 people on board, including 51 passengers, 9 crew members, the 5 Muslim suicide attackers, and hundreds of Americans in the South Tower are killed instantly. 

The impact was broadcast live on television. It's true. The impact of the second jetliners slamming into the South Tower of the World Trade Center was broadcast live on television for everyone to see firsthand. And yes, it was then and there, at 9:03am on September 11, 2001, that Americans and the rest of the world realized that the United States was at war with Islam. The attack by Muslims that morning showed the world how ruthless and truly barbaric Islamic radical are. It was then that the civilized world would have to step forward and meet the evil of Islam head on.

Minutes later at 9:37 a.m. on that same day, September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77, Muslim terrorists intentionally piloted that Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to fly from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport. On board that Boeing 757 was 53 passengers, 6 crew members, and 5 Muslim terrorists. 

The target of the Muslims was the western facade of the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The impact caused structural damage and a massive fire broke out. The fire burned for hours. Besides the 59 passengers and crew, and the 5 Muslim suicide attackers, 125 military and civilian personnel inside the building were killed instantly.

On that same day, at 10:03am, United Airlines Flight 93 went down in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. That happened after passengers and crew fought back against the Muslim terrorists who were trying to hijack that flight. 

The flight was supposed to fly from Newark International Airport in New Jersey to San Francisco International Airport in California. On board were 40 passengers and crew members, plus 4 Muslim terrorists. The Muslims wanted to target either the United States Capitol or the White House in Washington, D.C.

Four of the Muslim terrorists took control of the plane about 40 minutes after takeoff. But, because the flight was delayed leaving the gate, passengers learned via phone calls about the other attacks in New York and Washington. Because of that, passengers and crew took action and rushed the cockpit to stop the Muslims attackers from reaching their target.

It is believed that the struggle in the cockpit forced the plane down into an empty field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. While it killed everyone on board, those heroes prevented those Muslims from accomplishing their mission. Thankfully, their bravery stopped any further loss of life on the ground. 

By the way, while United Airlines Flight 93 went down and crashed in that field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the jetliners that slammed into the World Trade Center Towers or the Pentagon, did not "crash" in those places as if by accident.

The word "crash" carries a heavily negative, sudden, and destructive connotation in almost all contexts. While that's true, and the word "crash" does imply a violent, uncontrolled, and chaotic event rather than a gradual or planned transition, let's not mistake what happened that morning with planes that crash. What happened that morning was violent, but it was completely controlled. It was a planned attack against us. 

Those Muslim attackers purposely and deliberately piloted those Boeing 767 jetliners full of people on board into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and tried to do the same with Flight 93. They used those huge jetliners full of fuel for their long trips as weapons of mass destruction. 

And yes, it upsets me to no end when people say those jetliners "crashed" into the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon as if by accident. It was as far from accidental as one can get. Those Islamic attackers used those huge planes in the exact same way as someone uses any weapon to purposely kill their enemy. 

And as for Islam, after 25 years of everyone in the world seeing all of the death and destruction that the followers of Islam have committed, from the mutilation of women to their rape of children as child brides, to the stoning of women and the slaughter of gay people, to the beheadings of Christians and how we've all witness them burning people alive, to the support of terrorists attacks and killing of innocents around the world, to all of the casualties of wars that Muslims have started over the last 25 years, there should be no question in the minds of any rational person that Islam sees the rest of the world as their enemy.    

 

For me, I will never forgive Islam for its attack on America on 9/11, for creating such homicidal maniacs, for those people on those planes, for the thousands who were killed in the towers, and especially for the hundreds of Americans forced to  jump to their death instead of being burned alive. The horror caused by that Muslim attack is something that I will never forgive. 

According to information later, about 200 people jumped from the upper floors of the World Trade Center towers during the September 11 attacks.

An exact official count does not exist. The chaos, smoke, and destruction made precise tracking of what was taking place completely impossible. While early reports from news outlets that tried to play it down, outlets like The New York Times, tried to say there were about 50 people who jumped rather than be burned alive, subsequent forensic investigations place the figure closer to 200. 

Americans decided that they rather jump to their death and escape the intense heat, thick smoke, and suffocating flames as high as 2,000°F after the planes struck the towers. And frankly, I don't see any reason to forgive Muslims for causing that.

In all, a total of almost 3,000 victims and 19 Muslim suicide terrorists died on September 11, 2001. In New York City, at the World Trade Center, 2,753 people died at the Twin Towers and surrounding area. At the Pentagon, 184 people died, that includes passengers and crew on American Airlines Flight 77 and people inside the building. In a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, 40 passengers and crew died after United Airlines Flight 93 went down. In total aboard all four jetliners, all 246 passengers and crew died. 

As for our First Responders? In total, 441 first responders lost their lives, including 343 firefighters from the FDNY, 37 officers from the Port Authority Police Department, and 23 officers from the NYPD. 

While those are statistic that no one expects anyone to remember from that day, there is at least thing that I hope people haven't forgotten. It's how Muslims here and overseas rejoiced and celebrated at our loss. Yes, that in itself is something that Americans should never forget.  

Tom Correa