The United States Didn't Want Hawaii

Back on June 19th, 2011, I posted an article about how the Hawaiian legislature elected a new King and the turmoil and revolution that vote actually started. The article is titled: When King Kalakaua Needed U.S. Marines in 1874. 

Over the years, while I get a lot of emails about most of what I write, this article has generated a lot of emails. Much of it was absolutely great and I can only say thanks for the great words of encouragement. I'm very happy that you like my work. While that is more the case than not, others are not very nice. But being honest, I sort of expected that when I wrote something that I knew some folks just don't want to hear.

I knew that some of the responses would not be what I hoped. But while that's the case, I didn't expect people to write things that I can hardly believe. And frankly, some people have actually written me saying that I made up the whole thing to discredit the Kingdom of Hawaii for some reason. Some have written saying that I'm simply trying to rewrite history and that my article is a work of fiction.

To those out there saying that I made up the story, no I didn't make it up! I'm simply not that creative. I could never create the treachery and deceit, the power grabs, the turncoats, the coup after coup. I'm not able to disregard real honest and factual events that took place like those who only focus on things that meet their agenda.

For me, I have no agenda when it comes to reporting history. Whether it's exploring the truth using available evidence to support what did or did not take place with people or places in the Old West or other periods of American history, I like my history real and supported by fact and not unsubstantiated myth. It don't like trying to connect the dots using conjecture that's not supported with hard facts.

As for Hawaii, I love Hawaii and would never try to discredit Hawaii for any reason. My family originates from Hawaii. I have grandparents, great-grandparents, and even great-great-grandparents buried there. When my family left Portugal back in the mid-1800s, they arrived in Hawaii as "Contract Labor," otherwise known as "Indentured Servants." And yes, the Kingdom of Hawaii brought them there. My family arrived during the times of Kings and Queens. While not Hawaiians by blood, they were Hawaiian subjects under the Monarchy. Yes, they were in fact Hawaiian Subjects long before they became Americans. And yes, because I can trace my roots to those Hawaiians, I treasure my Hawaiian heritage no less than someone of Hawaiian blood.

As for those saying that I'm trying to rewrite Hawaiian history, you're a fool if you think so! I simply report history with as much of an objective eye as one can have. I love history and hate those who try to rewrite it. I see history as our best form of education. So really, why would I want to rewrite what took place when I love its lessons and what it teaches us about ourselves.

My interest in history goes back to when my grandfather would tell me stories about the way things once were, how people did things, about old technologies, how the blending of cultures took place, the way people fought to survive during tough times, and how people did things for others. I admire those people because of what made them who they were -- their ethics, morals, and their will to prevail.

Anyone who has read my articles, especially those on Old West history, knows that I do a lot of research to give you my readers the real story and not the fabrication that many of us are led to believe is true.

I was called all sorts of things when I wrote about Wild Bill Hickok ambushing David McCanles. I was told that Wyatt Earp couldn't have been a pimp, and arrested as a pimp at the time when many say he was supposed to be a Buffalo Hunter. I was told that I had to be wrong about Doc Holliday being a bad shot or when I said that Tom Horn's hanging was nothing special. I can deal with name-callers. They mean very little to me. What I hate are those who rewrite history to benefit themselves or their cause.

Like it or not, it is a historical fact that as a result of the Hawaiian government's request, two Marine Detachments were landed to restore order to the rioting in Honolulu. It is just the truth that American Marines fought a rebellion instituted by the opposition candidate there, restored order, took over the government, and after a few weeks of being in complete control of the Hawaiian government actually handed it back to the Hawaiian monarchy and assisted with the orderly coronation of King David Kalakaua in 1874.

It is a fact that during the fighting, U.S. Marines actually seized government buildings. They occupied the Palace grounds but did not the Palace itself, seized the city armory, the Hawaiian treasury, the Hawaiian Police station house, the Honolulu jail, and the Honolulu Courthouse which was their main objective. All in just a few days, and in just over a week restored order.

Lately, I've been told that a plot to overthrow King Kalakaua in 1888 and a revolt in 1889 never took place. I'm told that Liliuokalani, who planned an insurrection against her own brother King Kalakaua never happened. Really, did I really make that up?

Facts are facts, and in July of 1889, Liliuokalani planned an insurrection against her own brother King Kalakaua. And yes, with the help of Robert Wilcox and 150 armed men, they occupied the Palace and attempted to have King Kalakaua either abdicate or proclaim that the 1864 Constitution was to replace the 1887 Constitution.

The fact is supporters of King Kalakaua did take up arms against those insurgents. Volunteer riflemen from what was called the Missionary Party turned out to support the government. A legation was on hotel premises where Mr. Merrill, the U.S. Minister requested U.S. Marines again be landed to assist in the matter.

It is a fact that a duel between Liliuokalani's insurgents and volunteers began with rifle fire. Some say small artillery was moved into position but never used. By evening the fighting ended, and the insurgents surrendered to the U.S. Marines and the Missionary Party. These are historical facts!

King Kalakaua reigned for 17 years until he died in 1891. He decided to take a trip to San Francisco to visit America and improve his health. The great King died of a stroke, kidney failure, and liver cirrhosis in San Francisco, California, on January 20th, 1891.

In keeping with King Kalakaua's wishes, his sister Liliuokalani ascended the throne becoming Queen on January 29, 1891. Whether people want to accept it or not, her monarchy would indeed be faced with scandal, attempted coups, and revolution, all one after the other. Like it or not, her reign reads like a road map to abdication. And as I said before, the only question is "To who?"

I'm told I'm making it up, but the facts don't lie. In March 1892, an abortive revolution was led by the Ashford brothers and R.W. Wilcox of the Liberal Party. The objective was to establish a Republic and then educate the people for future annexation to the United States. Ironically, the very same conspirator leader Robert Wilcox who was so willing to help Liliuokalani overthrow her brother, then wanted to overthrow her.  After being arrested. a month later all charges were dropped and the conspirators were released.

I love history. I think moviemakers and writers can do more with real history. I think the real story is, in most cases, a lot more fascinating than the legend and the fabricated made-up make-believe garbage that many accept as true. In the case of the Old West, many of the colorful personalities of the times were made even more colorful by way of bullshit artists called Dime Novelists. I find that today's movie makers are full of those same Dime Novelists who it seems can't tell the truth if their lives depended on it. But friends, my grandfather was right when he said, "Just tell the truth, people won't believe it anyway." Besides, I believe real history makes a better story.

And yes, I love history's ironies. I find it ironic that Queen Liliuokalani supported the same Wilcox in an attempted coup against her own brother King Kalakaua -- only to have the same man attempt one against her. It seemed as though karma came around in full swing.

Less than a year later, on January 14, 1893, Queen Liliuokalani proposed to promulgate a new constitution that would give her powers of virtually absolute monarch not seen since Kamehameha The Great. She wanted to take control of the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of government in the Kingdom. Many in Hawaii, including many in the government, saw this as too much intrusion by the Queen. That was when a group of mostly European, German, American, Hawaiian business leaders, and other Hawaiian subjects who formed a "Committee of Safety" overthrew the Kingdom to seek annexation by the United States.

United States Government Minister John L. Stevens, responded to a request from the "Committee of Safety," and requested that a company of Marines aboard the USS Boston be sent to the palace.

From January 16th to April 1st of 1893, the U.S. Marines were back in Hawaii. The fact is that the Marines again landed to protect American lives and property at the request of the Hawaiian government. Yes, it was the Hawaiian government that requested the presence of U.S. Marines. The Marines didn't simply just land on their own or at the orders of the American government. Besides, why would the American government want to "invade" Hawaii since the United States already had a Reciprocity Treaty with the Hawaiian government which gave them all sorts of benefits to use the harbors in Hawaii?

Unlike in 1874, in 1893 the American Marines did not fire a shot. They did not take control of any government building, seize any property, jail anyone, or conduct any combat action. They were positioned across from the Palace at the request of the Hawaiian government in charge and waited for orders. That's it. They did nothing else but wait.

The fact is that they were there because of the potential unrest as the internal crisis within the Hawaiian government continued. About 160 Marines landed, and were given specific orders by Captain G. C. Wiltse to "land in Honolulu for the purpose of protecting our legation, consulate, and the lives and property of American citizens, and to assist in preserving public order."

Friends, that sounds a great deal like why they were called up in 1874. And yes, the Marines had seen the riots and rebellion of 1874 in Hawaii, and it was less than 20 years past that they had to "preserve public order" in Honolulu. They understood very well just how bad it could get.

Like it or not, from what I've read, the Marines were there as "U.S. Peace-Keepers" only. Marines were at the time stationed at Arion Hall, the U.S. Consulate, and the U.S. Legation, under "orders of strict neutrality" and to stay out of any potential line of fire between the Provisional Government and Royalist Forces. They were not to take sides and wait for the outcome of Hawaii's internal political mess.

Hawaiian History says that the Queen surrendered to "the superior force of the United States of America," but what did the under 200 Marines do to make her think they were a "superior force"? Besides the fact that they would have been outnumbered by the Hawaiian people, they didn't do anything but camp out and await orders.

As I've said before, American Marines landed and positioned themselves at the legislation building across from Iolani Palace and camped out. They sat and waited for orders, and when they were told to return to their ship -- they returned to their ship the USS Boston.

On January 27th, 1893, following the overthrow of the monarchy, the Provisional Government created Hawaiian military forces which were put under the command of Colonel John Harris Soper.

The Hawaiian military forces consisted of four Infantry Companies: three National Guard companies and one Regular Army company. The Hawaiian National Guard companies were Company A which was made up of ethnic German volunteers, commanded by Charles W. Zeiler; Company B which was made up of members of the Honolulu Rifles, commanded by Hugh Gunn; and Company C made up of ethnic Portuguese volunteers, my great-grandfather was supposedly a part of that unit, commanded by Joseph M. Camara. The regulars, not volunteers, were Company D, made up of B Company, from the Honolulu Rifles, commanded by John Good.

I'd like to see the look on the faces of some of my relatives when they find out that the Provisional Government who over-threw Queen Liliuokalani actually had formed an Infantry Company made up of ethnic Portuguese volunteers, a few who were relations, to ensure they stay in power.

All of the Hawaiian military was active under the Provisional Government of Hawaii. And yes, they were used in the Leprosy War in 1893.

In 1894, the Republic of Hawaii increased the Hawaiian National Guard and its Regular Army by 1,000 when the United States threatened to invade Hawaii. Yes, the United States threatened to invade the island nation of Hawaii if those who overthrew the Queen did not put her back on the throne. Yes, that is a part of history that is conveniently left out of today's Hawaiian History books.


The Hawaiian National Guard and Regular Army were also used under the authority of the Republic of Hawaii during the 1895 attempted coup led by Robert Wilcox and the former Queen.

After Hawaii was annexed becoming the Territory of Hawaii in 1898, all of the Hawaiian military forces entered service in the Army National Guard system and became part of the Hawaii Army National Guard there. Am I making this up? No. This is all a matter of historical record.

So now, ever wonder what Texas and Hawaii have in common when it comes to joining the United States?

Could it be that so-called "American expansionists" didn't want Texas or Hawaii? It's true, but we'll look at that in a few moments.

If you didn't know that the United States threatened to go to war with Hawaii in 1894 and invade the island nation of Hawaii if those who overthrew the Queen did not put her back on the throne? That really happened!

The rest of the story regarding why the United States didn't want Hawaii has to do with United States President Grover Cleveland wanting absolutely nothing to do with Hawaii as a territory or a state or anything. He wanted the Provisional Government, and then the Republic of Hawaii, to simply give the government back to the Queen.

As for the Queen, she was all for regaining her throne. But also, it is said that she wanted to behead all involved in her overthrow. At least, that was her position at first.

In the last days of President Benjamin Harrison's administration, the new government of Hawaii led by Sanford Dole petitioned for annexation by the United States. The United States consul in Hawaii John L. Stevens took it upon himself to recognize the new government on February 1, 1893, and forwarded their proposals to Washington D.C..

With just one month left before leaving office, the Harrison administration signed a treaty on February 14th and submitted it to the Senate the next day with President Harrison's lackadaisical recommendation for annexation. President Harrison may have realized that Americans did not want Hawaii as part of the United States the same way Americans didn't want Texas in the 1840s.

Since the U.S. Senate was against Hawaii Annexation, they refused to vote on it. Since incoming President Grover Cleveland was against it, he withdrew the treaty shortly after taking office.

In late 1893, James H. Blount, Cleveland's newly appointed American minister to Hawaii arrived in Hawaii and expressed President Cleveland's desire to give Hawaii back to the Queen. It is a fact that Blount spoke with the Queen and all interested parties -- which included the Annexationists in power and the Restorationists who wanted to put the Queen back on the throne.

President Cleveland agreed with Minister Blount that the Queen should be restored. Albert S. Willis replaced James Blount as President Cleveland's next American minister to Hawaii. He too set out to negotiate with all parties and even offered the crown back to the Queen on the condition that she pardon and grant general amnesty to those who had dethroned her.

She initially refused and wanted to behead all involved in her overthrow, but soon changed her mind and offered clemency. The problem was that this delay was said to have compromised her political position, and by then President Cleveland wanted nothing more to do with Hawaii or its request for annexation. He in fact released the entire issue of the Hawaiian revolution and possible annexation to the United States Congress for debate. He knew full well that there were many anti-Annexationists in Congress, especially the Senate and that it would linger there for years without any action being taken.

People can say that Hawaii was part of some supposedly American expansionist policy, a supposed American Imperialism of some sort, but from what I can see -- they are wrong.

The fact is President Cleveland saw Hawaiians no differently than he saw American Indians, which he saw as being nothing but "a problem." He saw them as being possible "wards" to be taken care of like the way he saw American Indian tribes. For this and a few other reasons, including his belief that America should not be like the European Imperialists who wanted their flags planted on every piece of foreign soil they could, President Cleveland was totally against having Hawaii join the United States.

Remember, between 1865 and 1898, America had military involvement in Panama, China, Mexico, Nicaragua, Formosa, Japan, Uruguay, Colombia, Hawaii, Egypt, Argentina, Chili, Korea, Haiti, and even Samoa. None of which became American colonies.

In fact, if the United States wanted to take over Hawaii, why did the United States give it back to the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1874 when United States Marines took over all of the government there? Instead of just reinstating order and handing it over to the Hawaiian monarchy, America was in the perfect position to declare it their own -- but didn't.

President Cleveland did not want Hawaii to be part of the United States and said so in many letters. His fervent objections to allowing Hawaii to become part of the United States are proof that the United States government was not behind the overthrow. And yes, besides President Cleveland, the U.S. Senate at the time did not want Hawaii to become part of the United States. These facts alone disprove the claim that the United States was behind the Queen's overthrow. But no, those facts don't serve the anti-American attitude in Hawaii by some today.

Frankly, let's be honest here and look at what took place. If the United States was behind the overthrow, then they had a strange way of showing it. For instance, if the United States was behind the coup, why be against taking over Hawaii once the coup was successful?

Why be against annexation? Why even go so far as to threaten the Hawaiian Republic with war if those involved in the Queen's overthrow don't put her back on the throne?

Does that make any sense if the United States was really behind the overthrow? Why threaten war and demand that people reinstate the Queen if you supported the people who overthrew the Queen?

Fact is, since the United States didn't want to annex Hawaii, for the United States to annex Hawaii -- believe it or not, "Annexationists" in Hawaii had to actually go to Washington D.C., and bypass the President to lobby Congress for annexation. Friends, while the lobbying paid off in the House, it did not work in the Senate which was staunchly against the annexation of Hawaii.

On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawaii with Sanford B. Dole as president was proclaimed. It was recognized immediately by the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Germany, and other governments.

Upon the inauguration of William McKinley as President of the United States on March 4, 1897, the Republic of Hawaii resumed pushing for annexation with the United States with the hopes of finding a more receptive president in the White House. They already had two American presidents who passed the buck and didn't want Hawaii to join the United States, so their prayers were answered in President McKinley.

By 1898, President McKinley saw the islands as having gained strategic relevance in the wake of the Spanish-American War. But frankly, it was a lot more than just the Spanish-American War that made President McKinley give serious consideration to Hawaii.

Although the United States was secure in knowing that it had a good relationship built on trade and military assistance, which included a treaty with Hawaii, at the time, Britain, France, Germany, the Dutch, and Japan had shown interest in annexing the islands for themselves.

Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, the Dutch, and the Japanese all had holdings in the Pacific, and all were interested in Hawaii's ports. While some wanted Great Britain over the Japanese and the French, there were those in Hawaii who wanted Hawaii to be part of the Japanese Empire because Japan's Empire stretched far into the Pacific. And yes, Hawaii had already started to recognize a growing Japanese population in Hawaii.

After researching this over the years, I truly believe that several factors had to come together to enable a new treaty of annexation to be signed with the United States on June 16th, 1898. But even then, there was no guarantee that it would take place.

Was it a sure thing to be ratified by Congress? Absolutely not. And frankly, it was because the United States really didn't want it. Two facts that people should understand about the times. 

First, while many make it sound as if the United States was an Imperialist power out planting the American flag everywhere in the world, that simply was not the case. American Imperialism had to do with business instead of gaining territory. If you don't think so, ask yourself why Americans didn't plant our flag in places like Egypt, Haiti, Panama, Korea, and many other places where we saw military intervention while actively protecting American lives from 1865 to 1900.

Don't think so, read this: The Late 1800s - U.S. Military Action Abroad. 

After reading that information, ask yourself if we had the opportunity to plant our flag but didn't -- especially when comparing our lack of wanting foreign territory to that of Great Britain, Germany, France, and others who were expanding their empires.

While Americans could have planted our flag in Hawaii very easily, especially in 1874 when we had complete control of the Kingdom's government structure, most Americans didn't want Hawaii because they saw Hawaii as being a foreign land.

So where does Texas fit into this story?

Well, while people make all sorts of claims about how American expansionism was in full gear to cobble up territory, most people do not realize that Americans were against the annexation of Texas in the 1840s. Yes, this was the case. In fact, the people in Texas took the American refusal of annexation to heart and actually looked into alternatives to joining the United States. One alternative, believe it or not, included negotiating a return to Mexico at one point. Yes, it's true.

Yes, a treaty regarding the annexation of Texas could not be passed until some political maneuvering took place. Some even called it manipulating the U.S. Constitution. My point is this, if this is how Americans felt about Texas, I really don't think it mattered to most Americans if Hawaii was returned to the Hawaiian monarchy.

As for what took place with the problems and reluctance of the U.S. Senate to approve the annexation of Texas, the success of the joint Congress vote on Texas annexation did in fact set a precedent, known as the "Tyler Precedent," that would be applied to how the United States dealt with a vote on Hawaii's annexation.

Yes, since the annexation of Texas could not be approved in the Senate, both houses of Congress met in a Joint Session to vote on Texas annexation. That's how Texas annexation got around the Senate denying them entry. This same ploy was used to get Hawaii admitted to the United States. Trickery or not, it worked in favor of those who wanted Texas and later Hawaii as parts of the U.S..

I know it is hard to believe that Americans were not the "expansionists" that History Revisionists want us to believe. However, evidence shows that Washington D.C. was against the annexation of Hawaii in the exact same way as they were against American expansion and the annexation of Texas in the 1840s.

Yes, it is a matter of historical fact that Americans were not in favor of the annexation of Texas or Hawaii, and only political maneuvering and a vote by a Joint Session of Congress allowed them to join the United States. Frankly, reading everything that I have on the annexation of Texas and Hawaii, as unbelievable as it sounds, it is very easy for anyone to conclude that the United States may have been for expanding West but really did not want both Texas and Hawaii.

So why all of the trickery to get Hawaii admitted?

Well, remember that for most of the 1800s, there were many in Washington who were concerned that Hawaii might become part of a European nation's empire -- like say that of Great Britain, France, or Germany. This belief was spurred on during the 1830s when Britain and France forced the Hawaiian monarchy to accept treaties giving Britain and France economic privileges.

In 1842, Secretary of State Daniel Webster sent a letter affirming U.S. interests in Hawaii and opposing annexation by any other nation. He stated that no nation should seek special privileges or engage in further colonization of the islands.

In 1849, the United States and Hawaii concluded a treaty of friendship that served as the basis of official relations between the two nations. However, in the 1850s, the Hawaiian monarchy requested annexation with the United States. It was then that Hawaii set about plans to join the United States. And yes, part of the reason was that Hawaii's economy became increasingly integrated with the United States.

The 1875 trade reciprocity treaty was a "free-trade" treaty that benefited the economies of both Hawaii and the United States. This resulted in closer ties, but that treaty would be void if Hawaii was annexed by a European power. And yes, by 1897, that possibility became real and of concern to the McKinley administration.

Remember, in 1893 outgoing Republican President Benjamin Harrison attempted to annex Hawaii through a Senate treaty but failed. When that failed, President Harrison was asked to consider the "Texas Precedent," also known as the "Tyler Precedent," for a Joint Session of Congress vote for the annexation of Hawaii but he declined.

Since Democrat President Grover Cleveland did not want anything to do with the annexation of Hawaii, he actually tried to kill the question. Then when President William McKinley took office in 1897, he resubmitted legislation to acquire Hawaii.

President McKinley knowing that the two-thirds of the Senate support was not going to take place, he invoked the "Tyler Precedent" for the Joint Session of Congress resolution. That was how President McKinley successfully applied the same means of annexing Texas in the 1840s to annexing Hawaii in July of 1898.

As the Senate appeared against the idea of ratifying the new treaty, its supporters took extreme measures by passing the Newlands Resolution. That made the "Tyler Precedent" of the Joint Session of Congress accepted, and the Senate subsequently ratified and confirmed the Newlands Resolution by a vote of 42 to 21. The House of Representatives accepted the Newlands Resolution by a vote of 209 to 91. With that, President McKinley signed the annexation bill on July 7th, 1898.

So there you have it. After 5 years of trying to give it back to the Queen, with even the threat of going to war, the annexation of Hawaii was like that of Texas in that it was passed from one president to another for three administrations almost like an unwanted stepchild -- all until it was finally passed using the same political maneuvering that brought Texas into the Union.

The formal claim of transfer of sovereignty took place on August 12th, 1898 with the hoisting of the flag of the United States over Iolani Palace.

This is all history. And no, I don't have to make it up. It's all there for anyone to find. If one wants to know the truth about what took place, the truth is out there. But frankly, people are not going to find out what took place by being narrow-minded and only accepting what those with an anti-American agenda want us to think.

And yes, that's just the way I see it.

Tom Correa

Politically Incorrect And Worried About Our Safety

Everyone knows how things are these days with Political Correctness taking over our nation. Fact is, a lot of folks are afraid to call a spade a spade especially when it comes to exercising their freedoms of speech and protest.

We all know real well that if we say anything negative about the criminals crossing our border from Mexico illegally, without documentation and skirting the legal process, then we’re automatically labeled "racist, bigoted, and anti-immigration."

Political Correctness is a way of stopping discussion. Well, call me what you will! First, I assure you that I've been called much worse. And second, frankly I don't give a damn what folks call me!

I don't care what I'm called when it comes to our safety and security. Folks can call me racist, or whatever else they want, it just doesn't matter to me.

As a former Security Consultant for most of my working life, I know hard security decisions means being unpopular and unreasonable to many. That is, until something happens. That's when folks say "well why didn't someone have the balls to take a harder stance and do what was needed?"

Friends, whether it's the security of Nuclear Weapons storage spaces or of a Professional Football Game, security means controlling entry to those people you want in and those you want to keep out. It is just that simple.

And while no one is saying close the borders to Canada or to Mexico to legal immigration, I am saying we should be concerned about our safety and security before politics, political language, votes, money, and power -- things politicians in both parties are more concerned with. 

As for a wall? Why not?

There are many countries in Europe which are finding out that obstacles stop unwanted entry. People have been using walls and fences and other sorts of barriers do work. From the Great Wall of China, to Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall in England, to the Vatican Walls in Rome, to the Maginot Line in France, the examples are pretty much endless when talking about defenses to keep invaders out of a nation until it's safe. While prison walls are meant to keep bad guys in, while not perfect, walls can be one solution to keep bad guys out.

Friends, there is a reason Old West forts have walls, that there are fences around military bases today, that our national laboratories have fences, and we have "fire walls" in computers. They work. And frankly, let's face facts, security barriers are all about controlling entry to letting in who and what we want -- and stopping that which we don't.

Back in the late 1970s, my first couple of years after leaving the Marine Corps, I drove big rigs, worked in a machine shop, and even worked for the Western Pacific Railroad. Those were hard economic times under Jimmy Carter, and soon I found myself using my extensive Marine Corps security training working in private security. 

I found myself being hired to supervise and train poorly trained security guards. It was a job that I didn't like at first because I saw many of them as just working in security until "something better" came along -- certainly not the attitude of a professional. 

Some on the other hand had training, and were very professional, very diligent, and extremely vigilant. While their supervisor, I tried to help them by supplementing what they already knew regarding different aspects of security. 

While I was specializing in executive protection, I also found myself working strikes. Yes, I was being hired to coordinate others to stop angry Union Strikers who wanted to burn down their employer's buildings and vandalize property. 

Believe it or not, one client was the Alameda County Sheriff's Department when their own deputies called in with the "Blue Flu." It was illegal for them to strike, but not to call in sick. I was called to coordinate the placement of private security guards as a defensive barrier to stop those deputies from vandalizing county property -- specifically their own patrol cars which they had already done the night before I was called out. Yes, that really happened.

Of course, in 1980, I was hired to help stop the problems created by unwanteds at Candlestick Park when the San Francisco 49er football team held their games there. 

In the case of strikes, extreme went both ways, most of the time with small strikes our defensive barriers were vigilant guards in communication to get help as fast as possible. Of course, the other extreme was like what took place at Foster Farms chicken facility when our walls were made up of lines of security guards, multiple police agencies, sheriff's deputies, and Highway Patrolmen and women. All there to keep 1,500 angry strikers from attacking the plant. In all cases, our walls were good old fashion vigilance to sound the alarm when something wasn't right.

In the case of Candle Stick Park, we had huge smooth walls around the stadium. And since the property was ours, we patrolled both sides of the walls. We also had gates where we monitored, searched, and allowed entry to those who had tickets to come in. Yes, as most people already know, this is the way security for all sporting events are handled.

So my question is, why not treat America in the same why we treat any sporting event? Why not treat our border as we would any football game by having walls, fences, and entry points where we can screen who's coming in and let in only those with a ticket.

Back in the day, I was hired to stop the street gangs from nearby Hunter's Point from jumping the fences and creating all sorts of mischief and mayhem in the stadium during the game. The gangs were coming into the games to steal, sell drugs, cause fights, assault spectators, and more. And yes, we also had a couple of attempted rapes which we stopped.

Thirtyfive years ago, we had a third of the security personnel that they use at the games today. So how did we succeed in stopping the violence and mayhem with only what we could afford back then?

Simple: we made an accurate assessment of our security needs, we formed a security plan of attack, we hired good people, afforded them great compensation and training, then we deployed and supervised our assets to make full use of what we needed to accomplish.  

Besides doubling the number of guards at each of the gates checking everyone to see if people were bringing contraband into the stadium, I brought in guards who were specifically trained to deal with those outlaws on both sides of the wall. These guards knew the problems and our objective, and were paid to stop things before they happened by controlling entry.

And yes, we patrolled both sides of our walls. That is a huge part of the success that we had. We tried to stop the problem before he or she entered. And if we saw it taking place and couldn't stop it form the outside, we picked them up on the inside and escorted them back out. It worked very well.

Though I'm now retired, I can say that I've been blessed in that over the years, during lean economic times, I kept food on my table because of my being called upon to help businesses with similar security problems.

On March 20th, 2016, during a visit to the U.S. - Mexico border near Nogales, Arizona, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders called the controversy over immigration "trumped up".  He said, "the so-called immigration problem we face today at this particular moment, is a trumped up and exaggerated problem."

The fool went on to says, "we don't need a wall and we don't need barbwire. We need to fix our broken criminal justice system. First and foremost, it goes without saying that we need comprehensive immigration reform, we need to take 11 million undocumented people out of the shadows, out of fear, and we need to provide them with legal protection, and we need to provide them with a path toward citizenship."

Friends, this man shows how absolutely ignorant he is of the problem. He waves citizenship in their face as an enticement to enter our country illegally! And frankly, the border is not a criminal justice system problem on the border -- the border is a security problem. This is not a "law enforcement problem," this is a security breach of national proportions.

While I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement, let's be honest here, policemen are not trained to conduct security. They are not trained to be pro-active. They are trained to be reactive and investigate what happened, not to stop what might happen or can happen. They are trained to apprehend and arrest, not protect and deter. Most are not security specialists. And frankly, most have not been trained in security.

When an Illegal Alien comes across the border and commits a crime, that is a police problem. We need to protect our citizens before an Illegal Alien comes across the border by stopping them from coming in. We need to stop them before they commit a crime and get away before the police show up to take a report or alert the coroner.

Our Border Patrol is a security force which is being restrained by the criminal justice system that wants them to arrest and detain instead of arrest and return to Mexico. Right now, our "Catch & Release" of Illegals means apprehension and then released by our courts. I believe that our Border Patrol should have the authority to walk someone to a gate and return an Illegal to Mexico.

Our agents should tell them to "Come back when you're legal." Yes, in essence, tell them, "Go buy a ticket if you want to come in." The same thing that every sporting event in the nation does to those breaking the law and trying to get in free without paying.

What we need on the border is a barrier, a fence, a wall, anything that can stop or impede movement across the border. We need entry point where people are screened, searched, and checked for the proper paperwork. We need to deploy highly paid security personnel on both sides of our wall. They need to be trained and supervised to be vigilant and pro-active.

Yes, we need to turn people around at the border -- long before they make it in and being part of the criminal justice system and the courts. 

And while some will call it "simplistic," security barriers, fences and walls do work to stem the tide and help control entry. Like a sporting event, no ticket means no entry. 

We can use today's technology and patrol both sides of our defensive barriers. For example, Israel is under constant threat of war and uses a defensive system to prevent terrorists and invasion. I believe that their "wall" can be modified to be used here. 

As for Bernie Sanders who decided to finally get off his ass and get a job when he was 40 years old, I can assure everyone reading this that it was not in the security field. He knows nothing about what he is addressing in most things, security included. And frankly, his statement amount to an Open Border policy where no one needs a ticket to get in.

Sanders does not accept the reality that we must stop bad guys before they can do bad, just as we should reward good people by allowing them entry. He is not realistic and talks like a fool when it comes to conducting the security of our nation.

So while he and others can laugh at Donald Trump for saying we need a wall, they are the ones who should be laughed at. Because frankly, they have no solutions at all.

And yes, that's just the way I see things.
Tom Correa

 

America's Most Venomous Snakes

Since it's again that time of year when the rainy days are becoming fewer and fewer, it is that time of year to throw a blanket and saddle on your horse and get out into the back-country or maybe go out and gather. While out, whether afoot or on horseback, we should all be aware of snakes that are pure trouble to run into.

Yes, there's a very good chance that you may come across a snake of two while out riding. And frankly, while there are a number of fairly harmless snakes, venomous snakes in the United States include Rattlesnakes, Coral Snakes, Water Moccasins / Cottonmouths, and Copperheads. These venomous snakes have glands for secreting venom. They are able to inflict a poisonous bite. The wound they inflict can be deadly. 

Venomous snakes can be dangerous to those who work outdoors, which of course includes cowboys, ranchers, farmers, foresters, loggers, surveyors, landscapers, groundskeepers, gardeners, painters, roofers, pavers, construction workers, laborers, mechanics, and any others including military personnel.

According to what I've read, there seems to be a real disagreement on the number of venomous snake bites recorded every year in the United States. Even though snakes bite an average of 45,000 people a year, venomous snakes bite account for 18 percent of that number. As for the number of deaths resulting from these bites, it is said to be under 20.

According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), although rare, some workers with a severe allergy to snake venom may be at risk of death if bitten. The CDC, also states that it has been estimated that 7,000 to 8,000 people per year receive venomous bites in the United States, and about 5 of those people die.

Obviously, the number of deaths would be much higher if people did not seek medical care. So yes, it is vitally important for employers to train their workers about their risk of exposure to venomous snakes, measures taken so that they can prevent and protect themselves from snake bites, and what they should do if they are bitten.

Four different species of venomous snakes reside in the United States -- though none of them would rank among the most venomous in the world. These include Rattlesnakes, Coral Snakes, Water Moccasins / Cottonmouths, and Copperheads.

Rattlesnakes

Rattlesnakes are a truly American family of pit vipers and all but two of the existing 27 species are found in the U.S. or Mexico.

Known for their distinctive rattle at the end of the tail, all species of Rattlesnakes can strike at amazing distances and catch their victims by complete surprise.

Rattlesnakes are divided between two genera based on their head scales: "Crotalus" have numerous small scales on their heads while "Sistrurus" have large scales (plates) on their heads.

Rattlesnake venom is "haemotoxic", which means that it "prevents blood from clotting and destroys tissue." The potent and haemotoxic venom causes great pain and damage to tissue and death.

Rattlesnake species include Eastern Diamondbacks, Western Diamondbacks, Mojave Rattlesnakes, as well as the Sidewinder, Timber rattlers, Rock, and Pygmy rattlesnakes. Rattlesnakes vary in size from the 18 inches of the Pygmy rattler to the 84 inches or more of the Eastern Diamondback.

The Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake is a species that inhabits the coastal areas of North and South Carolina, Louisiana and Florida including the Keys. They are found in pine woods, scrubs, palmettos or swamps. And yes, believe it or not, Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes are capable of swimming many miles out in the Gulf of Mexico to reach some of the islands off the Florida coast.

As stated before, the Eastern Diamondback can reach up to 84 inches which makes it the largest venomous species of Rattlesnake in North America. It has no natural enemies and is considered the top of the food chain. Experts say Eastern Diamondbacks can be quite irritable and readily defends itself if it feels threatened. I've heard they attack for no reason as with most rattlers.

As for more trivia regarding the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake, believe it or not, back during the founding of our nation, the Eastern Diamondback was almost selected as the National Animal of the United States. Yes, there were some who wanted it as America's symbol instead of the American Bald Eagle.

As for the Western Diamondback Rattlesnake, this very aggressive rattlesnake is found in California, Nevada, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arkansas. Actually, it is very common over to find them throughout the West in grasslands, deserts, woodlands, and canyons.

The Western Diamondback is known to stand its ground and defend itself vigorously, the first step being when it coils and rattles. This species of Rattlesnake is responsible for many bites and injects a large amount of venom when it does bite.

Although rattlesnake venom isn't as deadly as some other snakes in other parts of the world, the large volume of the injected venom makes Rattlesnakes particularly dangerous. And yes, because of this, Rattlesnakes are considered one of the most dangerous snakes in North America.

After posting this, my friend Kirby Jonas let me know, "The Mojave rattlesnake, while not as large as the diamondback, is the most dangerous species due to the fact that it carries not only hemotoxin but NEUROTOXIN as well.

This snake, like the diamondback, can also be fairly aggressive, and if one is bitten by it, IMMEDIATE medical attention is paramount."

Kirby also said, that "it should be noted is that a large number of rattlesnake bites are 'dry bites.' In other words, no venom, or very little venom, is injected. The reason for this is that when a snake bites a person it is not biting to kill for food, but out of self defense, and it takes a while for a snake's venom to rebuild. Thus, not injecting venom is obviously not something the snake is doing to be nice, but simply a self-preservation tactic -- he is going to need that venom later to disable and kill something he intends to eat."

Coral Snake 

These snakes live in the southern part of the United States, stretching from Florida to Arizona. They are prominent in west central Mississippi and North Carolina and south to the Florida Keys.

Coral snakes are related to the cobra family and can potentially be extremely venomous though they are generally shy and slow to bite. 

Coral snakes thus account for fewer than 1% of venomous snakebites in the United States with most people bitten while handling the snakes intentionally. 

They are small snakes, measuring 39 inches or less. Their fangs are undersized, so many coral snakes are unable to penetrate skin. Though not very long, Coral Snakes cannot strike quickly and must hang on for a brief period to achieve significant envenomation in humans.

Because of this relatively primitive venom delivery apparatus, it is estimated that 60% of those bitten by North American Coral Snakes are not envenomed. There has been no deaths from Coral Snake bites in the United States since antivenin became available. 

Before the availability of antivenin, bites killed 10% of the victims from respiratory or cardiovascular failure. Yes, t heir venom causes paralysis -- in particular, of the respiratory system -- and weakness.

People who survive the bite may need respiratory support for up to a week and may suffer persistent weakness for weeks or even months. While that is said, it is also believed that for venom power that the most dangerous is the cousin to the cobra called the coral snake. 

It frequents a variety of habitats, such as wooded and scrub areas, palmettos and swamps, likes Coral Snakes like to hide in protected places such as beneath debris or flat wood, and it even ventures into residential locations.

The saying "red on yellow kills a fellow" identifies coral snakes from other colorful snakes such as nonvenomous milk snakes, king snakes and scarlet snakes. The coral snake has red, yellow and black bands; if the red band and the black band are separated by a yellow band, you are looking at a coral snake.

Water Moccasin/Cottonmouth
  

I read where these snakes are primarily located in the southeast United States - Southeast Virginia, west central Alabama, south Georgia, Illinois, east central Kentucky, south central Oklahoma, Texas, North and South Carolina, Florida, and the Florida Keys.

But friends, I've also read where they are found throughout the South. Yes, this snake is one of the most common snakes in the South.

It a semi-aquatic species living in swamps, lakes, rivers, ditches and brackish waters where it is easily mistaken for other harmless water snakes.

Normally these snakes are between two and a half to four feet in length. It is well known that a Cottonmouth will stand its ground and is famous for flashing the inside of its mouth as a warning sign - hence the name "Cottonmouth". 

Some say the cottonmouth or water moccasin is a less deadly snake that has earned a reputation as being aggressive. But frankly, if harassed it will deliver a fairly potent bite. And yes, their venom is haemotoxic and their bites cause gangrene.

Copperheads

Copperheads are the most common venomous snake in the eastern half of the United States -- notably in Alabama, Missouri and Arkansas. 

These short snakes cause 37 percent of venomous bites in the US. 

They derive their name from the copper-like coloring of their head. And yes, copperheads rely upon camouflage and cover for safety.

In case of a danger, they usually freeze and remain motionless until the threat has passed. 

Unless a person steps on them, grasps them, or otherwise comes in very close contact with them, Copperheads will not usually bite.

The relative abundance of Copperheads and their occurrences near human habitations is the reason bites from Copperheads are the most numerous among snake bites in the Eastern United States. Luckily this snake is said to be only "mildly venomous" -- whatever that is -- and bites are very seldom fatal.

However, a bite may still have serious consequences. And the whole idea that a snake is "seldom fatal" is of absolutely no comfort to someone dying from one of those bites.

There are 5 species of Copperheads in North America. Western species seem to have a higher venom toxicity and are much smaller than the Northern and Southern Copperheads.

The American Copperhead is very common over much of its wide range: Eastern Gulf States, Texas, Arkansas, Maryland, North Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, Kansas, Ohio, New York, Alabama, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. It is found in wooded and rocky areas as well as in mountainous regions where it is well camouflaged and hard to spot.

Tough Copperheads are not known for their aggressive nature, they will defend themselves vigorously and bite when stepped on or if someone accidentally lies down next to them. Their venom is haemotoxic.

Did you know that Alaska and Hawaii are the only two States that are said to being snake free? It's true. Of all of the 50 States, those two States are the safest to live if you are Ophidiophobia, also known as Ophiophobia, which  is a particular type of specific phobia pertaining to the abnormal fear of snakes.

And yes, this information was compiled from all sorts of sources. I hope you can use it!

Tom Correa

California's Famous Broderick vs Terry Duel

David Colbreth Broderick

David Colbreth Broderick was born on East Capitol Street just west of 3rd Street in Washington, D.C., the son of an Irish stonecutter who had immigrated to the United States in order to work on the United States Capitol.

Broderick moved with his parents to New York City in 1823, where he attended public schools and was an apprentice stonecutter. But at the time, it is also said that Broderick became very active in politics as a young man. 

In 1846, he became the Democratic candidate for U.S. Representative from the 5th District of New York, but lost the election with 38% to 42% for the winning Whig candidate.

In 1849, he moved to California to join in on the Gold Rush. He moved to San Francisco, where he engaged in smelting and assaying gold. Broderick minted gold coins that contained less gold than their face value. For example, his $10 coins contained only $8 in gold. He used the profits to finance his political aspirations. 

After achieving business successes in minting and then real estate, he became a member of the California State Senate from 1850 to 1851. And in 1857, he was elected a Democrat to the United State Senate at a time when the Democratic Party of California was sharply split in two, between the pro-slavery group and the “Free-Soil” advocates. 

Broderick staunchly opposed slavery and especially the expansion of slavery into California. He is said to have worked closely with his political friends to support the anti-slavery movement in California.

David Smith Terry

David Smith Terry was once Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court and a staunch advocate of making California a Slave State. 

Yes, like many others who move from one place to another, Terry wanted to make where he was living just like the place he left. In this case, that meant he wanted to extend the culture of slavery into California.

Terry was man known for his hot temper and tendency toward violence. Among his outbursts, he was even known to have previously stabbed a political opponent in 1856. 

So yes, it wasn't surprising that when Terry lost his re-election because of his views on pro-slavery, and even though Terry and Broderick had once been friends, he blamed David Broderick for his loss. 

At a party convention in Sacramento in 1859, Terry gave a searing speech, attacking Broderick and his anti-slavery stance. Broderick responded to Terry with an equally unflattering statement and as tempers flared, Terry challenged Broderick to a duel.

At the time of Terry’s challenge, duels were illegal in San Francisco. They had originally scheduled the duel for a few days before September 13, but there was too large a group of witnesses and the duel was shut down by the city police. 

On September 13, they secretly moved the duel located to a ravine near Lake Merced, just south of the city line in what is today Daly City. 

The chosen weapons were two Belgian .58 caliber pistols. It is said that Broderick was completely unfamiliar with this type of gun mechanism. Terry in contrast knew it well and in fact spent the previous days practicing with one. 

Similar to the pistols used.

At the moment of the duel, the men stood only 10 yards apart. And it was reported by the many eye-witnesses that just before the final "one-two-three" count started, because of his pistol's hair-pin trigger Broderick's pistol went off and fired into the dirt. 

Now with an empty single-shot pistol in his hand, witnesses reported that Broderick simply stood tall and refused to cower as Terry slowly took aim directly at Broderick's chest and fired the fatal shot. 

Below is how the duel was reported at the time:

On Friday, Sept. 16th, ’59, at half-past 9 a.m., Hon. David C. Broderick, Senator of the United States from our State, died from the effect of a wound received in a duel, fought on Tuesday morning last, with David S. Terry, formerly Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California.

With the manner of his wounding we have nothing to do; the daily press, in their partisan opinions, have given many different statements in regard to it, and to them we refer for the particulars of the duel; our task is merely to speak of a fallen hero, a good man gone to his death.

For days previous to his dissolution, the gloomy countenances of the whole people told how great was the feeling for the wounded man, and the groups of sad faces at all points in the city, showed the intense anxiety for his welfare. 

All hopes, however, proved fallacious, and while the bright sun was shining over our beautiful country, while everything in nature was arrayed in loveliness, and while a multitude of eager friends were awaiting the results of the efforts of his physicians, the spirit of the great man, the self-made leader of senates, the warm friend, the truthful and magnanimous antagonist, passed from the body and took its silent flight to the great unknown world of space.

Not only does a State mourn for its champion and defender, not only does the population of the Pacific slope wail for the loss of its favorite, but a whole confederacy—a whole people, are full of sorrow and regret for his death. As was said of another, “The heart of a nation is throbbing heavily at the portals of his tomb. ”

For years, Mr. Broderick has battled for principles which he considered right and of late he has exercised all his strength of mind and body for the advancement of those principles. Just having ended a political campaign with credit to himself, and full of high aspirations for the future, he has been cut down in the prime of his life, and all his hopes and fears are now as one.

Cold in death, the body, which formerly contained a mind such as only a God could create, lies calmly awaiting what disposition is chosen for it. There will be parade and pomp and a gathering of multitudes, but will these indemnify us for the loss we have sustained? Will the funeral ceremonies do ought towards healing the terrible wound in the body politic?

No! for such a man can never have his placed filled, he will always be missed. When occasions of this kind are forced upon us, we feel too deeply the great effect, the years will pass before the sacrifice will be forgotten. Time cannot entirely obliterate it, and the memory of the people will cling tenaciously to the circumstances.

For our State, we are sorry. The shock sustained in consequence of this last terrible act will have a tendency to injure it deeply. We have, from the first days of California, have been more or less stained with the blood of our people, and the efforts of the cooler portion of our community have been unsuccessful as to the prevention of these foul blots.

One after another of the damning consequences arrive, and California is forced to recede instead of advancing in the paths of civilization. When will we cease to be so terribly scourged and take our place among the enlightened of the age?

If not soon, we will cease to exist as a people, for strife and bloodshed will annihilate us. Let us hope that a better spirit will hereafter prevail, and let us also hope that the successor of Mr. Broderick will be as honest and upright in the discharge of his duty.

California Police Gazette
September 17, 1859

David Smith Terry was born in Kentucky on March 8, 1823, the son of Joseph R. and Sarah D. (Smith) Terry, who moved to Texas as a young boy. He was a younger brother of Benjamin Franklin Terry. And although he became a lawyer, a judge, a politician, and a soldier, and achieved fame in California, and though born in Kentucky, David Terry considered himself a true Texan and a Southerner. 

He studied law in the office of his uncle-in-law, T. J. B. Hadley, and in 1845 was admitted to the bar at Galveston. He served in Capt. Samuel L. S. Ballowe's company in the Col. John C. Hays's First Regiment of Texas Mounted Riflemen in the Mexican War and participated in the battle of Monterrey in 1846.

In 1847, he lost the election for district attorney of Galveston. In 1849, he joined the gold rush to California where he failed as a gold miner but achieved rapid financial and political success in law practice at Stockton. 

In Galveston in 1852, Terry married Cornelia Runnels who was the niece of Hardin R. Runnels who later became governor of Texas. The Terry's had six children.

In 1855, Terry was nominated for a place on the California Supreme Court by the American Know-Nothing party and surprisingly won over the Democrats.

By 1859, David Terry was an ex-California Supreme Court Chief Justice when he killed United States Senator David Broderick in California's most famous duel.

After the duel, Terry was was of course now looking at a hanging rope in his future, so he quickly claimed to have only grazed him with a flesh wound when in fact his bullet entered Broderick's chest and lung. 

It is said that despite the doctor's best efforts, Broderick fought for his life for three days before he died at 9:20 a.m. on September 16th, 1859. His last words were, "They killed me because I'm opposed to slavery and a corrupt administration."

Upon Broderick's death, the people of San Francisco were outraged by what they saw as a murder -- a political assassination. Soon San Francisco Vigilantes wasted no time in organizing to go after Terry to hang him, but San Francisco Police Department's Captain of Detectives I. W. Lees and Detective H. H. Ellis proceeded to Terry's home with a warrant against him. 

Det. Ellis described the Terry arrest:

“Lees and I procured a warrant against Terry and had it properly endorsed. We then proceeded to Terry's home. When we arrived within about one hundred feet of the house, a window was thrown open and Calhoun Benham, Tom Hayes, Sheriff O'Neill and Terry leveled shotguns at us and told us to 'halt.'

We did so and announced that we were officers with a warrant for Terry. He stated that he was certain that he would not receive a fair trial and feared violence at that time, but agreed to surrender three days afterward in Oakland. 

Knowing that he would keep his word in this, as we also knew he would do when he told us that if we came nearer to his house they would all shoot, we decided to allow him to dictate terms. 

He surrendered as per agreement, and the case was heard by Judge James Hardy in Marin County, a change of venue having been granted because of the alleged prejudice against Terry in San Francisco. This case was dismissed but Terry was subsequently indicted by the Grand Jury in San Mateo County. The point was then raised that he had been once in jeopardy, and being well taken, that case was also dismissed."

After things calmed down for Terry, he actually resumed his law practice until 1863 when he returned home to Texas to join the Confederate Army. During the war, he was reported to have been wounded at Chickamauga but still raised a regiment in Texas. By the end of the war, he was a Colonel. 

While some say he was run out of Texas and others say he couldn't handle life under Martial Law during Reconstruction there, either way after the war, like many former Confederates, Terry lived for a time in Mexico where he is said to have engaged in farming and ranching. And yes, surprisingly for a man who claimed Texas as his home, he returned to California in 1868 to practice law again. This time in the city of Stockton. 

Then, believe it or not, by 1878, Terry was again involved in California politics in the Democrat Party and actually served as a prominent member of the California Constitutional Convention which rewrote California's 1849 State Constitution.

Terry's wife died in December 1884, and his only surviving son, Samuel, died in April 1885. In January 1886, a 62 year old Terry married Sarah Hill who was 25 years younger than him.

As for karma, some say it was simply a matter of justice finally getting around to taking care of David Terry when after 30 years, on August 14th, 1889, Terry himself was shot dead by Deputy United States Marshal David Neagle while threatening Supreme Court Justice Stephen Johnson Field. Deputy U.S. Marshal Neagle was assigned to Justice Field as a bodyguard after threats from Terry. And yes, believe it or not, it is said that Justice Field had been a close friend of Broderick. 

Terry never made it back to his beloved Texas and is instead buried next to his first wife in the family plot at the Rural Cemetery in Stockton, California. Not too long after David Terry's death, Sarah Hill Terry was committed to the Stockton State Hospital for the Insane in 1892. She died there in 1937 and was also buried in the Terry family plot in Stockton.

California's most famous duel drew national attention. Senator Broderick's death turned him into a hero and a martyr for the anti-slavery movement. Terry and his Southern sympathizers were accused of assassination.  

Senator Broderick's San Francisco funeral was attended by thousands of mourners. Senator Edward Dickinson Baker, a close friend of Abraham Lincoln, gave the moving eulogy expressing the widely held belief that Broderick was indeed killed because of his anti-slavery stance, saying, 

"His death was a political necessity, poorly veiled beneath the guise of a private quarrel. . .What was his public crime? The answer is in his own words; 'I die because I was opposed to a corrupt administration and the extension of slavery.'"

The City of San Francisco erected a large monument in the now gone Laurel Hill Cemetery and named a downtown street "Broderick Street" in his honor. Also Broderick County, Kansas Territory, and the town of Broderick, California, were named in his honor.

All in all, one can't help but see the Broderick vs Terry duel as a reflection of the nation's larger and more violent divisions. Many feel that the duel actually helped to push the nation closer to war. They're probably right.

And yes, that's just the way I see it.

Tom Correa

American Quality Beef vs Foreign Beef

USDA Quality Grading

Let's jump right into this subject by talking a little about what we Americans consider quality beef and how we use our beef quality grading system. 

We here in the United States use beef quality grading which is a composite evaluation of factors that affect palatability of meat tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. These factors include carcass maturity, firmness, texture, and color of lean, and the amount and distribution of marbling within the lean.

Beef carcass quality grading is based on degree of marbling and degree of maturity. USDA beef quality grades are Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter and Canner.

USDA Beef Quality (BQA)

A large part of the beef industry’s job involves making sure that beef is safe and wholesome for consumers. As with any industry concerned with putting out the best product possible, the beef industry has it's own Beef Quality Assurance program.

USDA beef quality grades (BQA) is a national program designed to raise consumer confidence through offering proper management techniques and a commitment to quality within every aspect of the beef industry. And yes, the BQA program does more than just help beef producers capture more value from their market cattle.

BQA also reflects a positive public image and instills consumer confidence in the beef industry. When producers implement the best management practices of a BQA program, they assure their market steers, heifers, cows, and bulls are the best they can be. 

Because the stakes are even higher today with increased public attention on animal welfare, BQA is valuable to all beef and dairy producers because it:

• Demonstrates commitment to food safety and quality.
• Safeguards the public image of the dairy industry.
• Upholds consumer confidence in valuable beef products.
• Protects the beef industry from additional and burdensome government regulation.
• Improves sale value of marketed beef cattle.
• Enhances herd profitability through better management.

Beef Checkoff supported BQA programs bring it all together. While the BQA Manual provides a framework for program consistency, the states still determine the best programs for their producers.

BQA began as an effort to ensure that violative chemical residues were not present in marketed beef. Fact is the BQA was originally called "Beef Safety Assurance." That program's early emphasis was on assuring the real and perceived safety of beef. 

Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) has become much more than a safety assurance program. Today, BQA programming is expanding with information to help producers implement best management practices that improve both quality grades and yield grades of beef carcasses.

Previous National Beef Quality Audits have summarized that the number one leverage point to improve competitiveness and regain market share was to improve beef quality, uniformity and consistency. Also, the sectors that sell beef products indicated that improvements were needed in tenderness, palatability, and a reduction in excess trimmable fat.

Many consumers are familiar with quality grades and may make purchasing decisions based on quality grades at retail. But, within the consumer atmosphere the term “quality” can be confusing. Consumers and even producers often find it difficult to distinguish between the various and different ways to define “quality” with regard to beef.

Quality beef consistently satisfies customer expectations for eating and preparation characteristics. Expectations may include tenderness, flavor, juiciness, color, leanness, packaging, ease of preparation -- and price.

Studies suggest that beef from carcasses grading at least USDA Select are likely to be acceptable in eating quality for most U.S. consumers. The desire for improved consistency in beef products comes through loudly in every phase of the beef consumer research.

The genetic base for beef is relatively wide due to the wide range of environmental conditions in which cattle are raised in the U.S. Many breeds and genetic lines are used, making it difficult to produce uniform animals important for managing getting consistent products to consumers.

Value for the money is also very important to consumers as they select beef products against other competing meat and vegetable proteins. As for wholesomeness, beef products are harvested and processed under strict government inspection systems that ensure it is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.

The nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is subject to established federal or state inspection requirements.

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is charged with ultimate responsibility for protecting the U.S. meat supply under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).

The food safety system employed by FSIS to accomplish its mission has evolved to one in which a science-based framework is used to identify and prevent food safety risks. This framework is known as the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (PR/HACCP) system.

The PR/HACCP allows for the use of science and technology to improve food safety in order to prevent the introduction of pathogens in the products we consume. The implementation and verification of PR/HACCP plans have led to a dramatic decline in the incidence of food borne illnesses.

Why Is This Important To American Consumers? 

Well, foreign countries that export meat, poultry, and egg products to the United States are required to establish and maintain inspection systems that are equivalent to those of the United States. The problem is that Americans are finding out is that foreign countries do not establish and/or maintain inspection systems that are equivalent to those that we have here in the United States.

And frankly my friends, foreign countries are so steeped in graft and corruption that we can only guess what is in some of the foods brought in from other nations. And no, while this article in on meats, specially beef, like produce brought in from other countries a lot of pesticides and fertilizers which we ban here and legal to use in other countries.

Because of this situation, Americans have no idea what quality is being shipped to American consumers. But a bigger problem is that we don't know what sort of health risks we are being exposed to by way of food borne illnesses which are still prevalent in foreign countries.

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) supposedly audits foreign inspection systems and re-inspects meat and poultry at the port-of-entry to ensure that foreign countries have maintained equivalent inspection systems -- but with cutbacks, we don't know if this is taking place.

And yes, while the U.S. Bio-terrorism Act of 2003 regulations include the registration of food facilities exporting to the U.S. and the prior notice of imported food shipments -- it is questionable if this is taking place.

So Why Can't We Find Out Where Our Meats Are Coming From So We Can Choose?

The Federal government states the "Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) program is neither a food safety or traceability program but rather a consumer information program. Food products, both imported and domestic, must meet the food safety standards of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food safety and traceability are not the stated intent of the rule, and the COOL program does not replace any other established regulatory programs that related to food safety or traceability. The COOL law requires retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin for all commodities covered under this law."

So, if it does nothing but notify us, the customers, of the country of origin, why stop it?

And yes, that's what took place last June (2015) when Congress voted to repeal the "country of origin labeling laws" meant to let American consumers know where the beef, poultry and pork products is coming from.
Friends, believe it or not, this has everything to do with our Representatives bowing down to the protests to the World Trade Organization (WTO) after getting complaints for Canada and Mexico.

American farmers and consumers have argued that Americans have the right to know where our food came from. And frankly, we should know if we are "buying American" and supporting American producers or supporting some other nation?

I like knowing my dollar is buying American products. I'm tired of sending my dollars overseas while we have Americans struggling to keep their ranches and farms.

So now, after compiling this information from various sources, I couldn't help but wonder why we have politicians fighting the labeling of meats so that we the consumer won't know where it comes from come? Could they really be answering to the WTO and not the American people?

Or, could it be the huge dollars that lobbyists and special interest types wave in their faces? Could it be that those we put in Congress are full of crap and are not looking out for our best interest? Could it be that they have forgotten who they work for and need a wake up call? For me, I think it's a combination of all of the above.

And yes, that's just the way I see it.
Tom Correa

The Benefits of Eating Beef

So there I was talking with a friend about an upcoming bar-b-q at our American Legion post here in Glencoe when I was shocked to hear him say that he's "not eating beef these days."

I was actually pretty surprised. I know eating beef has been blamed for all sorts of things these days, but people have been eating beef for a long time.  It is said that the domestication of cattle started around 8000 BC for beef, milk and leather. Friends, eating beef is not just a passing fad for a reason.

Cattle were widely used across the Old World for oxen, milk and meat production long before coming to America. And in America, well we've been raising cattle for hundreds of years.

Yes, eating beef has been done for years all for good reason. Beef is one of the most nutrient-rich foods there is. Not only does it provide you with essential nutrients, but it has one of the highest concentrations of these nutrients compared to many other food source with the exception of maybe bison.

How good is beef for us? Imagine this, based on a 2000-calorie diet, just three ounces of lean beef provides you with:

• Protein -- Helps build a strong and muscular body. 
• Zinc -- Helps create a healthy immune system & heal wounds. 
• Phosphorus -- Necessary for strong teeth and bones. 
• Iron -- Helps carry oxygen in the blood to all cells and muscles to prevent fatigue 
• B-Complex Vitamins, including Vitamin B-12, Niacin,Vitamin B-6, and Riboflavin -- Help release energy from food.

Yes, there are indeed benefits of eating beef:

• According to USDA standards, there are 29 lean cuts of beef,  Beef provides nutrients like zinc, iron, protein and B vitamins, and half of the fat found in beef is monounsaturated, the same heart-healthy fats found in olive oil. 
• Lean beef is a very good source of protein, providing 64.1% of the daily value of the nutrient in just 4 ounces.
• As stated before, a 3-ounce serving of lean beef is an excellent source of protein, zinc, B-complex, B-12 and B-6, which are needed by the body to convert the potentially dangerous chemical homocysteine to benign molecules.
• Protein helps in building a strong and muscular body, and beef is the best source of protein. Yes, the consumption of beef protein is associated with increased muscle mass and people who eat an omnivorous diet have more muscle than people eating a vegetarian diet. 
• And yes, we benefit because beef is rich in phosphorous and iron. Iron helps carry oxygen in the blood to all cells and muscles and prevents fatigue. Phosphorous is necessary for strong teeth and bones.
• Diets high in vitamin B-6 are known to be help stop the shaking associated with Parkinson's Disease. 
• Diets high in vitamin B-12, but low in fat, are associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer.
• Organic beef is a good source of Selenium and Zinc. The selenium present in lean beef is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an antioxidant that reduces the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.
• Lean beef is a good source of Zinc which is helpful for preventing the damage to blood vessel walls which can contribute to atherosclerosis and is also needed for the proper functioning of immune system. Zinc also helps create a healthy immune system and heal wounds.
• Grass-fed beef is higher in Omega-3 fatty acids, which have been found to reduce risk of heart disease. DHA and EPA are the active forms of Omega-3 in the human body and found primarily in meats. Also, research shows that it does not raise total blood cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol levels as well.
• Creatine forms an energy reserve in the muscles and brain and is found only in meat. 
• Carnosine functions as a powerful anti-oxidant and provides protection against many degenerative processes. Carnosine is only found in meats.
• Our digestive systems are well equipped to make full use of the healthy fats, proteins and nutrients found in animal foods.

And frankly, despite what some pasty-face vegan will tell you, we are omnivores and function best eating both meat and veggies. Besides that fact, fact is that humans have much shorter digestive systems than herbivores. So subsequently, we don’t have the specialized organs to digest cellulose which is the main fiber in plants.

We are designed by evolution to consume and make full use of the important nutrients found in meats of all types. We have canines. We have opposing thumbs and the ability to make tools to hunt. Yes, all for a reason.

Finding and harvesting meat was one of the reasons we humans were able to evolve such large elaborate brains, clothe ourselves and advance. Some of the earliest evidence shows that our ancestors were eating meat as early as 1.5 million years ago.

As for the risks of processed anything these days, red meat is perfectly healthy. In fact, research shows that there is no evidence that unprocessed meat contributes to cardiovascular disease or diabetes -- if, like anything else, it's consumed in moderation.

As for concerns over cuts of beef which may contain saturated fat, which has a negative effect on our cardiovascular health. In reality all one has to do to reap the nutritional benefits of beef without the fat is to opt for the leaner cuts which includes round steak, shoulder steak, lean ground beef, and flank steak.

As for folks out there concerned about the environment and want to rid America of cattle, especially those who use the flimsy excuse of saying that cattle are "environmentally unfriendly." That is a lie that should be stomped out.

Facts are facts and cattle use less land than other food producers. Besides, cattle graze on various types of land including land that is too steep, hilly or rocky, and is considered unsuitable for farming. Like the bison of days gone by, today cattle also aerate the soil and eat brush and grasses which is good for wildfire management. And yes, cattle fertilize the land and replenish the ground with needed nutrients no different than the millions of bison once did in this country. 

And since we're talking about the benefits of beef, beef production is not only good for the planet and but it’s affordable for those less fortunate in that with less one can get more. Because beef is a more nutrient dense food source than vegetarian nutritional options, we get more out of a small amount of beef than compared to what we get from a similar amount of veggies. 

Friends, for us watching out checkbooks, the benefits of beef simply means that we can get more nutritional bang for our buck by buying beef for our nutritional needs. And frankly friends, that sure is a benefit for those of us who need to stretch our dollars.

Lastly, beef is good for one's soul! It taste great. It is a great meal. It isn't a sandwich or a taco, nothing picked up at a drive through and in a hurry. Beef is prepared and stick a baked potato and corn on the cob with it and you have a meal that makes you feel good about life in general.

And yes, that's just the way I see it.

Tom Correa 

Deer Hunters Face Competition From Feral Hogs

FoxNews.com posted the above picture, provided by LouisianaBowhunter.com, which shows a herd of wild hogs totting away a deer fawn.

The picture sums up what deer hunters face from feral hogs, wild pigs. The unwanted competition from the feral hog explosion is truly being felt by deer hunters as deer herds thin out.

The feral hogs, also known as wild hogs, wild pigs, or feral pigs, are said to be mean, relentless, and out of control. Besides their effect as predators on livestock, their destruction of farming and ranching property, tearing up the landscape and overrunning a number of areas, the explosion of feral hogs across the United States is threatening the deer population -- and in more ways than one.  

Feral pigs are considered an exotic and invasive species. They cause extensive damage to agricultural lands and other environments. The rooting feeding behavior of pigs destroys native plant species which disrupts natural plant communities. These disturbances can allow exotic plant species to become established which further negatively impacts the native plant communities. 

This rooting also creates areas of erosion, especially near stream banks, which in turn can impact the water quality making life harder for aquatic wildlife. Pigs living in the wild compete with the native wildlife for food, water, cover and space. Deer, bears, turkeys, foxes, bobcats, and raccoons are just a few examples of animals that compete with wild hogs for resources.

From up north in Michigan and down across the deep south, east to Florida and west to Texas, Arizona and California, wild pigs can adapt to a wide range of habitats. All while they have a high reproductive rate, two litters of 4-14 piglets a year, and have few natural predators which makes them hard to control. 

Known predators of wild pigs include black bears, mountain lion, bobcats, coyotes, and owls, all of which are unable to keep pig populations in check. Because of this the out of control hogs are also spreading disease, dominating the food chain, and are also killing and eating fawns. 

In Louisiana, where there are an estimated 700,000 wild hogs, hunters and wildlife officials say they are taking a toll on the whitetail deer herd.

"They are in the marshes and beaches of Louisiana all the way up into the hills and piney woods and swamps," Jim LaCour, state wildlife veterinarian for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, told FoxNews.com. "They’re in every habitat in the state."

LaCour described the feral pigs, which can weigh up to 500 pounds, as "opportunistic" eaters. They are omnivores that feast on anything crossing their path, including deer fawn, other piglets and dead animals. 

 LaCour said they’re very adaptable and also highly destructive. He also stated that hogs carry many diseases, such as leptospirosis, which can infect or kill other animals, like deer, as well as humans.

"Hogs are the sport utility vehicle for disease and parasites -- they move them across the landscape," he said. "That bacteria [leptospirosis] can cause abortion in the deer -- and it can kill adult deer or people."

Their presence is also detrimental to the land, forcing wildlife officials to carry out aerial gunning in certain areas "because they tear up the marsh and that leads to coastal erosion."

Hogs were first introduced to North America by Spanish settlers. The breed most commonly seen in Texas is a mixture of those hogs and Russian boars brought over more recently for sport hunting, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Some speculate the population boom is due to relatively recent cross-breeding in the wild. Others, like LaCour, say the popularity of hog hunting in the 1980's and early 1990's led humans to move the feral pigs from confined, geographically isolated areas into places they had never been before.

Wild hogs can reproduce by the time they are 6 months old. Feral sows can have two litters per year averaging six piglets per litter, according to wildlife experts. Statisticians have determined that 75 percent of the population must be harvested to maintain a static population -- prompting Louisiana and other states to adopt liberal hunting policies when it comes to killing the hogs. Texas has the highest rate of feral hog.

For deer hunter Justin Lanclos, the very sighting of a feral pig means trouble.

"If you start to see hogs in your hunting area, you are absolutely not going to see deer," said Lanclos, a 33-year-old bowhunter from Sulthur, Louisiana.

"Deer are extremely smart and elusive," Lanclos told FoxNews.com. "They just don’t like to occupy the same area as hogs."

Lanclos, the owner of retailer Louisiana Bowhunter, said he recently received a photo showing a herd of hogs -- or sounder -- running off with a whitetail fawn. The image, believed to have been taken in Louisiana, has since gone viral on social media.

"We’ve got other photos of feral hogs carrying fawns," noted LaCour. "If the hogs are coming through a field and they happen to come across it, they’re going to eat it."

As for risks to hunters, it should be remembered that boars have four extremely sharp tusks up to five inches long. Just like other wildlife, feral hogs will be most active at dawn and dusk.

Wild pigs have great senses and because of this their hearing and smell will generally give them warning of your presence. They are know to avoid contact with humans.

But, if you see a pig and are not prepared to shoot it -- then keep a safe distance especially if piglets are present. Attacks on humans occur at the highest rate in the winter months during daylight hours and appeared to be unprovoked. By comparison the risk during summer appears lower.

Of the 21 states with reported violent incidents, the most cases in the United States came from Texas, Florida, and South Carolina. But understand this, it's not only in rural areas anymore. Clashes with wild hogs in suburban and urban areas have been on the rise since the mid-1990s.

While it is known that hunters, hikers, photographers, and other outdoor enthusiasts have been attacked, there are things we can do if confronted with the threat. For example, if you come face to face with an unfriendly feral, it is recommended that your best option to defend yourself is to climb the nearest tree, boulder, car, truck, to get at least 6 feet off of the ground because large pigs can somewhat "walk" up a tree trunk with their front legs.

If you are deer hunting and a pig charges, shoot it!  If you are a hiker and you are unarmed, it is recommended that you try to avoid its tusks anyway possible through shielding yourself behind a tree or using anything you have to keep it away from you. 

If it becomes a situation where you can't shoot and can't escape, remember that while fighting back try to remain standing. While it is said that attacks on humans are "usually" over in under one minute, people who fall or are knocked to the ground can sustain more serious injuries. 

Yes, this all sounds like another reason to be armed even if just hiking or taking pictures of the great outdoors along some trail somewhere.

Lastly, keep in mind that feral hogs are mainly found in forested areas where the trees and vegetation provide them shelter and food. But also, remembers that they can also be found in marshes or swamps as well as in pastures and farmlands.

Knowing that they can be found just about anywhere in at least 40 states, we should respect that fact that there is a real good chance that your favorite deer hunting area could be home to these invasive beasts.

So please, hunting or not, be armed and stay safe in the outdoors. And if hunting, be safe and don't take any chances as feral hogs may be present and competing with you for the same deer.

And yes, that's the way I see it.

Tom Correa