American Socialism On Reservations Has Never Worked

Dear Friends,

I was corresponding with a reader about the Left's desire for Socialism and the upcoming presidential election. As I stated to my friend in a letter, for me, the choice is clear. We have to get out the vote for Donald Trump and fight the lunatics on the Left. They don't care who suffers as a result of their ignorance about several issues.

One issue is energy production. They have no idea what it takes to create electricity. They certainly don't know what it takes to power electric cars or build them. I find it ironic that most of them are built with petroleum products and powered by hazardous waste batteries. Of course, the Democrats want electric cars, but they don't want to build the power plants to power them.

They see coal as a bad thing, yet they don't understand that coal is used for more than just energy -- such as for the production of iron for building buildings. As for oil production, the Left has no idea that 47% of every barrel of oil goes into making the more than 6,000 manufactured products that we all use every day -- including cell phones and just about everything behind the counter at their local Starbucks. And though they think solar and wind power are the answer, they don't realize that those two methods of creating power are the least reliable and the least productive. Besides, the materials used to make wind turbines and solar collectors are non-recyclable and are non-biodegradable in landfills.

As for the Global Warming Hoax, the Left is way too dumb to know when they are being had. They really think paying more in taxes, giving up 70% of their paychecks to the government under Bernie Sanders' plan, will somehow stop the weather from changing. Talk about not very smart.

As for wanting to surrender their Constitutional Rights, or their idea that no one needs to be responsible to pay their debts, or their child-like view of Socialism, and their idea that everything should be free, I can't believe that they are truly that dumb. The Democrats' propaganda machine supports the idea that no one has to pay for anything. And sadly, there are fools on the Left who are so stupid that they believe they will get everything free without having to pay for it in some way, shape, or form. Talk about child-like mentalities. They really think a nanny state is a good thing.

Indian Reservations Can Teach All Americans A Great Deal!

As many of you already know, I mainly write about American History, focusing on the Old West, everything from vigilantes to Native American tribes. I'm actually amazed that no one has yet to mention how horrible Socialism has been for American Indians on reservations. So let's talk about American Indian reservations and how Indians are considered "Wards of the Federal Government." Yes, they are considered "Wards of the state."

On March 3rd, 1871, the Indian Appropriations Act was passed. It was an amendment ending tribal recognition and the treaty system. At that time, American Indians were made "Wards of the state," which means that they were considered wards of the Federal Government. It also meant that the federal government no longer needed any sort of tribal consent in dealing with the tribes. What happened after that is a perfect example of how Socialism does not work in America. The reason for that is that it's a perfect example of what life is like when the government sees you as its children and them as your parent. 

Let's understand the role of the Federal Government and the American Indian since 1871. A "ward of the state" refers to a person, typically a minor or an incapacitated adult, who is under the legal protection and care of the government. The state is responsible for providing complete care and supervision when a person cannot care for themselves or is deemed to be in need of protection. 

Children who are in foster care, or whose parents have died or are unable to care for them, may become wards of the state. Adults with disabilities or cognitive impairments who are unable to manage their affairs may also be placed under the protection of the state, with a guardian appointed to make decisions on their behalf. 

The government's role, through its agencies and courts, assumes responsibility for the ward's well-being, including ensuring their basic needs of housing, food, clothing, education, and healthcare are met. The reason is that "wards of the state" are seen as being unable and incompetent to care for themselves. The government assumes the role of parent and guardian. That's how the Federal Government has seen the American Indian since 1871. The government sees American Indians as being as incompetent as orphaned children who can't care for themselves. 

This Is A Cautionary Tale Told To People Ignoring The Lessons Of Our History

We don't have to look to Venezuela, Cuba, or the former Soviet Union to see how Socialism fails. We would all be "wards of the U.S. Government" if we ever gave up our freedoms and chose to be in a Socialist government. Native Americans have a pathetic healthcare system, unemployment is through the roof, poverty is widespread, so is drug use, alcoholism, domestic violence, incarceration, divorce, depression, and suicides. If Americans want to see the true ill effects of American Socialism, all one needs to do is see how the American Indian on reservations has suffered under such a nanny state.

Yes, my friends, American Socialism has been practiced since the end of the 1870s when Native American reservations were established by the Federal Government. At the end of the Indian Wars, Native American Tribes were rounded up and became "wards of the Federal Government," which is what the Supreme Court labeled them. 

As wards of the Federal Government, Native Americans became slaves of the state, were lied to, starved, and allowed to die rather than be allowed to be free. Sadly, over the last 150-plus years, some Native Americans have looked at death as a way to gain their freedom from the oppression of the Federal Government's Socialist care.

Do you think I'm exaggerating? My friends, 5.2 million American Indians live on tribal lands. While that's only about 22% of America's Native American population, their living conditions are comparable to those of Third World countries. And like Third World countries, the only people profiting from such a Socialist system are crooked government officials, crooked tribal leaders, and shifty contractors, all of whom take the lion's share of the funds allocated for those on the reservations.

Since Socialism is supposed to give everyone everything free, why is it that Socialism on the reservations has meant American Indians have seen nothing free? And instead, they live in overcrowded, substandard housing where three or more generations of a family live in small two-bedroom homes. And while most Americans take for granted things like adequate plumbing, available kitchen facilities, telephone or cell service, electricity, cable providers, heating, and air conditioning, Indian reservation housing is mostly absent of such common luxuries. In fact, on reservations, one would be lucky to find amenities such as running water in most reservation households. 

Socialism Equals Poverty

Since poverty is widespread thanks to the American Indian being a "ward of the Federal Government," such amenities are viewed as luxuries. As for employment, the only jobs to be had are either connected to the tribe or with the Federal Governments in some way. The fact is, there are few private employers, if any, on a reservation.

And because of the abject poverty and lack of opportunity, many of the reservation households are overcrowded. Thankfully, there are those who are on Social Security, Social Security Disability, or maybe getting Veterans Disability Pensions because the lack of employment and the below the poverty line wages are all a result of American Socialism in Reservations.

What has this done to the average household on the reservations? What it has done is exactly what has happened to all of us who have struggled. The only way they survive is by getting their extended families to join together to help each other make ends meet. 

Bernie Sanders is always talking about wealthy Billionaires, but he himself is a wealthy multi-Millionaire. And frankly, he doesn't have any idea of how tough things are when trying to make ends meet -- and the government limits you instead of helping you. 

And as for Healthcare For All? Let's talk about Socialized Medicine, Socialism's idea of Healthcare. Since Native American reservations lack the amenities that most Americans take for granted, and their homes are overcrowded while lacking basic heat and cooling, there are increased health risks taking place. Now compound that with the no real accessible healthcare available to them. 

Here's a statistic for you, 55% of all American Indians on reservations completely rely on the Indian Health Service for medical care. But here's the catch, because of not enough funding, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act only meets about 60% of their health needs. Because of the lack of funds being provided to make the Indian Health Care Improvement Act work efficiently, Indian Health Service facilities are restricted to only providing crisis-driven care. 

That means that there is no such thing as adequate and preventative health care for most Native Americans on the reservations. To make matters worse, doctors and pharmacies are completely non-existent in some communities because of the under-funding. 

So now, we all know that Bernie Sanders has been the Chairman of the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs, and he didn't do anything to improve the healthcare needs of veterans. And yes, besides what's taking place on American Indian Reservations, that's the other example of how Socialized Medicine is a complete failure. 

As "wards of the Federal Government," Native Americans on reservations were told that the Federal Government would provide for their care and needs. Conditioned to be dependent on the government, American Indians have faced starvation and limited opportunities. Because of this, deprivation is all-consuming, while drug use, alcoholism, mental illness, and depression have led to the highest instances of domestic violence, divorce, and suicide seen in our American society. The result is that Native Americans on reservations have horrible schools, have some of the worse poverty in our entire nation, and don't have adequate healthcare, which the government is supposed to provide. 

Here's what's worse, because of the lack of funding for such Socialist programs as government-provided healthcare, non-existent medical assistance has created all sorts of huge health problems for Native Americans. For example, I read where Native Americans are experiencing a horrible epidemic of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, tuberculosis, and cancer. And sadly, the infant death rate among American Indians on Reservations is 60% higher than for Americans not living on a Reservation. 

These are the realities faced by many Native Americans living on reservations. They should serve as a lesson to non-Native Americans who want to know how bad things can get right here in America under Socialism. It's true. Such is the lesson of Socialism. 

And since we already have American Socialism being practice on Native American reservations, why aren't Americans talking about the truth regarding the evils of Socialism? Doesn't the truth matter anymore? Will anyone ask self-proclaimed Socialist, actual life-long Communist, Bernie Sanders, why Socialism in practice on reservations has failed to work for American Indians? 

Why don't people ask Bernie Sanders how Socialism has failed, and the Free Stuff promised never appeared on American Indian reservations. Since American Indians on reservations live in conditions akin to that of people living in Third World Countries, Bernie and his supporters should be made to address how Socialism kills the human spirit.

If people don't think it does, look to the reservations and see how tough they are.

I find it interesting that when asked by a tribe member to look into the negative ramifications of government-imposed Socialist programs on Indian Reservations since the 1870s, I get tons of hate mail, and the post is read by over 100,000 people. 

Part Two has to do with how well some tribes are doing after they rid themselves of the Federal Government's mandated Socialist programs. If people want to read about the positives taking place on reservations and how tribes are trying to get out from beneath the draconian Socialist policies imposed on the reservations by the government, click this link: Tribes Shaking Off The Shackles Of Socialism

Tom Correa

A Politically Correct Marine Commandant -- What's That About?

When I was a young man taking the oath as a U.S. Marine, I took my oath to fight all enemies both foreign and domestic, and to protect and defend our Constitution very much to heart. And since I joined the Marine Corps in the early 1970's in a time when I didn't agree with the Liberal Leftist protesters or their messages of hate for America they carried on their protest signs, I resigned myself to the understanding among us who made a vow, a solemn promise, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States: 

I might not agree with what they say, but I will fight for their right to say it -- because it's a Right that Americans have fought and died for.

That attitude, the ethos of fighting to protect America and our principles even when we do not agree with those asserting their Constitutional Rights including that of free speech in a negative way, is what I was told the Marine Corps was all about. And frankly, I loved it because while ready to fight all enemies both foreign and domestic -- being a Marine also meant protecting and defending the Rights of my bother and sister Americans. It went to the heart of why I was a Marine. It went to the heart of the Marine Corps at the time.

That was 1973. That was 47 years ago. Oh have times changed for my beloved Marine Corps! 

On February 17th, 2020, it was reported that the Marine Corps' 38th Commandant Gen. David Berger not only refuses to protect and defend the Constitutional Rights of his Marines -- but is in fact attacking the very Constitutional rights which the highly decorated Marine General has sworn an allegiance to uphold. He is doing so by attacking the right of free speech of every Marine in the Corps today.

Gen. David Berger has decided that a Marine's right of free speech to display the Confederate battle flag on his or her personal clothing, shirts, jackets, or on their personally owned vehicles as in the case of bumper stickers must stop and be removed. He has decided that the Confederate battle flag is not allowed on Marine Corps installations. His order bans Confederate battle flags, signs, and other Confederate symbols.

While this sounds as asinine as it comes, Gen. Berger has ordered the removal of all Confederate flags, bumper stickers and other similar items from Marine bases. Please understand, anyone can use any symbol to represent hate. The same goes for people lying about what represents hate. Anyone can say anything does, even when it doesn't.

A few years ago, there were a large number of asinine people on the Left who said the Gadsden Flag was a symbol of hate because it was being flown, along with many other historic American flags, at Tea Party rallies. The Gadsden flag was used at those rallies to remind Obama and the government that tyranny will not be tolerated by a free people.

The Gadsden flag is a historical American flag with a yellow field depicting a timber rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike. Below the rattlesnake are the words "DONT TREAD ON ME".

In 1775, Congress authorized the creation of a Continental Navy starting with four ships. To accompany the Continental Navy on their first mission, Congress also authorized the mustering of five companies of Continental Marines. During their first mission, some of the Marines took with them a yellow flag emblazoned with a fierce rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike, with thirteen rattles, and sporting the motto "DONT TREAD ON ME".

Today, as was the case over 200 years ago, the Gadsden flag does not represent hate. It is a historic symbol of America's fight against tyranny. It is a symbol of deviance against unjust rule. The Confederate flag does not represent hate no differently than the Gadsden flag does not represent hate. 

The Confederate flag was designed to represent deviance against a federal government that Americans in the South saw as overstepping their authority when governing. It was carried into battle by Americans in the Civil War in their fight against those they saw as forcing them into submission. Today, it is a cultural symbol of the American Rebel spirit of independence. It is also a flag representing Southern heritage in their fight against what they saw as tyranny. 

Even though Confederate flags, bumper stickers and similar items are incapable of causing harm and does not represent hate coming from any group, in fact simply goes to the pride of one's heritage as Southerners, Gen. Berger wants them removed from Marine Corps bases according to a new directive from the Commandant. And frankly, I can't help but wonder if he will bad the Gadsden flag as well -- even though that was the first flag carried by our Continental Marines.

Gen. Berger has told his commanders to begin implementing the order or develop plans to do so by February 28, 2020. The order was included in a memo that Gen. Berger sent out calling for more recruiting of women in combat positions and for more restrictions on Marines accused of domestic violence. He also wants to expand maternity leave for pregnant Marines. 

As for his order banning the Confederate battle flag on Marine Corps bases, he simply ordered "the removal of all Confederate-related paraphernalia from Marine Corps installations." But there has not been an incident to incite such an action. It's true. A Marine Corps spokesman said the order was "not generated by any one incident, and instead stemmed from a broader concern about the issue."

We should all understand that members of the military have been involved in racial incidents for years. While that doesn't excuse such things, to my knowledge Confederate paraphernalia has had been at the root of those incidents. In most case, it simply has to do with hate from both blacks and whites.

You think I'm oversimplifying things? When I was in the Marine Corps in the early 1970's and part of the Marine Detachment aboard the USS Hancock, we were trained in riot control because the Sailors had race riots on other ships at the time. At the time, we were told that black Sailors were assaulting white Sailors for no reason other than skin color. Yes, so much for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s message of ignoring color of skin. 

Later when stationed in Marine Corps Base Camp Pendelton in 1976 and '77, I was on Instructor duty at Correctional Custody when I heard about 7 black Marines using screwdrivers to attack and stab 14 white Marines at an area Enlisted Club. That incident turned into a real circus. The white Marines who were in a conference room holding a meeting regarding local youth sports were accused of holding a Ku Klux Klan meeting. 

It was national news in no time at all. In fact newspapers started running stories about how the Ku Klux Klan had some sort of presence in Camp Pendelton and the Marine Corps in general. Even though those news stories were all lies designed to inflame the situation, soon enough America's military haters started holding protests at Camp Pendelton's Main Gate. 

Included in those protests were black political activists, I believe Rev. Jessie Jackson showed up, too ready to capitalize on the false reports about the Ku Klux Klan having a foothold in the Marine Corps. Right after the black political leaders showed up, believe it or not, a Ku Klux Klan leader showed up get his face in front of television cameras and on the news. To the credit of the Marine General in charge of Camp Pendelton at the time, both the Klan leader and the black activists were not allowed on base. 

As for the black Marines who were taken into custody and facing assault charges. At first they stuck to their story that the white Marines were holding a Klan meeting. Their story unraveled when one of the seven black Marines informed on the others during their Courts Martial trail. He made it known that they knew it wasn't a Ku Klux Klan meeting. The black Marines assaulted the white Marines simply because they were white. And with that, the protests and the stories of the Klan's fictional influence in the Corps died.

While the hoopla over the incident died off after the truth came out, there were other politics taking place in the Corps at the time. After a recruit died during training, it seemed there were Congressional investigators running around everywhere. From this, there was a will to please politicians by sacrificing some very good Marines. In those days, if a Marine Instructor had unsubstantiated allegations of maltreatment made against him, his career was over without hearing his side. All to please the political witch-hunters. 

Of course those incident weren't the first incidents that showed how truly political the Marine Corps was in practice. In fact, at the time, the mid-1970's, the Marine Corps had already tried to put women Marines in combat positions. That took place in 1977 to please the very Liberal Carter administration mandates to get more women in roles traditionally dominated by men. It failed. 

Yes, there is a reason that men fight in the trenches. Whether or not politicians want to admit it, combat readiness requires Marines to meet extraordinary physical requirements. Those requirements should not be lowered just so women will be able to meet them. If the Corps lowers it's standards just to allow women to serve in line companies, all to appease some sort of Liberal political agenda, then the Corps lessens itself and Marines will suffer for it. That's not to say that women Marines do not serve a vital function in the Corps. But pushing their presence in a line company as a result of political pressure when women, and not just one or two, cannot meet high physical standards should not take place. The Marine Corps's standards should not be lowers for political reasons. That's what we learned in 1977 when a few units tried it. But really, liberal politicians didn't care to hear that. 

Although that experiment failed miserably back in 1977, Gen. David Berger didn't enter the Marine Corps until 1981. Maybe that's why he wants to try it again. Of course, attempting to do so was in itself an effort by the Marine Corps to please politicians who wanted to use the military for their social experiments back then -- just as it would be today. 

I attribute Gen. Berger wanting to try it again to how little he knows about what was tried and why things failed in the Corps before he became a Marine. Of course if he does know why such a stupid notion as lowering Corps standards just to allow women to serve in line companies failed in its previous attempts to do so, and he still wants to do it, then that in itself shows Gen. Berger might be more politically inclined than I thought. 

In an era of political correctness, it's a shame to see such a decorated Marine as Gen. Berger bend to such social experiments and political dictates as suppressing one's Rights. When reading about the General, one can't help but see a Marine who has risen through the officer ranks with merit. So why he feels it's necessary to address such a free speech issue as Marines waving the Confederate battle flag can only be seen as political. 

It's sad really. Instead of being known as a Marine Commandant who stood up against the negative affects of political correctness on the Corps, he will go down as aligning himself with those who want to tear down Confederate monuments in public places and suppress one's rights of free speech. Yes, all under the guise of "doing what's right" when in fact it's just political correctness. 

I can't help but wonder where politically correct Gen. Berger will stop. Will he issue Dishonorable Discharges to decorated Marines who happen to have Confederate flag tattoos? What if a Marine is from the South, what about his or her pride of heritage? What about the Corps' heritage and tradition and all of the Southerners who have served in the Marine Corps?

And here's something else to think about. Will Gen. Berger attempt to push the Obama administration mandate of eliminating Christian worship from the military by banning Christian services on base? Because I enthusiastically support President Donald Trump, I can't help but wonder if Gen. Berger is prone to carrying out the guidelines of the Obama administration and not President Trump's administration? Since it was clear just a few years ago that the powers-to-be were attacking practicing Christians in the Corps, making them not welcome in our military, as well as attacking the Gadsden flag and the Confederate battle flag, will Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger attack a Marine's right to Christian worship?  

Both our freedom of speech and our ability to worship the religion of our choice are rights protected by our Bill of Rights, rights that Gen. David Berger is sworn to protect and defend -- not attack and limit -- but does that matter to Gen. Berger? Where will Gen. Berger stop in his attacks on a Marine's rights as an American Citizen in accordance to the Bill of Rights?

While I'm in no way disparaging his service to our country, I can't help but wonder about his decision making capability. Since Gen. Berger ordered the removal of all Confederate paraphernalia from all Marine Corps bases, I can't help but wonder if the Bill of Rights even matters to this very political Marine Commandant. Through his actions, his concern to protect and defend the rights of his Marines is questionable at best.

Tom Correa

The San Elizario Salt War 1877

Most folks know the Rio Grande is a natural barrier dividing the United States from Mexico. In 1789, when Spain still had Mexico, Spaniards established a fort and called it "Presidio de San Elizario."

A town grew up around the fort, and it soon took the name San Elizario. San Elizario is said to be a corruption of "San Elceario," which is Spanish for Saint Elzear. Saint Elzear of Sabran is the Roman Catholic Patron Saint of Soldiers. After San Elizario was occupied by the U.S. troops during the Mexican-American War, volunteers from California were stationed at the Presidio to prevent the re-occupation.

Before major water-control projects on the Rio Grande, such as Elephant Butte Dike, were constructed in 1911, the river was known to flood regularly. The river stayed the same until an 1831 flood changed the river's course. That 1831 flood left San Elizario on a new island between the new and old channels of the Rio Grande.

After the Civil War, there were several changes created in the political landscape of West Texas. The end of the war and Reconstruction brought many "entrepreneurs" to the area. Some were northern carpetbaggers.

It is said that three groups made up the Republicans in the South after the Civil War, and Southerners referred to two with derogatory terms. "Scalawags" were Southerners who supported the Republican Party, "carpetbaggers" were opportunists who were recent arrivals in the region from the North, and Freedmen who were freed slaves.

Most Republicans coming there settled in Franklin, Texas, a trading village across the Rio Grande from the Chihuahua city of El Paso del Norte, which is present-day Ciudad Juárez. Many San Elizario families had deep roots and didn't readily accept newcomers.

At the same time, in the early 1870s, the Democrat Party had begun to reclaim political influence in Texas. But frankly, Democrat operatives with ties to the Confederacy were not accepted by the people of San Elizario either. And though that was the case, soon alliances shifted and rivalries developed between the Hispanic community, the Anglos there, the Republicans, and the Democrats residing in West Texas.

The San Elizario Salt War is also known as the Salinero Revolt or the El Paso Salt War. So what was the San Elizario Salt War about? Well, salt.

At the base of the Guadalupe Mountains, about 100 miles northeast of San Elizario, lies several dry salt lakes. Before pumping water and oil from West Texas, the area had a periodic shallow water table, and capillary action drew salt of high purity to the surface.

This salt was valuable for a wide variety of purposes. Salt is 39 percent sodium, a chemical element necessary for our survival. Sodium controls a number of our bodily functions. Our need for salt is absolute, and we are forced to seek our health.

But besides salt for our physiological needs, we used salt to cure and preserve meat long before the advent of refrigeration. And yes, salt was necessary for treating leather and stabilizing dyes. It was also used for bartering. And of course, salt was an essential element in the "patio process" for silver mining to extract the silver from ore.

Salt is so essential to humans and animals that we subconsciously know when salt is needed. An example of this is that animals are attracted to salt licks and salt springs. And yes, it is said that Native American Indians often lay in ambush at such places or created artificial salt licks to lure the animals.

Historically, caravans to the salt lakes traveled either down the Rio Grande and then straight north or via what later became known as the Butterfield Overland Mail route. Salt deposits located in the Guadalupe Mountains are 110 miles east of El Paso. They produced salt that was almost chemically pure. It was a two to three-day journey to retrieve salt and return home.

In 1863, the people of San Elizario, as a community, built by subscription a road running east to the salt lakes. The residents of the Rio Grande Valley at El Paso were granted community access rights to the lakes by the King of Spain. Those rights had been grandfathered in by the Republic of Mexico and then again with the Treaty Guadalupe Hidalgo.

So when, beginning in 1866, Texas started allowing individuals to stake claims for mineral rights, the grandfathered community rights were overturned. This did not make for happy locals who had been getting salt from that salt lake for almost a hundred years. To make matters worse, in 1870 there was a group from Franklin, Texas, who tried to claim the salt lake's deposits. This sparked a fight over ownership. And yes, a battle over control of the land began.

Albert Jennings Fountain and his "Salt Ring" favored county government ownership with community access. Then when Fountain was elected to the Texas State Senate, he began pushing his plan. But, when the Republicans lost control of the Texas state government in 1873, Fountain left El Paso for his wife's home in New Mexico.

In 1872, the Army withdrew troops from Fort Bliss and Fort Quitman near San Elizario and left the El Paso area without a military presence. That was the year Charles Howard arrived in town. Howard was said to be Virginian by birth but from Missouri. He went to the region determined to restore the Democratic Party to political power in West Texas.

In the summer of 1877, Howard filed a claim as the owner of the salt lakes in the name of his father-in-law, George B. Zimpelman, who was an Austin capitalist. Howard offered to pay any "salinero" laborers who collected salt the going rate for its retrieval, but he insisted the salt was his.

The Tejanos of San Elizario formed committees known as "juntas" in San Elizario and the largely Tejano neighboring towns of Socorro and Ysleta, Texas, to determine a community-based response to Howard's action. During the summer of 1877, they held several secret meetings.

Then in 1877, anger gave way to an armed conflict that was waged by the Mexican inhabitants living on both sides of the Rio Grande near El Paso, Texas. Their target on the American side of the river was a leading Texas politician supported by the Texas Rangers.

The right of individuals to own the salt lakes previously held as a community asset was established by force of arms.

On September 29, 1877, Jose Maria Juarez and Macedonia Gandara threatened to collect a wagonload of salt. When Howard learned of their activities, he had the men arrested by Sheriff Charles Kerber and went to court in San Elizario to legally restrain them that evening. Armed men arrested the compliant jurist. Others searched for Howard, locating him at Sheriff Kerber's home in Yselta.

Under the leadership of Francisco "Chico" Barela, they seized Howard and marched him back to San Elizario. For three days, Howard was held as a prisoner. He was guarded by several hundred men led by Sisto Salcido, Lino Granillo, and Barela.

On October 3, he was finally released upon payment of a $12,000 bond and his written relinquishment of all rights to the salt deposits. Howard left for Mesilla, New Mexico, where he briefly stayed at the house of Fountain. He soon returned to the area and met up with Louis Cardis in an El Paso mercantile store in October.

Louis Cardis moved to El Paso, Texas, in 1864. He quickly learned the Spanish language and established a political power base with the Mexican American citizens of the area. Cardis favored the Hispanic community concept of the commonwealth.

He became involved in a dispute involving salt deposits and shifting influence and political power from the Hispanic population to the Anglos. He was elected to the Texas House of Representatives with the help of Charles H. Howard. Cardis and Howard with political allies.

Problems escalated, and soon Cardis had a falling out with Howard. Their falling out was because Howard staked an exclusive claim to the salt deposits. Cardis had his allies actually arrest Howard and imprison him. Howard retaliated after he was let out by shooting Cardis to death with a shotgun on October 9, 1877. Howard then fled back to New Mexico.

"On… October 10… Cardis entered the store of E. Schutz and Brother and asked one of the clerks to write a letter for him. He was sitting in a rocker with his back to the door when… Howard enter[ed] the front door with a double-barreled shotgun…. Cardis immediately rose, passed behind the clerk, and took a position back of the desk which concealed the upper part of his body. Howard emptied one barrel into the lower part of [Cardis'] body and legs and as the torso sank into view, the second charge of buckshot penetrated his heart." That's according to The Texas Rangers by Walter Prescott Webb.

The Tejano people of El Paso County were outraged. They effectively stopped all county governments, replacing them with community juntas and daring the sheriff to take action against them.

In response to pleas for help from frightened Anglo residents, Governor Richard B. Hubbard answered by sending Texas Rangers to El Paso. Major John B. Jones was the commander of the Texas Rangers' Frontier Battalion that arrived to take control of the situation.

Arriving on November 5, Texas Ranger J.B. Jones met with the junta leaders, negotiated their agreement to obey the law, at least he thought so, and arranged for Howard's return, arraignment, and release on bail. Jones also recruited 20 new Texas Rangers, the Detachment of Company C, under the command of Lieutenant John B. Tays.

Tays was born on September 6, 1842. He was one of seven children of John and Mary Ellis Tays. Tays was a native Canadian. He was a mining engineer, and an El Paso land speculator. Some say Tays didn't live up to the Ranger ethos of honor and bravery. In fact, some say he was a known rustler of Mexican cattle.

On December 12, 1877, Howard returned to San Elizario with that newly-formed Company of 20 Texas Rangers led by John B. Tays. As soon as they arrived, a large group of armed citizens, some say as many as 500, engaged Howard and the Rangers. The mob was enraged and demanded Howard be surrendered.

The San Elizario Chapel

Of course, Howard and the Rangers immediately took cover in the buildings and soon took refuge in the town's chapel. The San Elizario Chapel is a presidio chapel. It's not a mission. It served the religious needs of the military outpost. It was established in 1789 as a military presidio and the current chapel was built in 1877. 

Because the Presidio Chapel showcases the round archways and golden-trimmed pillars that reflect a traditional Spanish Mission style, I mistakenly referred to it as a "Mission." Since first publishing this article, I've heard from a lot of my readers about my mistakenly calling it a "Mission." 

So please, let me make it clear that the San Elizario Chapel (La Capilla de San Elcear) was never part of the Spanish mission system which was really focused on converting and serving the native population. The "Presidio Chapel" served as a chapel for the military presidio, or outpost, established in 1789 to protect travelers and settlers along the Camino Real (Royal Highway). The chapel provided religious services for the Spanish soldiers and their families stationed at the Presidio.

Today, the chapel continues to function as an active parish church and serves the community of San Elizario. The Presidio Chapel of San Elizario is located at 1556 San Elizario Road in San Elizario, Texas. With it being built in 1877, the Chapel is today a significant part of the San Elizario Historic District and the El Paso Mission Trail.

Now, let's return to the story of what happened when Charles Howard and the newly-formed Detachment of Texas Rangers under the command of Lieutenant John B. Tays took cover in the San Elizario Chapel.

It is said that from the inside of the chapel that they tried to claim "sanctuary." Of course, that didn't work and the local people laid siege to the building. It was only a two-day siege before Canadian-born Texas Ranger John B. Tays surrendered his 20-man company of Rangers. It is believed that the event was the only time in the entire history of the Texas Rangers that a Ranger unit ever surrendered to anyone.

So yes, on December 17, 1877, Tays surrendered and gave up to the mob, which quickly organized a firing squad to take care of Charles Howard and his cohorts. One source states that after the firing squad opened fire, the bodies of Charles Howard and two of his cohorts, who turned out to be Texas Ranger Sergeant John McBride and former lawman John G. Atkinson, both of who were also shot by the firing squad, were hacked to pieces and then dumped down an old well about a half-mile away.

Charles Howard was a greedy opportunist who gamed the system, used it in his favor, and felt he was above the law. Yes, even to the point of thinking that he could get away with committing murder and no have to answer for it. It's no wonder some say he got exactly what he deserved in the end. 

As for Texas Ranger Lt. John Tays and the rest of the Texas Rangers there that day, it's said they were stripped of the arms, humiliated by being disarmed, and then run out of town on foot while being jeered by the town's people who also pelted them with produce. Of course, though the Texas Rangers surrendered that day, no one should say they weren't any good. 

Though the siege only lasted two days, those Rangers did in fact face overwhelming odds -- and there was no way they were going to win without a lot more civilian deaths in the process. The notion of 20 Texas Rangers taking on 500 or more armed civilians put the Rangers at a significant advantage due to sheer numbers. And besides that fact that the Rangers only had 20 men and the limited supplies they carried on them when they took refuge in the Chapel, they were looking at not being supplied while the people assaulting them were able to resupply and recruit replacements if needed. 

Common sense tells us that a larger force, even if not necessarily more skilled, often win due to their ability to overwhelm and outmanuver a smaller defending force. And there's something else, I don't know if the Rangers saw dieing for someone like Charles Howard as something that they wanted to do. 

After the Texas Rangers were marched out of town in disgrace, the local Mexicans rioted and looted the town. In fact, they sacked the buildings and general lawlessness reigned. It was ongoing until U.S. Army Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th Cavalry and a large Sheriff's Posse from New Mexico arrived on the scene. Once they arrived, it's said that hundreds of people fled to Mexico -- most permanently. Among them were many of the civic leaders of San Elizario.

The conflict is said to have climaxed with the siege and surrender of 20 Texas Rangers to a mob of perhaps 500 Mexicans in San Elizario, Texas. All in all, 12 people were killed and 50 wounded during that fight alone. 

So yes, for over twelve years following the Civil War, political and legal struggles took place among Texas politicians and opportunists over salt. It began as a local fight and grew into an armed conflict over time. 

As for the public, newspaper editors throughout the nation covered the story and in many ways it was blown out of proportion as newspapers made it more significant than it was. The newspapers included lurid details that some say are questionable. In reality, it was pure sensationalism at its best. 

Let's remember, the "salt war" went on for 12 years. In fact, over those years, it's believed that as many as 650 residents bore arms against the local authorities. Also, in those 12 years, it is thought that about 20 to 30 men were killed. Of course, it is reasonable to say that double that number were wounded over the years. Yes, all over salt.

After the dust settled, damage to the property was estimated at $31,050. And let's look at that for a moment, $31,050 in 1877 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $939,398.53 today. So yes, there was about a Million Dollars in property damage alone. As for the crop losses, those losses were sustained because local farmers did not till or harvest their fields for several months. 

The wheat loss alone was estimated at $48,000. Again, let's look at that. The fact is that $48,000 in 1877 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1,452,210.29 today. So yes, while $48, 000 might not sound like much today, for us that would have translated to a loss of almost 1.5 Million Dollars of wheat alone. It's no wonder the area was hit hard. 

Of course, besides the financial losses, there was the loss of further political and economic power of the Mexican-American community of El Paso County. In fact, as a result of the loss of political and economic power, San Elizario lost its status as a County Seat. And mainly since the town's population decreased, the county seat was relocated to Franklin which became El Paso. 

Here's something else, there became a need for a military presence to keep order. In fact, though Fort Bliss was first established in El Paso in March of 1854 and it was actually relocated in the late 1860s, because of the salt war, the 9th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers who were sent there to maintain order had to reestablish Fort Bliss. They reopened the fort to keep an eye on the border and the local Mexican population there.

It's true, on New Year's Day in 1878, Fort Bliss was established as a permanent post just to keep an eye on things down there. Company L Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th Cavalry and Company C of the 15th Infantry were sent to Fort Bliss to prevent further trouble over the salt flats and help enforce regulations regarding the usage of Rio Grande water for irrigation purposes. 

It is interesting to note that the U.S. government had a policy of simply leasing property for its military installations before this date. It should be noted that the U.S. Army reestablished Fort Bliss to also provide protection to the Southern Pacific Railroad when it came to West Texas in 1883. 

As a matter of spite, it's said the Southern Pacific Railroad lines intentionally bypassed San Elizario altogether as a matter of retribution. It's said that the Southern Pacific Railroad did so as a punishment since towns with railroad lines prospered and those without continued to struggle during that period.

As for John B. Tays? He left the Rangers and married Mrs. Amelia St. Vrain in early 1878. He became El Paso's postmaster between February and August 1879. He also became El Paso's first city marshal, though a short-lived position, from July to October 1880. He's actually listed as an engineer in the El Paso 1880 Federal Census. But frankly, his engineering skills cost him his job as a Marshal.

That came about after Tays attempted to fill a very large pothole on the main street with garbage. Yes, garbage. And no, that obviously didn't work, so the city council fired him. He did better in the private sector in ranching, railroad construction, and real estate speculation in the El Paso area. Many say he was one of the city's largest landowners. In fact, his holdings may have included El Paso's Central Hotel and a large number of tenements. 

In 1883, John B. Tays moved to the Ontario-Upland area of Southern California. There, he became one of the area's top agriculturalists and engineers. In fact, in Ontario, California, Tays became famous for designing a streetcar platform to carry mules downhill after they had labored to pull the cars uphill. On May 6, 1900, he was part of an expedition hunting gold in South America when he and 150 others were killed in a boating accident at the Tumatumari Falls on the Rio Patera. The man with the dubious honor of being the only Texas Ranger commander to surrender his Ranger unit died at 57.

As for the San Elizario Salt War, how you see what transpired might depend on how you view our government. For example, it is said that the Mexican-American uprising down there was a bloody riot by a "howling mob." Of course, the "mob" there that day has also been described as "an organized political-military insurgency to reestablish local control of their fundamental political rights and economic future." But really, who knows which camp is closer to the truth.

Some say it is an example of Mexican Americans not being treated as equal citizens instead of being treated as subjugated people. Others see the San Elizario Salt War of 1877 as an example of Americans simply being pushed too far and subsequently taking up arms to fight an oppressive local government that was out of control.

I believe the people there felt that they had to take up arms as a last resort to obtain a solution to a dire situation created by politicians. That might not make it right, but I believe that that's how it was because salt was so essential to life at the time.

Tom Correa

American Firearms -- Merwin, Hulbert, and Co. Firearms

David Bergmann wearing his Merwin & Hulbert pistol
attending the John Coffee Hays Club Annual Fundraiser
February 8, 2020
Photograph by Troy Ellis

As some of you who read my blog on a regular basis already know, I was invited to speak at a fundraising event for the John Coffee Hays Club back on February 8th. In the audience was a man dressed in what I thought was a period correct outfit for the late 1880s to 1890s. He really looked like he could have come out of a photograph of the times. Included on his side was a holstered pistol. During my talk, because of my interest in period firearms and recognizing that the cowboy in attendance looked as authentic as could be, I pointed him out and asked what he had on his hip.

I asked if it was a "Smith & Wesson, an Iver Johnson, a Merwin-Hulbert?" He nodded and acknowledged that it was a Merwin-Hulbert pistol. If it seems strange that I would take the time to ask someone in the audience such a question, I did because he looked the part and it's not everyday that I see a Merwin-Hulbert pistol. Merwin-Hulbert revolvers are rare finds. And since I love old firearms, it was great to see one there.

For you who are unacquainted with Merwin, Hulbert, and Co., or simply Merwin-Hulbert, they were an American firearms marketer that was based out of New York City. The company actually produced revolvers and rifles through a subsidiary company, Hopkins & Allen of Norwich, Connecticut, starting in 1876. Merwin Hulbert designs influenced other gunmakers including Harrington & Richardson and Iver Johnson which were two very popular firearms companies in their day.

Joseph Merwin became involved in firearms sort of the same way that Oliver Winchester did. While both Merwin and Winchester were not gunsmiths like say that of Sam Colt or Daniel B. Wesson and Horace Smith, both Merwin and Winchester were businessmen involved in marketing and the manufacturing of firearms. In the case of Joseph Merwin, his first attempt at marketing and manufacturing revolvers took place before the Civil War when he started a gun company known as Merwin & Bray.

While his first attempt actually folded eighteen years later in 1874, by 1876 he formed a partnership with William and Milan Hulbert. The Hulbert brothers owned 50% interest in the Hopkins & Allen gun company. The new company Merwin, Hulbert, and Co. not only designed firearms, but was a huge importer of firearms. And while that doesn't sound unusual, even for the times, there's more to them. Besides selling firearms, they were a huge retailer in sporting goods. All sorts of sporting goods. That was new. 

It's said they sold a complete line of firearms related goods such as loading tools, gun stocks, sights, and hunting gear including decoys, calls, and outdoor clothing. They did so through Merwin-Hulbert's 150 page sporting goods catalog that was completely illustrated. In it, one could find anything one needed in the way of sporting goods. No, it was not only guns. Through their catalog, besides a number of guns and accessories, anyone was able to order gear for fishing, tennis, boating, bicycling, gymnastics, fencing, boxing, baseball, and much more.

The first Montgomery Ward catalog was produced in 1872. Sears started his catalog sales in 1888. And while many businesses were already publishing mail order catalogs for business, Montgomery Ward is seen as the first to produce a mail order catalog for the general public. Knowing this, just image that the Merwin-Hulbert catalog was considered the most all encompassing sports catalog of its day. Part of the reason why that was the case has to do with their also being sales agents for other firearms companies such as Colt, Remington, Winchester, Ithaca, Marlin, Ballard, and others including some British gunmakers. Merwin-Hulbert did so while representing their own firms. And frankly, that made them ahead of their time.

Merwin-Hulbert manufactured both single-action and double-action revolvers, full size and pocket pistols. Their Frontier Model was created to compete with Colt's Model 1873 Single-Action Army, Remington's Model 1875, and Smith & Wesson's Model 3 as a big bore, large frame, six-shooter. Starting in 1876, the Merwin-Hulbert Frontier was produced in four variations in a nickel finish.

Their Pocket Model was designed for the urban gun owner. While people today have this idea that everyone wore holsters, that's just not true. While folks in the East started sticking their pocket pistols in their overcoat pockets first, out West on the frontier things weren't much different. It was usually the case for someone to carry a pistol in a coat pocket than a holster -- especially while in town, and especially after more and more towns started enacting no carry laws.

Merwin-Hulbert pistols were different than other pistols of the time for a few reasons, but they really were very fine guns. As for innovations, the company was known to have made some of the more innovative designs during that period. As I said before, they were very different than other firearms at the time. For example, they designed folding hammers for their pocket carry revolvers. While there were top breaks and side-loading gates, Merwin-Hulbert came up with a rotating barrel design which allowed the user to rotate the barrel 90 degrees in order to pull the barrel and cylinder forward to remove the fired cartridge cases.

During the twisting motion, the empty cases were extracted while unspent rounds were held in place. It's true, any intact cartridge would remain in the chamber due to the additional length of the bullet. In addition to this unique case extraction system, pressing an additional lever control when the frame was "open" for extraction allowed the owner to completely remove the barrel.

This not only assisted the owner with cleaning their pistols, but it allowed the owner to swap out barrels. Swapping out barrels meant that an owner could use a short barrel for concealed carry and use a longer barrel as a field gun when hunting. The combination of extraction and barrel removal required very precise manufacturing tolerances.

Also, Merwin-Hulbert developed a nickel plating process that many believe was superior to any of their competitors. And strangely, their  nickel plating process was said to less expensive than a bluing process. Because the  nickel plating process acted to protect the metal surfaces of their guns from wear and corrosion, they looked great and were the same price as Merwin-Hulbert pistols without the nickel plating process . As for collectors today, that answers the question why it's so hard to find a Merwin-Hulbert that's been blued. It's very rare to find Merwin-Hulbert revolvers with a blued finish simply because people liked the look and wear resistance of their nickel plated pistols.

So why haven't you ever heard of Merwin-Hulbert firearms? Considering they purchased several firearms manufacturers and kept them going with innovative designs and capital, they really should be better known than they are. But all in all, I believe the reason that they're not as well known as say Colt and Smith & Wesson is because Merwin-Hulbert went under in the mid-1880's just before Joseph Merwin passed away in 1888.

Though they had some very clever designs, that didn't matter because by the mid-1880's the company ran into financial troubles with bad investments and lawsuits dealing with patent infringement. The company simply wasn't able to weather their troubles. And to add to the company's problems, Joseph Merwin passed away in 1888. After that, the company took on a new name -- but that didn't help it. And by 1896, everything was liquidated.

Following the bankruptcy and final liquidation of Merwin-Hulbert in 1896, Hopkins & Allen also went bankrupt in 1898. The company reorganized as Hopkins & Allen Arms Company, but lost its manufacturing facility, it's factory, stock, and machinery, in a horrific fire in 1900. The factory was rebuilt in 1901 and Hopkins & Allen produced 40,000 firearms a year. Their success was short lived because their entire warehouse was robbed in 1905. The thieves stole all of their inventory which included Mauser rifles they built for the Belgian Army

A year before the fire, Hopkins & Allen manufactured Merwin Hubert revolvers and a number of pistols and rifles for other gun companies. So all in all, Hopkins & Allen firearms found investors to keep them afloat and they continued manufacturing "Merwin-Hulbert" marked firearms until 1916 when they too went bankrupt. As for Hopkins & Allen firearms, they were actually bought out by Marlin Firearms in 1917.

So how popular were Merwin-Hulbert revolvers? Well, during the late 1800's, Merwin-Hulbert revolvers were used by most city police departments back East. In fact, more Merwin-Hulbert pistols were used in law enforcement at that time than were Colt, Smith & Wesson, Remington, and others. Besides the police back East, lawmen out West including famed lawman Pat Garret carried a Merwin-Hulbert pistol. And while lawmen loved those revolvers, so did outlaws. Of the most famous outlaws to carry a Merwin-Hulbert revolver was none other than the famous bank robber and killer Jessie James who was known to prefer a .44 caliber Merwin-Hulbert revolver made by Hopkins & Allen.

Why choose a Merwin-Hulbert pistol over say a Colt or a Smith & Wesson, or a Remington 1875, since all were very popular at the time? Why were they carried by lawmen and outlaw alike? The reason that a lot of people liked the Merwin-Hulbert pistol has to do with the strength of those guns.

While Merwin-Hulbert had some very interesting designs, including the whole rotating barrel to self-eject spent rounds, it's said the Merwin-Hulbert revolvers were considered the strongest revolvers made during that time period. They were strong, reliable, and didn't show the wear and tear like others did. Add the fact that those Merwin-Hulbert pistol were very attractive because of their nickel plating process, and they became firearms that people were proud to own.

Tom Correa

Mike Bloomberg Thinks Blue-Collar Americans Are Stupid -- He Really Does!

Condescending Mike Bloomberg Is A Snob Of The Worse Sort --He Looks Down On Us While Wanting To Be Our President. And Worse, He Wants A Dictatorial Government.

Mike Bloomberg's supporters are pushing their Leftist propaganda about how the Republicans are supposedly making up lies about what Bloomberg is saying. They should think about how their boy Bloomberg is as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to what America needs. While President Trump has created positive changes for all Americans, as with all of the Democrats running for president, Bloomberg also wants to undo those things that have put up into an era of prosperity and greatness.

Bloomberg himself has shown how truly out of touch he is when saying that the rest of the nation should be like California in regards to this state's draconian Climate Change measures that California imposes on our residents and businesses, in regards to California trying to disarm citizens, in regards to increasing taxes on working people, in regards to providing free healthcare to illegal aliens but not Americans, and more. Isn't it interesting that the state of California believes that taxing our residents into poverty and running off businesses will somehow change the weather.

As for Mike Bloomberg's condescension toward everyday Americans, it is legendary. Frankly, after hearing what he said about the Mid-West and specifically farmers, it's really no wonder that he decided not to go to the Democrat's Iowa caucus. Bloomberg thinks farmers and manufacturers all across America are stupid.

You think I'm over-exaggerating, well I'm not. In fact, a video clip has recently surfaced from 2016 when Bloomberg was speaking at an event. I believe it was while he was speaking at Oxford University's Said Business School. He told those in attendance, "Anybody [can] be a farmer."

Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody – even people in this room, no offense intended – to be a farmer. It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."

Of course, Mike Bloomberg is a wealthy snob who doesn't know his history very well. Or maybe he simply thinks Thomas Jefferson who wrote our Declaration of Independence was stupid. After all, Thomas Jefferson like many of our Founding Fathers were farmers.

And if you think he only looks down on farmers, think again. He also looks down his nose at other blue-collar workers such as the millions of Americans who work in manufacturing and the trades. Bloomberg thinks they are stupid as well. He said, "Then we had 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal in the lathe, you turn the crank in direction of an arrow, and you can have a job."

Bloomberg says tradesmen, manufacturers, and farmers are stupid, but he says it takes "a lot more gray matter to think and analyze enough to work in the tech field. He actually said that having a job in information technology is "fundamentally different, because it's built around replacing people with technology and the skill sets you need to learn are how to think and analyze and that is a whole degree level different, you need to have different skill set. You have to have a lot more gray matter."

His "better and smarter than others" attitude is typical of the Democrats running for office these days. And frankly, his condescension and believing Americans are stupid actually answers why he believes Americans need to have their freedoms taken away from them -- no differently than how Democrat Plantation owners saw the freed slaves after the Civil War. After the Civil War, Democrats who started that war and created the Ku Klux Klan saw freed black slaves as too stupid to be free. They saw them as needing to be cared for like children. After all of these years, it's apparent that nothing's changed in the Democrat Party 

You think I'm exaggerating. He really believes that Americans need a government that tells us how to live. He is quoted as saying, "there are times when government should infringe on your freedom."

In fact, Bloomberg doesn't think we know what we want. He thinks we're all too stupid to know what's best for us. Typical of the Slave Owner mentality of the Democrat Party, Bloomberg believes the government knows what we should have -- and we should take it because he thinks the government knows what's best for us.

He has actually said, "You don’t know what you care about. Because what you care about changes with what's going on in the world, and you need somebody to make those decisions for you." 

He feels he's that "somebody" who should be making decisions for us. The Slave Master mentality of the Left has no bounds. That is why people should understand that Mike Bloomberg wants a Dictatorial American government. He wants a Nanny State. He wants an oligarchy government run by the Democrat Party.

As for his believe that Americans should not own guns and the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, he has made no secret of this and has led an effort to instate more anti-gun laws which he thinks saves lives. Let's get this straight, he wants to disarm law abiding citizens -- not criminals. He thinks you and I don't have the right to defend ourselves with guns.

He really believes that the State in the form of the police can be everywhere, and that we should rely on the police to protect us. It's a shame Bloomberg is too dumb to know that the US Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the American citizens. Maybe if he knew that, he think twice about enabling Americans to provide their own security as is our American right. But frankly, I doubt it since that little jerk loves to make excuses for America having to have a Nanny State.

And besides believing that no America should own a gun, he really believe that he is smarter than the average American. If anyone thinks that's a creation by some supposed Republicans "machine", listen to Bloomberg's own words. While explaining his position on transgenders, Bloomberg said only he and the "intelligentsia" are the only people who can understand why "some man wearing a dress should be in a locker room with their daughter."

He takes this position that most Americans just aren’t smart enough to grasp what we need. For example, pertaining to our rights and needs, Bloomberg has said, "We, the intelligentsia ... we believe in a lot of things in terms of equality, and protecting individual rights, that make no sense to the vast bulk of people." He's talking about allowing so-called transgender men in girls locker-rooms, on girls sports teams, and in women's bathrooms.

He has even said, "If you want to know if someone is a good salesman, give him the job of going to the Midwest and picking a town, and selling to that town the concept that some man wearing a dress should be in a locker room with their daughter. If you can sell that, you can sell anything. I mean they [people in the Midwest] just look at you and say, 'what on earth are you talking about'?"

Bloomberg is absolutely amazed that Americans are repulsed by men in girls locker-rooms or in the same rest-room as your young daughter. If that in itself doesn't convince his Democrat supporters how out of touch Bloomberg really is, nothing will.

Tom Correa  

The Bowie Knife

This Large Beautiful Bowie Knife Is Like The One Recently Presented To Me
By The John Coffee Hays Club

While the hero of the Alamo Jim Bowie is attributed with designing and making the first Bowie knife, it was actually his brother Rezin Bowie who made the first Bowie knife while their family was living in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.

Legend says it was made for close combat fighting, but in reality, Rezin Bowie designed it as a hunting knife. He gave it to his brother Jim for protection after his brother had been shot in a fight. A fight that made him a legend. Jim Bowie wore it in a silver-mounted black-leather sheath.

Rezin Bowie asked a close friend and blacksmith Jesse Clifft to forge the knife according to Rezin Bowie's design. James Black was an American knifemaker who is said to later make improvements to Bowie knife design. Black did not invent or create the first Bowie knife. As for Rezin and Clifft, their families became close when they lived in Bayou Boeuf.

The Bowie knife gained widespread notoriety after the Sandbar Fight which took place on September 19th, 1827. The Sandbar Fight started out as a duel that took place near Natchez on a large sandbar in the Mississippi River, near what is today Vidalia, Louisiana. Because of its location, the Sandbar Fight also became known as the Vidalia Sandbar Fight.

What started out as a simple duel turned ugly and deadly when witnesses decided to take up the fight after the duel ended in a draw. Things got so bad that two men, General Samuel Cuny and Major Norris Wright were both killed that day. It's true. What started out as a feud between two Alexandria, Louisiana, families over competing financial interests, vote-fixing and ballot box stuffing in a local sheriff's election, defaulted bank loans, and the supposed impunity of a woman's honor all contributed to the duel -- and the subsequent battle which included a fistfight that escalated into gunplay and knifings.

The Sandbar Fight was not the first duel between those rival families. Two previous duels ended without a resolution. In those cases, both of them ended with shouting matches between Seconds. Some say those duels were actually called off because one or the other combatant failed to show up for the fight.

The Sandbar Fight duel between Samuel L. Wells III and Dr. Thomas H. Maddox was held on a sandy shoal in the middle of the Mississippi River because anti-dueling laws made it so that the combatants needed to find somewhere outside the jurisdiction of local law officials. On that Wednesday, at noon, Wells and Maddox arrived with Seconds and a large number of friends.

Jim Bowie supported Wells. Counting Bowie, it's said that 17 men were there. The duel was conducted by formal rules of the time including with a lengthy delay between exchanges of fire. The non-combatants present kept a safe distance from the duel for the duration of the fight.

Dueling was a common practice in the South up until the end of the Civil War. Dueling was a way to settle disputes outside of the courts. What might surprise folks is that duels weren't simply fought over a matter of honor. In fact, it was more the case that duels were fought to settle disputes over land deals, unpaid debts, and money. Of course duels over women is something that's been around since time and memorial. There is no telling how many fights have been over women.

As duels go, this was uneventful. Wells and Maddox each fired two shots. As was the case in many duels, neither man was injured. They then resolved the formal duel with a handshake. Yes, all as was the custom of the time. It was after the duel that things got ugly.

The outcome didn't set well with their friends who wanted blood. So, at the conclusion of the duel, shots were fired from one of the Seconds. One of the rounds fired by a friend of Jim Bowie actually hit Bowie in the hip and knocked him to the ground. It's believed that he was shot by mistake. The intended target moved and Bowie was in the path of the bullet.

Rising to his feet, it was then that an attacker drew a pistol and shot at Bowie -- but missed. That attacker then drew his sword cane and quickly thrust his blade into Bowie's chest. It's believed that Bowie was saved when the thin blade of the cane sword deflected off his sternum. It was at this point that Jim Bowie reached out and was able to grab his attacker -- and pull him into his Bowie knife. It's true. Pulling himself to his feet, Bowie raised himself, grabbed his attacker -- and sank his big knife into his assailant's heart, killing him instantly.

While he killed that attacker, that didn't stop other assailants from shooting and stabbing Bowie. Jim Bowie answered that attack by using his Bowie knife to cut off part of one attacker's forearm. In those 90-seconds, two men were killed and two men were wounded.

One doctor reportedly said of Jim Bowie, "How he lived is a mystery, but live he did." In reality, all five of the doctors present for the duel feverishly worked to treat Bowie's wounds. Some say it was a miracle that he lived.

Newspapers ran the story of what took place, and while their facts were wrong or fabricated for sensationalism purposes, the battle became known as the "Sandbar Fight". As for Jim Bowie, he survived his multiple gunshot wounds and stabbing. All of which added to his status as a formidable opponent. His being seen as a formidable opponent answers why he was targeted that day. Bowie was the focus of their attacks because, as one newspaper reported, "they considered him the most dangerous man among their opposition."

As for Bowie's knife, it became instantly legendary. In fact, the Sandbar Fight made Jim Bowie and his knife a household name throughout the country. His legend became one of a rugged American frontiersman. Yes indeed, he was a true American icon.

Because of the Sandbar Fight, it's said sword makers, blacksmiths, craftsmen, and other blade manufacturers started making their own versions of what became known as the "Bowie knife." Jim Bowie himself was said to have marveled at the "Bowie knife" advertisements from American and English makers. And frankly, it was no wonder since his knife was seen as an excellent defensive weapon.

We have to keep in mind that those were the days when pistols were known to frequently misfire. In contrast, the Bowie knife was seen as a reliable and effective backup weapon. They became so popular that The Red River Herald of Natchitoches, Louisiana, reported, "All the steel in the country it seemed was immediately converted into Bowie knives."

As for foreigners producing Bowie knives and flooding the market with spin-off versions that they thought a Bowie knife would look like, it's said that only one in ten Bowies sold commercially was American-made by the start of the Civil War. And don't make the mistake of thinking that English Bowie knife makers didn't recognize their target buyers. English cutlers are said to have used all sorts of marketing tricks to get Americans to buy their Bowie knives. For example, English makers would use clever motifs and blade etchings to appeal to the patriotic spirit of Americans.

Their etchings included such labels as "American Bowie Knife," "Texas Ranger Knife," "Arkansas Toothpick," "Patriot's Self Defender," "Death to Abolition," "Death to Traitors," and "Americans Never Surrender." During this time, there were also schools teaching knife fighting specifically geared to using a Bowie knife. Of course, while this was taking place, I find it ironic that the same hysteria about guns today was actually acted out in regards to Bowie knives. Yes, believe it or not, by the early 1840s there were people in some places calling for bans on Bowie knives.

By the Mexican War in 1846, the Bowie knife was a popular weapon with Texas Rangers. Legendary Texas Ranger Captain John Coffee Hayes outfitted his men with Bowie knives and Colt Dragoon pistols. And during the Civil War, both Union and Confederate troops were armed with Bowie knives. While the Bowie was still seen as a great defensive weapon after the Civil War, as a matter of use, the Bowie knife started to go out of favor by the late-1870s. It was about then that Bowie knives were being used more as a hunting knife than a defensive weapon. Part of the reason for that had to do with the reliability of revolvers by that time.

As for Jim Bowie, after the Sandbar Fight, he moved to Texas and took his famous knife with him. In Texas, he married into wealth and even searched for a lost silver mine. Sadly, he lost his family to cholera. He then became a leader in the Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836.

Jim Bowie is a true American legend. He's a true American hero who fought for Texas Independence and died fighting the Mexican army at the Battle of the Alamo. Jim Bowie was a legend in his own time for all the right reasons. And while he was known as an early American frontiersman and a legendary knife fighter, he was actually in only one knife fight. That was the Sandbar Fight.

Believed Closer To The Original Bowie Knife Design

When one thinks of a Bowie knife, most think of a large blade with a concave arch (clip point) cut into the end of the blade, and a cross-guard to protect the hand. While that may be the case today, it's said that early examples of Bowies were not made that way. Many early Bowie versions were made with thick heavy butcher-knife type of blades with a straight back and no clip point or handguard. Their blades varied in length from 8½ to 12½ inches and were only sharpened on the true edge. Thankfully those makers did hold to one aspect about the Bowie knife -- it was never designed for throwing.

The design of the Bowie knife evolved over the years. By the middle of the 20th century, its design took on that of a large sheath knife with a "concave clip point, sharp false edge cut from both sides, and a cross-guard to protect the user's hands".

USMC Ka-Bar Fighting Knife

It's said that the Bowie knife is the basis for most modern fighting knives. The original Bowie knife was considered extremely simple, durable, and long-lasting, which are excellent qualities to have in an all-purpose fighting blade.

Here's something else, back in the early 1970s when I was a young Marine, as, with all Marines, I attended knife fighting close combat classes. It was back then that I learned that our issued USMC Ka-Bar fighting knife's design was based on the Bowie knife design. But more than that, I found out that our knife fighting classes were a continuation of the knife fighting slash and stab techniques started back in the 1840s when U.S. Marines were outfitted with Bowie knives as part of their war-fighting gear.

Tom Correa 

Lynched In San Francisco -- Samuel Whittaker and Robert McKenzie 1851

The article below appeared in The Steamer Alta California on September 1st, 1851:

Never Before Was San Francisco So Excited 

Through every street, in all directions, the hurrying crowd of humanity rushed with the utmost precipitation — no one knew whither, no one knew for what. The bell of the Vigilance Committee had sounded its alarum note — and instantly the streets were living, swaying masses of human beings — uncertainty and conflicting fears and hopes ruled the hour … with a sweep like the rushing of a torrent of lava they bend their course towards the Rooms of the Vigilance Committee. 

Almost instantly California street, Battery street, and all their approaches, are filled with one dense mass of human beings. From lip to lip the news flies that the two criminals, Mackenzie and Whittaker, have been taken by force from the jail, by an armed posse of the Vigilance Committee. On the eager and excited multitude press toward the Rooms. 

On, on, on — the crowd becomes denser and broader. Wonder is stamped on every face — a solemn, almost awful silence pervades the thousands who are anxiously gazing up at the building, when quickly the doors are opened — a moment of preparation — and the numberless multitude holds its breath as the two malefactors are seen suspended by the neck — a struggle or two, a spasmodic heaving of the chest — and each spectator feels a thrill of terror coursing his veins as he involuntarily utters — dead, dead, dead!

Yes, they were dead! The two men — Whittaker and Mackenzie — who were taken from the hands of the Vigilance Committee a few nights since, by virtue of a write of habeas corpus, had been torn from the jail by force, in the middle of the day, and at the risk of life, hurried to the Committee rooms, and executed without scarcely a moment’s preparation. It is a most terrible tragedy! Well, indeed, might one exclaim, “I have supped full with horrors!”

Such are the terrible effects of misrule — these are the fruits of maladministered laws — these the results of official corruption, neglect and malfeasance. Well may the patriotic and the good turn in sadness and grief from the contemplation of such horrors. 

The timid may shrink from beholding them — the quiet desire an end to them; but neither fear, regret, nor desire will accomplish our security. It must go abroad over the land that this community possesses the power and the will to protect itself against every species of wrong, and that it is resolved to do it at all hazards.

Whilst we regret that the Vigilance Committee have by this act, been brought into direct collision with the constituted authorities, we cannot but approve their course in executing the two criminals. This condition of affairs was not sought by the committee; it was rather forced upon them by the action of the authorities. 

True, the authorities acted rightly in rescuing the men; but the course they took has proved to be unnecessary and injudicious. No one doubts the guilt of the men executed, and no one believes but that they deserved the punishment they received. 

The Vigilance Committee felt this, and believing that the public welfare would be promoted by the act, they had resolved to execute Whittaker and Mackenzie. But the officers of the law, with unusual adroitness, prevented the decision from being carried into effect. 

The Vigilance Committee have now redeemed their honor, and carried out their original determination, by recapturing the prisoners and executing them. The line of division between the legitimate civil power and the Vigilance Committee is therefore plain, broad and unmistakable.

And what is to result? We see nothing disheartening or dispiriting in the prospect. On the contrary, we think we perceive that settled determination on the part of the body politic to have justice done, which is to be the great lever of our salvation. 

When crime is convinced, as it must now be, that nothing is capable of preserving it from speedy and avenging punishment — when the abandoned feel, as they will now feel, that there is no safety for them here — when all bad men shall understand, as they may now understand, that their unworthy acts will surely be visited with condign reward — then will the country rise above its tribulations and its sorrows.

But this is a dreadful storm! If we did not know the ship, the crew and the passengers, we might despair of our reaching port. As it is, we speak confidently. We feel that there is gloom around us, but there is nothing to alarm the honest and patriotic. 

The guilty may, and ought to, flee before the gale of popular indignation; but it is through such trials that our voyage is ultimately to become a prosperous and fortunate one. Through the watches of the night of darkness which now surrounds us, there is a gentle voice whispering "Be firm, be calm, be just, and the welcome daylight will soon come!"

-- end of 1851 article from The Steamer Alta California.

As for The Steamer Alta California news article above, I reproduced the article here just as it appeared in the newspaper at the time. So all misspellings, dashes, and use of an ellipsis here and there are as it was published back in the day. As for an ellipsis, that's a series of dots that usually indicates an intentional omission of a word, sentence, or whole section from a text without altering its original meaning. Ellipses in printed material usually appears as three dots (...). People use it because they are leaving out a word or words that are seen as superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues when writing. I try not to do that. 

It should he noted that the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1851 organized because of the lawlessness taking place in San Francisco at the time. To legitimize their formation, they published a constitution on June 9th, 1851, which was in effect a mission statement. It advised all that they were there "to do and perform every lawful act for the maintenance of law and order." And, that they "determined that no thief, burglar, incendiary or assassin shall escape punishment, either by the quibbles of the law, the insecurity of prisons, the carelessness or corruption of the police, or a laxity of those who pretend to administer justice."

Two days later, the Committee of Vigilance apprehended and hanged a former-Australian convict by the name of John Jenkins for stealing a safe. A month later, the San Francisco Vigilantes lynched James Stuart who was also a deported criminal from Sydney, Australia.

The vigilantes primary target was the Sydney Ducks. As I've said in other articles on this, during the California Gold Rush, not everyone coming to California came to dig for gold. Yes, there were those who saw miners and others as easy pickings. Criminal types, no matter if they were shifty gamblers, con artists, swindlers, and other lowlifes, saw hard working people as suckers to be fleeced or worse.

Since San Francisco was the primary destination inside the Golden Gate for all coming by sea, that city had a boom in population as no other. But, along with the good came the bad apples. Among those who wanted to prey on others was Samuel Whittaker and Robert McKenzie who had also arrived from Australia. 

Starting in 1788, Australia was a British penal colony that would see over 160,000 prisoners being sent there from England and Ireland over the years. In 1849, with the influx of people coming to California, the Australian authorities saw a way of unloading part of their prison population on San Francisco. Their deported convicts were known as Sydney Ducks. Known for running protection rackets targeting businesses who were made to pay up if they don't want to be fire bombed, it is believed that they were responsible for committing devastating fires starting in 1849. And besides their committing arson, the Sydney Ducks were known killers and thieves.

Mistakenly thinking he was going to save his own neck, Stuart informed on a number of his Sydney Duck cohorts. Of course, he was hanged and never saw Whittaker and McKenzie apprehended on his information. Stuart also never saw the Vigilance Committee rid San Francisco of his cohort pals. 

The Sydney Ducks was the reason for the formation of the first San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1851. At that time, vigilantes conducted unlawful apprehensions of Sydney Ducks, beat confessions out them, held secret trials, deportations, and at least four lynchings while bypassing those in political power. While that's true, it might interest folks to know that they did hold their own investigations of those they apprehended, and in fact held their own secret trials before determining sentences. That's the reason some of the Sydney Ducks were banished by putting them on ships leaving San Francisco while others like Whittaker and McKenzie were hanged.

There is something to be said about Whittaker and McKenzie that can't be said about too many men who were hanged by vigilantes. They were stolen twice. It's true. After being apprehended by the vigilantes and keep at their headquarters, a few days latter the Mayor and County Sheriff John Coffee Hays, along with some deputies, made a surprise raid on the Committee of Vigilance headquarters. They took Whittaker and McKenzie to the county jail. That was on August 20th, 1851.

The first San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1851 had over 700 members. After reconsidering the loss of their prisoners, 36 Vigilance Committee members barged into the jail and overpowered the few deputies on duty. That was August 24th. It's said that when the Sheriff found out what took place, he rode back to town immediately. By the time he returned, Whittaker and McKenzie had been hanged.

A few weeks after the hanging, the first San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1851 disbanded itself. In the end, the vigilantes got what they wanted and effectively wiped out the Sydney Ducks. Because they accomplished what they set out to do, and rid the city of the Sydney Ducks, they saw themselves as not being needed. Besides, it's said that they made there point about being present if things got out of hand again. Sadly, it did and they rose up again in 1856. That next time, they were 6,000 strong. Yes indeed, the largest vigilante force in the history of the United States.  

Tom Correa