A Day When God Stepped In To Help America

I found myself in a debate with someone. While that won't surprise too many who know me and how I feel about celebrating the goodness of America, or my defense of Conservatism, it may surprise you that our debate was about God and America.

While I pointed out how Christian values have always been part and parcel of our nation, I have to admit that I was sort of surprised that he really believed, as he stated, "God has never helped America. That is if God really exists."

It was at that point that I laughed out loud. And friends, if there's one thing that pseudo-intellectual Atheists hate, it's someone laughing at their one-liners. 

He became angry when I laughed, so much so that he then said that my believing in God shows how uneducated I am. He then went on to quote one of his professors who said, "A belief in God shows how uneducated a person is. Education will lead people to be less dependent on God."

I told him that I'm not dependent on God. In fact, I'm hoping to lead such a life that God can depend on me. 

While guys such as that jerk enjoy saying "God doesn't exist," my argument is that God allows us free will with the hopes that we do the right things, with the hope that we show good intentions toward our fellow man and woman, that we demonstrate an ability to persevere, that we show a desire to get off our ass and work for what we want, that we defend ourselves and those we love, that we care for others, show compassion, be just, and stay on the straight and narrow with the Lord.

I've met God at sea on nights when I missed home, in horrible summer heat trying to ink out a living in construction, in the thick brush while trying to ferret out cattle on gatherings, while mending fences, while treating a horse with colic, as well as when sitting on the tops of mountains on trail rides. I've been inspired when least expected and surprisingly comforted when needed. 

OK, so I did let it go on too long. But really, this guy was really full of himself. He didn't like America, our flag, our laws, our culture, and the fact that almost 8 out of every 10 Americans are Christians of some denomination. He then asked me to show him proof of God and where God has ever helped America?

My reply was, "Do you want big or small examples?"

He said, "Pick one time when it was obvious that God helped the United States of America." 

I said I would. Of course, I was going to say "God has given us Donald Trump" just because I knew it would've made his head explode. But I didn't, even though I believe that's the case. 

Instead, I told him that for me, I've seen God's helping hand here and there over my more than 60 years. When I was a youngster, I remember my grandfather preparing me to not lose faith because a foal was dying. That night, out of the blue, it made an unexplained 180-degree turn for the better when it wasn't supposed to make it through the night. 

While overseas as a young Marine, I saw people flee for their lives with only what they could carry on their backs during the Fall of Saigon in 1975. Just as I feel that God helped that foal make that 180-degree turnaround, I believe that those who made the effort to flee Vietnam were helped by God in their efforts to escape murderous Communism. Ten years later in 1985, it was reported that Communists killed 2.5 million South Vietnamese in their "Re-Education Camps". 

For me, I remember very well a situation that took place one night when a man in Oakland shot someone and then turned his gun on me. I lived because the killer's gun had jammed. Some say I was lucky. I say God was looking after me.

As for helping us in history, we know that on the Trail of Tears that thousands of Native Americans died along the way. Fact is, so did the Black slaves which they owned. Slaves that they took with them on their way West. But, the majority made it. What could have been worse didn't happen. We can thank God for his help that not all were lost during that horrible march across the nation.

We know that of the American pioneers who came West, thousands died along the way and two-thirds of the homesteaders couldn't make it and returned East. We know that faith in God helped strengthen most and gave faith to those in need of inspiration to help them through the hard times.

We know that 47 members of the Donner Party survived that horrible ordeal. Not all died after they left Springfield, Illinois, on that 2500 mile journey to California. Actually just over half of their party died after fighting 22 feet of snow and starvation in a situation where cannibalism was reported to have taken place. I've always found it interesting that people say those who survived such a tragedy "were lucky," instead of saying they "were helped by God." 

We know that there were people with tuberculosis who died and didn't live full lives in the Old West, as such was the case of Doc Holliday. But the fact is that others did live long lives with TB back in the day. 

A great example of that was John B. Stetson who invented the Cowboy hat. He was diagnosed with tuberculosis at a young age and doctors told him that he wouldn't have long to live. He went West and made his mark inventing the Cowboy hat, and in the process created a business that employed thousands of Americans.

John B. Stetson is known for providing a clean and safe work environment, and a hospital and homes for his over 5,000 employees. He did that while giving back to his community by donating his money to charitable organizations, building schools, and colleges. Unlike others who died early from tuberculosis, he lived to be 75 years of age. I believe God had a reason to keep him around.

Atheists may refuse to accept the possibility that God helped America by keeping John B. Stetson alive to help Americans live better lives, but I don't. I believe that God uses some folks as tools to help others. I believe that Abraham Lincoln was God's gift to us. He was God's way of helping save the nation and recover from the horrors of the Civil War. I believe Franklin D. Roosevelt was God's way of helping America have strength during the horrid days of the Great Depression. And yes, I believe God helped FDR enable America to be victorious during World War II. It was pure providence that they were our presidents at that time in our history.  

God has helped America by giving us people who have turned deserts into flourishing farms, people who have built dams and railroads and highways, just as he gave us people who penned a Constitution the likes of which is the envy of the rest of the world. It was with God's help that we broke away from the greatest military power of its day. It was with God's help that we have grown stronger and better. It's with God's help that we'll become even better than we are.   

While these are just a few instances of when God has put people in the right place to help America, over the years, we have had God's help to weather hard times and trials, tests, and our ability to prevail. And while there are most likely many other days when the Lord has stepped in to act, this next story is about a day when God took a hand to help the United States directly. Yes, it was a day when God decided to help America in a more direct manner. 

During the War of 1812, the Battle of Bladensburg was fought on August 24, 1814. Bladensburg is only 8 and a half miles northeast of Washington, D.C. Today, that battle is called "the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms."

The American forces included U.S. Army regulars, U.S. Navy sailors, U.S. Marines, and state militia troops. American Sailors from Washington's Navy Yard were pressed into service at Bladensburg to help stop the British forces marching on Washington. So was a volunteer militia rifle company of civilian workers from the Washington Navy Yard which was organized in 1813. Those volunteers were designated the "Navy Yard Rifles" and joined in the fight. They effectively used rifle fire, artillery, and fought hand-to-hand with cutlasses and pikes against the British regulars. Sadly, they were no match for the better-armed British forces who overwhelmed the American defenders with superior numbers. 

As soon as the word reached Washington that the defenses had failed and the British defeated American forces at the Battle of Bladensburg, President James Madison and officials of the U.S. government picked up and fled the city. The president and the rest of the government were one step ahead of being captured by the British when they left the city and took refuge for the night in the small town of Brookeville. The town of Brookeville, which is in Montgomery County, Maryland, is about 20 miles due north of Washington, D.C. 

After a force of British Army regulars and British Royal Marines completely routed a combined force of U.S. Army regulars, U.S. Marines, Sailors, and state militia troops at Bladensburg, Maryland, the British marched into Washington. What happened next was savagery. 

When the British invaded Washington, the British sacked the city and burned down its buildings. In order to "lay waste to the city," the British forces set fire to our capital.

They actually burned down the White House and many other government buildings, including the Capitol, the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Treasury, War Office, and the Arsenal building. As for the Washington Navy Yard, since smoke from the burning Capitol was seen, the American defenders at the shipyard realizing that weapons, ships, and stores, were all prizes that the British wanted. So yes, the yard was ordered set afire to prevent its capture by the enemy.

Its flames could be seen for miles. Then God stepped in. 

Less than a day after the sacking of Washington D.C. began, out of nowhere a sudden hard-hitting thunderstorm came about. That storm has been described as devastating, a storm with instant hurricane conditions. Along with the torrential rain, a tornado was witnessed passing through the center of the capital before setting down on Constitution Avenue. The tornado is said to have lifted at least two British cannons and gun carriages, then dropping both of them several yards away. In the process killing British troops. Panic ensued and soon the British, who were not fairing well against the storm, retreated from the city. They returned to their ships which were battered and badly damaged in the instantaneous hurricane.

The deluge of rain put out the fires. In fact, it is said that the hand of God ended the British occupation of Washington. It only lasted about 26 hours. The storm was soon called the "Storm that saved Washington." After the storm passed, Americans, including the President and other government officials, returned to the city.

While there are those who would debate the effect of this storm on the occupation, one simply cannot disregard the fact that the storm which appeared out of nowhere forced the British to retreat from Washington. Fact is, it was a storm without explanation other than there being a part of divine intervention. 

So you, too, can now tell someone about the time that God rolled up his sleeves and said he'd do this one himself. It was the day God saved Washington D.C. from complete destruction. And while there are other days when God's helped us all, when his blessings have been given to our great and kind nation, God saved our nation's capital on that day back in 1814. 

And that's how I see it.

Tom Correa

We Have A Dishonest Disrespectful Press

Dear Friends,

Among other things, I was brought up with the belief that respect for others is a big deal. The respect one gives others goes to the heart of our character, our wanting to be respected, our being fair and good people.

On November 7th, 2018, I watched as an out of hand CNN reporter Jim Acosta repeatedly attempted to lecture President Trump. It was very obvious that Acosta was attempting to use President Trump preparation to stop the thousands of people headed to our Southern border, his preparation to stop them from entering the United State, as a way to attack the president's immigration policy. His wording said volumes as he described those approaching our border as a "small group of migrant workers" -- espeically when Acosta knew that small group is made up of thousands of people willing to break the law.

At one point, President Trump told Acosta that he is all for legal immigration. He even told the CNN reporter that America "needs legal immigration for the hundreds of companies" returning to the United States. 

Of course that didn't satisfy Acosta, as if he needed to be satisfied, and the CNN reporter grew more and more confrontational during his questions, actually lecturing and attempting to correct the president's own opinions on the matter. Acosta's absolute disdain for President Trump came through during that news briefing as he became more and more argumentative. Then Acosta refused to relinquish the microphone and step aside for other reporters to ask their questions.

Because I found this to be completely over the top behavior, completely disrespectful in the way that he spoke to the president, right after watching what took place that morning, I took the time to contact the White House and wrote the following note to the President:

Dear Mr. President,

I support you 100%. I respect and admire all of the great work that you are doing for us. Respect for you is why I'm writing. Because CNN's Jim Acosta has repeatedly demonstrated that he is confrontational and does not respect you or your staff, I'm asking that your White House consider revoking CNN's Jim Acosta's White House press credentials. Just as the press needs to understand that they cannot publish lies, they need to understand that Press Conferences are not mandatory. 

The press should be appreciative that you take the time out of your hectic schedule to hold such briefings, but they are not grateful nor respectful. Their disdain for you comes across loud and clear on camera. And as demonstrated in the press conference held on November 7th, their actions embolden others of their ilk to be just as rude and hateful toward you. Many of us are tired of seeing this take place. 

CNN's Jim Acosta should not be allowed to be confrontational or rewrite facts to fit his own agenda with a mic in his hand on camera. His producing false information and lying to us is why the press is seen as an enemy of our nation. His distortion of the truth hurts everyone. To stop being our enemy, all he and CNN has to do is print the truth. But sadly, they won't. 

I apologize for being long winded, but please consider my suggestion of revoking Acosta's White House press pass until he can learn that "attack journalism" doesn't have a place at the White House. 

Thank you. God Bless you, your family, and the staff at the White House.

Respectfully, your loyal supporter,

Tom Correa
The American Cowboy Chronicles

A few hours later that day, I was happily surprised to find out that CNN's Jim Acosta was no longer allowed into the White House grounds.

Since then, the news media has predictably rallied to Acosta's defense. And yes, believe it or not, as if they dictate to the White House demands, I read where British reporter Jane Merrick has called for a boycott of the White House. She stated, "the entire White House press corps should walk out. Deny him [President Trump] coverage. Take him off the air. Cancel his series. Leave him to rage into Twitter's echo chamber, which is all he deserves.

Those who hate the president are all for this. Believe it or not, they say it's what should be done. As one Liberal reporter put it, "It would feel good and righteous to stop rebroadcasting the messages of a corrupt, lying, hateful Administration. A walkout would serve as a clear demonstration of professional solidarity, and solidarity is an absolute value. Reducing the amount of Trump on the air and in print would also probably be a good thing."

So while some want to talk about cutting themselves off of a direct line to the White House, others are in solidarity are a little more realistic. Though still nonsensical since they are still defending rude behavior and shoddy reporting, at least others know what keeps them alive as a news agency.

This solidarity with Acosta's rude behavior has made me question the decency of news agencies. Yes, including Fox News who I watch on a regular basis. In fact, I was absolutely shocked to learn that Fox News President Jay Wallace issued a statement of solidarity regarding his support for CNN's Jim Acosta. That was today, November 14th, and it read as follows:

"Fox News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credential. We intend to file an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court. Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."

What does getting rid of a disrespectful, confrontational, reporter out the White House have to do with support of a free press or access to information coming from the White House? Nothing! This statement is all about taking the focus off of the real reason why Acosta is now barred from entering the White House and instead shift the focus on the ability of a free press to gather information.

When the President holds a press conference, he takes questions from the press pool in a specific order. First, he takes questions from the wire services such as the Associated Press, then he goes to the broadcast networks. After them, he goes to national newspapers, news magazines, and lastly he talks with regional newspapers. During these press conferences, those there should have respect for the office of the President of the United States while asking their questions. Confrontational behavior should be met with the Secret Service escorting the person off the grounds.

Fox News should be ashamed of itself for supporting CNN and attempting to make this about a freedom of the press issue when it has zero to do with the freedom of the press or access to information. Fox News is insulting us if it thinks we the American people cannot see that it has everything to do with "attack journalism" by an antagonistic press. Attempting to make this about the freedom of the press is dishonest because that's not what this is about.

Out of almost 150 CNN employees who still have access to the White House, Jim Acosta is only one person of that organization who has been barred from the White House. So frankly, it is extremely dishonest to say that this has to do with limiting the access to information. Fox News should correct its stance on this since it knows full well that CNN still has full access to the White House.

And by the way, answering questions from reporters and presenting those reported with answers and information is a courtesy. It's not an obligation of the government to hold such briefings. The White House does so as a courtesy to us.

It's About Respect

No where in the President's job description does it say that he has to answer questions from reporters while being treated disrespectfully by members of the news media. 

The behavior of the press should never be disrespectful, condescending, or confrontational toward the President or his staff. Just because the news media doesn't the fact that a Republican administration is in charge of policy making, that alone does not give reporters get the right to be jerks and attack the president or his staff.

The press has a vital role to play in our Constitutional Republic by providing us with information. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that American press has always been a friend of the American people. Fact is, America has had a long history of what President Trump calls "fake news." Fake news is nothing new to America. And yes, so in the press being seen as an enemy of the people instead of seen as a friend of the people.

A dishonest and disrespectful press has been with us for over 200 years. For example, in 1798, President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts to criminalize fake news being spread at the time.

In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson wrote,  "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."

During the Civil War, Democrats who controlled newspapers in the North routinely attacked President Abe Lincoln with all sorts of fabrications. Yes, all while attempting to get the Union to settle for two nations and keep slavery intact.  

In 1868, President Ulysses S. Grant was referencing the role of the press during the Civil War when he said, "I have been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history."

I read when President Franklin D. Roosevelt once admonished a reporter by giving him a dunce hat and then told him to go sit in the corner. There's another story about how Roosevelt actually handed a Nazi medal to a reporter to be passed to a New York Daily News writer. It was supposed at the time that Roosevelt saw that writer as a Nazi sympathizer.

Remember the story of the video that caused the Benghazi attack? That was a lie that the Obama State Department started. In that case, the Liberal news media was complicit is spreading that lie to cover for Hillary Clinton's incompetence. How about the "Russian Collusion" story? That was the same sort of false information, fake news, it was never real. But, the Liberal press ran with it to de-legitimize the Trump presidency. 

On television, CNN's Jim Acosta has made no secret that he hates the fact that President Trump has labeled CNN the "enemy of the American people." At Trump rallies, Americans are taking he and CNN to task over their reporting false information. CNN takes information and reports it with a spin on the facts to fit a Liberal agenda. They downplay reports of problems on the border for example. This is an effort to downplay information that confirms the negative ramifications of open borders which are part of the Democratic Party desires today. 

They do this while at the same time attacking all of the policies that have come out of the Trump administration. For example, President Trump wanted the government to take in less money in the way of personal income taxes and put more money in the pockets of American consumers. He correctly believed that more money in the pockets of Americans would actually generate more money for the United States. He has been proven correct, but CNN rages against his policy and echoed the Democrat Party lines saying that "this was crumbs" and that his allowing more Americans to keep more of their hard earned wages would throw the United States into another Great Depression. 

I refuse to listen to CNN or read their articles simply because they are not balanced, objective, or simply fair minded. They parrot the talking points coming out of the Democrat Party and attack their own guests who question what's being said. They tow the Democrat Party line and are afraid of free thought or discourse with out who see the world differently then they do.

CNN exaggerates things that have not taken place, and they report the ill effects of policies coming out of the Trump administration before they have been implemented. While they use conjecture and read tea leaves to attack President Trump about things that have not happened, or about things they believe he has done when not true, they pretend innocence of simply making a mistake when caught fabricating lies. I don't trust CNN because they vehemently hate anyone with differing viewpoints. 

As if naive as the day is long, CNN acts with surprise and wonder when they are called "fake news" and "the enemy of the people." Yet this does not have to be the case. 

As I wrote to the president, and said, "CNN's Jim Acosta should not be allowed to be confrontational or rewrite facts to fit his own agenda with a mic in his hand on camera. His producing false information and lying to us is why the press is seen as an enemy of our nation. His distortion of the truth hurts everyone. To stop being our enemy, all he and CNN has to do is print the truth. But sadly, they won't." 

I'm very old fashion in that I believe that the press should be more objective. Being objective means not being impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan. It goes to the American core principle of being even-handed, fair, and just. It speaks to our desire of wanting to be treated in that same way.

If you have read any of my articles on the Old West, then you know that I believe historians should try to be objective and impartial. That those of us who research history and report what we find should  not influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering and reporting facts.

News agencies should demand that from their staff. Just I would hope that they would demand that their staff not drool all over President Obama, they should demand that their reporters leave their person angst against President Trump at home when at work. All that should be required is that their staff be honest. When attempting to accurately report a story, they should be honest. Yes, be honest.

The hatred for the Trump administration by the Liberal press is horrible. They vilify the president at every turn and openly demonstrate their disdain for him during press conferences. They had no reason to fawn over President Obama other than the fact that they loved him. Conversely, they have no excuse for their constant attacks and "in your face" attitude with President Trump other than the fact that they have made it very clear that they hate him. And please don't kid yourself, CNN and other such news agencies hate President Trump with a venomous inward intense passionate dislike that their despise for the president surpasses and intellectual reasoning.

While I've come to expect the loathing and open disdain for President Trump from the likes of CNN, I really thought Fox News was different and more professional. I really thought that Fox News, other than possibly Shep Smith, was better than that. I certainly would have never thought that Fox News would align itself with such dishonest journalism, or support such disrespectful conduct as that coming from Acosta. I really thought Fox News wasn't in the gutter with CNN.

I now believe that I'm wrong about that since Fox News is supporting CNN and Acosta's horrid behavior. It's sad to see that Fox News is part of a bunch of Trump haters who don't see such horrible behavior on the part of the press as being wrong.

What's worse, by issuing a statement in support of CNN in which Fox News is attempting to divert the focus of what took place to a non-issue, Fox News is now doing the same thing that CNN and MSNBC are doing by attempting to take the focus off of Acosta's shitty attitude.

Instead of standing alone as a news agency devoted to the truth, Fox News has joined CNN in attempting to shift the focus of what took place and instead make this story into a freedom of the press issue when it's not one. That's as wrong as their support for CNN, because it makes Fox News appear as dishonest and disrespectful as CNN.

As for the White House press corps, it's said that they were formed in the early 1900s. The story goes that when President Theodore Roosevelt saw a reporters standing in the rain while bothering visitors to the White House, he allowed them to "get out of standing in the rain" and let them into the White House. Over the years, their presence and influence has grown out of control.

I think they should not have a place in the White House. We the American people should have a separation of press and the state no differently than we have a separation of church and state. Just as we encourage a healthy separation between church and state to stop any one religion from dictating their requirements to our government, we need a healthy separation from the press so that they cannot re-write the facts to encourage their personal political agenda.

The press does not need to have a microphone in the White House. And frankly, we should be frightened of a press that has no problem slandering you and me, attacking people without evidence, distorts the truth, and openly lies in its reporting. We should be terrified of any news agency that serves as a propaganda machine for any one political party, and uses its mass media capabilities to spread its Leftist ideology on the American people.

While President Theodore Roosevelt meant well, he should have left them outside the White House where they belong. Yes, standing outside in the rain or not, that's where they belong.

That's how I see it.

Tom Correa

Superstitions That Make You Stop And Think

Since today is Halloween, let's talk about superstitions. And with that, we can start with Friday the 13th being unlucky, in fact the number 13 being unlucky.

There are buildings that refuse to acknowledge a 13th Floor, room numbers sometimes skip a room 13, and of course Friday the 13th is considered bad luck. Some believe the number 13 is unlucky because of myths about 13 demigods. And then there are those who say there were 13 people present when Christ was crucified on that Friday. Others say that number of disciples at the Last Supper was 13 if we include Judas who sold out Christ for 30 pieces of silver.

As for walking under a ladder? It's said that a ladder in use actually forms a triangle. Since triangles represent the Holy Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, walking under a ladder breaks up the Trinity. Yes, that puts one in league with the Devil since that is his mission in the world. So when walking under a ladder, please cross their fingers while doing so.

When researching this article, I was amazed to find out that in some countries white cats were seen as harbingers of bad luck while black cats weren't. In America and a couple of other countries, black cats are seen as bad luck.

Some religions have demonized black cats by saying they are demons in disguise. Of course back in Salem, Massachusetts, and in Europe, in the 1690s, Witches were hunted down by religious zealots. Their cats were killed also simply because they too were seen as co-conspirators with the devil.

A black cat crossing one's path was seen as bad because there were people once upon a time who really believed that such a meeting with a cat was no coincidence. They believed the notion that cats were trying to create evil for the person walking. Some folks believed those black cats were actually attempting to cut one off from walking with God. Others said those cats were attempting to block us from getting into Heaven.

Folks using that excuse as why they didn't think they'd get into Heaven were fooling themselves. Leading a nasty life hand in hand with the Devil has more to do with it. They shouldn't have blamed cats of any color for their dancing with the Devil.

Besides black cats, cats in general have a terrible reputation for being bad luck. For example, in some countries, a stray tortoise shell cat is considered a bad omen. A kitten born in May is thought to be a Witch's cat.

Farmers used to believe that cats that were bartered for, actually served a family better than a cat that was bought with money. The cat that was bought are never good mousers. Some believe a cat sneezing once means rain. And if a cat sneezes three times, some believe that its family will catch a cold.

An old American 19th century belief was that a cat washing itself on one's doorstep meant the clergy will pay the family a visit. Those were probably the same people who thought kicking a cat cured rheumatism.

My favorite superstition about cats goes like this: when you see a one-eyed cat, spit on your thumb, stamp it in the palm of your hand, and make a wish. The wish will come true.

To me, the only rival to that tale is the story of the English schoolchildren who believed that seeing a white cat on the way to school was a bad omen. To stop the bad luck from taking place, the person seeing the cat must spit and then turn around completely before making the sign of the cross.

While the English thought such a thing, the Irish believed a black cat crossing one's path by moonlight meant death in an epidemic. There's also the Irish superstition that says to kill a cat brings seventeen years of bad luck. There's a Scottish superstition that says a strange black cat on your porch brings prosperity.

Of course, I'm not too surprised that there's a French superstition that says it's bad luck to cross a stream carrying a cat. In the Netherlands, it's said cats were not allowed to be present when there were private family discussions. The Dutch believed that their cats would spread gossip around their town. Imagine that.

Superstitions about cattle were just as strange. The Celts thought their cattle should have been informed of any deaths in their owners' household. If they didn't, it was believed that cows would sense something was wrong and would probably drop dead from worry.

In Medieval times, some folks believed that cattle would kneel at the stroke of Midnight on Christmas Eve. Some also believed that farm animals were able to speak that night. That tale goes on to say it was considered very dangerous for any human to hear their speech. And no, there's no telling what a sheep farmer's favorite sheep will say if she had the chance.

There was a farm superstition that says if a plow kills a daddy long legs spider that his cows will go dry. A cow mooing after midnight means death. To milk a cow that's being sent to market is considered bad luck. Some farmers really believed that scattering primroses on a barn floor guarded against Witches.

They were probably the same people who believed cows lying down in a field meant rain. How could they since everyone knows that means the fish aren't biting.

Here one more about cows. If you see nine cows in a shed with a gray bull next to the door, and all of them lie on the same side, you are in luck because you will be granted one wish. And no, I don't know if you're supposed to spit on your thumb, stamp it in the palm of your hand, and then make the wish.

Donkeys have never been exempt from superstitions. For example, at one time it was believed that placing three hairs from a donkey's shoulders in a muslin bag which was then worn around one's neck actually cured whooping cough and measles. For curing snakebites and a toothache, some believed sitting backwards on a donkey worked out well.

I like the superstition that says a pregnant woman who seeing a donkey will have a child that will grow wise and well behaved.

As for horses, most know that changing a horse's name is bad luck. And of course, we probably all know that we can predict the sex of an unborn foal by swinging a nail tied from a hair in the mare's tail above her hips. If it doesn’t swing, she's not in foal. If it swings in a circle, then she'll have a filly. If it swings straight, then she'll have a colt.

This is the sort of knowledge that some may take as being common sense. Just like knowing that inhaling a horse's breath can cure whooping cough; or that eating a hair from the horse's forelock will cure worms; or that we have to make sure our horses never step on a wolf's paw print because such an act is sure to cripple a horse; or the cure for founder which says pour turpentine in a saucer and hold it against the horse's navel. Supposedly, the turpentine will be sucked up into the horse and the horse will be cured of founder.

If you lead a white horse through the house it will banish evil. The tail of a horse braided with ribbons keeps it safe from Witches. Of course there were some who really believed that if you wear a black stallions tail hair on your wrist, that you'll be protected from Witches.

There are other superstitions regarding horses. For example, there are those who believe that the deeper a horse dips his nostrils while drinking, the better sire he will be. Some believe that a horse will cry when it's master dies.

In England and Germany, it's considered a death omen if one dreams of a white horse. Gray horses and horses with four white feet are considered unlucky in racing. But gray horses are supposed to be lucky, while piebalds are unlucky. It's said that if one places a horses tail in water, it will turn into a snake. 

Copper pennies in a water tank will prevent moody behavior in mares. Horse-hair that is chopped up finely and fed to a child in bread and butter was thought to be a certain cure for worms. Horse-spurs, an old word for horse chestnuts, were believed to cure cancer if dried and ground and drank with milk.

They say if you put a bit of hoof in the microwave it will turn into bubblegum; if you put horse skulls under the floor of a house they improve the tone of a piano that's above them; and we all know that if a horse neighs at the door of a house it means folks inside will get sick.

Such superstitions also say horse brasses, those decorative brass pieces on a harness, were first put there as a measure to protect horses from Witches. Some say this was originally the same reason that Cowboys used conchos.

There are a number of superstitions for rodeo cowboys. For example, some say they won't wear yellow in the arena because it's considered unlucky. There are those who won't compete with coins in their pocket because it means that's all the money they may get.

Since it's said a cowboy should clean up for Lady Luck, it's said she'll favor you if you shave before a performance. While shaving is considered lucky, for rodeo cowboys it's believed to be a bad idea to eat chicken before a competition. Yes, it's believed that after all, you are what you eat.

So now, let's talk about how salt was once used as money as well as used for medicinal purposes. Because it was seen as precious, for that reason, spilling salt was avoided at all costs. The idea that it's unlucky to spill salt may also come from the belief that Christ's 13th disciple Judas is said to have spilled salt during the Last Supper.

As for throwing spilled salt over one's left shoulder? It's believed that that's a link to salt's medicinal uses. Believe it or not, someone must have figured that since it couldn't be used for anything once spilled, that the next best thing was to throw it into the eye of any evil spirits that may have been lurking around and may have been responsible for making people sick. Evil spirits are thought to lurk behind your shoulder just waiting for an opportunity to strike.

As for other such notions, superstitions that one can only guess how they started, remember this, a bat flying in one's home is considered bad luck; so is looking at a new moon over your left shoulder; hearing a rooster crow at night; cutting your nails on a Friday; a picture falling for no known reason; opening an umbrella indoors; stepping on cracks in the sidewalk; giving away a wedding present; wearing an Opal if you were not born in October; and of course breaking a mirror comes with seven years of bad luck. And believe it or not, it's also said to be extremely unlucky to receive a mirror as a present

There are those who believe that stepping on board a ship with your left foot is bad luck. The same goes for a groom who drops the ring during the ceremony. In that case, it's believed the marriage will be doomed to failure if such a thing takes place.

I knew someone who believed that it was bad luck to sign a contract in the months of April, July, or November. He also believed that it was extremely bad luck to put on his left shoe before his right.

So is it unlucky to sit on a table unless one foot is touching the ground? Is it bad luck if we stumble or trip when leaving home? How about returning home to get something that you forgot?

Once upon a time, rabbits were linked with Witches and the Devil because they live underground. Yet, because of the rabbit's ability to reproduce, a rabbit's foot is a symbol of fertility to some around the world. Some say owning a rabbit's foot, and wearing it around your neck as a talisman gives the wearer good luck.

In fact, there are some who say carrying a rabbit's left hind foot in one's left pocket is lucky. But that only applies to a rabbit's left hind foot that had it been removed from a rabbit that was killed during a full moon by a cross-eyed person. Yes, a cross-eyed person!

Years ago I heard a story that talked about how actors used to keep a rabbit's foot in their makeup cases for good luck. Some had all sorts of misfortune because it was lost. In Wales, there is a superstition that says a new-born child should be rubbed all over with a rabbit's foot so that the child will be lucky for life.

Just as there have been people who believe that wearing an emerald is protection against snakebites and other misfortune, there are those who have believed that  wearing a tortoiseshell bracelet is protection against evil, carrying a snake skin gives one protection against illness, and that carrying a dried toad was protection against plagues. Of course, there are those who have had the belief, or maybe still do, that says eating a live toad first thing in the morning means nothing worse will happen to you all day.

If you think that's silly, that is as silly as those who believe in the superstition that says roosters are considered the watchful protectors of mankind. In fact, some say when a cock crows at midnight that a spirit is passing. And in some places, it's considered an omen of death if a rooster crows three times between sunset and midnight. Crowing at other times is often a warning against misfortune. These are probably the same folks who believe if a cock crows at nightfall, that the next day will be rainy.

So, are there people who believe that one can get rid of warts by rubbing a peeled apple and then giving it to a pig? Or believe that any man who eats roasted owl will be obedient and a slave to his wife? How about a person who believes by eating a salted owl, they can be cured of gout? How about people who have been brought up to think that an abandoned house must be haunted if an owl nests there? Some folks still believe that owls are the only creatures known to man to get along with ghosts.

Is it unlucky to give a knife to a friend without being given at least a penny in return? Some have the superstitious belief that giving a friend a knife could sever the friendship if the receiver doesn't pay for the knife -- even with a penny.

Cowboys know that it's bad luck to put your hat on a bed, especially with its brim-down. The idea is that its luck will run out. As for the practical reason of not doing that back in the day? Well, while bathing was not a very common occurrence, head lice was common. So by placing one's hat on a bed, there was the possibility that lice would be spread to the bed.

Besides good manners, I like the idea of keeping its luck from running out of it. And that, well that's called a lead-in to horseshoes. 

Witches fear horses. They are also turned away by a door with a horseshoe mounted on it. That goes double for the Devil. We know that horseshoes have became synonymous with luck when a blacksmith tricked the Devil back in the day.

The story goes that a blacksmith was working hard in his shop forging horseshoes when suddenly the Devil appeared and demanded his own shoes. The blacksmith, recognizing the devil, and knowing that if he did a good shoeing that he would be his prisoner for eternity. So he took a burning hot shoe and nailed it deep into the Devil's own cloven hooves. 

The Devil was in such excruciating pain, that he ripped the horseshoes off and swore he would never go near one again. Some say the Devil swore an oath that he would never enter over a threshold with a horseshoe nailed above it. That was the start of the tradition of hanging a horseshoe over the entrance of a house to ward off evil spirits. That was the day a lucky charm to ward of evil was born.

As for cowboys, horseshoes have been considered lucky since forever started. Horseshoes have been nailed over the doors of both bunkhouse and ranch house for what seems like eternity. There is a debate about how to position it? 

There are those who say a horseshoe is always put in place with the "heels up" like the letter "U" so that the luck won't run out of it. Frankly, that's what I was told when I was a kid on my grandfather's ranch. But then, about 20 years ago, my Uncle Tony came to my home for a visit. He saw the horseshoes at each door  and asked me why they were upside down with their heels up? 

After I told him, he said when he was a young cowhand during the Great Depression, he was told that it should be heels down. The reason, as he told me, was so that the luck showers everyone who walks in and out. That way they have luck starting their day, and luck coming home from a hard day of work. 

Today, here at my home, I have a horseshoe outside of each door with their heels up. And, I have horseshoes inside each door with heels down. After all, I believe a man can't be too careful.

Tom Correa 

The Shott vs Nott Willing Gunfights

Dear Friends,

Since I've been extremely busy trying to get my barn and property ready for winter, here's a short story about a couple of duels which may or may not have actually taken place. As you can see, I've posted the newspaper article where I first learned about one of the gunfights. It was this article that sent me on a search to validate it. After you read it and the rest of the article, you may see why I say it may or may not have taken place.

So please, read this first. I promise you, you will laugh. I also promise that I will tell you the rest of the story at the end.

OK, so I hope you had a good laugh!

I read where this took place in Texas in 1881, 1887, and 1899. I also read where the above clipping was originally in a Philadelphia newspaper in either 1826 or 1836. And believe it or not, it was put to music in 1902 as you can see below:

THE KNOTT-SHOTT DUEL

I've been reading about a duel
A mixed up affair, oh, it's something cruel
It's puzzling my poor brain, and driving me fair insane
A Mister Nott and a Mister Shott, in an argument one day they got
They decided to have a fight, so they met in the pale moonlight
With a pistol each in a lonely wood they quickly got to work.

Chorus:

Then Shott faced Nott - likeshot he shot Nott
'I'll tie Nott in a knot!' he said
Then Nott at Shott took a little pot-shot
Missed, and Mister Shott he shot poor Nott instead
Said Nott, 'I'm shot, though my name is not Shott
You're shot, so you're Mister Nott shot.'
'How can Nott be Shott,' said Shott, 'If Nott's not me?'

When they went in the lonely wood
Like the Corsican Brothers, there they stood
They were after each other's life, (They'd been after each other's wife)
You understand, they both were shot,
Though both were shot, yet one was Nott
It's as simple as ABC, but I'm blowed if it is to me
I've been sitting up both day and night to work this problem out.

Chorus:

I've got a clue to the mysteree
I'll explain it to you - it's like this, you see
Of course, you will understand - and then, on the other hand
They fought a duel - now we've got so far,
Then again, you see -well there you are
You're following me, no doubt. Now, what am I talking about
See, Shott shot Nott, not Shott, see Shott - I wish they'd both been shot.

Now, the Rest of the Story! 

It wasn't unheard of for a reporter, especially one trying to make a name for himself to fabricate a story or two, or more. Keep in mind that when Mark Twain was a reporter, he was known to have written a few stories for his papers that were lies. He just made them up. And frankly, something tells me that this may be a similar situation.  

Besides, who really knows if this story is true or not? A number of sources give different dates of when Shott shot Nott, and no one really knows where the duel took place. If it was Texas? Where in Texas?

As far as I can determine, it may have simply come from a bored newspaper writer in Philadelphia in the 1840s. Here's another example of the same sort of story that's believed to have come out of a Philadelphia in 1844. 

In this case, Shott shot Willing!

The story goes that a duel between Mr. Shott and a Mr. Willing resulted in both men being shot. Supposedly, Shott shot Willing willingly. Willing willing shot Shott. Shott's shot struck Willing and it was a spectacle to see. Of course, Willingly's shot struck Shott through his anatomy.

So was Shott shot? Was Nott not shot? Was Willing willingly shot or not? Who knows since we can't trust the news, even back in the day! 

I hope you have a good weekend! 

Tom Correa

When Did The American Indian Wars End?

Ute and Paiute Indians involved in the Posey War

Dear Friends, 

First, I'm sorry for not posting as offend as I usually have. It seems that getting ready for Winter, finishing my book which is a collection of my Old West stories, and fighting a couple of medical problems, I haven't been able to sit and finish a post for you. Frankly, I really feel bad about that since I appreciate that you like my work and don't want to disappoint you.

If you've been a reader for a while, then you know that I've disagreed with some who have said that the Old West period went from 1865 to 1895. For me, I've always believed that the Old West was still wild and woolly up into the 1920s well after World War One. So what do I base this one? Well, the last events that were in fact connected to the Old West and the American Indian Wars where the participants acted no differently than others in the same situations in the 1800s.

The Battle of Kelley Creek, 1911

For example, in January of 1911, a small band of Shoshone and Bannock Indians killed four Range Detectives at a ranch after they trailed the Indians. They followed them in an effort to arrest them for stealing cattle. Their deaths is contributed to the Battle of Kelley Creek, which is also known as the Last Massacre. That even is often considered to be one of the last known massacres carried out between Native American tribes and the United States at the end of the American Indian Wars.

After the Range Detectives were found murdered, lawmen formed a posse of local citizens and set out to track down the Indians responsible for what took place. They were the Indians camped at Kelley Creek near Winnemucca, Nevada.

In what is considered a one-sided engagement on February 25th, 1911 with nine Indians being killed. One American was wounded. At the time the incident was sensationalized as a Native American revolt of some sort, when in reality it had to do with cattle thieves in a shootout with law enforcement.

The Battle of Bear Valley, 1918

The Battle of Bear Valley was a small engagement which took place in January of 1918 between a band of Yaqui Indians and the U.S. Army. It started on January 9th of that year when elements of 10th Cavalry Regiment encountered 30 or more armed Yaqui Indians in Bear Valley, Arizona. 

It's said that in 1918, the Yaqui people were still at war with Mexico. They had been several years over the Yaqui wanting to establish an independent state in Sonora, Mexico. Their war bled into the United States because a large number of Yaqui were driven north and had crossed into Arizona. 

In reality, many of them went to work on the farms in the citrus groves of in Tucson. They worked and got paid for their work the same as everyone else. But the Yaqui were known to spend their wages on guns and ammunition, which they would send to their tribe in Mexico to carry on the fight with the Mexican government. 

Yes, a hundred years ago, the Yaqui Indians were buying guns and ammo in Arizona and smuggling them across the border. The Mexican government complained to the United States and requested help in dealing with what they considered was a huge problem. 

If this sounds a lot like the situation with the Mexican Drug Cartels today, here's something that also hasn't changed in a hundred years. Arizona ranchers reported large numbers of cattle being stolen and butchered, as well as a many clashes with armed Yaqui from Mexico who were moving across the border freely.

The United States Border Patrol had not yet been established, and the job of protecting Americans along the border was part of the mission of the United States Army since the Constitution states that our Federal government is responsible for protecting our borders. 

The troops out of Fort Huachuca commanded the Nogales, Arizona, sub-district. At the time, it was home of the U.S. Army 35th Infantry. The Army orders increased patrols of the area where the attacks on American ranchers were increasing. The 35th Infantry Regiment stationed at Camp Stephen D. Little in Nogales was joined by the 10th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers who were assigned to protect American towns on and near our Southern border. 

A unit of roughly 30 combat soldiers, accompanied by their service and support contingent, maintained a camp at Atascosa Canyon in Bear Valley because that are was seen as "strategic natural crossing" into Mexico. U.S. Army Captain Ryder was in command.  

On January 8th, local rancher Philip C. Clarke who owned the Ruby Mercantile, rode into their camp to report that his neighbor found a cow butchered for its hide in the mountains. While the meat was left and not used, it was very evident that its hide was used by the Yaqui to make sandals. Captain Ryder sent First Lieutenant William Scott and a detail to check out the situation and watch the trails for any Yaqui activity in the area.

According to reports, about the middle of the afternoon Lieutenant Scott had First Sgt. Samuel H. Alexander alert the troops to a long column of Yaqui crossing the border on a ridge. Within a few minutes, it's said the troops were mounted and left to pursue the Yagui.

During their search for the Yaqui, the soldiers came across the Yaqui who opened fire from positions which offered cover in a rocky area. The troops returned fire and "a typical Indian war skirmish began."

One report stated, "the fighting developed into an old kind of Indian engagement with both sides using all the natural cover of boulders and brush to full advantage. The Yaquis kept falling back, dodging from boulder to boulder and firing rapidly. They offered only a fleeting target, seemingly just a disappearing shadow. The officer saw one of them running for another cover, then stumble and thereby expose himself. A corporal alongside of the captain had a good chance for an open shot. At the report of the Springfield, a flash of fire enveloped the Indian's body for an instant, but he kept on to the rock."

What became known as Battle of Bear Valley resulted in the death of the Yaqui commander and the capture of nine others. Some consider the skirmish, the last time the U.S. Army engaged a Native American tribe in combat. 

Was this the final battle of the American Indian Wars? No.

The Posey War, 1923

I really believe that dubious honor goes to what is known as the Posey War that took place in March of 1923. Yes, March of 1923. While not completely never heard of, unlike previous engagements during the Indian Wars, it's said that lawmen and their possess took the lead. The U.S. Army offered support, but it was not used. 

For 40 years, between 1881 and 1921, that Paiute and Ute Indian band of Bluff, Utah, fought in several engagements against the U.S. Army, local militia, lawmen, Mormon settlers, as well as other Indian tribes. The band was nomadic and liked to roam. They also didn't get along with other Indians on their Reservation.

By the 1920s, the band was very well known for their assortment of conflicts over the years. Their leader was Chief Posey who was not a purebred Paiute, and was actually half Mexican. He married into the Ute Mountain tribe. By 1923, he was in his sixties when he and about 90 Paiute and Ute men, women and children, left their lands and went into the mountains after helping two Ute young men escape the local authorities. 

In February of 1923, a couple of young men of the Posey band attacked a sheepranch at Cahone Mesa. Besides robbing and beating the rancher, it's said that they killed some of his livestock and destroyed his property -- which supposedly included setting a bridge on his property ablaze. The two perpetrators were identified and County Sheriff William Oliver was notified. Knowing that the law was after them, the two surrendered to Sheriff Oliver in Blanding. While in custody, the young men are said to have gotten food poisoning. After receiving medical attention, the two were allowed to go home, with the agreement that they would return for trial. 

When the trial began on March 20, Chief Posey and a few of his men attended the trial. When the court adjourned at noon, Sheriff Oliver took the two young men to lunch. That's when things turned sour. 

Sheriff George A. Hurst was present at the trial and made the following statement of what happened next:

"Joe Bishop's boy was walking upon a large stick as though he were crippled or incapacitated.... After hearing evidence presented for and against the accused, Joe Bishop's boy was found guilty and at 12:00 noon he was placed in the hands of Sheriff Oliver, to have lunch. He was to reappear at 3:00 p.m. for sentencing. Immediately upon the adjournment of court, all the white men left and went home for lunch, leaving no one there but the sheriff, George A. Hurst, Jr., a few school children, and a band of angry Utes.... After quite a while trying to persuade the Indian boy to go without any avail, Sheriff Oliver got on his horse, rode up to Joe Bishop's boy...and insisted that he come along without any further trouble and get their lunch. Whereupon, the young Ute threw away the big stick that he had been walking on, grabbed the reins of the horse the sheriff was riding, and jerking with all his might. At this point, Sheriff Oliver whipped out his gun and attempted to shoot the Indian, but the gun spiked, and would not fire. Joe Bishop's boy grabbed the horn of the saddle with one hand, the other seizing the gun that Oliver held. He wrenched the gun from the sheriff's hand and with one leap, sprang into the saddle of Jess Posey's [Chief Posey's son] race horse with Jess, stood holding and headed north. As he started off he tried to get the gun to work. He had only gone about 200 yards when he succeeded and over his shoulder he shot the sheriff's horse in the neck."

So Chief Posey and his Ute and Piute followers helped the two young braves escape the Blanding authorities. As they attempted to flee the area, right behind them was a quickly gathering posse. The few men in the posse all tried to jump into a Model T Ford automobile to chase after Posey and his band. At one point, Posey is said to have stopped and turned around.

At that point, the old Chief used a .30-06 rifle to shoot the Motor T Ford in the radiator. Thus ending the chase for a while. The lawmen had to regroup. As for Chief Posey and his band? They were now wanted, so they headed north to the desert around of Navajo Mountain. 

If you think fake news is just a recent problem, keep in mind that it's always been around. The difference today is that it's on the mainstream media on television, radio, in magazines, and the newspapers. Following the bands exit from their lands, newspapers at the time accused Chief Posey and his band of being involved in a number of rapes and murders in the area. Though all were lies, the reports had the effect they wanted and incited hate for the Posey band.

On March 22nd, the Times-Independent is reported to have run an the article with the sensational title, "Piute Band Declares War on Whites in Blanding." The article is said to have described the situation as deadly and dire as "County Commissioners had requested permission from Utah Governor Charles Mabey to allow the use of a military scout plane to bomb and strafe the natives." 

At the same time this was going on, there were other newspapers reporting that there was a $100 reward on Posey's head by the state of Utah, supposedly "dead or alive." That wasn't true. 

The Salt Lake Tribune's editor C. F. Sloane was in Blanding when he wrote fake reports of what was taking place regard the Posey band. He stated that the town of Blanding was experiencing thirty-six hours of terrorism with Ute Indians in full war paint riding through the streets. Sloane claimed that Posey was putting together what Slaone called a "mobile squadron" to rob the San Juan State Bank. He lied about Posey having "sixty men skilled in the art of mountain warfare awaiting the call to service."

And just for the record, many of you my regular readers have heard me say that I use period newspapers as sources. It's newspapers like that, and others like The Tombstone Epitaph that I always take with a grain of salt. Many were just biased hate mongering rags. Many were filled with sensationalism to increase circulation and sell papers. 

Fake news over this incident was horrible. Of course, it didn't go unnoticed by locals in Blanding who knew what was really happening. It's said that a local resident actually took a news reporter to task at one point to ask why he wasn't reporting the truth? The reporter is said to have responded, "We're not ready to go home yet, and if we don't keep something going, we'll be getting a telegram to come home." 

With the help of the fake news of the time, gossip and rumors circulated to frighten the public in the area into believing that an Indian War was about to escalate. In 1923, there were a lot of people still young enough to remember what the full-scale Indian Wars were all about. There were many people there at the time who lived through such a war. Subsequently, folks in Blanding and Bluff reacted by organizing a posse. Their posse was mostly made up of the Mormon militia. They quickly mounted up and went after Chief Posey and his band to stop a full Indian War from starting. Fact is, it didn't take long for the posse to  immediately jumped on Posey's trail. 

The Battle of Comb Ridge

It was the next day that the posse caught up with Posey and his twenty miles from Blanding. Believing that the posse would kill all of them including their women and children, Chief Posey and his men took positions on Comb Ridge to hold off the posse while their women and children escaped. Right after the gunbattle, the band decided to surrendered rather than be killed. 

There were those later who spread the rumor that the old Chief was killed by flour that was supposedly poisoned by Mormons. There is no evidence that the Mormons ever poisoned flour. As far as I can see, that is a horribly false urban legend that got started to make Mormons look like genocidal killers. The truth about Chief Posey is that he died from an infection due to a gunshot wound that he received during the battle at Comb Ridge. And while it's said that posse member Bill Young shot Chief Posey and wounded him as his band was trying to get away, there is the belief that Posey was shot and died later after he killed one of the young men who beat and robbed that sheep rancher. 

The fake news jumped in and ran a number of different stories including how a  he died in flash flood after being washed away into a canyon. And since Chief Posey was his sixties at the time, there was a fake story going around that he died of a heart attack during the battle of Comb Ridge and he was buried where the Mormons couldn't find his body. 

The remaining members of the band were taken prisoners and placed into custody in Blanding. A few days later, they were all released when Chief Posey's body was found in Comb Wash. Blanding Marshal Jesse Ray Ward was summoned to officially identify the body and certify the chief's death. Marshal Ward had Posey's body buried in an unmarked grave in an attempt to stop people from digging it up for one reason or another. It's too bad that Marshal Ward's plan for the Chief's body didn't work. Later, we know that those who wanted to put the Chief on display got their way. Yes, it's true, the Chief's body was dug up at least twice by people there who wanted to have their picture taken with the corpse. Imagine that.

Some call it Chief Posey's War, and it ran from March 20th to the 23rd, 1923. It is the last of the American Indian Wars. When it was over, Chief Posey and Joe Bishop's son who beat and robbed that sheep rancher were the sole fatalities during the conflict. As for wounded or killed posse members? No one on the posse was killed or wounded. Fact is, for the authorities, the only casualty on the side of the posse was a horse which one of the Posey band shot and killed. 

As for the Model T Ford which took a .30-06 round to its radiator, it was repaired. 

Tom Correa

Power’s War - Wild West Manhunt Documentary

Imagine Such An America

Presumption of Innocence and Due Process

Dear Friends,

As most of my regular readers know, my first degree was in the Administration of Justice, Criminal Justice. The one thing that I will always take away from those classes is the idea that, as citizens, we are innocent until proven guilty and that we are guaranteed due process. That is a big deal that many people in other nations only wish they had. 

It is defined as this, "Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law."

Americans being accused of crimes have certain guarantees. These guarantees are found in the Constitution of the United States.  In fact, the 6th Amendment states: 

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

These guarantees give rights to Americans being accused of crimes, including the right to have witnesses in your favor, to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.

We have the right to demand evidence. We have to demand that our accusers present real factual evidence and not just hearsay, imaginings, suppositions, conjecture, speculations, and mere allegations. Merely saying something happened doesn't cut it. Our accusers have to prove it. 

An allegation is a "claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof." Being falsely accused is having an allegation that is completely false leveled against you. It has to do with an event that may be alleged to have taken place but in fact did not occur. False allegations, like that of false accusations "allegation that is completely false, in that the events that were alleged did not occur. An allegation that describes events that did occur, but were perpetrated by an individual who is not accused, and in which the accused person is innocent."

In America, the presumption of innocence is at the root of American Justice. The principle is that a person is considered innocent unlit proven guilty. The responsibility to prove that a crime has been committed is on the person making the accusations, not on the person being accused. Under our system, because we believe in the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution to demonstrate. The prosecution is wholly responsible for collecting evidence and presenting a compelling case to a jury or a judge who is "the trier of fact."

Our system is setup to stop Americans from being charged with a crime, or crimes, based on allegations and not factual evidence that has been determined to be true. It is setup so that an innocent man or women does not suffer prosecution based on innuendo and conjecture, rumors, lies, and fake claims. 

In America, the accused is presumed innocent. And in court, the prosecution is responsible for proving that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But if any reasonable doubt exists, then the accused must be found innocent of the charges.

For us, in the administration of justice, Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) set the standard be enforcing what is found in the Constitution of the United States, 5th, 6th, and the 14th Amendments. This appellate case went before the United States Supreme Court in 1895. The result was that this case established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes for Americans.

It stated, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect."

According to the Constitution of the United States, the 5th Amendment states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

According to the Constitution of the United States, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, has the function of "presumed innocence" always worked? No. Has everyone been given the due process of the law as they are entitled by our Justice System? No. For more than 40 years, I've read about and researched hangings and lynchings in American history, but primarily what took place between 1865 to 1941. Why these dates? It's because I've always been interested in American History of the Old West and the era we know as the Great Depression. 

The distinction between a hanging and a lynching is that a hanging is a court ordered execution and the other is conducted outside the law. Hangings during that time period were executions being carried out by the law after the person was convicted after being afforded all due process. In the vast majority of lynchings, the person being lynched usually received no due process at all. 

After the Civil War, militant arms of the Democratic Party in the South were created. They created the Ku Klux Klan and other militant organizations meant to terrorize freed slaves, Republicans, and Catholics there at the time. Their terrorist tactics employed at the time included lynchings. 

White Democrats attacked both black and white Republicans and Catholics to suppress voting, and to regain political power. It was all about political power. During the elections there in 1868, Democrats are said to have been responsible for murdering about 1,300 voters across the South. In most cases, the people they murdered were lynched as a warning to others. The intimidation worked. People stayed away from the polls and didn't vote for fear of being killed. Democrats regained political power.

Democrats used lynchings as a way to intimidate and coerce freed slaves and Republicans. While voting was not seen as a option, the National Rifle Association stepped forward to arm those blacks and whites being attacked. Though formed to encourage shooting among all Americans, in 1871 the National Rifle Association helped to stem the tide of lynchings and other violence by arming freed blacks and other Americans being terrorized in the South. The previous year, President Ulysses S. Grant worked with Congress to pass the Enforcement Acts of 1870. That was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 which was also called the "Ku Klux Klan Act."

With Democrats in political power, it is believed that there were 50 to 100 lynchings annually from 1868 to 1876. While the numbers were never again that great, lynchings of blacks in the South would not cease until the 1960s. While those lynchings of blacks, Republicans, and Catholics, were motivated by race, political party, and religion, lynchings regarding criminals were taking place as well.

But please, don't think the South was the only place where illegal hangings, lynchings were taking place. From lynching crooked politicians in San Francisco in 1851, to hanging a crooked Sheriff in Montana in 1864, to lynching of a freed black man in Ohio in 1877, to North Dakota's last lynching in 1931, the West is filled with stories of such acts. According to one source, the Tuskegee Institute, they estimate that 4,743 people were lynched in the United States as a whole between 1882 and 1968. Of that number, there were Blacks, Chinese, Mexicans, Indians, and Catholics that were lynched. Also, of that, 1,297 were listed as "Whites." So a quarter of them were "Whites."

While the South is believed to have had many lynching, it may be a surprise to most that California had more lynchings than the entire South from 1848 to 1933. The California Gold Rush saw a great number of lynchings. As for the last lynching in California, it took place in 1933 when 22 year old Brooke Hart was kidnapped and murdered by Thomas Thurmond and John M. Holmes. A mob stormed the Sheriff's Office in San Jose, California, and lynched Thurmond and Holmes. 

This was not as usual as in many cases, citizens have taken men who were convicted and afforded due process away from their confinement in jails and lynched them. In those cases, citizens didn't feel as though their penalties matched their crimes and they felt the need to remedy the wrong was to take the convicted person and lynch them. 

In the case of Killer Jim Miller in Ada, Oklahoma, a lynch mob had enough of him breaking the law and being acquitted on technicalities like witnesses too afraid to testify. The Daily Ardmoreite numbered the mob at 200 while an Eastern reporter for the Associated Press numbered the mob at 30 to 40. 

They broke into the jail at around three o'clock in the morning on April 19th, 1909, and dragged Miller and three others out. The mob took them to an abandoned barn, actually a livery stable behind the jail. Miller and the others were lynched and left hanging for hours until a photographer was found to record what took place.

Of course, other cases of lynchings of what were believed to be outlaws were not as noble as lynching a bona fide assassin of Miller's status. Most lynchings were examples of a mob taking over and disregarding our justice system altogether. In that case, all of the pleading for witnesses on his behalf, all of the cries for an impartial jury, all of the begging to see the evidence goes for naught as the person is taken out and lynched. 

George Johnson's gave marker in Tombstone Arizona's Boothill says, "Here lies George Johnson, hanged by mistake 1882. He was right we were wrong. But we strung him up and now he's gone." 

The story goes that George Johnson was hanged for being in possession of a stolen horse. It was found out later that he bought the horse while not knowing that the horse was in fact stolen. When the authorities found Johnson, there was a rush to judgment and they hanged him.

Those who lynched George Johnson found out later that they lynched an innocent man. No one was ever prosecuted for hanging an innocent man. If the people there knew who did it, they didn't turn them in. No one wanted to try, or even accuse those that murderers an innocent man, because they were complicit in the deed.

It was as if it simply did not matter to the people in Tombstone that an innocent man was lynched. And there sits the problem with lynch mobs; everyone in a lynch mob is part of the killing. By association, even if they themselves didn't put the rope around the victim's neck, they are part of the injustice.

Though people knew who did it, no one was ever made to account for what they did. It's as if it were OK in the sense that George Johnson's life didn't matter. Frankly, we see that when they accused and killed him for something that he didn't do -- yet they wouldn't come forward to admit guilt in accusing a good man of a crime.

As for Johnson, he was not afforded any of his rights under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. For the people of Tombstone, the presumption of innocence and due process meant nothing to them.

While I really understand lynching a known assassin such as Killer Jim Miller, I can't help but wonder why the people of Tombstone didn't take it upon themselves to find out if George Johnson really stole that horse or not before hanging him? Did life mean so little to the people there? Was that why they saw Johnson's life as cheap and meaningless?

It makes me wonder whenever I see bullies and thugs beating up on others, hurting others, accusing others of things they have not done -- or accusing others of things that there is zero proof of them doing. Yes, like these days with allegations assailed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who is being confirmed as a Supreme Court Judge. He has been attacked with all sorts of false accusations, all meant to ruin his life. And yes, it is extremely obvious that the mob of Democrats accusing him of such false claims see Kavanaugh's life as meaningless and cheap. His attackers are proving they don't care that our justice system is based on someone being innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.

As for George Johnson back in 1882, someone in Tombstone must have cared enough to at least admit to their lynching of George Johnson as a "mistake" since someone said as much on his headstone. So will Judge Kavanaugh's attackers admit to the same thing later when they too find out that they have ruined a man's life, lynched him on television in the court of public opinion, when he was not guilty of anything other than being a Republican?

To me, I believe that like most of those in Tombstone who knew that they did wrong by lynching an innocent man in 1882, the Democrats on the confirmation hearing this week will never say a word of apology or regret as to what they have done to a good man. Instead, they will remain silent as those who lynched Johnson for no reason back in the day.

Tom Correa

Hanged For Tearing Down Old Glory

William Bruce Mumford

Dear Friends,

I was asked an interesting question lately. It had to do with people showing disrespect for the flag of the United States of America. A flag that many have died preserving. A flag many of respect and fondly refer to as "Old Glory."

A reader wanted to know if anyone has ever been punished over their showing disrespect Old Glory?

Since there is a lot of talk these days about Confederate monuments and people disrespecting our flag, my reader's question sort of started me thinking about a story that I'd heard when I was in New Orleans many years ago.

The story had to do with a man by the name of William Bruce Mumford. He was born in 1819 in North Carolina, but his family later moved to Louisiana. The repatriation of New Orleans to the United States came in late April of 1862. Forces under U.S. Navy Commodore David Farragut took control of the city in April but a formal surrender was not established until May 1st. By that time, U.S. Army General Benjamin Butler took charge of New Orleans.

Commodore David Farragut met with some "political resistance" by both citizens and local officials. New Orleans Mayor John Monroe was an ardent Confederate who believed in the cause of maintaining the status quo as was the case before the war. Yes, he wanted to maintain Southern aristocracy and keep the institution of slavery in place.

Just for the record, while many like the mayor did not see blacks as equal to them and wanted to see the continuation of slavery in the South, slavery was really on the way out by the 1860s. This was mainly due to Great Britain which ended slavery in 1833 and was putting a great deal of economic pressure on the South to follow suit. Great Britain wanted Southern cotton and was a huge trading partner with the South.

While Commodore Farragut's fleet approach New Orleans on the morning of April 25th, Mayor Monroe had his secretary Marion A. Baker go to the roof of the City Hall and hoist the flag of the State of Louisiana so that Farragut would see it. It's said that when all of New Orleans' defenses had failed them, Southern pride didn't and Monroe ordered the flag hoisted in defiance.

When Commodore Farragut saw the Louisiana state flag, which was seen as a Confederate flag during the war, he immediately sent two of his Marine officers ashore with a formal demand that the city surrender and lower their flag at once. He also noted that the other Confederate flags flying on the customshouse and the mint, which were both United States Federal buildings before being captured by Confederate troops, be taken down as well.

Monroe sent word back that he didn't have the authority to formally surrender the city. He also advised Commodore Farragut that Confederate General Mansfield Lovell was the proper military authority but he was not present. Monroe also refused to lower the flag over City Hall. It was General Lovell's troops who hoisted the Confederate flags over the customshouse and the mint. Monroe said that was Lovell's responsibility, his was City Hall.

Confederate General Mansfield Lovell refused to surrender the city and in fact refused to surrender his forces, then left New Orleans. On the way out with his troops, he left the whole "decision" of surrender to the mayor and the City Council. As insane a situation as it sounds, the mayor met with the City Council over the issue of surrendering at 6:30 that evening. After the meeting, the mayor issued a statement that read in part: "We yield to physical force alone, but maintain our allegiance to the Government of the Confederate States."

Bottom line is that after a great deal of talk, the mayor refused to lower the State flag, nor raise the flag of United States which the mayor and the city council saw as their enemy.

Commodore Farragut soon lost patience with the mayor and his blather, and sent two of his officers, Lieutenant Albert Kautz and Midshipman John H. Read, to City Hall with a written demand for the "unqualified surrender of the city, and the raising of the United States flag over the Mint, Custom-house and City Hall, by noon that day, Saturday, April 26th, and the removal of all other emblems but that of the United States, from all public buildings."

Believe it or not, the mayor acknowledged his demand and sent back a message that he would formally reply "by two o'clock if possible." In the meantime, a large armed crowd gathered outside the New Orleans City Hall.

With a mob now taking up the mayor's cause, the mayor realized that things were getting out of control and he needed authorities to preserve order. The mayor actually called a militia of what was known as European Brigade for assistance. The European Brigade was made up of foreign residents in the city. With their help, the mayor declared himself "commander-in-chief of army and civic forces."

He turned City Hall into his headquarters, and immediately requisitioned arms, horses, and provisions to stand off Commodore Farragut and Union General Butler's forces believing Confederate troops were en route from Lovell to bail out his bacon. The mayor even went so far as to declare martial law, and he immediately established a make-shit military court.

Then Commodore Farragut send the mayor a message. In it he stated "because of evidences of insubordination on the part of citizens and authorities, the fire of the fleet might be drawn on the city at any moment."

Commodore Farragut stated "The election is with you. And it is my duty to notify you to remove the women and children within forty-eight hours, if I have rightly understood your determination."

Reading the message, the mayor responded, "As I consider this a threat to bombard the city, and as it is a matter about which the notice should be clear and specific, I desire to know when the forty-eight hours began to run."

U.S. Marine Captain Bell who delivered the message replied, "It begins from the time you receive this notice."

The mayor is said to have then looked at his watch and said, "You see it is fifteen minutes past twelve." He then reiterated his defiance to lower the State flag of Louisiana. Captain Bell returned to his ship the USS

While some say Captain Bell returned to his ship and took matters into his own hands, most agree that it was Commodore Farragut who finally had enough and sent a detachment of U.S. Marines ashore to take down the flag over City Hall.

Supported by Union Sailors who manned two howitzers, the Marines went to the customhouse first and there raised the American flag. They then went to Lafayette Square and City Hall, where they formed a perimeter on the St. Charles street side of the Square. With a command the streets, the Marines kept guard on the armed crowd that was massing above and below the Square.

With U.S.Marines situated where they needed to be, Captain Bell and Lieutenant Kautz entered City Hall and went to the mayor's office. The Captian informed the mayor, "I have come in obedience to orders to haul down the State flag from this building."

The mayor replied, "Very well, Sir. You can do it, but I wish to say that there is not in my entire constituency, so wretched a renegade as would be willing to exchange places with you."

Captain Bell and Lieutenant Kautz found the roof. The mayor watched helplessly as Lt. Kautz used his sword to cut down the State flag and raise the United States flag.

So on April 26th, U.S. Marines from the USS Pocahontas raised the U.S. flag over the customhouse and City Hall in New Orleans. As the Marines raised the flag on the mint, a large crowd gathered. A man by the name of William Bruce Mumford was in that crowd.

The Marines told them that the guns from the USS Pocahontas would fire on that position if anyone tried to remove the flags. Mumford and seven others decided to remove the U.S. flag from the mint, and the USS Pocahontas fired on their position.

Mumford was injured but not killed. He attempted to take the U.S. flag and give it to the mayor as a gift but onlookers tried to tear it from him as he walked by. Nothing was left of it when he reached City Hall.

1862 Flag of the United States of America

Commodore Farragut turned New Orleans over to Union Army General Butler on May 1st. A few days afterwards, General Butler heard about what took place at the mint and he had Mumford arrested. Mumford was charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors against the laws of the United States, and the peace and dignity there of and the Law Martial."

On May 30th, he was tried by a Union Army Military Court. He was convicted of "treason and an overt act thereof by tearing down the United States flag from a public building of the United States." Fact is, while City Hall was a city building, the mint building was a United States Federal building.

On June 7th, before his execution, Mumford spoke about his loyalty to the Confederacy. Then just before noon, Mumford was hanged in the courtyard of the mint itself.

On June 18th, after hearing about what took place, the Louisiana's Confederate Governor Thomas Moore called Mumford "a hero and a model." When Confederate General Robert E. Lee heard about what happened in New Orleans,  he sounded more like a lawyer than anything else and wanted to know how Mumford could be executed for a crime committed before New Orleans was formally occupied.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis called General Butler a war criminal "worthy of hanging." Of course Davis didn't mention how General Butler later assisted Mumford's widow by finding her a job in Washington after the war.

Mumford was originally buried in Cypress Grove Cemetery in New Orleans. His remains were transferred almost 100 years later to Greenwood Cemetery in New Orleans by the Ladies’ Confederate Memorial Association when they build a Confederate Monument there in 1950.

William Bruce Mumford was a North Carolinian native and resident of New Orleans. To my knowledge, he is the only person who was ever hanged for showing such disrespect for the flag of the United States of America. More accurately, the only man who I've ever heard of who was hanged of showing disrespect to our flag.

And while I'm sure all of us today feel the same way about Old Glory as I do, I'm fairly certain some will surely write to tell me that Mumford most likely didn't see Old Glory as his flag since he swore his allegiance to the Confederate States of America and their flag. And frankly, they would be right since Mumford probably died swearing his unwavering allegiance to the Confederacy and the "Stars and Bars."

Flag of the Confederate States of America
(1861–1863)

So now, if someone should ever ask if you've ever heard of anyone really being punished for showing disrespect for the flag of the United States of America, you too can say that you know of someone who was actually hanged for tearing down a United States flag. You can tell them that it took place in New Orleans in 1862 during the Civil War at a time when passions ran high, and some folks didn't take kindly to people showing such disdain for Old Glory.

Tom Correa