The Mystery of Outlaw Jim Burrow's Corpse

Jim Burrow 1880s

In my story Rube & Jim Burrow -- 1880s Train Robbers, I talked about how by February of 1888, between robberies, the notorious outlaws Rube Burrow and his brother Jim were identified while passengers on a train. That happened when a train conductor recognized the outlaws from a previous robbery. The brothers were on a Louisville & Nashville train in southern Alabama. 

As I wrote in Rube & Jim Burrow -- 1880s Train Robbers, in what was pretty quick work, lawmen gathered a posse and surrounded the Nashville train station. When the train pulled in, lawmen trapped Rube and Jim in a passenger car. Soon, a huge shootout started. During the shooting, Rube was able to escape by shooting his way out. He would go on to rob more trains and became the subject of one of the biggest manhunts in American history. It's true. In the late 1880s, Rube Burrow made a lot of newspaper as he continued to rob trains despite being a wanted fugitive. He evaded capture and eluded authorities for two years before finally being caught.

As for Jim, he was taken into custody and jailed in Texarkana. His trial for the train robbery was still underway when he died from tuberculosis in a Texarkana jail on October 5, 1888. Well, I'll said I'd talk about the mystery surrounding Jim Burrow death. So,  here the rest of the story. 

James Buchanan “Jim” Burrow, born in 1858, died on October 5, 1888, aged 29–30 years. He was tried for his crimes, but soon became very ill and died. A prison medical examiner pronounced him dead, and he was subsequently buried in the prison cemetery. We would think that that was the end of the story of Jim Burrow. But, as strange as it was, it wasn't. 

Five years after his death, in 1893, the state of Arkansas issued an order to remove and relocate the graves of the convicts at the Arkansas Penitentiary, in Little Rock. They were to be dug up and moved to a new burial site. To do the job, people were hired to supervise the remove and relocation. The work to dig up the dead was done by inmates. 

In late December 1893, the gravediggers were digging up Jim Burrow's grave when one of their shovels made a hollow sound when it hit it Jim's coffin. This was unusual since none of the others made such a distinct hollow sound. This prompted them to open it up, revealing, well, nothing. Jim Burrow's coffin was empty.

Below is the short article as it was syndicated by telegraph and appeared in the San Francisco Call newspaper, Volume 75, Number 30, on December 30, 1893:

Burrows' Coffin Empty

Little Rock, Ark., Dec. 29 -- This morning while laborers were exhuming the bodies of deceased State convicts to remove them to the new prison cemetery, they found the coffin of Jim Borrows, the train-robber, buried two years ago, empty. The discovery caused a sensation and led to rumors that the bandit may have escaped.

-- end of article. 

As published in the San Francisco Call newspaper on December 30, 1893

What happened to outlaw Jim Burrow's corpse turned into a mystery that no one has ever solved. There has been a lot of speculation over the years. So now, let's talk about some of that speculation. But first, let's talk about unreliable witnesses testimony.

Right after the discovery that Jim Burrow's coffin was empty, there were reports of strange sightings of his ghost. Yes, supposedly, there were reported sightings of Jim Burrow's ghost from folks who were considered reliable and honest. Those people supposedly had reputations, as they say, "were beyond reproach."

They claimed the ghost "must have been" Jim Burrow because he looked like an outlaw. What's a ghost of a dead outlaw, an outlaw who died of tuberculosis, look like? Well, believe or not, the description of Jim's afterlife apparition answers that question.

To paraphrase their reports, according to some, Jim's ghost was "wearing a 6-shooter on his hip, with his eyes glowing like two shiny orbs, just as a wild animal's eyes might shine, walking the night, and only resting on the grave of his notorious brother Rube."

Yes, that's the other part of the Jim Burrow Ghost Story, supposedly Jim's ghost must have "walked to Alabama" from Arkansas in search of his brother Rube. As crazy as that sounds, believe it or not, there were folks who really believed that they saw the ghost of Jim Burrow.

On a more sensible level, the discovery of Jim Burrow's empty coffin certainly caused a lot of questioned to be asked in the state of Arkansas. Some of those questions were honest concerns for the safety of the community. Some were real in that they questioned corruption and basic protocols. Some were pure fantasy, while other were speculation and unsubstantiated conjecture.

So, Let's Talk About Speculation And What Could Have Happened To Jim

If you've followed my blog at all, then you probably know that I usually talk about speculation and unsubstantiated conjecture in reference to writers and historians who form theories and give their opinion based on incomplete information. While a lot of that drives me insane because I can't stand people coming to conclusions when over things that have no real hard evidence, you also know that I also don't care for the way writers and historians "guess" and reach conclusions that lack factual evidence -- just because they think that's what happened. 

Frankly, that happens a lot when objectivity is thrown out a window. Instead of being impartial, unbiased, and base their claims on observable facts, there are some Old West writers and historians who would rather run with their personal feelings and so-called "expert interpretations." Actually, when someone says that, it means they they're relying on their prejudices -- for or against. An objective statement or decision is independent of the observer because it represents the truth and reality of what took place minus individual bias.

Speculation and jumping to conclusions have around since the dawn of time. To some, especially to folks in the news media and politics, speculation is an art form. It's among the reasons that people don't trust the News Media or politicians. 

It is the act of reasoning while only having limited, partial, or circumstantial evidence to consider what "might" happen, or what "might" have happened. or what "could be" true. No certainty is involved. It's sort of like conjecture which is a synonym for a guess, a gut feeling, or a hunch. When claims are "unsubstantiated," that means the premise completely lacks any sort of supporting proof or validation. That means such a claim or opinion is one that relies entirely on blind supposition. 

In law, distinguishing between factual proof and unsubstantiated conjecture is critical because that type of information can result in a case being thrown out of court or an innocent man being hanged. 

In the later, a baseless claim, a statement without a foundation in fact, a groundless assumption which is taking a "belief," right or wrong, as true without having any proof, unfounded rumor which is information spread without evidence to back it up, and an unsupported guess, are all how innocent men were railroaded and hanged in the Old West.

In legal settings claims or allegations presented as reports but lack concrete evidence to support them are usually not allowed.in court. In science, claims that lack empirical or experimental backing are seen as suspect and false.

Supposition is someone's belief that's taken to be true without proof. Journalist and folks in the media use rumors and hearsay all the time when reporting on something without proper fact-checking. And no, it's nothing new. 

For example, just look at how the Tombstone Epitaph newspaper reported on the "supposed" killing of Curly Bill at the hands of Wyatt Earp in 1882. I say "supposed" because with absolutely no evidence of the event taking place, no dead body of Curly Bill, absolutely no witnesses to what took place, no Coroner Inquest was formed to look into it, no Sheriff's report or investigation into the supposed killing in what Earp claimed to be "self-defense," nothing. Yet, the Tombstone Epitaph ran the story as if it were Gospel -- all because the story of the supposed death of Curly Bill was told to them by Wyatt Earp. Imagine that.

And think about this, a lot of people today truly believe that Wyatt Earp killed Curly Bill in a "Shotgun Duel" and their acceptance of that story is based on nothing other than the word of Wyatt Earp. Even today, no matter if we know for a fact that Wyatt Earp lied a lot, and made a lot of outlandish claims during his life, there are still writers and historians who will tell you that there is no doubt in their mind that Wyatt Earp did what he claimed because he said he did. 

Frankly, the Tombstone Epitaph newspaper assuming something is true without having any facts or proof to back it up is usually the case when people think they can "get over" on others. Making an assumption without proof is known as conjecture. When people use conjecture to manipulate or "get over" on others, they are usually relying on the hope that the other person will not challenge the claim, will feel too intimidated to ask for proof, or will simply accept the fiction as fact.

As for Jim Burrow, when his body turned up missing, there was a lot of supposing going on. There was a great deal of speculating, guessing, or assuming taking place without concrete facts. Of course, a lot of people were asking if a dangerous outlaw were still be on the loose? Some folks asked if a bribe may have been involved? Some folks wanted to know if crooked prison guards and the doctor were in cahoots? Some asked if the doctor who examined Burrow may have been paid off -- just to get him outside of the prison walls. Some folks asked if the protocols for the internment of deceased convicts needed to be looked at with more supervision. 

There were a few folks who tried to make the case that Rube Burrow worked out a plan to payoff prison officials to set his brother Jim free just a few days before Rube himself was shot dead. They didn't have any proof that such a thing took place, but that didn't stop them from accepting that it did.

When Speculation Becomes Plausible And Has Some Credibility

When speculation has some credibility means that someone has made an educated guess or theory that's supported by enough logic, circumstantial evidence, or preliminary facts -- that they they should be taken seriously. It is more than just a wild rumor or a guess, but not yet proven fact. It's when something is plausible, that the idea makes sense and fits with existing knowledge, circumstances, or historical patterns of something -- in this case, we're talking about graverobbing.

While it was never proven, so there is absolutely no hard proof that that's what happened to Jim Burrow's corpse, some folks speculated that Jim Burrow's corpse may have been sold.

That made a few folks sit up and take notice because that was a real and honest possibility. It's plausible that the prison officials didn't know anything about Jim Burrow's corpse going missing or why. In fact, Burrow's corpse could have been dug up by hired grave robbers who supplied medical schools with cadavers without prison officials knowing about what was taking place. But, the fact is, during that time period, there was the possibility that prison officials sold Jim's corpse to a local medical school.

The reason that it was a real and honest possibility is that, historically, it's true that medical schools during that time frequently acquired cadavers from jailers, prison officials, and poor houses. The corpses of the poor and the incarcerated were treated as commodities. In fact, they were often sold without family consent, particularly in the South, where the dead was exploited for medical education.

There is historical evidence that shows so-called "Night Doctors," teachers, medical students, and their agents, bought or stole bodies, sometimes shipping them in barrels labeled as other goods, such as turpentine or molasses. It was illegal.

It was called a "Gray Market." And yes, some states had "anatomy laws" to allow the use of unclaimed bodies. Others states had gray markets where medical schools would pay the keepers of jails or poor houses for corpses.

In the post-Civil War, late-19th-century South, dead bodies that should have been in coffins in cemeteries were commonly used for anatomy studies at both Northern and Southern medical colleges. The trade was a national phenomenon driven by the high demand for dissection material in medical schools, which was not matched by legal, voluntary donations.

Using cadavers "not matched by legal, voluntary donations," was the excuse that medical schools used to rely on grave robbing. So yes, there is a very good possibility that outlaw Jim Burrow's corpse was sold in the 1890s. But, as we know, just because there's a very good possibility of someone happening, that doesn't make it true.

The fact is, just as with a lot of went on in the Old West, speculation, conjecture, and unreliable witnesses testimony, no matter if they seem "reputable," doesn't make anything true. Real evidence does.

There was a lot of speculation and conjecture when Jim Burrow's coffin was found empty. But, there is absolutely no evidence of what ever happened to his corpse. From what I can tell, no one will ever know what happened to Jim Burrow's body -- or if he was ever really buried. 

It's an Old West mystery that I seriously doubt will ever be solved.

Tom Correa

Rube & Jim Burrow -- 1880s Train Robbers

Rube Burrow

Muscle Shoals, Alabama, is in Colbert County, while Lamar County is immediately to the southwest, bordering Mississippi. While in Muscle Shoals in 1993, I ended up in their local hospital. The folks there were absolutely wonderful, just as most folks are in the South. 

During my stay in the hospital, a nurse talked to me about some of the local history and some of the more colorful characters in that area. That's when I first learned about the notorious Burrow brother outlaw gang. 

Allen Henry Burrow, 1825 to 1892, was a farmer and former-Confederate Army Private who served in Company H, of the 5th Alabama Cavalry. At least ten years before the start of the Civil War, around 1850, he married Martha Caroline Terry Burrow, 1828 to 1912. After getting married, they settled in Sulligent, in Lamar County, to start farming there. The production and processing of cotton was an important industry in Sulligent. 

It's said that Alan and Martha Burrow, sometimes misspelled as "Burrows," had ten children. I've only been able to confirm that they had seven. I've found that they had three sons and four daughters -- all supposedly born in Sulligent.

The Burrow's first child was their son William Jasper. He, according to his headstone, was born in 1851. He would have been 9 or 10 years old at the start of the Civil War, and either 13 or 14 when the war ended. So, was William Burrow old enough to have served in the Confederacy? The answer to that question is yes. 

If we consider there were very young boys serving in both the Union and the Confederate, then it's very possible that young William Jasper Burrow served in the Civil War. Obviously, he could have. But frankly, while his family may know, I haven't been able to say yes or no. 

Why do I bring up the question about his possible service during the Civil War? It's because there were much younger boys who did serve. For example, Edward Black is generally considered the youngest soldier to serve in the Civil War. Black joined the Union Army's 21st Indiana Volunteers as a drummer boy at just 8 years old on July 24, 1861. 

One famous young soldier was John Clem. He became a legendary drummer boy at age 9. Known as "Johnny Shiloh" or the "Drummer Boy of Chickamauga," Clem ran away to join the 22nd Michigan Regiment in 1861. Clem is the youngest person to ever become a Noncommissioned Officer in U.S. Army history at age 12.  

There's Avery Brown who enlisted in 1861 at the age of 8. And yes, there is George Penfield Bennett who enlisted in Company B, 1st Marine Regiment, in 1861, at the age of 9. So yes, many young boys served as drummer boys, musicians, or helpers, also known as "powder boys" in the Union and Confederate Army. In fact, that's why the Civil War is sometimes referred to as "The Boy's War" because of the high number of Soldiers under 18.

While William Jasper Burrow passed away in 1927, aged 75 or 76, there isn't much information available about him. So, if you're also curious about why he wasn't drawn to the outlaw way of life the same way that his younger brothers Rube and Jim were, I don't know the answer to that question. 

Alan and Martha Burrow's third child was son Reuben Houston Burrow, known as "Rube." He was born on December 11, 1855, and he would turn out to be a pretty bad hombre. Their fourth child, was their son James Buchanan Burrow, simply known as "Jim." He was born sometime in 1858. Those two turned into outlaws, train robbers, and mankillers starting in 1876. 

Of the two Burrow brothers who turned to crime, Jim Burrow's older brother Rube was the more infamous of the two. Rube Burrow would become a nationally infamous train robber and known killer in the South and Southwest. All in all, Rube was a cold-blooded murder who also earn the distinction of being the only man in American history to rob a train by himself.

Their start in life was not much different than most youngsters in the South at the time, as Rube and Jim worked on their family's cotton farm near Sulligent. Most accounts say both of the boys read as many news stories and dime novels about the "adventures" of the James Gang as they could. At the time, newspapers routinely glorified the James Gang's robberies.

Let's remember that following the Civil War, the James Gang, which was led by brothers Frank and Jessie James, became legendary through sensational news headlines and popular fictionalized dime novels. Those stories lied when they portrayed them as Robin Hood-style figures fighting Northern oppression. In fact, they were cold-blooded killers, extremely violent criminals. Dime novels, such as those from the Wide Awake Library and Log Cabin Library, capitalized on these headline-making robberies from the 1870s until well after Jessie's death in 1882.

Rube and Jim came to idolize Jesse James and his gang. So yes, it's a safe bet to say that that's what later turned the brothers away from farming to take up robbing trains. Farming turned out to be sometime meant for people of tougher stock than what they were made of. 

In fact, by age 18 in 1872, Rube had enough with farming and moved to Stephenville, Texas. His father had arranged for him to work as a cowhand on his uncle Joel Burrow's cattle ranch in Stephenville, Texas. In 1876, Rube's brother Jim joined him in Texas. 

Also, in 1876, Rube met and married Virginia Alvison. While I can't find much information on her, I found out that the couple had two children. They had a son named William and a daughter named Mary. His wife Virginia died of yellow-fever in 1880, and he was left with caring for two small children.

By 1884, Rube remarried and moved to Alexander, Texas, where he again tried his hand at farming. But, when in 1886 his crops failed, he turned to robbing trains. In fact, in December of 1886, Rube and his brother Jim, along with cohorts W.L. Brock, Leonard Brock, Henderson Brumley, and Nep Thornton robbed the Denver & Fort Worth Express in Bellevue, Texas, on December 1, 1886. That was their first train robbery.

Their plan was born from a dime novel. The Burrow brothers and their gang waited at the train depot at Bellevue, Texas, until the train returning  from a roundtrip to the Indian Territory had arrived. As soon as the train pulled in, the outlaws drew their guns on the train crew. Yes, all in plain view of the passengers in the train cars. 

After that, the outlaws entered the train to rob the the train's passengers. But, the Burrow gang didn't have a big start to their train robbing career since they were only able to gather up about $300 after picking through the passengers on their first outing. Part of the reason for their lousy haul was the fact that the robbers held up the crew at gunpoint in plain view of the passengers. So, once the passengers saw what was taking place and realized what was happening, the passengers' hid most of their valuables by the time the train robbers approached them.

Something else happened during that train robbery. While the passengers were being robbed in one car, located in another train cars was an armed Army detail, a Sergeant and two Privates, who were escorting two Army deserters.

Sources say the Soldiers didn't open fire on the train robbers when they could have since they had the two deserters were in shackles. Also. both prisoners were told to get on the floor of the train car, so apparently it looked as though those Soldiers were going to try to stop the Burrow gang. But, the Soldiers didn't open fire at the train robbers. Supposedly, as the story goes, other passengers in that train car pleaded with the Soldiers not to open fire on the outlaws. Whether true or not, it does sound about right that later when their command found out about the incident, the Sergeant and two Privates was charged with cowardice.

As for the Burrow Gang? They hit their second train at Gordon, Texas, in January of 1887. While their first attempt at robbing trains was a bust, their second attempt was successful with them taking $4,200 from the express car. 

In that robbery, the gang robbed the Texas & Pacific Express heading eastbound from Ben Brooks, Texas. Supposedly, Rube held the engineer at gunpoint and forced him to stop the train on a trestle outside the town to stop passengers from getting out of their passenger cars and interfering with what they were doing. Later that year, on September 20, 1887, they robbed a second train at the same spot.

The Pinkerton Detective Agency got involved, along with local lawmen, bounty hunters, and citizens wanted to find and hang the men responsible for stealing their payrolls. News reports estimated that the Burrow gang made off with between $15,000 and $30,000 from train safes alone. That meant workers expecting to get paid were not going to get paid -- because of them. So yes, vigilantes also got involved trying to track them down.

After one of the gang was caught because he left behind a raincoat which was eventually traced to a store in Dublin, Texas. A sales clerk identified the man who bought the coat as Jim Brock, and he was arrested. 

While in custody, Brock was asked about information regarding the Burrow gang. Brock initially refused to talk. It's said the Pinkerton Detectives and local lawmen told Brock that they were going to turn him over to the vigilantes, to let him explain to them why their payroll was stolen. 

The threat of being lynched by people who he wronged made Brock confess to his part in the robberies. It was Jim Brock who identified Rube Burrow as the gang's leader. Until then, Rube and Jim were unknown to the authorities simply because they had no prior criminal records. That changed when Brock started talking. Of course, Brock tried to save himself from being killed by Rube by saying that he did not know where the gang was hiding out.

But that didn't matter, the Pinkertons intercepted a letter to Brock from Rube Burrow. Supposedly, Rube wasn't aware of Brock's arrest or that Brock had identified him. So yes, as dumb as it sounds, the return address showed Rube sent the letter from a house in Lamar County, Alabama.

A large posse was formed and arrived at that house on January 8, 1888. The posse surrounded the house. But Rube was already gone. The fact is, the posse just missed him. Rube is said to have left as fast as he could after being warned by his brother Jim that his home was surrounded.

In February of 1888, between robberies, the notorious outlaws Rube Burrow and his brother Jim were identified while passengers on a train.. That happened when a train conductor recognized the outlaws from a previous robbery. The brothers were on a Louisville & Nashville train in southern Alabama.

In what was pretty quick work, lawmen gathered a posse and surrounded the Nashville train station. When the train pulling in, lawmen trapped Rube and Jim in a passenger car. Soon, a huge shootout started. During the shooting, Rube was able to escape by shooting his way out.

As for Jim, he was taken into custody and jailed in Texarkana. His trial for the Genoa train robbery was still underway when he died from tuberculosis in a Texarkana jail on October 5, 1888. I'll talk more about the mystery surrounding Jim Burrow in my next blog post. It's a good story about the mystery surrounding Jim Burrows death.

As for Rube Burrow, he kept robbing trains. And at on point, it's said he shot and killed an unarmed Lamar County postmaster who refused to hand over a package addressed to W. W. Cain -- an alias Rube used. That happened in July 1889, when Rube Burrow shot and killed postmaster Mose Graves. It's said Rube shot the unarmed postmaster out of spite and in cold-blood.

I find it interesting that Rube killing that postmaster was similar to what Jessie James did when he shot and killed bank teller Joseph Lee Heywood First National Bank of Northfield, Minnesota. It was also in cold-blood out of spite and frustration.

On September 7, 1876, the James-Younger gang attempted to rob the First National Bank of Northfield, Minnesota. Out of frustration over bank teller Joseph Lee Heywood refusing to open a safe, Jessie James shot Heywood in the head at point-blank range execution style before exiting the bank. Can you imagine, Jessie James who many try to romance as some sort of Robin Hood, shot Joseph Lee Heywood in the head after Heywood refused to cooperate with the outlaws and open the vault.

As for Rube Burrow, it is said that the cold-blooded murder of the postmaster turned local residents against him, increased the pressure on his capture, bounties were increased, and wanted posters with his face and a reward was widely circulated. The result was that Rube exited the area on the run. 

So, Rube Burrow became the subject of one of the biggest manhunts in American history. Of course, there were risks to those citizens trying to capture him. For example, during the near captures of the killer, one posse on his trail in 1889 was forced to turn back after two posse men were killed and three others were wounded. Rube Burrows was a very dangerous man, and he was proving that anytime a posse was close.

Of course, during this time, believe it or not, Rube Burrow was still making a name for himself as a train robber and highway man. As for being captured? While I haven't read where he was but once, it's said that he had a plan if he were captured. His plan was to befriend and entertain his captors with jokes. He would offer them a $100 if they were to just look the other way and let him go. According to legend, some accepted his offer. According to legend. once Rube was freed, he'd normally put a bullet in the person who freed him and take his $100 back. 

So yes, during that time, Rube Burrow continued to rob trains despite being a wanted fugitive. He was still robbing trains, even though he evaded capture and eluded authorities for two years.

Then, on October 8, 1890, after riding into Linden, Alabama for supplies, Rube Burrow was recognized by a local storeowner who was also a posse-man and part-time Sheriff's deputy. His name was J.D. "Dixie" Carter. It was Carter and two unknown "Negroes" who actually apprehended killer Rube Burrow. To Rube, that must have seemed like quite the insult. After all, it was a "storekeeper" and two unknown "Negroes" who put Rube in jail. 

So now, imagine, if you would, you arrest a mankiller and march him into jail. And miraculously, some say a bribe to a deputy may have been involved, but that mankiller escapes in just two hours or so after being locked up. Was it Rube working his plan to befriend and entertain his captors, offer them a $100 if they were to just look the other way and let him go? Where did Rube get that pistol from when he escaped? 

Let's look at this for a moment. Today, almost daily, we see people who have too much vanity at work. This is true, especially when it comes to politicians and people in Hollywood. They are predictable for their tendency toward excessive conceit and preoccupation with themselves. They do things like making statements about things they have no knowledge of, or they know are lies, just to make themselves popular in the eyes of their friends. They act out in self-serving and superficial ways, often driven by a need for admiration, and to make their fans think they're smarter than they are.  

Look at all of the dumb statements made by politicians, actors, and so-called comedians. They are driven by an inflated sense of self-importance or an obsessive need to look superior to others. They are usually foolish, self-centered, and self-absorbed. And really, they demonstrate self-serving vain behavior. 

Rube Burrow demonstrated that aspect of human nature after escaping custody that day. He was so filled with himself, so vain, and conceited, and filled with self-destructive vanity, that he could not simply ride away. So, vanity being what it is, Rube must have been pretty insulted that it wasn't lawmen, or the Pinkertons, or bounty hunters that put him in jail. He must have hated that it was a storekeeper who was a part-time Sheriff's deputy and two Negroes who put him in jail.  

So yes, instead of jumping on a horse and taking the opportunity to leave town as fast as possible, that mankiller, Rube Burrow, with a supposedly stolen gun, goes after storekeeper Dixie Carter. Yes, imagine that. Instead of fleeing when he had the chance, Rube Burrow went after storekeeper Carter when he escaped from jail just a few hours after being locked up.

For Rube Burrow, he would learn a lesson that most Old West outlaws learn once. It's that lesson they learn after they've been shot and lay dying. It's a lesson that comes too late in his life for most outlaws. 

The lesson is simply this: Someone who is excessively proud of themselves, someone who possesses an exaggerated, inflated opinion of their own abilities and self-worth, someone who lives with such an large ego that they truly have an "I'm better than everyone else" mindset, should not think they cannot be killed in a gunfight. 

So, in the town of Linden, in Marengo County, Alabama, Rube Burrow met up with Carter in a local feed store. And instantly, Rube shoots at Carter. Carter is hit in the arm. But that doesn't stop Carter from pulling his own pistol, and he returns fire. He shoots Rube Burrow in the stomach.

The mankiller Rube Burrow turns and staggers out of the feed store and into the street. Carter, while holding his wounded arm, goes after the mankiller and finishes of Rube Burrow outside by gunning him down in the street. As for Carter, he is said to have put in for the reward for killing Rube Burrow -- but is denied because the reward was for a "conviction, and not "dead or alive." Imagine that.

Of course, that was not the end of outlaw Rube Burrow. The train robber's dead body was placed in a simple pine coffin and shipped back to his family in Lamar County by way of Birmingham. Before getting there, Rube's body was displayed at the Union Station until on October 9. It was kept on display for everyone to see before finally being put on another train that stopped at Sulligent Station. 

All in all, Rube was quite the draw. He became a point of ghoulish entertainment, a sort of sideshow dressed up with a rifle and a six-gun. Just so all sorts of folks would come out to see his dead body before it was finally buried at Fellowship Cemetery in Vernon, Alabama. 

During the final years of the Old West, Rube Burrow became one of the most hunted outlaws in the Old West. For four years, from 1886 to 1890, the Burrow Gang robbed trains in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, the Indian Territory and Texas. All, while being pursued by lawmen, posses, bounty hunters, and Pinkerton detectives throughout the South and Southwest. And in the end, his vanity got him killed. 

Tom Correa

The Democrats' Jim Jones-Style Of Lunacy

Democrats Enjoy A Jim Jones Type Of Lunacy

Let me make something clear, many of us see the Democrat Party's irrational thinking and their cognitive distortions for what they are -- sear lunacy in the Jim Jones model of lunacy. Democrats practice the Jim Jones model of lunacy on a daily basis.

The comparison is legitimate because Democrats had ties to Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, and they both enjoy living in a world of ideological extremism, blind devotion to people like Obama, and isolation within an echo chamber.

Democrats have always had a deep connection with the out-of-touch insanity of Leftist San Francisco. Democrats love to worship Socialism and Communism, and back in the 1970s, they thought Jim Jones was doing it right.

Jim Jones operated in San Francisco. And yes, several very prominent Democrats publicly praised Jim Jones for his work, civic involvement, and how he was embracing Socialism. They admired Jim Jones because his Peoples Temple outwardly championed "Progressive" causes, civil rights, and poverty alleviation. Of course, Democrats framed his authoritarian brand of "Apostolic Socialism" as a "Crusade against racial and economic inequality."

What Made Democrats Love Jim Jones?

He was everything the Democrat Party loves. Jones successfully masked his manipulation of people while building strategic alliances within California's far-left Democratic Party establishment. Jones actively advocated for integration and civil rights, while exploiting his uneducated Black congregation.

To Democrats, the Leftist Jones appeared as a powerful model of community empowerment and racial harmony. And yes, Democrat politicians praised him as being "A grassroots solution to the failures of Capitalist welfare systems."

Jones commanded a large, fiercely loyal, and highly organized voting bloc. Because of that, the political landscape was such that Democrat leaders courted his support because he could turn out crowds, mobilize volunteers on short notice, and fleece people. But hey, that's what Democrats do, even today, they fleece Americans.

Jones frequently condemned what he called the "terrible inequities," the "evils of American capitalism," which sounded great to anti-American Democrats. Of course, in reality, Jones was able to fleece gullible Black Americans in Oakland and Richmond, California, to sell their personal private property -- and hand over all of their money to him so that he would "provide and care" for them.

The Democrat's Jim Jones-style lunacy is all about how the Democrat Party is a cult that deals in destructive behavior, blind ideological extremism, or catastrophic mass obedience.

Americans see the Democrat Party for what it is, a cult that has blind allegiance to their Leftist Party ideology, radical policies, its cancel culture, and race baiting. The politics of the Democrat Party platform is a sham because it is not what they practice. While they say they are for this and that, they aren't.

The facts don't lie. Since the Obama administration, the Democrats who used to do everything in the power to not be called a Socialist or a Communist, now unashamedly embrace being associated with such harmful beliefs. Of course, Socialism and Communism as killed hundred of millions of people, but that doesn't seem to matter to Democrats today, And sadly, it's that type of ignorance and ideological recklessness that creates economic hardship for Americans.

In fact, polling data shows the American public sees Democrats overwhelming desire to embrace Socialism and Communism as dangerous to the United States. Recent Gallup polling shows that three-fourths of Democrats polled all see Socialism and Communism positively. Those same polls show that less than one-third of Democrats view Capitalism favorably.

Democrat politicians, those who have become extremely wealthy off of their followers, have declared their love of Marxism and government-controlled Communism. Democrat propaganda preaches how Socialism and Communism is the cure-all for what Democrats see as the "evils of Capitalism." Democrats are ignorant of the fact that the type of society that they want is one in which the government has ownership of the means of production or and personal freedoms are eliminated. Not just a society where there are restrictions on personal freedom, but a society where personal autonomy and freedoms are eliminated altogether.

To get others to accept their dream of a Communist America, Democrats have implemented a Leftist curriculum in elementary schools, to teach the tenants of Communism, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), and the their belief that government control of our lives would create a perfect world. Democrats don't care that Marxism enforces coercive groupthink and ideological control.

As for doing what's good for Americans, Democrats are not into doing what's good for Americans. And as for law and order, the only time that matters is when they are trying to frame a Republican President with trumped up charges. Stricter law and order is needed in places where Democrats have instituted no bail swinging dog policies which has created more and more horrible acts of crime.

Like today's Democrat Party, Jim Jones operated a deranged "cult."

Allow me to repeat that. Like today's Democrat Party, Jim Jones operated a deranged "cult" which practiced an ideological lunacy. Before murdering his hundreds of followers, Jones embrace conformity to Marxist cult tactics.

Like Democrats today, Jones' organization was all about anti-Capitalism and anti-Americanism. All while he got wealthy. And yes, both he and the Democrat Party, even today, force their followers to adhere to a cultist-style of unquestioning loyalty or be attacked for being heretics.

You think I'm wrong, just look at the way Pennsylvania Democrat Senator John Fetterman is being attacked by his fellow-Democrats for his stance of supporting Israel and President Trump. In the Democrat Party today, Democrats like John Fetterman who think for themselves are committing a criminal act.

Why? Because Democrats don't just "Drink the Kool-Aid," they enjoy it while knowing what it is. They don't care that the Democrats in Congress are serving them poison. They voluntarily drink it knowing it's going to kill them.

The phrase "drink the Kool-Aid" comes from the 1978 Jonestown Massacre where 918 followers of Jim Jones died through mass-poisoning. The term is commonly used to describe political partisanship where followers blindly accept extreme, irrational, or destructive policies like we see coming from the Democrats these days.

Why won't the followers of the Democrat Party get tired of being used, and maybe start thinking for themselves, maybe even refuse to accept what's bad for them?

The answer is simple: It's part of the Democrats' Jim Jones-style of lunacy. They like it. Even after being shown the truth, presented with facts and evidence proving that the Democrats propaganda is feeding them lies, they willing disregard the truth and acceptance the lies.

That's the sort of manipulation and control Jim Jones had on his followers. That's the same sort of manipulation and control that the Nazi Party had on the majority of Germans in the 1930s and during World War II. It's the exact some sort of manipulation and control that the Democrat Party exacts on its followers.

It's the sort a shear lunacy that makes people accept the madness going on in Jewish Concentration Camps where millions of Jews were slaughtered because of there race. It's the same form of lunacy that enables Democrats to accept the Democrat Party's history of hate and violence.

It's why Democrats are okay with how their Democrat Party was made up of Slave Owners, how Democrats started the Civil War, and were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans between 1861 and 1865 to keep their precious slavery intact.

It's exactly how Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan, created Jim Crow laws, fought against Women's Rights, segregated America's military under Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912, fought against every Civil Right Act from 1871 to 1965, and have recently attempted to destroy Women's Sports by mandating that Gay Men can be competitors in Women's Sports -- saying that "Transgender Gay Men" should be able to compete in categories matching their gender identity." 

Of course, Democrats have tried to stop President Trump from killing Drug Cartel drug smugglers at sea, and lately have become supporters of Iran who President Trump is trying to stop from getting Nuclear Weapons. So yes, every day there is evidence of Democrat lunacy. And if you don't think so, take a look at how the ill effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome have taken over the Democrat Party today. 

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is the intense, highly emotional, irrational, and systemic opposition to Donald Trump. It's a term used to describe how the Democrat-controlled Mainstream Media, and Democrats universally focus on Donald Trump to such an irrational degree. Democrats blame President Trump for all of our problems. Democrats oppose his policies automatically without objective evaluation, even when not understanding what his policies are. 

Their opposition to President Trump is an irrational response to his rhetoric, legal challenges, unconventional political norms, and specific policy decisions, which they view as harmful to to their Socialist-Communist agenda. It is Democrat lunacy on display for everyone to see on a daily basis. 

And yes, President Trump is right when he says Democrats would be against him if he found the cure for cancer. As I said before, it's the same sort of craziness that has made Democrats in Congress try to stop President Trump from killing Drug Cartel drug smugglers at sea, and has Democrats supporting Iran in the U.S.-Iran War. President Trump is trying to stop Iran from getting Nuclear Weapons, and Democrats think that President Trump is evil for stopping Iran from having Nukes. Image that sort of craziness.. 

So yes, Democrat lunacy is their irrational thinking that's so much akin to that of Jim Jones and his followers. The reason that's true is because Democrats believe the Democrat propaganda and insanely feel good about themselves in defiance to everything good about America. Yes, they feel good about themselves as they drink the Democrats' Kool-Aid.

Tom Correa

Citizen Volunteers Were Essential In The Old West

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

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

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

BOUNTIES FOR THIEF-TAKERS

SEEKING VOLUNTEER DETECTIVES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- end of article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Correa

American Ranchers In Trouble In 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Correa

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

Democrats Depicted President Lincoln As A "King"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where's The Lesson? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History is repeating itself.

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Correa

The Democrat's Assassination Cult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are Democrats running on in 2026? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Correa