Dealing With Being Sick In The Old West

Cowboys back in the day had an interesting way with words. If they were sick to their stomach, or feeling very ill, they would say they felt "Wamble-cropped."  And yes, if you give it some thought, saying you feel "Wamble-cropped" should cover it if you're feeling like death warmed over.

Depending on how sick someone felt is what determined how colorful the terms they used. It's really no different than today. Common terms today range from feeling like you're "Sick as a dog," feeling like you were "Hit by a bus," or "Feeling like crap." And yes, folks today can get pretty descriptive. Someone who is said might say they're "Wiped out," or "out of it," or how they're "Blowing chunks." And yes, I've always thought the term "Felling quizzy," was a bit feminine.

I've always appreciated the more manly honesty of using the term of "Lookin' to die" -- used by someone who felt so bad that they wasn't any other way of truly describing how bad they feel, there was no mistaking how bad the person feels.

As a quick sidestep here, I read that people in the 1800s would say they feel "Sick as a horse." Supposedly, it's an 1800s expression used to describe extreme physical discomfort. Frankly, I've never heard anyone say that. I have heard someone say they are "Healthy as a horse," but never "Sick as a horse." 

Of course, I'm sure a lot of folks have heard the term as "Sick as a dog." Believe it or not, that term goes back to 1705. That term supposedly came about because of horrible living conditions and squalor of the inner-cities. It was a term that most folks understood immediately. People back then associated animals with dirt and dangerous illnesses like the plague. 

A derogatory term for someone suffering from a chronic respiratory illness or tuberculosis (TB) was to call them a "Lunger." Of course, back in the Old West, people with TB were said to have "Consumption" or "Wasting Disease."

Consumption was actually the 1800s medical term for tuberculosis (TB). It described how the disease "consumed" patients from the inside out through severe weight loss and wasting away. It was the leading cause of death during the Old West. Before the discovery of antibiotics, doctors could do little to treat the disease with its chronic coughing, fevers, and bloody sputum.

About now, you may be asking yourself if there really was a term "Wamble-cropped." Well, believe it or not, "Wamble" is an old word meaning "to roll, wobble, or feel nauseated." 

The word "Crop" in this case comes from an older dialect word for "the stomach or craw." I found that history first recorded it's use in 1552 Europe. So, as for today, it is a rare, old-fashioned dialect term sometimes spelled "Wamble-cropt." But yes, it's real. And as for why American Cowboys used in in the 1800s, or how they got it? That's a mystery to me.

So what actually happened when a someone became ill in the Old West? 

Folks in the Old West relied on a mix of frontier resourcefulness, dangerous patent medicines, and home remedies, featuring common treatments like laudanum, whiskey, and pine pitch. And frankly speaking, we all have to admire their resourcefulness. Doctors, real Doctors, medical school trained Doctors, were actually rare and miles away, so folks used what they had on hand to treat injuries and sickness.

For cowboys on the trail, cowboys relied on the chuckwagon cook, home remedies, or rough frontier medicine to get well. The camp cook often doubled as a makeshift doctor and dentist, using basic supplies from the wagon's tool box. Cuts and bleeding were stopped with the help of a poultice. 

A poultice was made by mixing flour with wood ashes, add spider webs, some herbs, and gunpowder to form a paste. It was then spread on a cloth and applied to a wound to draw out infection, ease pain, and reduce swelling. 

A common household poultice used stale bread soaked in milk or hot water to make into a paste to draw heat and pus from infected sores. I find it pretty interesting that people used poultices for at least 5,000 years, and only stopped with the widespread introduction of modern antibiotics in the 1920s. Before that, it wasn't uncommon for a dirty cloths warm poultice to be reused. In many case, don't more harm than good. 

Of course, no one knew a lot about germs at the time. The modern biological meaning of the term "germ" (a harmful microscopic organism) came into use around 1871. While that was true, cowboys avoid risky river water, to avoid severe dysentery. Instead, cowboys drank huge amounts of hot boiled coffee. Boiling that river water helped, but who knows if they understand why plain watch would give you dysentery and yet boiled coffee wouldn't.

Whiskey was everywhere, and used for everything. Doctors on the trail or in small towns often performed rapid amputations or sutured wounds using horsehair sterilized in whiskey. In the absence of medical-grade supplies that we have today, high-proof alcohol was used as a disinfectant for wounds or as a sedative for pain. And yes, whiskey was mixed with red peppers to create a tonic to fight stomach trouble. It was the same as how folks would boil onion into a syrup, or make up sassafras tea for those with colds and coughs.

Old West pioneers and cowboys treated sickness using hot toddies, onion poultices, and whiskey. They relied on kitchen staples and local herbs to fight off fevers, coughs, and injuries. 

The Hot Toddy was a very common drink in the day. It was a  mix of hot coffee or water, honey, lemon juice, and a shot of whiskey to soothe coughing. Onion Poultices were steamed, warm onions wrapped in a cloth and placed on the chest to draw out lung congestion. Sometime goose grease was rubbed onto the chest with a bit of turpentine to break up a bad cough.

Willow Bark was often used by pioneers who chewed on willow bark or brewed it into tea to alleviate pain and reduce inflammation. Raw Potatoes were used for burns. Scrapings of raw potato were occasionally bound to minor burns to provide a cooling sensation. The use of Castor Oil was a common remedy for constipation and various stomach ailments. Plants, such as red root or wild cherry bark, were steeped into teas to manage symptoms of chills and fevers. 

Of course, Old home remedies for common sicknesses like colds and coughs included chicken soup, hot tea with honey and lemon, and steam inhalation. These traditional treatments helped soothe irritated throats, ease congestion, and keep the body hydrated while it fights off illness. They still do.

Ginger tea helps calm an upset stomach and reduces mild nausea. Gargling with saltwater fixes a sore throat. Breathe in steam from hot water over a bowl to clear stuffy nasal passages. Apply a menthol ointment to the chest or under the nose to open airways. And yes, eating cheese to stop diarrhea is an old-time cure.

As with today, back in the Old West, minor ailments were simply sweated out on horseback, as stopping a cattle drive was rarely an option. As for options, Frontier medicine relied on using some harsh options. That included using mercury-based calomel or heavy doses of turpentine to force illnesses out of the body.

Passing A Kidney Stone In The Old West

So now, let's talk about something that I've experienced lately. Let's talk about what happened with someone in the Old West is passing a kidney stone. It's something that put me in bed with a great deal of pain.

Passing a kidney stone causes severe sharp pain in the back or side, groin pain,  burning urination, and blood in the urine. The severe pain in your back or ribs can come in waves. The pain spreads and there is the strong, frequent need to pee. There is definitely pain and burning when you pee. You urine looks red, brown, cloudy, and is bad-smelling. You're sick to your stomach, throwing up, you have the chills and cold sweats. 

To me, it's pain so bad that you cannot sit still or find a comfortable spot. I hate the fever and the chills, the blood in your urine, and the burning. I know that instead of me taking medication, that I have the option of going to a VA Emergency Room and they have the technology to go after the stone and break it up. 

Passing a kidney stone in the Old West meant having to deal with excruciating pain, being in unmitigated agony, and knowing that you have no options other then relying on Whiskey for pain.  Frontier whiskey was heavily used as a primitive sedative to dull the blinding pain, though it often worsened dehydration. 

Folks in the Old West faced severe renal colic without modern pain relievers, antibiotics, or safe surgical options. And only had to let nature take it's course with a natural passage. Cowboys and pioneers alike, all suffered waves of agonizing back and flank pain radiating to the groin, accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and bloody urine. Most sufferers simply had to wait weeks for the stone to move on its own, confined to a bed or cot while enduring the raw torture of the blockage. If a large stone caused a complete urinary obstruction or severe infection, it frequently led to sepsis, kidney failure, or death.

Kidney Surgery In The Old West Was a Death Sentence

Lacking the pharmaceuticals that we have today, people relied on heavy hydration and herbal teas made from local plants intended to soothe or act as diuretics. 

But to go after a kidney stone meant cutting a body open. In those days, they simply didn't have the technology to control the bleeding and infections. Sure, in the East, at the medical schools, under perfect conditions, there were those willing to cut someone open for a stone (lithotomy).  

But in the reality of the American frontier, such a surgery was a death sentence. It's true. Because of blood loss, shock, and fatal post-operative infections before antisepsis, open surgery for urinary stones was a death sentence. 

Tom Correa

I wrote the above post still half-dead. So yes, you have my apologies if my rambling is less coherent than usual. Have a great day! 

Was 1894 Milton Stage Robbery Killing A Missed Opportunity

Today, Milton, California, is a small sparsely populated unincorporated community in Calaveras County. Some call it a "ghost town," but in reality, most don't really pay it much mind at all when driving pass it or going to the nearby county landfill.

The highest elevation in Calaveras County is Corral Hollow Hill, also referred to as Corral Ridge, which reaches a peak elevation of 8,170 feet. Milton sits at an elevation of 394 feet which makes it sit at the lowest end of the county. That's important since Milton was the first town in Calaveras County to have a railroad.

In fact, Milton was established in 1871 when the Stockton and Copperopolis Railroad, later a branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad, completed its line there. Milton was used by freight wagons and travelers as a staging point before continuing their way upcountry to other parts of Calaveras County by wagon and stagecoach from Milton. It became a crucial shipping point for cargo, cattle, and passengers traveling to and from Calaveras County. 

The town was named for Milton Latham. He has been reported to be a railroad engineer, but I've read where he was also a railroad financier. In 1871, the people of Milton named their settlement after him. But, instead of naming their settlement Latham, using his last name, they used his first name instead. 

In 1873, a tornado nearly destroyed the town. In 1875, a fire is said to have done what the tornado couldn't by almost wiping out the town completely. The town had a post office that was built in 1871, but it closed in 1942. As for the Keystone Masonic Lodge hall, it mysteriously burned down in 2016. 

Today, other than their well maintained pioneer graveyard, there simply isn't much of the original town left there. As I said before, it can be called a "ghost town." In reality, most don't really pay much mind  to Milton when driving pass it or going to the nearby county landfill. Other than a few cattle ranches in the area, there's not a lot there.

The Milton Stage Robbery of 1894

On May 19, 1894, just outside of Milton, a highwayman wearing mask stopped the stage from Angels Camp. As the stage slowed around a bend, the masked man simply stepped out from the brush pointing a shotgun at the lead horses. He didn't know it, but that was the last day of his life. 

The bandit didn't know that part-time Wells Fargo guard William Hendricks was riding inside the stagecoach on its 20-mile route from Angels Camp to Milton. Hendricks decided to ride on the inside of the coach to give it the appearance of not carrying a gold shipment. Hendricks actually switched places with passenger Lillie Stowell of Angels Camp who wanted to sit atop the stage beside driver Fred Wesson. 

Besides William Hendricks, inside the coach were passengers Emil Mohr, T.T. Hume, and George Pierce, along with two teenage girls, Marie Bonney and a young lady only identified as "Miss Bray.". 

It was reported that before the bandit could open his mouth to demand whatever payroll the coach may have been carrying, one of the teenage girls shouted, "There is a robber!" 

With that, Wells Fargo guard William Hendricks, who was sitting in a middle seat, stuck his 12-gauge shotgun out the coach window and cut loose with a single barrel at the masked robber. The shot stuck the masked bandit and knocked him to the ground. As he hit the ground, the bandit's own shotgun went off. Its blast went wild not hitting the coach, the horses, the stage driver, or Lillie Stowell sitting next to the driver.  

As the wounded bandit attempted to get up from the ground, William Hendricks wasn't going to allow that to happen and fired his second barrel. That blast killed the robber instantly. It was this last shot that caused the stagecoach horses to bolt. 

Stage driver Fred Wesson worked to get the horses under control as the coach sped away. It was at that moment that a second robber on the opposite side of the road, opened fired at the coach. One of his rounds struck one of the teenage passengers,  Marie Bonney, in the face and neck. Another of the second robber's rounds hit passenger T.T. Hume in the shoulder. While Hume's wound was seen as a minor shoulder wound, Marie Bonney was in serious trouble.

Fred Wesson finally got the horses under control and stopped the coach, he climbed down to find Hendricks applying pressure to Marie Bonney's to stop the bleeding. Hendricks told Wesson that she needed help fast, so Wesson climbed back up on the stage and quickly drove the stagecoach to a nearby ranch. 

Marie Bonney's wounds were considered so serious that the ranch owner had his hands put her in a wagon and return her to Angels Camp to get her to a doctor and get proper medical treatment. One report on Marie Bonney said that she wasn't expected to survive, while another said she would eventually recover. As for T.T. Hume, they bandaged his wound at the ranch and he made the rest of the run on that stage to Stockton. And yes, in case you're wondering, supposedly, he also recovered. 

One report said that the ranch owner rode back to the site of the robbery, and found the dead bandit. He was described as be "riddled with buckshot from the sole of his right foot to the top of his head."

Later, local lawmen arrived with a small posse. And after attempting to retrace the tracks of that second bandit who they believed was still on the loose, they moved the buckshot riddled dead outlaw to Angels Camp where he was promptly put on display. It was then that a man who had known him in Tulare County identified the outlaw as John Keener of Visalia. It was also then that lawmen surmised that this was the same outlaw gang that robbed a stage just a few days earlier. They also found out about the dead outlaw's accomplice or possible accomplices. 

As John Keener of Visalia? Soon after he was identified, his brother Henry came forward to say that he read about the robbery attempt in the newspapers. Henry then assisted the authorities with information of the his brother's friend Willian Dowdle who was by then thought to be the second bandit. The bandit who opened fire on the stage after the horses bolted. 

Dowdle caught him weeks later when they found him hiding in a chicken coop. Dowdle admitted to being an John Keener's accomplice, and he named a third member of their gang, but was not there when Keener and Dowdle tried to rob the Milton stage. His name was Amos Bierer. After authorities arrested him in Angels Camp, both Dowdle and Bierer ended up in the Calaveras County Jail.

Dowdle and Bierer stood trial in Calaveras County on charges of assault with the intent to commit robbery. Each of them was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in Folsom State Prison. They both served 8 years before each were paroled. 

As for it being considered a "missed opportunity" for the bandits? It was later reported that there was $80,000 in gold aboard that coach. That would have been quite the haul in 1894.

As for William Hendricks, he was given a full time job with Wells Fargo and the majority of the public applauded him as a hero for his actions. Of course, as with things today, back then there were also know-it-all folks with 20/20 hindsight who wanted to tell others how they would have done things differently if they were in someone else's place. 

In the case of the Milton stage robbery, there were a few folks who believed the masked man should have been taken alive. Their argument was that the masked man could have been more useful if taken alive because he could have led authorities to catch the others. Because of that, there are some who say the 1894 Milton stage robbery was a "missed opportunity" for law enforcement. 

So instead of complete appreciation for what he did, there were those who tried to say that Wells Fargo expressman William Hendricks shot too quickly. They tried to say that he acted too fast, was too quick on the trigger, and instead should have waited for the entire gang to show itself. 

Imagine that for a moment. As dumb as that sounds, there were people at the time who said that he should have waited until all of the outlaws, no matter how much they would have outnumbered Hendricks, were altogether. They assumed that because the bandit was not taken alive and his accomplices were not caught, that Wells Fargo detectives and law enforcement missed an opportunity to break up "a major criminal gang." Of course, there was no "major criminal gang." There were a lot of independent outlaws operating in the area, but there wasn't an organized criminal gang there. And as for Keener and Dowdle, that robbery appears to have been their first and last attempted stagecoach hold up. That's good, because they weren't very good at it. 

As for the guard's actions, this is how I see it. William Hendricks took out a threat when it presented itself. Instead of waiting for that threat to grow in numbers to where there would be even more of a chance of unintended death or injury to the passengers, Hendricks did exactly as he should have. As an armed guard, he lowered the odds by taking out the armed masked man immediately. 

If he had waited until the rest of the gang showed up, the odds would have been stacked against him to act. So instead of engaging in a prolonged firefight with the odds being one against three or four, Hendricks minimized the threat by taking out the first bandit.

In all of my training, I've learned that taking decisive action to neutralize an immediate threat can prevent a situation from escalating into a more dangerous, multi-adversary engagement. That's just a fact. So whether Hendricks understood it or not, what he did aligns with principles emphasizing the rapid isolation of threats.

By neutralizing the most immediate aggressor, an armed defender can mitigate the risk of being outflanked, overwhelmed, or trapped in a prolonged firefight. Stopping an adversary's momentum rather than waiting for them to establish an advantage, grow in numbers, or positioning is smart. It certainly was on the part of William Hendricks.

Back in the Old West, stagecoach guards deterred robberies through the visible deterrent and close-quarters firepower of double-barreled 12-gauge coach guns. Their tactics relied on immediate use of their shotguns to protect valuable shipments, passengers,  and end threats quickly. William Hendricks did all of that.

Tom Correa

Old West Self-Reliance On Self-Defense

In various articles, I've talked about how I see personal protection as a fundamental Constitutional Right and an absolute civic duty rooted in the concept of individual accountability. Because I feel that we should all be willing to own our actions, decisions, and their outcomes, both positive and negative, I absolutely reject the idea that personal safety is something citizens should fully outsource to law enforcement. And yes, I whole heartily believe that citizens should be self-reliant for their self-defense and security. 

I'm bringing this up because I'm being told that more Americans today believe that the government in the form of the police has a responsibility to protect them. But that's not true. Under our laws, local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies have no Constitutional duty to protect individual citizens from harm. This legal reality is frequently misunderstood by the general public. 

In DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government and its agents generally have no Constitutional duty to protect individuals from private violence or harm. And in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that police do not have a constitutional duty to enforce restraining orders to protect individuals, even when mandatory arrest statutes apply.

So yes, that's why I believe Americans should stop depending on others and instead take responsibility for their personal safety and security. Folks should do this by combining personal preparedness with an understanding of our legal rights to ensure that our safety measures are adequate and lawful. 

My believe is that our self-reliance on our self-defense is the ultimate expression of the "Cowboy Code," because self-reliance in the Old West in regards to self-defense emphasizes that we are our own first responder. That goes right to the heart of the ethos of the American frontier.

At the core of the cowboy way of life is an unwavering dedication to independence, resilience, and resourcefulness. Americans in the Old West understood the importance of having a good name and taking responsibility for yourself, including what you need in the way of self-defense. Instead of making excuses or pointing fingers when things go wrong, an accountable individual takes responsibility for their mistakes, learns from them, and takes proactive steps to make things right.

We did it in the Old West and I truly believe that we can do it today. We can by taking total ownership of our personal safety, and reject the mindset of depending entirely on law enforcement to protect us. And really, since law enforcement may be distant and fairly sparse, we need to actively discover and rely on our own mental and physical resources to protect ourselves -- just as our pioneers did.

 
This is something that I firmly believe we should all accept. No one should be waiting passively for a government agency to rescue them during a violent encounter. To do so is not only insane, it's giving up, it's quitting, it's an abdication of your personal responsibility to yourself and others. When it comes to issues of our security, or issues dealing with life in general, the fact is that no one should wait for the U.S. Cavalry to come riding over the rise to your rescue. 

The cavalry isn't coming to your rescue. You need to buck-up to survive. You need to be your own first responder.

The concept of being "our own first responder" accurately reflects the realities of the American frontier. Because formal law enforcement was hours or even days away, survival demanded American individualism. With vast, unpopulated expanses dominating the American frontier, towns relied on county sheriffs or town marshals whose jurisdictions were massive and response times were non-existent. That's why self-reliance for self-defense was fundamentally about practicality in the Old West. 

Daily survival relied on assessing likely threats and choosing tools that could double as everyday working implements. Functionality took precedence over flashy showmanship. Firearms were seen as tools for protection against both human and animal threats. The iconic Colt Single Action Army revolver and the Winchester 1873 rifle later became legends of the era, but more folks in the Old West owned shotguns.

While Hollywood secured a place for the Colt Single Action Army and Winchester 1873 in our cultural memory, the reality of frontier economics made long guns like the 12-gauge double-barrel shotgun the true workhorses of the American West.

The fact is that shotguns were a lot more affordable, and they were considered utilitarian tools essential for both survival and protection. They could easily take down everything from flying game birds to larger predators using readily available lead shot, and their wide spread made close-quarter defense highly forgiving for novice shooters or stagecoach guards. Because of this, hardware stores and merchants across the entire western frontier stocked them in far greater numbers than expensive repeating rifles or premium metallic-cartridge revolvers.

During the late 1800s, buying a firearm was a major financial investment. It was a huge decision. Because a typical cowboy or laborer earned about $30 a month, a Colt Peacemaker was considered an expensive luxury. In comparison, a standard shotgun was an accessible, multi-purpose investment that was affordable by frontier prices. 

Both standard retail and mail-order prices during the 1870s and 1880s had a Colt Peacemaker, (Single Action Army) selling for $17.00 to $20.00. That was a specialized luxury sidearm that cost over half a month's wages. A premium Double-Barrel Shotgun, such as a European import shotgun, sold for $25.00 to $50.00. That high-end craftsmanship made them out of reach for average Americans.

On the other hand, the utilitarian Double-Barrel Shotgun, the standard American made brands, $12.00 to $15.00. That made the standard household shotgun the American workhorse because it was seen as more affordable than a Colt Peacemaker. As for those surplus, single-shot shotguns, and muzzleloaders that were everywhere at the time because they were left-overs and often created from modified Civil War surplus, they sold for anywhere from $2.00 to $8.00 each.

The realities of frontier economics was such that dropping $17 on a new Colt Single Action Army was hard for an ordinary settler or cowboy to justify. It was a slow-loading, heavy iron weapon that serves only one purpose: It is a personal defense against human threats.

The family shotgun was seen as versatile. While a high-end imported double-barrel could run up to $50 in the Old West, a basic trade-brand double barrel and single-shot shotgun was a lot cheaper. More importantly than cost was its dual use. While it can be used as a personal defense against human threats at a ranch or homestead, or in town, a shotgun put food on the table. It could fire cheap, locally recast lead shot to harvest birds and small game, or be loaded with heavy buckshot to deter predators and trespassers.

Then there was what was known as the "Suicide Specials." Those were the cheap handguns for those folks who were broke but desperately needed a concealable handgun. They couldn't afford a Colt, so they bought cheap, unnamed pocket revolvers for as little as $1.50 to $5.00. They were often called "suicide specials" because the user didn't know it would fire or not, blow up in the hands, or somehow get them killed.

While the iconic Colt Single Action Army was common, lawmen and traveler alike favored "palm guns" or "belly guns." Those small, hammerless .32 or .38 caliber pocket revolvers were designed for immediate, close-quarters defense. In more populated cities in the Old West, like San Francisco and Denver, gentlemen at the time were known to carry walking sticks, walking canes, were also widely used as defensive weapons during physical altercations.

For working folks in the Old West, those who worked their farms, the rancher, the working cowboy, those townsfolk who held regular jobs in town, self-reliance in regards to self-defense was about being pragmatic and understanding the possible threats. It's true. for working folks in the American frontier, self-reliance was about situational awareness rather than paranoia. 

They had to be grounded in sheer pragmatism and situational awareness. They had work to be done and couldn't afford to carry nine guns and paranoid. At the same time, in a rugged environment far from centralized law enforcement that may or may not exist in town, being armed allowed individuals to focus on daily work and survival without constantly worrying about their safety.

True self-reliance in regards to being prepared for self-defense required folks back then to have a mental toughness and remain calm under pressure, not give in to frantic suspicion. A person who was excessively paranoid or quick-tempered was seen as a liability, a loose canon in the community.

For farmers, ranchers, cowboys, and townsfolk, survival depended on them having an understanding of their everyday threats and choosing practical tools and strategies to mitigate them. For them, firearms and other defensive tools were treated as practical implements, much like an ax or a saddle. They were essential for protecting livestock from predators, providing food, and ensuring peace of mind.

Let's keep in mind, other then Hollywood's notion that everyone in the Old West had to be ready at any moment for a quick-draw duel, the reality of how these different groups approached self-defense reveals a deeply practical mindset.

For farmers and homesteaders, those working the land, threats came less from outlaws and more from the environment, wildlife, and occasional property disputes. Farmers didn't usually carry handguns. For one thing, wearing a handgun got in the way. For another, they were expensive and inaccurate at a distance. 

Instead, they relied on shotguns or rifles, which were dual-purpose tools used for hunting food and keeping predators away from livestock. Self-defense for a farming family meant securing the home. Fortifying cabins, keeping reliable watchdogs on hand, and maintaining a clear line of sight around the property were the primary lines of defense.

For ranchers and working cowboys, most cowboys and ranchers operated in remote, isolated areas where law enforcement was hours or days away, making self-reliance an absolute necessity. Understanding where they lived and worked made a cowboys accept the fact that their primary threats were apex predators, like cougars or wolves, rabid animals, and the terrifying prospect of a cattle stampede.

While a firearm was often used to signal for help or to put down an injured horse, wearing a gun on a gun-belt, especially during brandings, meant they got in the way and were seen as totally unnecessary. There was no need for a ranch hand to wear a handgun while painting a barn, fixing a water trough, or being down in the dirt castrating a calf in the Old West or today.

In the Old West, cowboys castrated bull calves during spring roundups using a pocket knife, a quick slice, and teeth or hands to pull the spermatic cord. They disinfected wounds with pine tar or grease, and occasionally seared vessels with a hot iron to prevent bleeding. Now, let me explain that again.

Calves were roped, dragged to the branding fire, and held down by two cowboys working on the ground. One cowboy would flank the calf, pinning its head and one shoulder to the ground, while the other cowboy secured the legs. Cowboys used their everyday, sharp folding jackknives rather than specialized veterinary equipment.

The cowboy grabbed the scrotum, cleaned it, and made a single longitudinal cut. The testicles were popped out, and the spermatic cord was either severed with the knife, scraped away slowly to induce clotting and reduce bleeding, or pulled completely. To finish, the cowboy applied pine tar, pitch, or axle grease to the open wound to keep insects away and prevent infection. 

Now, try that while wearing a gun and tell me if it doesn't feel in the way? And yes, that's why that image of a ranch hand wearing a handgun while going about his daily chores is a Hollywood myth. In both the Old West and today, carrying a pistol while performing hard, physical labor is uncomfortable, dangerous, and impractical. Castrating or branding cattle demands both hands and close, hands-on work in dust and manure. Any rancher or working cowboy knows that.

Besides, the last time I checked, there aren't a lot of uses for a pistol during a branding. Cows hardly ever cheat at cards. And no, I've never heard a cow say they'd be my "Huckleberry."

Tasks like painting a barn, repairing a water trough, or working in the dirt with livestock require bending, kneeling, and constant movement. A strapped handgun would simply get in the way of using tools or carrying materials. When Hollywood depicts some young cowboy with a pistol hanging on his hip breaking a horse, I immediately understand how little the producers know about anything. 

As I said earlier, as a matter of fact, in the 19th century, a working ranch hand usually couldn't afford an expensive pistol like a Colt Peacemaker. Besides, if a firearm was needed for clearing predators, hunting small game, or putting down a sick animal, a rifle was usually used rather than a handgun. 

Even today, while I know of a lot of ranchers who carry "ranch rifles" or "truck guns" for emergencies like putting down an animal or taking a shot at a predator, modern ranch hands rarely carry handguns for daily chores. It's true. Unless they are dealing with specific, situational threats like dangerous wildlife or livestock protection, most don't see the need of a handgun when working. Although in their trucks, along with their ranch rifle, you'll for a extra pocket knife, pliers, and fencing tools.

While Hollywood and today's popular culture depicts every working cowboy with a low-slung Colt revolver, most working cowboys found pistols too heavy and cumbersome for backbreaking work or all-day saddle work. If they carried a firearm, it was often a carbine rifle secured in a scabbard on their saddle.

As for townsfolk and merchants in the Old West? For business owners and townsfolk, self-reliant self-defense meant locking doors, utilizing safes, having a pistol hidden under a cash drawer, having a shotgun propped indiscreetly behind a door, and mostly relying on the town marshal. When violence did occur, it was typically fueled by alcohol in saloons, which average working citizens simply avoided.

Now I would love to say that, all in all, in established frontier towns, self-defense was a lot more pragmatic structured to protected commerce and family life. But, the fact is that shopkeepers and clerks faced a different danger, primarily dealing with opportunistic thieves in more densely populated areas.

Of course, while Hollywood focuses on bank robberies, it's a fact that shopkeepers and clerks in the Old West actually faced far more threats from sneak-thieves, shoplifters, and short-changers. Like today, in those days, business owners had to balance customer service with tight security to protect their physical merchandise.

Unlike the Hollywood image of masked gangs riding into town to blow open safes, historical data shows that actual bank or high-profile store robberies were very rare. Instead, merchants were the real everyday targets of property crime. There was shoplifting and sneak-thievery where small, high-value goods like tobacco, pocketknives, fancy fabrics, and ammunition were frequent targets for opportunistic individuals looking to pocket items when a clerk's back was turned.

Of course, there are those who tried to pass fake money and short change cashiers. Counterfeiting was a real problem and clerks had to routinely authenticate various forms of currency, ranging from gold dust and foreign coins to unbacked paper bank notes, making them vulnerable to fraud. As for burglary, that was usually reserved for after a business was closed. 

Rather than confronting the possibility of an armed owner during the day, thieves preferred breaking into general stores or warehouses under the cover of night to steal bulk provisions. That's why there are so many news accounts of shopkeepers hearing a noise like a break-in, going downstairs to investigate, and being killed by unknown assailants. 

As for an armed deterrence, as a matter of self-defense, clerks and store owners frequently kept loaded pistols tucked under their counters and shotguns at the ready discreetly tucked behind a door. Of course, since there were no such thing as theft insurance as we have in the modern world, many shop owners proudly displayed their shotgun as a matter of letting would-be thieves know that there was no incentive to robbing his establishment. 

So yes, merchants, whether they were shopkeepers or blacksmiths, wheelwrights, or saloon owners, there were those folks who made it well known that protecting their livelihoods with force was always an option. They knew they had to depend on themselves to protect their businesses. 

Since I know that someone will write to ask, yes, there were towns that actually had strict ordinances against open carry of guns. Of course, that was as effective as "Gun Free Zones" are today. In fact, the only thing those city ordinances did was make townsfolk and visitors rely on easily concealed smaller pocket pistols and discreet knives, instead of openly carrying heavy Colt Peacemakers worn in a holster.

In the Old West, self-reliant self-defense was a daily necessity due to harsh frontier conditions, dangerous wildlife, and scarce law enforcement. Pioneers depended on situational awareness, easily concealable weapons, and everyday items such as walking sticks for personal protection. Long before drawing a weapon, pioneers relied heavily on listening, "reading a room," and tracking visual cues to avoid predators, dangerous livestock, and hostile people.

Americans in the Old West took immense pride in their freedom and independence, their self-reliance and resourcefulness, as well as their ability to solve problems without relying on others. They understood how important it is for us to take total ownership of our personal safety, and reject the mindset of depending on others like law enforcement for our personal security. By rejecting such a mindset of depending on others, we becoming better at depending on ourselves. 

We need to understood what they understood. We need fully grasp how important it is to rely on our own mental and physical resources for our safety -- all while remembering that the Frontier Code forbids us from ambushing unarmed men and shooting someone in the back no matter if they are our enemies.  

Tom Correa

Wealthy Democrats And Slavery In The 1850s

Before talking about how much wealthy Democrats paid for slaves, or how much they spent keeping slaves, or how Democrat slaveholders created poverty in the South because of their grip on slavery, let's talk about why the average White American living in the South could not afford to buy or own a slave. Let's talk about why owning slaves was limited to the wealthy Democrat elite in the South in the 1850s. 

Frankly, the limiting factor of owning slaves has to do with how much money the average White American worker earned in the 1850s. While there was no official "median salary" tracked on a national scale in 1858. Instead, the U.S. economy was an agricultural society and localized. Most working Americans were paid hourly or daily wages, which generally ranged from $200 to $500 per year if they were employed full-time year-round.

Before we get into how much an average American worker made, let's briefly talk about how many hours a week was considered full time employment in the 1850s and later during the Old West. It's important because we need to understand that they did not work 8 hour days during that time period. The standard 5-day / 40-hour workweek as we know it today was not established until the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938. 

Prior to that, American workers typically worked 10 to 14 hours a day, 6 days a week. So yes, in the 1850s, and throughout the Old West which is roughly defined as 1865 to 1895, "full-time" employment meant working 60 to 80+ hours a week. Yes, 60 to 80+ hours a week.   

Of course it did vary by trade. For example, cowboy and ranch hand work was dictated by daylight and seasonal cattle drives. That meant in many cases weeks of regularly working in excess of 90 to 100 hours -- especially during roundups or trail drives, without overtime or set days off. 

Homesteaders and farming required sunup-to-sundown labor, 7 days a week, which amounted to 80 to 100+ hours depending on the season. Miners and railroad jobs in the mining camps and the transcontinental railroad frequently required 7-day workweeks. They were pushing totals to 84+ hours of grueling manual labor a week. As for the general laborer, and those working in manufacturing jobs, it was extremely common for those workers to toil 70+ hours a week. In many industries, schedules were 12 to 14 hours a day, six days a week, leaving Sundays as the only day of rest. 

How much did they get paid for that? Well, in the past, I've talked about how cowboys and drovers in the Old West were paid $20 to $30 per month. And yes, during that era, unskilled laborers and farm hands, those working in manufacturing, typically earned between $0.75 and $1.50 per day. That means that made roughly $200 to $400 per year.

Teachers were in a class of their own. No pun intended. While some were paid seasonally, others were paid monthly. In 1858, an average male teacher made around $30 to $40 a month. Female teachers earned $20 to $26 a month. Yes, same job but less pay. 

Just as it is today, learning a skilled trade in 1858 typically required an apprenticeship, where young workers trained for a few years under a master craftsman, a journeyman. Common skilled trades during that era included carpenters, joiners, cabinetmakers, coopers (barrel makers) and wheelwrights (wagon makers), tailors, seamstresses, cobblers, shoemakers (cordwainers), printers, typesetters, blacksmiths, tool-and-die makers, machinists, and iron molders. Employment of skilled trades in 1858 America was heavily defined by the ongoing Industrial Revolution, especially in industrialized cities, expanding towns, and the transition that the Industrial Revolution was bringing about.

And no, times have not changed in regard to which American workers make more money than others. Today, many skilled tradesmen and women, make pretty good money. Frankly, they should since they put in a lot of time and effort learning their trade. 

Back in the 1850s, Americans who were skilled tradesmen, those who were carpenters, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, and other journeymen in the trades, typically commanded $2.00 to $3.00 a day. Remember, that was for working 12 to 14 hours a day, six days a week. 

That means they were the Americans on the top of the labor ladder who were making a yearly income upwards to $800. Yes, that's a year. The average for a skilled craftsmen was $600 in 1858, which is the equivalent to approximately $24,521.20 today in 2026 purchasing power.

Since the average man earned roughly $1.00 to $3.00 per day, which equals about $365 to $800 a year, could the average White American in 1858 afford to buy a slave of any color, or an indentured servant, African, Irish, Italian, German, or any other race?

No, the average White American in 1858 could not afford to buy a slave. Slaves were major capital investments for wealthy Democrats. Slaves typically costing between $800 and $2,000 depending on age, gender, and skill level. Since the average annual income was roughly $365 to $800, purchasing even one slave would cost multiple years of a laborer's total gross wages.

Imagine, if you would. Someone is a skilled craftsman at the top of his game, and makes $800 a year. To own an African slave, he would have had to not spend a single dime of his earnings. And yes, that's why only wealthy Democrats owned slaves in the 1850s -- prior to the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves.

So no, the average White American in 1858 could not afford to buy an African  slave. They simply didn't have the money to do that. And, because a single African slave cost, on the low end $400, but averaged between $800 and $2,000, purchasing one represented a massive capital investment which at the time was equivalent to buying a small farm or a large house. It was something that completely out of reach for everyone other than wealthy Democrats. 

Why Do I Emphasize That Only Wealthy Democrats Could Afford Slaves? It's Because Only Wealthy Democrats Owned Slaves. 

Let's remember that the Republican Party was not created until 1854 as a political party to end slavery. So while there were both White and Black Democrat slaveowners, there were never Republican slaveowners of any color. History show that there were Republicans who were former slaveowner. But they owned slaves when they were Democrats, before relinquishing their slaves and joining the newly formed Republican Party. 

As for Black slaveowners, records from the period confirm that free Black Americans owned slaves. And yes, like their White slaveowner counterparts, their political affiliation was to the Democratic Party.

The bottom line is that the purchase of an African slave was restricted to the wealthy Democrat plantation owners. They were the wealthy elite just as they are today.

Because of cost and practicality, since the average White American worker making $1 a day couldn't afford or support a slave, and had no use for a slave, owning a slave was generally a privilege reserved for the wealthy plantation class which were Democrats. 

Of course, White Americans such as the Irish, Italians, or Germans were not legally classified or sold as property under the antebellum legal codes, nor were they ever part of a formalized, racialized slave trade which was outlaws in 1809 when the importation of African slaves into the United States was made illegal. Poor White Americans were utilized as Indentured Servants in earlier American history

So How Much Did Wealthy Democrats Pay For Slaves In 1858?

In 1850, wealthy Democrats in slave states paid $400 for an enslaved person of any age or condition -- while slaves classified as "Prime Field Hands" and slaves who were Skilled Laborers cost between $1,200 and $2,000.

The average price, which was $400 in 1850, was about $800 by 1858. The price of a "Field Hand," which was an average adult, in 1850s between $700 and $900. A slave classified as a "Prime Field Hand," which were young adult males, commanded between $1,200 and $1,600. A slave who was a "Skilled Craftsman" cost between $2,000 and $5,000+. And here's something else, in 1859, a highly skilled, unnamed male slave who was a carpenter was sold at a New Orleans Auction for an astonishing record price of  $5,000. That's over $160,000 in today's money. His price was driven by his youth, physical fitness, and highly sought-after construction expertise. 

For most of America in 1850, the average annual per capita income in the United States was only about $110. So really, purchasing a single prime field hand for $1,200 represented more than a decade's worth of income for an average free laborer. That's why only wealthy Democrats owned slaves.

Only The Democrat Elite Could Own And Afford Slaves In The 1850s

Because of the steep prices, slavery was concentrated among the wealthiest Democrats. Wealthy Democrats invested the bulk of their capital into human property, the Democratic Party fiercely defended the institution of slavery.

How much of the United States economy was the Democrats' slave ownership? Democrat slave ownership in 1860 was the most valuable financial asset in the entire United States economy at the time. The Democrats' worth in slaves exceeded the value of all northern railroads and factories combined.

Wealthy Democrats had to be very wealthy to own slaves in the 1850s. How much would a slave cost a slave owner in room, board, food, clothing, medical, dental, education, and extras in the 1850s? Well, for Democrats to own slaves after their initial purchase, it would cost them between $80 and $110 a year depending on whether the slave was skilled labor or unskilled labor.

Add to that the cost that Democrats spend property taxes, since slaves were legally classified as property and taxed. Also add what Democrats paid out in "Overseer" salaries. Wealthy Democrats paid an "Overseer" roughly $200 to $600 annually to manage slaves -- and execute punishments.

Democrats also paid "slave patrol taxes" which were used to fund armed militia patrols that captured runaway slaves. And since many wealthy Democrats financed their purchases via bank credit, that in itself added significant annual interest payments. So the total cost for a large plantation was significant.

Political power within the 1850s Democratic Party in the South was concentrated among the wealthy Democrats who made up an elite "Planter Class." Their status was such that they had to own 20 or more slaves to be associated with that class of Democrats. For very wealthy Democrats owning an estate of 50 slaves, the baseline capital asset value alone exceeded $30,000 to $40,000 in 1850s money, paired with a recurring annual overhead of roughly $2,500 for maintenance, taxes, and security.

Slavery Was Not Good For White American Workers In The South

Here's something that most folks don't think about when it comes to slavery in the 1850s, slavery severely depressed wages for White Americans in the South.

In the 1850s, wealthy Democrats, those Southern plantation owners who were predominantly members of the Democratic Party, built an economy heavily dependent on slave labor. The widespread use of unpaid African slave labor severely limited paid job opportunities and depressed wages for landless, non-slave-owning White Americans. This created a vast underclass of impoverished White Southerners.

Because slaves were forced to perform both agricultural and manual labor without compensation, the number of paid, low-skilled jobs available to poor Whites was significantly reduced. When White Americans sought work, they were forced to compete with an immense pool of slave strikebreakers, which kept wages suppressed. 

Democrat elites in the South overwhelmingly invested their capital in purchasing slaves and land. This deterred the development of manufacturing and diversified industries. The lack of a thriving industrial sector meant fewer opportunities for White Southerners to escape agricultural poverty. 

It's true. By concentrating wealth in slavery, Democrats had no incentive to invest in industrial development. This created a massive pool of unpaid labor, the plantation system suppressed the overall value of labor and stunted the economic mobility of poor White workers. Talk about "reparations," Democrats should have to pay reparations to the families of White Americans it kept in poverty -- along with reparations to the families of the dead Confederate troops who died because Democrats took the South into a Civil War just to maintain their wealth through slavery.

People don't talk about the economic dynamics of how Democrats used the slave system to keep wages and living standards exceptionally low for the non-elite White population. Because slaves were forced to perform agricultural and craft labor without compensation, the perceived market value of all unskilled and semi-skilled labor plummeted.

Because of that, like today with Americans competing with Illegal Aliens who are getting paid "slave wages," wages lower than the standard, back in the 1850s, White American workers were forced to compete with the unpaid labor of millions of slaves. Also, Democrat slaveholders regularly trained their slaves as skilled artisans and mechanics which forced poor White American laborers in the South to seek other trades. Of course, how does a person compete with slaves when it comes to wages? It was through slavery that Democrats suppressed craft wages.

The economy of the South was dominated by a wealthy Democrat planter class that monopolized land and capital. Because they invested virtually all their wealth into slaves and land, the South never developed a robust manufacturing or industrial sector like the Northern States. That's why slavery in the South in the 1850s led to widespread underemployment and an impoverished White underclass.

As for poor White Americans who labored in the cotton belt, wealthy Democrats, and their slave population, were able to keep the wages for White Americans low. Democrat slaveholders were the reason that White Americans in the South frequently experienced long bouts of unemployment.

Poverty in the South became generational because of the Democratic Party's control of slave labor. Wealthy Democrats had the system rigged in their favor, and White Americans in the South understood that fact. The reality of life for White Americans in the South in the 1850s was understanding that Democrat slaveholders could easily replace them or suppress their wages with slaves.

So when you write to ask why Democrats took our nation into a Civil War to keep slavery, a war that cost hundreds of thousands of men to be killed, you should understand that Democrats have a history and legacy of sacrificing others to keep their wealth and status. They didn't care how many died so they could keep their slaves, or if their desire to keep slavery intact would destroy our nation. That's their slaveholder mentality.

Democrats have always been calculating, scheming, or secretly plotting to do something morally wrong, illegal, or self-serving. For example, to maintain power and prevent poor White Americans from allying with African slaves or Northern Abolitionists, conniving Democrat plantation owners promoted division by pushing a rigid racial hierarchy between Whites and Blacks. Their legacy is still with us today. 

Believe it or not, one of the greatest con jobs to ever take place was when wealthy Southern Democrats sold White Americans in the South the notion that poor Whites were "socially superior" to Black slaves. I call it a "con job" because that's what it is. A "con" is an informal term for a fraudulent scheme, deception, or swindle. It refers to an act where someone tricks or manipulates another person to gain their trust, to steal their money or get their way. That's exactly what wealthy Democrats did in the South. 

It's true. In the antebellum and post-Civil War South, the Democratic Party maintained its political base among White Americans by defining White Supremacy as a "social and political necessity" to divide Americans. Following the Reconstruction Era, the Democratic Party successfully positioned itself as the "White Man's Party," utilizing the "Redemption" movement to overthrow biracial Republican coalitions. Their plan worked for over 100 years until after the Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

To keep their century-long regional monopoly, Democrats used voter suppression and the KKK which was the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party to terrorize Blacks and Whites alike in the South. It's true. Democrats used the Ku Klux Klan and other militant groups like the Red Shirts to violently intimidate Black voters.

Democrats later instituted formal Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and literacy tests to permanently strip away African American political power. Yes, all to prevent poor White American farmers from aligning with poor Black American citizens over economic grievances. 

In the antebellum and post-Civil War South, the Democratic Party maintained its political base among White Americans by defining and defending White Supremacy. They did that by promoting the idea that race, rather than economic class, is what determined someone's place in society. Their scam was to convince White Americans that other citizens, regardless of wealth, were their enemies. And yes, Democrats did that. 

Sadly, and it really is sad, when you think about how they were able to do what they did, wealthy Democrat leaders convinced poor uneducated White Americans that they were inherently socially superior to Black Americans and other freed people. It's the enduring legacy of the Democratic Party. It's all about division to control groups of people. If that sounds a lot like what Democrats do today. It should, because it is.

Why Did Democrats Create The Division Between The Races? 

It was simply an act of self-centered economic preservation. The wealthy Democrat elite wanted to prevent working-class solidarity among poor White and Black American laborers to preserve the status quo. It was an effort by many wealthy Democrats to keep the South functioning as a pre-Civil War social society of slaves and masters, and poor Whites. 

To do that and secure the political loyalty of poor uneducated White Americans and maintain the slave system that made them rich, scheming Democrats knew that they needed to persuade impoverished uneducated White Americans that maintaining the institution of slavery was in their best interest. 

Democrats did that to prevent a biracial, class-based uprising of the poor against the wealthy elite in the South after the Civil War. It worked, and their divisiveness is part of their playbook today. And it still works, and should since Democrats have had a lot of practice at dividing Americans against each other.

This is all just a matter of historical facts. 

Tom Correa

It's Time To Teach Love Of America At Home And In Schools

America's 250th Birthday! That's huge. Our nation thriving for 250 years is a massive accomplishment. 

The United States remains the one and only nation to maintain the exact same foundational form of government and continuous Constitutional framework for our entire existence, all the while serving as a beacon of stability for the world. It's true.

When you look around and ask how many nations have had one Constitution for 250 years? The answer is only one. We are the only one to ever achieve such a feat. Even France has had 15 distinct Constitutions since the start of the French Revolution in 1789. That frequent turnover reflects the country's turbulent political history, which has transitioned through five different republics, two empires, and several restored monarchies.

After the Revolutionary War, the United States of America ratified our Constitution in 1788, and it took effect in 1789. It remains the world's oldest and longest-standing active written framework of national government. Imagine that for a moment. No other country has a single written Constitution older than 215 years. Behind us, the next oldest codified national Constitutions belong to Norway which was adopted in 1814 and the Netherlands which was adopted in 1814.

As for our unprecedented longevity, while many other world powers have undergone multiple regime changes, civil collapses, or revolutions over the same period, America has maintained our Constitutional continuity since 1776. Starting with 13 fragile colonies, the United States expanded to 50 states. All while ultimately growing into the world's largest economy and a major driver of global stability.

Over the past two and a half centuries, our country has transitioned from a primarily agricultural society to a global economic superpower, leading primarily in advanced manufacturing, information technology, biotechnology, medicine, and aerospace. Following the Civil War, Americans pioneered the "American system of manufacturing" which relies on interchangeable parts, the Bessemer process for steel, and widespread railway networks to become the world leader in steel, automobile, and heavy machinery production. 

As for information technology and computing, we've led the digital revolution -- including in foundational breakthroughs in microprocessors, the internet, and personal computing. As for aerospace and national defense? Driven by 20th-century geopolitical conflicts and the Space Race, American engineering has led the world in aviation, defense technology, and space exploration. And today, in the fields of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, the United States has historically been a premier driver of life sciences, medical device manufacturing, and agricultural biotechnology.

While over-regulation from the federal and state government has hampered productivity in recent years, because of American innovation and resilience, we continue to hold a competitive edge in many aspects of our economy -- including research and development (R&D), venture capitalism, high-tech software, energy, digital technology, medicine, space exploration, and manufacturing. American innovation has consistently driven progress.

And yes, as our history shows us, we have prevailed for 250 years because of our ability to evolve, recognize our shortcoming, find positive solutions to problems, right wrongs, weather the hard times, defeat enemies overseas, address the threat of Communism from within -- and we have done so while keeping our personal freedoms and liberties intact.

Has there been historic struggles and civic engagement? Absolutely. But even with that, our nation has faced internal divisions, economic crises, and profound hardships, only to see the American spirit of resilience win out.

In fact, we can all be proud of the fact that our history is filled with examples of hardship and trials which continuously test us, but we prevail. And more than not, the trials that we've endured as made us stronger, and even more willing to fight to remain free to speak freely, to worship Christ even though Christianity has been under attack for many years, to live without government oppression -- but with our freedoms, civil rights, and the rule of law intact.

So yes, there are so many reasons to love America. And for me, I believe teaching young Americans to love America should be done everyday in every classroom of every school across our nation. I believe that because the good about our nation outweighs the bad.

 

Yes, you can call it "pride in our heritage," or "patriotic indoctrination," if you want. And really, I'm fine with that. After all, it's all about making sure that America survives.

In a time when Leftist indoctrination and hate for America is popular in the curricula of schools, I believe teaching love of America in schools, that which we call "American patriotism," which some folks call "Civic patriotism" or "Constitutional patriotism" is needed today more than ever.

The reason is simple, teaching American Patriotism focuses on fostering appreciation for our nation's founding principles, our history, and our civic responsibilities. It boosts civic participation by inspiring higher voter turnout and participation in local and national elections. Educating students in American Patriotism encourages volunteering, community engagement, responsibility for their neighborhoods and their neighbors, and much more.

The more is more of what we need. The facts are simple to understand, students learning how our government works and learning how to create solutions, learning how to work together while understanding that we all have God-given Rights, unites us as Americans with a common understanding that we all share in the greatness of our land.

Teaching love of and for America is all about teaching students how important our shared foundational ideals are. It would teach them how responsibility as citizens helps bridge political divides. Yes, it does that by focusing on our mutual respect and goodwill for each other instead of the evil that many want us to falsely believe our nation is all about.

Helping young Americans understand why our Constitutional Rights promote respect for our fellow citizens and not hate and division is important. And really, ask yourself when was the last time a student was taught to appreciate the progress that Americans have fought and died for while trying to corrected our flaws?

Why is there so much focus on our flaws in contrast to teaching how true patriotism is all about improving our nation while not forgetting to praise it? Why is it that we cannot inspire our youth to help our nation live up to its founding ideals? When was the last time teachers taught students any of our common national values and beliefs?

America's shared common national values and beliefs shape our country's culture, our laws, and our social norms. America's core ideals are Liberty, Equality, Representative Democracy, Rule of Law, Individualism, Community, Justice, and Patriotism. Americans have has actively promoted democracy and have held authoritarian despots accountable, all while we've advanced human rights globally.

Americans have paid in blood to keep our values and beliefs alive. It is a fact that many Americans believe that Liberty is the most precious because it's about our right to act, to speak, and to think freely without government oppression. Equality is our belief that all individuals deserve equal rights, opportunities, and treatment under the law.

As a Constitutional Republic, Americans voice our satisfaction and dissatisfaction through free elections and public participation. That's how a Representative Democracy works for our citizens. Our elections are sacred, and should not be tampered with dishonestly or by non-citizen participation. We don't vote in other countries, so people from other countries should not vote in our elections.

As for American's believing in the Rule of Law? I believe that ensuring that laws apply equally to all citizens, including government leaders from all political stripes, and not just one political party over another. Unlike what takes place in Third World countries, in dictatorships, fascist and communist nations, where government leaders are exempt from prosecution, American try to hold all to account.

Frankly, sometimes the very wealthy and politically connected, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who tried to conduct a coup to unseat a sitting American president, evade the law. But that doesn't mean our system doesn't try to go after such high level criminals. And yes, this too should be taught to young American today.

As for American Individualism? As Americans, we emphasize personal independence, self-reliance, and individual achievement. We love Liberty and see it as something that is precious. We love Freedom.

And really, American Individualism, our personal autonomy, is a cornerstone of our American culture. If I were to pinpoint one defining hallmark of our American identity, it is that American Individualism, our personal autonomy, is a cornerstone of our American culture -- because American individualism emphasizes self-reliance, free expression, and the right for each of us to pursue our own happiness.

American Individualism is deeply rooted in foundational philosophies like those of the Founding Fathers. It is all about the freedom that we have to pursue success and property while being uninhibited by excessive government interference. Emphasizing self-reliance, personal autonomy, and the belief that people are ultimately responsible for their own destinies is at the heart of who we are as Americans.

Rooted in the Declaration of Independence and its promise of the "pursuit of happiness," this individualism has shaped everything from free enterprise to how we approach community. I believe it's what fosters innovation, while ensuring our personal freedom and increasing our sense of being civic minded citizens.

Americans have a deep admiration for innovation, entrepreneurship, and the pioneer spirit. As individuals, we are expected to take initiative and carve their own paths to success. And as for everyone have an equal opportunity to do so, the foundational belief rooted in the Declaration of Independence is that that all men, Americans as individuals, are born equal and possess unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Add that to Americans putting a pretty strong emphasis on personal space, individual decision-making, and protecting one's rights against institutional authority, and that's who we are.

To try to summarize our cultural and social beliefs, I'd have to say it's about how we all have a shared commitment to supporting neighbors and working for the common good. Our belief is to make things better then we left it. Hopefully, in ways that are better and not regressive.

We belief in improving our lives -- hopefully not at the expense of others, because we do have a sense of fairness. I find it interesting that our sense of fairness comes to a halt once we learn that the people we are dealing with don't share that same moral code.

Of course, while most Americans have a working moral compass, there are those who don't. The unvarnished truth is that I call people who obviously don't have a moral compass a lot of things that aren't very nice. Mostly, I call them, "Democrats."

And yes, that brings me to the fact that most Americans believe in calling a spade a spade. Most American believe in "calling a spade a spade" because most of us believe in speaking plainly and directly without sugarcoating it. It's rooted in who we are. While some say it's a part of our rugged, self-reliant nature as Americans, I believe it just points to us being a civil but pragmatic no-nonsense people.

American individualism celebrates personal autonomy, self-reliance, and directness. Culturally, this translates to a straightforward communication style where people prefer to address issues head-on rather than relying on beating around the bush. I can tell you this, we're not being rude -- we just value straight talk and honesty.

It's not that I go out of my way to occasionally ignore the feelings and sensitivities of a group, but my sense of right and wrong does bother those who don't know the difference between right and wrong. And frankly, there is no fixing stupid when dealing with some folks who think men can get pregnant or think that burning an American flag is somehow okay.

That thought takes me back to what happened about 40 years ago. There was a guy who decided to burn an American flag, and he lost most of his teeth in the process. He obviously didn't understand how much the blessings of liberty and the sacrifices made by previous generations mean to others.

Frankly speaking, he would have probably kept his teeth, and not needed facial reconstruction, if he was taught love for America -- and how important America and our flag are. Maybe if someone had taught him respect for that which American hold dear, he would have not gotten what he got.

As I said before teaching love for America is all about teaching how important our shared foundational ideals are, and how responsibility helps bridge political divides. America's foundational ideals are the core principles of liberty, equality, popular sovereignty, and the rule of law. 

Articulated in the Declaration of Independence and refined in the Constitution, those beliefs establish that all people possess inalienable rights, and that governmental power is derived solely from the consent of the governed. The belief that individuals should have the freedom to live, speak, and assemble without unnecessary government intrusion is a fundamental freedom that's enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Before someone writes to tell me that Democrat, that America hater, who had his teeth knocked out was merely exercising free speech, please understand that our individual liberty is not endless. Our freedom to speak or act out only extends as far as it does -- as long as it does not infringe upon or cause harm to another person's rights or safety. 

We can act, speak, and move freely, but that freedom stops the moment it attacks others. Freedom of speech does not protect actions like purposely inciting violence, making direct threats, or by purposely inciting a reaction from others by burning our flag. It's all about balance. Balancing our personal liberties with public well-being, such as regulating hazardous behavior or activities that jeopardize the health of others is important to understanding how respect and being a responsible citizen, instead of some Democrat agitator, is important.

Understanding this truth focuses on our mutual respect and goodwill for each other instead of purposely trying to get someone angry by doing something stupid like burning our flag in front of others who have the mindset to knock someone's teeth out for doing such a thing.

Teaching love of America might have helped that individual understand how the majority of us have a deep seated sense of pride, loyalty, and emotional attachment to our homeland. Some of us have such a love of America that it has motivated us to take up careers in military, law enforcement, and civil service.

I understand that a person's love of country, their "patriotism," is shaped by a mix of personal experiences, social values, their cultural identity, and what they are taught in schools and by their parents. Those factors influence how individuals define, express, and reconcile their devotion to our nation.

The fact is that Americans are like others in other lands in that we have naturally formed strong attachments to their birthplace, native language, shared customs, and the physical landscapes of our youth. That innate bond often serves as the emotional foundation of patriotism. Combine that with a knowledge of a nation's history, founding ideals, and the struggles that we're endured and conquered, and you have what shapes whether or not someone views America with a sense of pride or not.

Focusing on warts, even those which have been addressed and removed, stops Americans from recognizing our nations triumphs. It stops Americans from understanding all that we as a nation have sacrificed for the good of mankind.

Recognizing the difficult chapters of American history doesn't erase our triumphs. Instead, it honors the sacrifices made to fulfill our nation's founding promises. Facing those struggles revealed our ongoing journey to make the ideals of liberty and justice for all a reality for all citizens.

I believe an overemphasis on the errors of our nations past actually blocks folks from seeing our nation's exceptional contributions to the world. I see America as a success story told by millions of people from other lands who wanted to be settlers, put down roots, and shack off the identities of the countries they fled. I see us as a united people with enduring values. So much so, that we make the United States a beacon of hope for the world.

If someone's personal values is heavily influenced by hate for America, and they completely disregard what we have given the world, than that aligns with their personal outlook on our nation and all of us as fellow citizens, as neighbors. Their hate will stop their love of America. And frankly, it will sadly stop any sort of deep appreciation for the opportunities, freedoms, and the republic that America provides us.

That's why we need to teach love of America in schools. Besides allowing the educated to have a sense of community shared with fellow citizens, it will teach them to appreciate what many around the world only wish they could have. And that, that's Liberty, Freedom, and the title of "American citizen."

Understanding our love of country enforces our identity as Americans. It's an identity that many of us are extremely proud of. So yes, teaching love of America gives us a shared national bond. Teaching it teaches civic responsibility, respect for the flag, and answers why our communities unite during crises.

I believe teaching core academics and what unites us as Americans in schools are both vitally important for our future as a nation. There is nothing wrong with schools starting the day with the Pledge of Allegiance, teaching the importance of Civic Pride, and focusing on our shared national values and our founding principles. They should be taught that our values and founding principles together make the glue that holds us together and makes us stronger as a nation.

More and more Americans today are concerned that classrooms have become too focused on Leftist identity politics. Our 250th Birthday as a nation is here and children should have an idea of why America as a nation -- is truly the envy of the world. That's not Right-Wing propaganda, that's the truth.

Tom Correa

Living In Rural America -- The Benefits

As I was saying in my last post, Living In Rural America -- The Year-Round Chores, whether your property is big or small, owning property in rural areas come with continuous year-round chores. It's just a fact of life in the country. The key is keeping one step ahead of the seasons. Of course, the benefits are worth the work. 

The slower daily pace is what a lot of people look for when moving to the country. While too many folks have the tendency to fall in love with the country, and move there just to try to turn it into the city they left behind, those people never really appreciate what they have around them. And sadly, those folks are usually bad neighbors, not respectful of others or the privacy and property rights of others, drive in a hurry as if they never left commuter traffic in a major urban area, and fail to assimilate. They prove that some folks aren't meant to live in the country. 

If people who move here are smart enough to embrace it, then the benefits are huge. Along with the quiet surroundings, they too might find that they too can possibly live with less stress, have better sleep quality, experience less agitation, and gain a sense of American freedom lost on so many urban Americans. 

Maybe it's the lack of urban congestion and the bumper to bumper traffic that helps eliminate the sorry attitudes. Maybe it's the frankness, honesty, and basic moral compass that most folks in rural American have that stops fakeness. Maybe it's just the fresh air that stops most folks in the country from seeming lost and unmotivated to do things. Maybe it's just life out here? But whatever it is, rural America is good for what ails people. 

What proof? It's easy to find. Whether it's walking trails, hiking, taking a drive out to a lake, going fishing, camping, hunting, canoeing, saddling up a horse and doing some trail riding, reaping the benefits of living in rural America is what life out here is all about. Besides the freedom, rural Americans usually have a different outlook on life in general. That in itself usually means we live longer less stressful lives. 

Everyday life living in the country is focused on what you want and need to do, instead of focused on the demands of the rush-rush-rush lifestyle of the city. That translates to a lower-stress rhythm to life for us. It also translates to us having a stronger sense of community.

Most folks will tell you what research confirms, rural Americans generally report a stronger sense of community, deeper local ties, and a stronger sense of American Patriotism than the people who live in urban and suburban areas. Because populations are more geographically spread out and institutions are often further away, the age-old American tradition of helping each other is alive and well in rural America. 

Because of our smaller populations, I think most rural areas have pretty tight-knit communities who are there for each other. I know people who live in the city who have never met their neighbors, or have no idea who their neighbors are. 

While people in rural Americans are a lot more independent and respect our neighbor's privacy, there are close bonds that form. My neighbors are all more than 100 yards away from my house, but they can call me anytime if they need help in some way. And yes, there usually is a dependable support network of friends that are built.

We are there for each other. Add to that more social interaction at church, at community functions, to support local kids' softball, and more, and you'll find that rural Americans know their neighbors and will help each other. 

In some cases, it's a necessity born out of geographic distance. But really, it's old school America. We're friends and we're there for each other. Do we go to the same church? Many of us do. Do we go to the same community events, such as picnics, festivals, and community meeting? Most of us do. Do we support local businesses, especially since we probably know the owners? Yes, most of us go out of our way to do that. 

In rural America, mutual aid and neighborly support is something that most of us are proud to be a part of. And yes, there are a lot of folks out here that volunteer to help our community in one way or another. For me, I'm still a member of the Calaveras County Sheriff's Volunteer Unit. And while it's said that institutionalized volunteering has declined in American cities, the same can't be said for rural America -- especially when looking at the networks of volunteers that fill gaps in infrastructure, disaster relief, disaster assistance, fire safety, law enforcement, eldercare, and more. 

In places like Calaveras County, where access to specialized medical care or hospitals can be a significant drive away, aging-in-place frequently relies on neighbors checking in, helping with firewood, and providing transportation. As for help during disasters such as floods, wildfires, snow storms, rural communities bond together to help in whatever way we can. From clearing roads, to share horse trailers and tractors, to housing displaced families, to putting up animals that may have otherwise perished in a fire, rural Americans step up when needed. 

There is a reason that rural areas usually have less crime, rural Americans, even in rural California, are usually armed and willing to protect their property and their neighbors if needed. While rural areas generally have lower crime rates, and that in itself offers some peace of mind, I would help a neighbor if a neighbor called me. And frankly, I know for a fact that my neighbors would do the same for me.

Most of us would. It's called citizen involvement. And really, rural Americans are more involved with issues than folks in the cities. Most of us are involved with small local businesses and community organizations which act as social hubs. They help drive participation and rally support for folks who need help. And yes, I've seen huge gatherings take place to raise funds to support children in need of medical services, for families who lost everything in fires, and other local causes like raising money to keep open an elementary school. 

For us, it's not unusual to talk to others over concerns about county planning, traffic reduction, new business creation, our homes, our property rights, our security, concerned about trespassers coming up from the cities, concerns about the possible increase in crime and possibly drugs coming up from the cities. It's not unusual for folks here to be concerned about the possibility of problems of the cities spilling over into where we live. Most of us are, and we are involved. 

As for us not living expensive lifestyles? Most will find that on the overall, there are less living expenses to be had when living in the country. Sure, there are everyday costs no matter where you live, including property taxes and auto insurance, but the fact is that it's usually lower in rural areas of the country. Other than the fact that fire insurance has gone up, the price of gas is usually the same or lower than in the urban areas. 

As for the nearest grocery shopping, it's not close by or right around the corner out here. In fact, from where my wife and I live, our large grocery stores, and the nearest Walmart department store and Lowe's are all in Jackson, which is about a half hour away. So yes, there is the increase use of gas and it's cost that someone needs to be concerned with when living out here. But even at that, if we compare apples with apples, then I remember back in the late 1990s having to take almost 45 minutes to drive 9 miles in heavy traffic. 

That was when I was living in Pleasanton and would drive to Livermore to where I boarded my horse. The traffic was horrible all the time and not just during rush hour. 

Here, while the town of Jackson is is approximately 17 miles, it takes me about 25 minutes to get there. And really, I don't use as much gas nowadays as I did back when I lived in an urban area and sat at a dead stop in heavy traffic. So to be honest, I actually use less gas now than I did then even though conveniences like large grocery stores are farther away. 

Some may find that hard to understand, but then again, they may own one of the newer cars that turn themselves off when at a standstill. It seems they were built for sitting in heavy traffic on freeways that look like miles and miles of parking lot. They were probably designed to turn off the engine to help with fuel consumption in urban areas.

Is my using less gas these days a financial advantage? Since I use less gas now, even though I live farther from town than I used to, I think it is. It's one of the financial advantages of living in rural areas. And yes, another advantage is that there are lower housing costs since the median home values are significantly cheaper than in cities  

I believe Americans will find they have more purchasing power when living in the country. That's just looking at things by weighing the overall cost of living in the city with the overall cost of living in the country. To beat high electricity bills, I've installed solar to help offset the cost. And yes, to off set the high price of heating a home, I heat my home with wood during the Winter. Of course, I've read where there are some places that actually try to dictate how people heat their homes or survive a Winter cold-snap.   

I love being a free American able to fend for myself. I don't like the idea of the government, no matter if it's the federal government, state or local government telling me how to live. I don't like the government thinking they have controls on my life -- even to the extent of dictating how I heat my home. I feel it's anti-American. 

And yes, I can't stand knowing that there are places like Sacramento County that strictly regulates how a resident stays warm in the Winter. And let's be frank here, what business does Sacramento County have to permanently ban traditional, open-hearth fireplaces or wood burning stoves from being sold or installed in new construction. 

Residents in that county are restricted to using only gas or electric heaters. Restrictions on the use of fireplaces, wood stoves, and pellet stoves during the Winter, can result in fines if violated in that county. It's true. Residents must check the daily burn status before using any wood or solid-fuel appliance. Violating those bans can result in a $50 fine. Of course, I don't know what would be cheaper on the consumers in that county -- paying a $50 fine or paying the huge increase in gas and electricity bills you accrue from being restricted to using only gas or electric heaters during the Winter.

As for food being more expensive in the country? I don't think it is. Besides watching grocery stores sales like everyone else, we grow a lot of own food in my wife's garden. We get eggs from neighbors. And yes, my wife gives them a lot of veggies from her garden. 

As for stocking our freezer, I buy a half a beef a year which lasts a long time. And frankly, as with most folks in rural areas, we keep a well stocked pantry so that we can buy needed groceries when they are on sale. Replenishing your food pantry when things are on sale is easier on the wallet. So yes, I believe that it's cheaper to live in the country. I think the cheaper basic needs of living in the country leave families with more disposable income. 

Another benefit to living in rural America has to do with owning property. Acreage allows for large gardens and privacy. County zoning rules make it much easier to build additions, clear your land, and raise livestock, chickens, or have horses. Rural Americans' freedom to raise small livestock, chickens, and grow their own food lends to our sense of personal freedom. The fact is, rural Americans are less dependent on the system then folks in the cities. 

So yes, living in rural America, in general, provides folks with distinct advantages that center around individual freedom, personal space, stronger community connections, a healthier, lower-stress natural lifestyle, financial affordability, better homeschooling and child raising. 

I'd say that rural Americans on the overall are self-reliant and independent. Besides raising livestock, growing food, and participating in tightly-knit community networks, rural Americans tend to live a "do-it-yourself" lifestyle -- if anything, simply out of necessity. It's created a work ethic that works.  

In rural America, doing-it-yourself isn't just a lifestyle. In fact, it's an essential survival skill. Because they have a sense of self-reliance and are independent spirits, rural Americans routinely fix their own vehicles, maintain personal utility systems, and take care of their property out of pure necessity. It's a part of the "Rural American Culture" shaped by practical realities. 

Most rural properties owners believe in independent living. While most have wells, septic systems, home generators, possibly solar arrays, and probably wood stoves. When something breaks, unless it is really an extensive problem which means calling a professional plumber, or a well company, or an electrician, rural homeowners are more prone to tackle jobs themselves. While people in the city are more prone to hire someone to install a faucet or paint a bedroom, rural Americans usually just do it themselves. 

As for being resourceful and resilient, some folks say Americans living in the country repurpose old parts and materials into functional tools. Well, we do. And frankly, it's a time-honored rural tradition that helps lower everyday household expenses. That also applies to emergency preparedness, rural self-reliance extends to personal health and emergencies. Distant municipal first responders mean that learning basic life skills, maintaining a personal supply of essentials, and knowing how to safely manage property hazards are vital for safety.

The overwhelming benefit of living in rural America is the unparalleled quality of life rooted in affordability, tranquility, and strong social connection. Living in rural America offers unparalleled freedom, independence, and quality of life, particularly in beautiful, expansive areas like Calaveras County. 

So yes, the benefits of living in rural America generally break down to having more space and privacy, having a lower cost of living, experiencing stronger community ties, having a closer connection to the land, and living a life with more self-reliance and personal motivation. 

Larger lot sizes, and lower population density, means you have room to breathe. You can enjoy quiet, dark star filled night skies, and the buffer between you and your neighbors. Rural areas typically feature more affordable housing markets, allowing you to get much more property for your money compared to crowded urban centers. Smaller towns usually create tight-knit, supportive communities where neighbors truly look out for one another and local traditions thrive. 

As for having a closer connection to the land? Living here, people automatically have immediate access to outdoor recreation — such as hiking, fishing, and trail riding. It's all right outside your door. That in itself promotes a peaceful lifestyle. And honestly, for someone tired of the hustle and bustle of the city, that's not a bad thing at all.

As for you depending on yourself to get things done? Self-reliance is needed in the country. Without it, you can sit on your backside and be lazy, and feel the sting of having it tough. In contrast, be motivated and reap the rewards of being resourceful, independent, and resilient. 

Resourcefulness, independence, and resilience are what makes Americans great. It's what makes us unafraid to meet challenges head on and figure things out without waiting for someone else's permission. It's about independence, and having the financial and emotional autonomy to live life without being stuck waiting for someone else to validate our work before moving forward. It's about relying on yourself and building immense grit. It's about trusting your own instincts and abilities rather than conforming to outside pressure. 

Living in rural America offers a slower, less stressful lifestyle away from urban density, granting easier access to nature and cleaner environments. And frankly, with more land and distance between neighbors, you have the independence to pursue self-sufficient hobbies like gardening, raising livestock, working horses, or working on personal projects. With housing significantly cheaper than in urban areas, that opens the door to homeownership and allowing you to live comfortably on a smaller income. 

Of course, in this part of America, it's a comfort to know that neighbors look out for one another. For me, I love it here. I love the sense of well-being that comes with living in a smaller community. And really, whether it's my ability to take in rescue horses, trail ride whenever I feel the urge, volunteer within my community in whatever way I please, or me simply being able to furnish my wife with huge gardens, I love the genuine sense of purpose and belonging that living here gives me. 

Tom Correa