Citizen Volunteers Were Essential In The Old West

In 20226, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) offers rewards of up to $150,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of individuals involved in robberies and attacks against mail carriers in California. This is a significant increase from previous rewards of $10,000 to $50,000 which were also aimed at deterring a rising trend of violence and mail theft.

Well, as we can see by the 1890 newspaper article below, nothing has changed.

Published in the San Francisco Call, Volume 68, Number 60, on July 30, 1890:

BOUNTIES FOR THIEF-TAKERS

SEEKING VOLUNTEER DETECTIVES

The Postmaster General is advertising that a reward of $l,000 will be paid to any one who causes the arrest and conviction in any United States court of a robber of the mails in a railroad train by the use of dangerous weapons. A reward of $500 to any one who cause's the arrest and conviction of a robber. 

Of the mails in a stagecoach, a reward of $200 is offered to any one who causes the arrest and conviction of one who attempts by violence to rob the mail in any conveyance. 

The object of offering a reward for the arrest of malefactors is to induce outsiders to enlist as volunteer detectives. In sparsely settled regions such volunteer aid is necessary. The regular officers of the law are so few and the field to be covered is so wide, that without assistance from persons not regularly engaged in the service of justice criminals would rarely be caught. 

The practice works in two ways. Whenever a robbery or murder is committed West of the river valleys, a lot of amateur detectives go to work on the case in expectation of a reward. 

If that reward is not offered, or is inadequate, in the detectives' opinion, they will keep their discoveries a secret, and will often even connive at the escape of the criminal — by way of teaching the authorities or parties interested to be more liberal in future. And doubtless, some Sheriffs and professional detectives will, in the like case, be slow to exhibit zeal and energy in running down the man for whom they hold a warrant. 

In the Central States, where the reward business is firmly established, criminal lawyers doubt whether it is as helpful to justice as is generally supposed. 

A murder or stage robbery is committed. The moment it is announced the Sheriff of the county and the chief detectives should be hot on the trail of the criminal. But, in fact, they generally wait till a reward is offered, and in the interim the malefactor often makes good his escape. 

Meanwhile, a number of amateur detectives have taken up the case on speculation and use exertions to keep track of their man. If no reward is offered, neither the regular officers of justice, nor the guerillas, trouble themselves much further. If a suitable reward is advertised a struggle then ensues between the Sheriff and the outsiders, who shall get it, and instead of co-operating, each tries to set the other on a wrong scent.

-- end of article

So who are those "volunteer detectives" that the Postmaster General was talking about in the 1890 newspaper article?

In the Old West, citizens volunteering as amateur detectives was not out of the ordinary, and their help was not shunned. In fact, their help was sought. The fact is, criminal investigations and manhunts the frontier were usually handled by citizen posses, vigilantes, private detective agencies, bounty hunters, and citizen volunteers who were amateur detectives. And really, they were more than not just profit-driven opportunists. 

Because official law enforcement was understaffed and lacked federal investigative power, everyday citizens routinely stepped into investigative roles. In fact, the historical reality of how "citizen volunteers" and freelance detectives functioned during the Old West is not complicated. When crimes were committed or there simply was a need for security, townspeople stepped forward to assist their communities. And yes, they would also be deputized on the spot by Sheriffs to form a posse, act as volunteers in manhunts, or do whatever else was required.

For the Sheriff's Posse, all able bodied men were enlisted to help. Saying "No" was not an option. Shirkers were shunned in the Old West. 

It was a time when people understood responsibility and didn't pay lip service to it. The notion that shirkers, those who evaded duty, work, or responsibility, were shunned in the Old West is real. The frontier economy and social structure of towns in the Old West were heavily dependent on mutual cooperation and hard labor. 

Life on the frontier was demanding, and survival often required residents to work together. Individuals who did not "pull their weight" or evaded community duties were viewed with hostility and were often ostracized by neighbors.

The Cowboy work ethic was foundational to life on the frontier. Cattle drives required immense teamwork. Cowboys faced dangerous conditions and relied on their companions for survival. A shirker could compromise the safety of the entire crew.

As for frontier justice, the Old West was not completely lawless, but rather, it relied on strict, swift, local justice in order to maintain order. Those who violated community standards, including laziness or avoiding responsibility, faced the risk of social shunning or even vigilantism.

What Americans learned in the Old West is part of our American Cultural Values. While Hollywood promotes the myth of the "lone cowboy," the reality is that most people lived and worked in close-knit communities where folks worked together.  

If someone was given the "Shirker" label, that in itself told everyone that he was not contributing to the rugged labor necessary to build or maintain a town, or ranch, or family. That made them outsiders in communities built on the principles of hard work and shared risk. 

The Old West was a place where extreme interdependence meant that individuals who failed to carry their own weight, were often referred to as shirkers. They sometimes met with severe consequences, including social shunning and, in many cases, forced banishment. 

While "shirkers" were free to refuse to carry their own weight when it came to volunteering to help, life on the frontier was harsh and often required a collaborated effort. That made laziness or someone's failure to contribute to the common good seen by others as a threat to the survival of the group. 

On Wagon Trains, the pressure to conform extended to all facets of life, including labor. Those who were considered lazy or unwilling to participate in dangerous tasks were often ostracized or banished. The same applied in frontier towns and from camps. 

Here's something else, pitching in and volunteering to help, helping neighbors in general, told folks about your reliability, good character, values, ethics, and it created trust -- all beneficial for the person volunteering to do their part. So yes, getting along and pitching in was the sort of attitude and behavior that brought one a lot of respect from the community. That in itself made it prudent for folks to pitch in when needed. Yes, including when a major crime took place. That's why folks stepped up to do their duty. 

As for the problem that local law enforcement had regarding the lack of resources to pursue suspects alone or investigate what took place. To remedy that situations, citizens were instantly Deputized on the spot. County Sheriffs, Sheriff's Deputies, Town Marshals, their Deputies, and Deputy U.S. Marshals, all routinely gathered trusted local townspeople, ranchers, cowboys, and business owners, and Deputized them on the spot for whatever reason. 

If the local lawman needed to form posses, needed extra security on their jail, needed extra security at the court house during a trial that they knew would attract more attention, need more deputies during a parade, an election, a riot, and more. I wasn't kidding when I said saying "No" was not an option. It was considered mandatory Civic Duty. 

Posse Comitatus was used in the Old West. Sheriffs legally summoned armed citizens to assist in keeping the peace, a practice that Americans can trace back to medieval England. Sheriffs frequently picked trusted townspeople and deputized them on the spot to hunt outlaws and killers.

Volunteer detectives in the Old West were private citizens who volunteered when they were needed. While banks, stage companies, railroads, and mining operations depended on private security companies like Pinkerton National Detective Agency and Wells Fargo in the Old West, they also depended on citizen volunteers. 

Citizen volunteers were essential for maintaining law and order in the Old West, often forming the backbone of law enforcement through the "posse comitatus" tradition. Due to vast jurisdictions and limited resources, sheriffs and marshals relied on ordinary, gun-toting citizens to chase criminals, provide their own horses and gear, and assist in high-risk apprehensions. 

For posses, while technically volunteers, citizens joining a posse were expected to assist in tracking, gathering local intelligence, and apprehending outlaws. They also acted as "eyes and ears." As temporary lawmen, citizens were used for their local knowledge of the terrain. This helped piece together which way an outlaw was headed. It was voluntary service. 

While not always paid, those volunteers faced dangers alongside lawmen and sometimes shared in rewards. Sharing a reward with a citizen volunteer who was deputized on the spot was purely up to the Sheriff's discretion. Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. 

Because official law enforcement was often part-time or poorly funded, and because official law enforcement was largely non-existent, ineffective, or unable to cross jurisdictional boundaries to pursue gangs, volunteer detectives were essential for tracking criminals across borders, protecting commercial interests, and enforcing frontier justice. 

It's true, citizens volunteers did not have the limitation that Sheriff's had. In the sparsely populated frontier, local sheriffs often had limited jurisdiction and resources. Private citizen detectives, both volunteers and those employed by Wells Fargo or the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, could pursue criminals across state lines, a crucial advantage in catching stagecoach robbers, highwaymen, bandits, and killers. That's one of the reasons why private citizen volunteers and their ad hoc citizen groups were essential for  justice.

As for trailing rustlers, there were volunteer anti-Rustling associations. Livestock theft was a real threat to frontier economies. Livestock theft was, and still remains today, a real threat since it acts as a major source of financial ruin and instability.
Historically, cattle rustling in the American West was so severe that it sparked intense violence and required specialized law enforcement to protect ranching operations. 

In the late 1800s and into the 1930s, cattle rustling could destroy towns and ranches, often leading to bloody confrontations. Today, it remains a severe threat to ranchers where it can cause billions in losses.

Because cattle and horses are easily transported and sold, they are often preferred targets for theft. And yes, today thousands of head of cattle and horses are stolen annually in America. And here is something to think about, while most folks think that on large cattle operations are affected, it's a fact that small-scale ranchers and farmers with fewer resources are particularly vulnerable to the loss of their assets. 

The loss is felt as ranchers and farmers are forced to divert funds from investment and expansion toward, better security and fencing. The issue often requires a collaborative response from community security groups and law enforcement to effectively manage the threat

Back in the Old West, rustling led citizens to organize their own formal, non-governmental investigative bodies. One such group was the Rocky Mountain Detective Association which was founded by Colorado lawman David J. Cook. This was a freelance, volunteer-only network of local "troubleshooters". They operated across territories to share information, track stolen property, infiltrate gangs, and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Another group is the Stock Growers' Associations. In some places, wealthy cattle barons formed groups that hired "Range Detectives," while using local volunteer scouts, to investigate missing herds and track down rustlers.

As for Vigilante Committees, when formal legal channels failed or were non-existent, citizens bypassed the law entirely to conduct their own criminal investigations. It's true. When formal law enforcement was absent, ineffective, or corrupt, communities often formed vigilante committees, more than 210 between 1849 and 1902, to identify, track, and punish criminals. 

Most vigilante groups were not what Hollywood has depicted them as. Most groups were the door-shakers, the town's volunteer security force, the folks that supplemented the Sheriff and the Town Marshal, the same citizens that were on their fire brigade, their neighbors. Vigilante committees acted as the town's self-appointed law, they judged, and they were executioners. But, they were also volunteer detectives who provided needed evidence for Citizen Tribunals to either convict or set someone free. They operated on their own, interrogated suspects and gathered witness testimony before taking  action. 

While not volunteers, private detective agencies filled the massive investigative void left by the lack of public policing. Organizations like the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, Burns Detective Agency, and Wells Fargo utilized extensive mug-books, undercover infiltration, and advanced legwork to solve train and stagecoach robberies. The legendary "Cowboy Detective" Charles A. Siringo famously lived among outlaw factions for months to build a case. 

Some were "outlaw hunters." Those Freelance Manhunters, Volunteer Detectives, and Bounty Hunters, straddled the line between paid private detective and being a volunteer detective looking for that big reward. And yes, some called them "citizen opportunists." 

Of course, there was the profit incentive to consider. Most frontier "volunteer detective work" done by non-officials was driven by cash rewards offered by the state or private corporations like Wells Fargo. To secure those rewards, bounties, offered by companies like Wells Fargo, banks, or stagecoach lines, those citizens tracked suspects to collect the reward money -- which more often than not, was more money than they would earn working their regular jobs.

Were there true "lone wolf" professional bounty hunters? Yes, but they were rare. Most investigations were side jobs handled by part-time lawmen, private stock detectives, or local citizens, volunteer amateur detectives, looking for cash. 

So yes, citizen volunteer detectives were indeed armatures detectives. But, all in all, they were effective. And really, amateur detectives or not, in the sparsely populated Old West, where law enforcement was often nonexistent, citizens, vigilantes, and hired private agents acted as amateur detectives, served on posses, and were "manhunters." They did it to combat crime. 

Driven by a lack of formal police, these groups tracked criminals and maintained order, often blurring the lines between lawmen and vigilantes. But, though the lines were blurred now and then, citizen volunteer detectives played a crucial, often indispensable, role in maintaining order in the Old West. As private agents, often hired as contractors, those citizen volunteers filled the security void created by expanding transport networks, protecting valuable cargo from rampant train robberies and internal theft, and much more to fill the void left by understaffed, underfunded, or nonexistent government law enforcement.

And yes, if you're wondering, in many a situation, those volunteer detective, amateurs or not, were key to finding bad guys and recovering stolen money. That's something that the Postmaster General knew for a fact in 1890. 

Tom Correa

American Ranchers In Trouble In 2026

As of February of 2026, the United States cattle herd numbers reached its lowest level since 1951. As a nation, with only 86.2 million head of cattle in 2026, we're at a 75-year low. And friends, that's something for us to address. 

It appears that American ranchers are right now in a long-term liquidation phase. Frankly, from everyone who I've talked to about this, American ranchers are being forced to either choose liquidation or face bankruptcy.

Also known in the cattle industry, as a "contraction phase" of the natural cattle cycle, that means producers are sending cows to slaughter rather than retaining them for breeding. The contraction phase, also known as a liquidation phase, can be a multi-year period where ranchers reduce the total size of the U.S. beef herd by selling more cows and heifers for slaughter rather than keeping them for breeding. 

This phase generally lasts three to four years and is a direct response to low profitability, high production costs, or external factors like drought.

Again, it's all about ranchers going through a lot of economic pressure and stress over the lack of water and poor pasture conditions, which reduces the ability of ranchers to feed their herd, forcing premature liquidation; high feed costs, and inflation-driven costs often make it unprofitable to keep cows, forcing producers to sell; and a high rate of cows failing to get pregnant leads to increased involuntary culling.

So, with high slaughter rates, which is when a high volume of breeding cows and heifers are being sent to slaughter, combined with reduced heifer retention, which means instead of keeping heifers to replace older cows in the herd, ranchers sell them for beef, that reduces the potential for future calves. Do that too often, and the result is a decrease in total U.S. beef cow inventory.

Ranchers make these sorts of tough decisions for a lot of reasons, mostly, it has to do with reduced profitability. Because of low calf prices, the market becomes flooded with beef, which pushes prices down. Rising costs for feed, fuel, and fertilizer can make it unprofitable to hold-on to cows, especially if they are not producing high-value calves.

Of course, high interest rates is another huge factor for why American herd levels are at their lowest in 75 years. High interest rates discourage investment in expansion or to rebuild. In many cases, because of a money crunch, ranchers who face high interest rates on loans to rebuild their herd are forced to liquidate their assets to reduce their debt.  

As for replacing aging or inefficient cows? In one respect, liquidation does allow a rancher to cull older cows, or those with poor health, which in the long run should help improve the genetic and productive potential of the remaining herd. 

As for involuntary culling? That's when a rancher has a high rate of infertility, which are cows that are "open" or failed to conceive. Involuntary culling can often drive down a rancher's herd size. It's just not profitable to keep them.

While researching this subject, I've talked with ranchers both big and small. And while I mentioned some aspects of their economic troubles above, there's no getting around the fact that droughts have gone on for a few years in major beef-producing states such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. In some cases, those droughts have forced ranchers to sell off cattle because of a lack of water and grazing land. 

Right now, as of May of 2026, it's said that nearly three-quarters of the U.S. cattle herd is being impacted by significant drought conditions.

Widespread drought forces rancher liquidations because they simply cannot maintain cows due to lack of pasture, grazing land, or water. A lack of hay, or silage, makes it physically impossible or economically unviable to keep cattle through the winter. This forces ranchers into selling.

A lack of forage means more cost to the rancher. And, for the most part, the number one reason for cattle producers to liquidate their herds has to do with the soaring costs for fuel, feed, and transportation. It's hard to stay in business when it's a losing proposition. When the costs involved in maintaining a herd isn't profitable, that's going to lead to ranchers facing forced liquidation. That's the bottom line. 

For today, because more cows are sent to market, the short-term supply of beef has increased. But, that's not a good thing because the long-term shortage because the liquidation of breeding animals means fewer calves are born in the following years. This leads to a sharp decline in beef production 2–3 years later. The cycle continues until the herd is small enough that reduced supply triggers high enough calf prices to make rebuilding (expansion) profitable again.

I'm told that the current cycle is unique. I'm told that as of early 2025, the cattle industry has experienced an extended "contraction phase" that dates back to 2019/2020. ) due to multiple years of drought and operating costs, leading to some of the smallest cattle inventory numbers in decades.

Here the irony, according to everything that I've been taught about this, this phase often happens when cattle prices are high. The high prices encourage producers to sell animals for immediate profit. Of course, by doing that, that shrinks the herd which eventually makes the number of cattle even a lot fewer -- which will also drives prices even higher.

From what I was told on this, the contraction phase is a natural cattle cycle that takes place as about every four years as a reaction to periods of ranchers over-expanding while trying to restore profitability when high costs, falling beef prices, or environmental constraints make maintaining a large herd unsustainable. This sort of liquidation occurs when producers reduce their breeding herd, by selling their cows and heifers for slaughter rather than keeping them for reproduction.

So now, let's talk about one more aspect of why as of February of 2026, the United States cattle herd has reached its lowest level since 1951. With only 86.2 million head of cattle in 2026, we're at a 75-year low. 

Do I think there are legitimate reasons for this? Yes, I do. And now, we need to talk about the number one issue that all Americans should be concerned with in regards to this subject. 

I wasn't exaggerating when I said that for the most part, the number one reason for cattle producers to liquidate their herds is the soaring costs for fuel, feed, and transportation. It's hard to stay in business when it's a losing proposition. When the costs involved in maintaining a herd isn't profitable, that's going to lead to ranchers facing forced liquidation. That's the bottom line. 

But there is something that's even bigger than that on the long term. The fact is, America's ranchers are getting older. And yes, an aging ranching workforce and persistent labor shortages have contributed to the decline in the number of cattle being produced. I really believe that this is a crisis taking place right now in American agricultural. It's a crisis that we need to find solutions for.  

The decline in cattle that we see today is driven by a combination of high costs, drought, government over-regulations which I will talk about in my next article, and a seriously shrinking workforce in ranching because our ranchers are getting older. 

The average age of American ag producers is over 58, with 40% of producers over the age of 65. As these ranchers retire, many simply don't have the successors needed to take over. This is causing operations to either shut down or reduce size. And frankly, that's something for all of us to worry about.

Older ranchers are said to be less likely to invest in rebuilding their herds because it's expensive. That's especially true when it comes to long-term expansion projects. So instead, many older ranchers are preferring to sell herds rather than rebuild them during challenging environmental or economic times. Some ranchers are selling out all together to developers.

And besides the ranchers, there is the problem of finding workers. It's said that 87% of farmers report difficulty in finding necessary labor. And, since the livestock industry depends on manual labor for demanding, often dangerous work, ranching jobs are getting more and more difficult to fill.

The effect of older ranchers and lack of workers has has a huge impact on cattle production. As mentioned above, high operating cost in fuel and feed, rising labor costs, high interest loans, surviving government over-regulations, all combined, is forcing cattle producers to sell their cattle early. Yes, including selling their essential breeding heifers. This all leads to a smaller tighter supply of beef for America.

The combination of fewer ranchers and fewer workers means that the U.S. beef cow herd has dropped to its lowest level in over 70 years. Because rebuilding herds takes years, the challenges for the next generation of Americans is made worst by the high cost of entering the cattle industry. Just the cost alone of wanting to get involved in putting together a small herd is today preventing younger Americans from wanting to replace retiring ranchers. 

So what're the solutions to replace our aging ranchers? Well, we can start by focusing on recruiting Veterans and other younger Americans, increasing education in schools, create the equivalent of a trade school for ranching, leverage modern technology to assist younger ranchers, make ranching and farming economically appealing, structure low-interest loans for ranchers and farmers to keep them solvent, and maybe we can find ways to ease retirement transitions with interested people who want to step into a ranching operation.

We have to expand agricultural education in schools, and offer financial incentives to young and veterans who want to be producers. There is a lot of emphasis on computers these days. And yes, America is producing AI tech folks out the ying-yang. But frankly, AI can't produce cattle. And really, there is a ton of truth in the saying: No farmers -- No food. 

So yes, Americans need to support educational programs to get young people interested in being producers. We can increase support for FFA and 4-H to encourage younger generations to enter agriculture. Also, we can develop apprenticeship programs that formally mentor those interested in becoming cattle producers.

Also, Veteran recruitment is a way to get Veterans who don't want to live in cities and deal with the urban sprawl into the country where they'd be happier. Speaking for myself, it would have been outstanding if something that like that was available to me when I completed my first active duty enlistment. We should try to connect interested Veterans to those who have the information they need. Utilizing training programs like the Farmer Veteran Coalition is a way to connect veterans with ranching jobs. All we can do is try.  

Tom Correa

Today's Democrat Playbook Is Same One They Used To Assassinate Lincoln

Democrats Depicted President Lincoln As A "King"

Before I talk about how today's Democrat Playbook is the same one they used to get one of their followers to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln, I want you to know that I find the historical comparison between the way the Democratic Party conducts itself today and how the Democrats conducted themselves during the Civil War incredibly similar. I'm amazed that Democrats have not changed since the Civil War.

My claim that the Democratic Party's "playbook" is the same today as it was in 1865 when they incited Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln is supported by historical facts about the political landscape of the time compared to the same political landscape today.

In a historical context John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865. Booth was a staunch Confederate sympathizer and supporter of slavery. And yes, he loathed President Lincoln as if he knew the president on a personal level.

Why did John Wilkes Booth hate President Lincoln? Because Democratic Party propaganda told him to.

 
Research will tell you that John Wilkes Booth hated President Lincoln because Booth was a "White supremacist," a fanatic Confederate sympathizer, and that he had an "intense anger" over President Lincoln abolishing slavery. Research will also tell you that Booth was not a registered member of the Democratic Party.

So yes, researching Booth's supposed non-affiliation with the Democratic Party would certainly give someone the ammunition, so to speak, they need to refute my claim that John Wilkes Booth hated President Lincoln because Democratic Party propaganda told him to.

If this were a news story today on the Democrat-controlled Mainstream Media, Democrat spokespeople would be on television screaming, "See, the shooter, Booth, was not a registered Democrat."

They would say, "Because he was not a registered Democrat, his act was not incited by Democrat leaders" -- even though Democrat leaders are using hate speech to incited violence and get one of their followers to assassinate the President.

The problem with their argument is that it is a historical fact that the Confederacy was led by, funded by, and primarily supported by Democrats. We know for a fact that the vast majority of Confederate sympathizers during the Civil War were Democrats.

Republicans were not Confederate sympathizers. In fact, during the Civil War (1861–1865), there were effectively no members of the newly formed Republican Party within the Confederacy. Let's remember, the Republican Party was created to oppose the Democratic Party, and their slave owner mentality which wanted to see slavery expanded into other states as they were being admitted to the Union. That's why Democrats started the Civil War. They didn't get their way.

I'm tell you, Democrats haven't changed in more than 200 years. If they don't get their way, they become extremely violent.

We know that Booth was a staunch Confederate sympathizer who hated President Lincoln because Lincoln was a Republican. Does that sound familiar to the crazies today who hate President Trump just because he's a Republicans? You bet it does.

We know Booth was influenced by a hostile political climate. And yes, even back in the Civil War, Democrats were attacking President Lincoln for being a "King" to incite hatred and violence against Lincoln.

Did Democrats attack President Abraham Lincoln as a "King" and a "Tyrant" during the Civil War in the very same way Democrats today are attacking President Trump for acting like a "King" and "Tyrant"?

 
The answer is yes. During the Civil War, both Northern and Southern Democrats, especially those "Copperhead" Democrats in the North who rooted for the South to win, attacked President Abraham Lincoln as a "Tyrant," "Despot," and a "King". Democrats often accused him of violating the Constitution through actions like suspending habeas corpus, shutting down newspapers, and enacting military arrests during the war.

It is a valid comparison. In the 1860s, Democrats attacked President Lincoln in pamphlets and in newspapers. Democrat talking point at the time, "Lincoln has made himself a king." Democrats would say this while accusing President Lincoln of all sorts of false crimes to validate their rhetoric of calling Lincoln a "King" who they said ignored or violated the civil liberties of Americans.

Today, Democrats are using the same playbook that they used during the Civil War to get a follower like Booth to assassinate President Trump. The Democrat's modern-day attacks on President Trump are the same in that Democrats have today again likened a Republican President, in this case President Donald Trump, to a "Corrupt would-be King" and "Tyrant," even going so far as to call President Trump a "Dictator."

And, as for a person like Booth, someone who would willingly drank the Kool Aid that the Democratic Party handed out and saw Lincoln as a tyrant for suspending habeas corpus and freeing slaves, Booth viewed President Lincoln as a "King" and "Tyrant" who needed to be killed.

We know Booth's hatred for President Lincoln came from Booth blindly following Democratic Party propaganda. We know that Booth was heavily influenced by a media environment that labeled Lincoln a "King" or dictator. While we know this to be true, to be fair, besides the influence that Democratic Party's propaganda had on him, we also know that Booth's motivation to shoot President Lincoln was driven by intense personal fanatical conviction.

We know that Boothe's response to President Lincoln's speech on April 11, 1865, sent Boothe into a rage and was the tipping point. Historical records show that that's when an enraged Booth decided to escalate his plot from kidnapping to assassination, declaring, "That is the last speech he will ever make".

Where's The Lesson? 

Well, while I would rather be publishing interesting stories from the pages of Old West newspapers, let's be real clear over the fact that the political hatred, the vile rhetoric, all meant to incite a follower of the Democratic Party to assassinate President Trump mirrors what took place by Democrats leading up to and during the Civil War. That's the lesson here. 

As I said in my last post, since President Trump's first term in office from 2017 to 2021, a lot of Democrat politicians, celebrities, and influencers have made statements that could only be interpreted as inciting their followers to assassinate of President Trump. And yes, in my last post, I gave quite a few examples of such hate speech attempting to incite some simple-minded Democrats to carry out another assassination attempt on President Trump.

 
As for President Lincoln, Democrats successfully incited violence against him. In fact, there were several known plots and attempts on President Abraham Lincoln's life by Confederate sympathizers or agents between 1861 and 1865. While only one was successful, there were four serious instances by Democrats with pro-Confederate motives:

The Baltimore Plot in February of 1861. That took place before Lincoln's first inauguration. It had to do with a conspiracy by Maryland Confederate sympathizers. The plot by those Democrats was uncovered in time, though it did force the new President to secretly pass through Baltimore to avoid an planned ambush.

The Yellow Fever Plot of December 1863 was a plot to infect the White House with Yellow Fever by using contaminated clothing. The Democrats who proposed that, failed.

The Sniper Attempt in August of 1864 took place when a sniper shot at President Lincoln as he rode unguarded toward the Soldiers' Home. The bullet missed his head by inches, but passed through his hat. While the shooter was never identified, it was believed to been a Democrats who again was a Confederate sympathizer.

The Final Assassination Plot led by John Wilkes Booth was initially meant kidnap President Lincoln in March 1865. Some say Booth wanted to exchange Lincoln for high-ranking Confederate prisoners-of-war. Some say he wanted to force Lincoln at gunpoint an order to rescind the Emancipation Proclamation. It's said that after the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee on April 9, 1865, that Booth decided to assassinate the President -- which he did on April 14, 1865.

So how bad did Democrats want President Lincoln dead during the Civil War, and at the end of the Civil War after General Lee's surrender? 

Well, it is believed that Democrats attempted to blow up the White House to "decapitate" the United States government under President Abraham Lincoln. 

Yes, it's true. And yes, that brings me to the historical account of Confederate assassin Thomas F. Harney. He was a Confederate Army explosives expert who was dispatched from Richmond on or about April 1, 1865, to kill President Lincoln, the president's family, and the president's entire Cabinet and their families by blowing up the White House.

Harney's plan was to use mines to blow up the White House. The attack was intended to occur while President Lincoln, the president's family, and the president's entire Cabinet and their families, were gathered to listen to a public serenade. You have to really want someone dead if you're willing to kill them and their families. Harney saw no problem with it.

The plot to kill President Lincoln and his Cabinet was slated for early April 1865. It was actually supposed to happen just days before John Wilkes Booth's successful assassination of Lincoln on April 14, 1865.

Fortunately for President Lincoln, his family, and his Cabinet members and their families, Harney was arrested on April 10, 1865, before he could carry out his plan. A Union Army cavalry unit en route to Washington, DC, found Harney, realized his plan and immediately arrested him.

History is repeating itself.

No matter what the Democratic Party's talking points are, Americans can see that today's Democratic Playbook focuses on hatred for President Trump, inciting violence, and being for anything that Trump is against. The Democratic Party's strategy today is viewed as a direct militaristic opposition to President Trump -- the same way the Democrats were in direct opposition to President Lincoln.

Just as Democrats, as the Democratic Party's propaganda and demonization of Republican President Lincoln during the Civil War led to multiple assassination attempts on his life, Democratic Party propaganda and demonization of Republican President Trump has lead to multiple attempts on President Trump's life.

History teaches us that nothing has changed, that Democrats are still the same people that they've always been. And frankly, people aren't blind to what's going on.

Millions of Americans, and the millions of people in countries all over the world, are watching Democrats in the United Stats plot and scheme the demise of President Donald Trump. Everyone can see it. Democrats today aren't even hiding their desire for someone to kill the President. They are very open about it. In fact, I'd say Democrats today don't seem to care if people know that they want President Trump killed. 

As for the rest of the us, we are all watching Democrats act out exactly as they did during the Civil War when they tried to incite their followers to assassinate Republican President Abraham Lincoln. We can only pray that Democrats don't find their 2026 version of John Wilkes Booth and that history has a different outcome.

Tom Correa

The Democrat's Assassination Cult

Since President Trump's first term in office from 2017 to 2021, a lot of Democrat politicians, celebrities, and influencers have made statements that could only be interpreted as inciting their followers to assassinate President Trump.

In 2017, Former Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal posted on Facebook, "I hope Trump is assassinated!"

In 2017, celebrity Kathy Griffin used her celebrity status to call for the death of President Trump. The not-very-funny comedian posed for a photo holding a prop of President Trump’s bloodied, severed head.

In 2017, actor Johnny Depp invoked Lincoln's assassination when he asked a crowd of fans, "When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" Then, believe it or not, he suggested, "Maybe it is time".

In 2018, Broadway actress Carole Cook echoed Depp's sentiment, when she said, "Where's John Wilkes Booth when you need him?" That was her answer when asked about President Trump.

In 2018, Former FBI Director James Comey posted an Instagram photo with the numbers "8647," which was interpreted as slang for "86," meaning "get rid of," the 47th President. In April 2026, Comey was indicted by the Department of Justice on charges of making a threat against the president's life.

In 2020, another not-so-funny celebrity George Lopez commented on a rumored Iranian bounty put on President Trump's head. He wrote on Instagram, "We'll do it for half".

In 2023, U.S. Representative, Democrat from New York, Dan Goldman stated in a televised interview that Trump is so "dangerous" to Democracy that he "has to be eliminated".

In 2024, a celebrity by the name of Kyle Gass who goes by the alias Tenacious D had something to say about the attempted assassination on President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. Just hours after the shooting, Gass said, "Don't miss Trump next time".

As recently as July of 2024, President Joe Biden, while in the Oval Office, told Democrat donors in a private call that "It's time to put Trump in the bullseye".

You think I'm wrong, or maybe blowing things out of proportion, how about Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, just a few days before the White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting when he called for his followers to "Fight" President Trump's agenda "in the streets." Jefferies declared he wants his followers to conduct "Maximum Warfare" against President Trump and members of the Trump administration.

A day or two before the White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting, ABC Television host, Democrat mouthpiece, Jimmy Kimmel referred to First Lady Melania Trump as an "Expectant widow" during his show.

A day after the third assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Democrat Candidate for Governor of California Katie Porter sent out a donor email containing the phrase "Fuck Trump."

There are folks in the Trump administration who have correctly stated that Democrats and their Democrat-controlled Media outlets have "systemically demonized" President Donald Trump to such a point that they have created a "permission structure" for extremist violence. And really, think about all of the lies that Democrats have said, such as labeling President Trump as a "threat to democracy" or saying "It's time to put Trump in the bullseye".

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and other administration officials have pointed to specific comments from Democratic leaders and media figures as contributing to a "culture of assassination."

Following the recent attempt on President Trump's life, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt argued that labeling President Trump a "fascist" and "threat to democracy" adds to the attempt. 

Karoline Leavitt said comments from Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who said Republicans "cannot know a moment of peace," and Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver, who stated, "We are at war," are examples of rhetoric that fuels the Democrats' assassination culture. White House officials have been very direct about who they blame for all of the attempts to kill President Trump. They explicitly blame Democrat for their hate-filled rhetoric.

On the other hand, Democrats don't see anything wrong with violence against the President. Democrat hate speech is what's fanning the flames of violence, but they don't care to stop it. So yes, this all makes me agree when someone says that Democrats and others on the political left, including the Mainstream Media and Hollywood celebrities, like living in a "Left-Wing Cult of Hate."

That's The Democrat Party That Believes Hate For Trump Will Put Them Back In Power In 2026

What are Democrats running on in 2026? 

• Kill Trump, 
• Kill Anyone Who Disagrees With The Left,
• Impeach Trump, 
• Imprison Trump Voters,
• Save Iran, 
• Iran Needs Nukes, 
• Wipe Out Israel,
• Ban Christianity In America,
• Europe Needs To Become All Islamic,  
• Stop Killing Drug Cartel Drug Smugglers In Small Boats, 
• Embrace Fentanyl,
• Love Homelessness,
• Leftist Violence Is The Answer, 
• Bring Back The Illegals, 
• Give Illegals Rights.
• Abolish Citizens' Rights,
• Let's Put Men In Women's Sports Again,
• Stop America First,
• Make America Last Again,
• Loving America Means Loving Fascism,
• Democratic Party Authoritarianism Is Good For Everyone,
• Democrats Need To Control Your Life,
• Embrace Communism,
• Confiscate Private Property.
• Love Countries Who Hate America,
• Dissolve The United States

While some of my friends helped me come up with the list above, let's not forget that most of the problems that we face today are because Democrats created them.

Democrats opened the border to bring in new voters for them. Democrats allowed Drug Cartels to get a foothold in American cities. Democrat may or may not have been getting paid by the Drug Cartels. It's possible and would explain why they are so upset today that President Trump is blowing those Drug Boats out of the water.

Democrats hate AMERICA FIRST because they are promoting Communism instead. And yes, for Democrats to make Communism work in America, Democrats cannot allow the needs of the American people to be a priority for Congress. That's why Democrats worship at alter of Globalism, and really see themselves as citizens of the world instead of Americans. In fact, Democrats don't see anything special about being an American.

It's true. In a 2014 speech at Harvard University, then-Vice President Joe Biden said, "There's nothing special about being American -- none of you can define for me what an American is." That is the sort of thing I'd expect a Democrat to say.

And now, well now Democrats are angry that they are not in power to use a corrupt FBI as their personal Gestapo to go after political opponents, and intimidate citizens. Now, for the first time in a long time, Democrats are not above the law and are being made to answer for breaking the law.

And yes, unless you were asleep during the Biden Administration when the Democrat Shadow Government ran things, they attempted to Micro-manage the lives of every American with the Democrat Party in charge of every aspect of our lives. They wanted to tell us what we could drive, what stove we were "allowed" to use, what clothes to wear, who we could support politically, who they tried to stop from running. Democrats practiced the authoritarianism that they accuse President Trump of doing.  

And please, let's not forget that Democrats in the White House used Teachers Unions to indoctrinate your children to hate you and our country. They supported surgically mutilating our children. Democrats allowed men in Women's Sports, and tried to take away Women's Rights. 

Democrats are the reason American cities have the homelessness problems that they do. Democrats hand out drugs in big cities. Democrats have created an urban society dependent on the government. They created a society of young people with no work ethic and no drive to prosper.

Let's remember that Democrats want to be put back in power to against return to DEI, CRT, and judging people by the color of their skin, instead of the content of their character and their qualifications to do their job. 

Democrats want to return to power to get their hands on the money that Elon Musk didn't expose. Democrats want to return to use Congress to reinstate US AID so they can give Billions of American Taxpayer Dollars away to nations to promote their Social Agenda, their Gay Agenda, their Communist Agenda overseas.

Democrats want to again steal and launder Federal Government funds by Congress reinstating US AID and the other bloated programs that don't serve the American people -- but only benefit the donors of the Democrat Party. It's all about greed and Democrats understand greed very well. That's why they want to shut down Congressional investigations into Big Pharma and who has been taking bribes.   

Democrats want to do these things who diverting the attention of the American people on another Trump Impeachment, or while they attack White men for being masculine and Christians. They will again steal from the American people. 

And what is the Democrat "solution" to stop Iran from using a Nuclear Weapon? The Democrat "solution" to stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is to incite violence against President Trump. The fact is Democrat Administrations, both the Obama and Biden administrations, judging by their actions, have not taken the subject of Iran obtaining nukes very seriously. 

Let's remember, Obama sent pallets of cash to Iran -- which Iran used to finance their Nuclear Weapons Program. Biden's policy was to say "Don't" and do nothing else. Both Democrat administrations have proven that their policy on stopping Iran has been weak, ineffective, incompetent, and irresponsible to the point of being dangerous for the world.  

So, what is the Democrat "solution" to stop the flow of drugs, Illegal Aliens, the Mexican Cartels, the stop wars in various parts of the war, stop the Muslim Invasion of Europe, stop State and Federal Government regulatory overreach, bring down inflation, homelessness, bring down the high cost of living and healthcare, and increase education proficiency? 

The Democrat "solution" is all about doing nothing other than accusing people of racism, racism, racism, racism, and incite their followers to try to kill President Trump. If Democrats spent just a little of their time on searching for solutions to our problems instead of being obsessed with destroying American and having one of their followers kill President Trump, they might actually improve our lives. But, that is the Democrat "solution" to everything. And yes, that's what they are running on in 2026.

I find it interesting that a report in 2025 by the City Journal shows that roughly 55 percent of Democrat respondents in a survey considered the assassination of Donald Trump "justified." 

A Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) 2026 report found that 67% of Democrat respondents believed "Murdering President Trump would be justified." That is the Democrat's Assassination Cult in a nutshell. They are out there, and Democrats are motivating their followers to keep trying to kill President Trump. That's the Democrat Party's whole purpose for living. They want to see President Trump murdered.

Our job is to prevent that from happening and protect President Trump from them.

Tom Correa

A Wife's Prayer -- Published In 1858

After publishing my story, What Made Marriages Work On An 1858 American Homestead, a few of you have written to ask why I picked the year 1858? 

Well, it's because I found the following article, A Wife's Prayer, buried in newspaper archives. The small article was published on January 16, 1858, in the Stockton Independent newspaper. And, from what I gather, it was a sentiment that was widely shared among women of the time. I see it as evidence of the spirit of toughness and support that was a huge part of marriage back in the day.  

So if you've wondered how marriage was looked at by women in the 1850s, here is a testimony of how things were. And yes, as usual, I've posted in here as it appeared in the Stockton Independent newspaper back in 1858:

A Wife’s Prayer — Many good things have been written concerning the duty of a wife to her husband, but the following beautiful and touching prayer expresses all. It is the entire duty of a truthful and loving wife — the greatest blessing which Heaven can grant to man. Wives, read it; and girls, let every word be impressed upon your hearts, in letters of gold:

“Lord bless and preserve the dear person whom thou hast chosen to be my husband; let his life be long and blessed, comfortable and holy; and let me also become a great blessing and a comfort unto him, a sharer in all his sorrows, a meet helper in all the acts and changes in the world, make me amiable forever in his eyes and forever dear to him. Unite his heart to me in the dearest love and holiness, and mine to him in all its sweetness, charity, and complacency. Keep me from all ungentleness, all discontentedness and unreasonableness of passion and humor and make me humble and obedient, useful and observant, that we may delight in each other, according to Thy blessed word, and both of us may rejoice in Thee, having for our patron the love and services of God forever.”

-- Author Unknown

As for the 1858 article in the Stockton Independent, published on January 16, 1858, A Wife's Prayer, as I stated in my article What Made Marriages Work On An 1858 American Homestead, American pioneer couples were intrepid, extremely resilient, as they faced incredible challenges during America's Westward expansion. Nothing about their lives was what we today would call "easy." Even the journey itself was arduous and cruel. The journey West often lasted six to eight months with little time for rest, even during childbirth along the trail.

The journey West in the 1850s was a 2,000-mile, six-month ordeal of extreme physical hardship. Those coming West endured brutal weather, freezing nights, scorching heat, unforgiving terrain, scorching deserts, treacherous river crossings, and disease -- especially cholera and dysentery. 

As for the disease? It's true. While accidents and deaths involving wagons, firearms, hostiles, and rattlesnakes were common, it was cholera, dysentery, and measles that were the primary killers of American pioneers coming West. The reason for that is that those diseases were spread by poor sanitation and inadequate nutrition. 

Wagons moved slowly, only about 8 to 20 miles per day. And yes, this pace forced many to walk the entire journey. Pioneers faced broken wagons, scarce water, and dangerous terrain, with mortality rates estimated between 4% and 10%. If wagons broke down, travelers were often left to fend for themselves since the wagon train couldn't wait for people to make needed repairs or find fresh oxen. This led to the separation of family members who had to push on ahead.

Food supplies often ran low, forcing families to abandon possessions or face starvation. But, despite the perils and the risks, the promise of a better life drove thousands to undertake this journey. That is what drove pioneer married couples to face extreme hardships, physically demanding labor, isolation, and constant danger. It was not romantic or an adventure. It was toughing it out when things weren't easy. It was striving for a better life and working toward a dream of having your own place.

As for women who faced pregnancy and childbirth, most times, whether it was while enduring the long journey West walking beside wagons, or giving birth in wagons with no springs, women often faced childbirth without medical assistance and were considered fortunate to have whatever help they could get from the other ladies in a wagon train. 

On homesteads, the mortality rate for women was high. And yes, that is also the reason that some men were married to multiple wives during their lifetime; many women died during childbirth or from frontier conditions. The isolation meant there was no trained medical assistance nearby. Births were typically handled by midwives or family members, if available. Women often delivered alone or with only family present, making any sort of complication fatal for either or both in some cases.

Let's remember, besides a lot of other things that can go wrong, those pioneer women went without access to antiseptic techniques. That in itself led to high rates of infection. And yes, just as it would be today, with infections, there was the possibility of sepsis.

And here's something else: pioneers worked hard. The extreme physical labor, combined with poverty, meant that life required relentless work to survive. So, along with clearing land, building log cabins, growing crops, tending to livestock, and maintaining things, exhaustion was commonplace. And really, why shouldn't they be exhausted? Their daily life involved working from sunup until sundown.

Chores on an 1858 homestead were relentless, sun-up to sun-down tasks focused on survival, involving heavy manual labor, livestock care, and food production. Daily routines centered on milking cows, feeding animals, tending gardens, chopping wood, hauling water, and repairing tools, with women managing cooking, cleaning, and laundry.

On homesteads, cows and goats required milking twice daily. Livestock was fed, and water was made available by hauling buckets. There's also the chore of cleaning stalls and gathering eggs. And as for the field work, there was plowing, tilling, planting, and harvesting crops, often with horses or oxen. There was seasonal planting in spring, haying in summer, and harvesting in autumn. Harvesting food was usually a family affair, with everyone doing their part.

And let's not forget that a homesteader in 1858 still built and repaired fences. They also built and repaired their tools and harnesses for their horses, mules, or oxen. And in winter, there was still the job of breaking ice for water. As for facing food shortages and poor sanitation, that was a constant fear and a constant problem. Of course, settlers also dealt with the constant strain of cold, insects, and the fear of injury. An injury that kept a man or a woman from working their homestead would have been catastrophic.

Household chores also had to be done. There was carrying water for cooking and cleaning, chopping wood for heating, and using in a cookstove. Doing laundry was all about rubbing clothes on a washboard, boiling, and wringing them by hand. Sewing, mending, and repairing clothing to maximize their use was normal for everyone. So was food preservation like canning, smoking meat, curing, and making soap from lard. Baking bread, churning butter, preparing meals from scratch, and tending the fire.

As for children, they learned that shirking was not tolerated. Some children did fieldwork, milked cows, tended animals, churned butter, helped make soap, brought in wood to keep a fire going, and hauled water. And yes, carrying water, often from distant sources, a task that became harder in winter. The youngest were usually assigned to gathering eggs, weeding the family gardens, and maybe fetching water.

It took a tremendous amount of grit to farm, build a homestead, and navigate the hardships of the frontier. There are reasons that we refer to stalwart Americans as folks who have a "pioneer spirit." Their typical life was all about hard work and being self-sufficient. The couples, back in the day, demonstrated remarkable resilience in carving out lives on the American frontier, often with minimal resources. Frankly, they had limited resources for comfort.

Homesteaders faced constant threats, including harsh weather, illness, and in some areas there was the problems of hostiles of all colors. Daily life required, as one settler noted, living on "work and love," sometimes spending years without basic amenities like a fireplace or stove, relying on wood fires against cabin logs. Wives, while managing the home, played a crucial role in farm labor and managing the homestead itself. 

The irony is that in the 1850s, married women were legally subordinate in the eyes of the law. That meant they had to rely on their husbands for legal standing regarding property, while in fact serving as the emotional backbone of the home.

Life on an 1850s homestead was defined by constant, labor-intensive chores that spanned from dawn until dusk, leaving little time for leisure. Family members, including children, worked from morning until night, leaving few opportunities for rest or comfort. Daily survival required endless tasks. So no, there's no doubt that by the 1850s, a homestead was demanding. But, though that was the case, a lot of families made them work. 

Marriages on homesteads in the 1850s required immense strength, grit, and dependence on each other. Often described as "toughing it" through a lifestyle that combined extreme physical labor, isolation, and a lack of basic shelter or resources. Marriage was a partnership essential for surviving the harsh realities of the American frontier.  

Those homesteads succeeded through a survival-based partnership in which traditional roles were respected and encouraged. It was a world where men focused on breaking ground and planting crops to provide for their families, while women managed the home, which included cooking and raising their children. It was all about love and working together with your wife, who shared the same goal, that common objective of building a permanent homestead of their own. Being self-sufficient was just part and parcel of the times. But even though that was the case, chores and having to do for yourself created a strong collaborative family bond.  

 

So when asked, what made marriages work, and ultimately stronger, on an 1850s American homestead? The answer might simply be that, like today, life and marriage require immense emotional fortitude and a strong belief in God on the part of both the husband and the wife. That sort of resilient, clear-headed, purposeful resolve can hold things together through anything. 

I know that I just repeated everything from my article What Made Marriages Work On An 1858 American Homestead, but it needs repeating. 

My friends, don't believe it when people say that women were not coming West and homesteading didn't start until the Federal Government enacted the 1862 Homestead Act. That's just not true. The fact is that homesteading started and women came West by 1836 on the Oregon Trail when the first wagon train was organized in Independence, Missouri. 

The Oregon Trail and its many offshoots were used by about 400,000 settlers, farmers, miners, ranchers, and all sorts of other business owners. And yes, they traveled their whole familie. All to get to the fertile farmlands in Oregon, Idaho, Nebraska Territory, and California. The eastern half of the trail was used by travelers on the California Trail from 1843, while the Mormon Trail from 1847, was especially used after the boom of the California Gold Rush in 1849.

Though only a small persentage of the overall population were women at first, with only 3 to 4% being women, American pioneer couples homesteaded as a partnership. Couples traveling in covered wagons, the tough as nails prairie schooners, endured months of travel, often walking beside wagons to spare oxen, while facing steep mountain passes and desert stretches with little water or grass. 

To make matters worst, illnesses such as cholera, measles, and smallpox were common. Between that and accidents along the way, there was a high "body count" of travelers who were buried along the trail. And as for what they tried to get ahead of, settlers encountered unpredictable and severe weather, including blizzards, floods, hailstorms, and prairie fires.

Once they arrived and settled, families often lived miles from neighbors, forcing them to rely on self-sufficiency and ingenuity to turn sod homes in many cases into homes. And yes, if you're thinking it was tough, it was. It was intense labor, and it took resilience to adapt to life on the American frontier. To make it, to fight the odds and prevail, husbands and wives worked together to build homes, till the land, and survive extreme conditions. Their lives centered on self-reliance. They farmed, worked hard, and created huge families.

Their partnership was about survival characterized by "hard living." They faced life with scarce resources. On the vast Americans prarie they built their home out of sod because trees were not available. They repurposed items, used buffalo chips for fuel, and built what they needed. Buying conveniences and necessities was not really a part of "frontier life" until much later with the advent of towns and General Stores.

As for mail-order catalogues, which in reality was our great-great-grandparents' form of on-line Amazon shopping, mail-order catalogues didn't come about until the early 1870s when Aaron Montgomery Ward published the first general mail-order catalog in the United States, designed to help rural Americans buy goods directly. And it wasn't until the late 1880s that Sears, Roebuck and Co. popularized the format, transforming rural consumer access to goods. 

To acquire tools, fabric, seeds, farm eqipement, and staples before mail-order catalogues revolutionized access to goods, buying necessities was limited by geography and transportation. Early settlers either made what they needed, or relied on trading posts, mercantile stores, the old faithful General Stores, and traveling salesman who were commonly known as "drummers." Settlers exchanged goods, such as furs or local produce, for manufactured products like steel knives, firearms, and cooking utensils. 

General Stores functioned as one-stop shopping for tools, coffee, sugar, kerosene, fabric, and almost everything immaginable. Of course, as can be expected, inventory was limited, expensive, and depended on availability since it was either brought in by wagons or riverboats. It is very hard for some folks today to relate to it because it was a life with no modern 21st Century conveniences. And no, not everyone made it. 

Some would-be-pioneers returned East. But for those who stayed and fought the odds to make it, it was a life that demanded absolute cooperation between husband and wife. It was a life that demanded they they have respect for the defined roles in their marriage. 

Men were responsible for building cabins, hunting, for doing heavy arduous labor, for the toil and hard work of breaking new ground and farming land that never tasted a plow. While women worked hard doing many of the farm chores including milking and tending to livestock, they were also responsible for educating their children, sewing, making clothing, washing, cleaning, gardening, canning, food preservation, and managing their home. In cases where husbands died, women frequently took over the management of farms and businesses, demonstrating remarkable fortitude to maintain their homesteads.

There is something elase. While the role of women in the Old West was essential to the success of farming and homesteading, we forget that women were essential to the taming of the West. It is just a fact that men built churches, schools, and brought lawlessness in raucous towns under control just to civilize the West for women.

It's just a matter of history. Women were the the number one motivating factor that truly settled the West. More than not, though not the sole reason for a civilized West, men aimed to "Civilize" the lawlessness of the West in part to create a society suitable for women, families, and Christian moral standards. While this was not the sole factor in Westward expansion, the absence of women is believed to be the primary cause of the West's initial immoral and violent nature. All of which changed when women arrived. 

Tom Correa

 

Memes You've Sent Me -- Part 2

As I said in part one, I get a lot of email from readers asking me to research various people and historic events. Along with that, I get requests to research political issues and things that are honestly very funny. I also get a lot of memes from readers. And since many of you have asked me to post them here, I thought I would do just that and post a few of the memes that you've sent me. 

Of course, not all of the memes you send me that you send me are political.