The Story of the Exodusters

Because of the recent race riots and civil unrest in American cities, I have readers writing to ask why I have not written about black cowboys. The fact is, I am asked from time to time what brought black Americans to the West? Some folks have asked if they came out West as slaves or as indentured servants? Some have asked if all blacks in the West and Southwest originated from Texas? 

Some of my readers have asked about a Texas myth about slaves in the Southwest being given large ranches to care for. There is a story out there that says slaves arrived in the Southwest as the property of Texas slave owners, and that white Texas ranchers entrusted their slaves with the responsibility of maintaining their ranches, land, and cattle herds. Supposedly, those white Texas slave owners gave their slaves legal rights to manage their ranches while they themselves were away fighting in the Civil War. Did that happen? Frankly, I can't tell you if it did or not simply because I have not found evidence of that happening. 

To me, such an idea opens up a lot of questions. The biggest question that strikes me is what would have happened if the rancher didn't return from the war? Then what? Did the ranch become the property of the slaves managing it? And what about the family of the Texas rancher who didn't make it back? 

Because of the fact that ranch wives did, in fact, manage their family ranches when their husbands went off to fight in the Civil War, I really don't put much credence in such a story that slave owners entrusted their holding to their slaves -- especially when I can't confirm the validity of such a myth. 

Of course, it's nothing new for a reader to write to ask if black Americans came West as Buffalo Soldiers? Some of you have speculated about how some Buffalo Soldiers simply stayed in the West after leaving the Army. Frankly, like many servicemen and women do today by staying where their enlistment ends instead of going home, it was not unusual for Buffalo Soldiers to do the same and stay where they were when their enlistment ended. 

When I get the chance to answer my readers, I really try to share with them whatever information that I've found. As for questions regarding when black Americans came West? Well, my standard answer, as short as it is, may sound almost too simple. But really, it is the honest truth summed up in a sentence or two: 

It was no different for black Americans than it was for immigrants coming to America after fleeing oppressive nations. Most black Americans came West because they fled an oppressive South. All for the same reasons as others who came to America's shores -- freed slaves came West on their own volition and in search of better lives for themselves and their families.

That's my pat answer to the question of how and why black Americans migrated West. That's an awful short answer to a long and horrible story of what took place in the South after the Civil War. And yes, the story or their fleeing the South has to do with the "Exodusters."  

So who were the "Exodusters" you ask? The Exodus of 1879 was the first mass migration of black  Americans from the South after the Civil War. While the South's mass exodus did include poor white Americans, the migrants were mostly former slaves. And while some make it sound as though it was only black Americans who fled because of oppression, that's not true.

Those leaving became known as "Exodusters," a name that took its inspiration from the biblical Exodus when Moses led the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt and into the Promised Land. While most migrated West specifically to settle in Oklahoma, Colorado, and Kansas -- with Kansas being especially attractive to them as a land rich in opportunity -- Exodusters also landed in the Arizona Territory, Texas, New Mexico, and California. 

Since several of you have written to tell me how dissatisfied you are with my writing about the Democratic Party's legacy of racism and hate, you're not going to like the truth about why black Americans and poor white Americans fled the South. It's just a matter of history that the Democratic Party had everything to do with those deciding to go West.

Like it or not, after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Era in the South was not a very good place to be if you were a freed slave. It was a horrible place for white Republicans, but freed slaves who supported the Republican Party had it even worst. The long answer about why they left the South has to do with violence, intimidation, murder, mass killings, politics, disenfranchising black voters, and the Democratic Party seeking to regain the power that they lost as a result of the Civil War. These factors created a horribly dangerous place to live for both black and whites Republicans. 

In the years following the end of the Civil War, an angered Democratic Party created militant groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the White League, and other domestic terrorist groups to act as the Democratic Party's militant arm. Those groups' mission was to terrorize, intimidate, and murder through lynchings and ambush, free-born black Americans, freed slaves, and white Republican administrators in the South during Reconstruction. Besides beating freed slaves and those Republicans in the South assigned to help freed slaves -- mostly through the Freedmen's Bureau. 

The Freedmen's Bureau, formally known as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, was established in 1865 by a Republican Congress. The Freedmen's Bureau was actually established by the Republican Congress two months before Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, effectively ending the Civil War.

The bureau's mission was to help millions of people in need in the South during Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Freedmen's Bureau actually provided several social services such as providing food, housing, and medical aid to former slaves and poor whites. 

The Freedmen's Bureau attempted to re-settle freed slaves and poor whites on land confiscated or abandoned during the war. It also established schools and offered legal assistance to freed slaves and poor whites. I emphasize both freed slaves and poor whites because many are under the impression that it was only an agency that assisted former black slaves. I believe the reason for that misconception has to do with the agency's attempts to locate family members of freed slaves who were separated while they were in bondage. 

Democrats in Congress were in the minority but tried everything they could to stop the bureau from carrying out its programs. Among the things Democrats in Congress did to stop the Freedmen's Bureau was cut the agency's funding and restrict its administrative personnel from being in the South. In the South, along with the politics of race and Reconstruction. 

The bureau was something that President Abraham Lincoln came up with. It was his belief that addressing the problems created by slavery immediately after the Civil War was the best way to ensure a more harmonious future in our country. Sadly, President Lincoln was assassinated by a Democrat anarchist. 

President Lincoln was replaced with his Vice President Andrew Johnson. President Andrew Johnson was a Democrat and former slave owner. He opposed the Freedmen's Bureau when President Lincoln created it. As soon as Johnson assumed the presidency after Lincoln's murder, Johnson and other Democrats worked to dismantle the Freedmen's Bureau. The Freedmen's Bureau was officially ended in 1872.

While that was all going on in Washington D.C., Democrats in the South had other ways of dealing with Republican Reconstruction administrators and freed slaves. Besides using the militant arm of their party to intimidate and commit murder, Democrats used the Klan and other such groups to burn down the homes of anyone they saw as willing to stand up to them. 

As terrorism and murder increased, Democrats also established Jim Crow segregation laws. Jim Crow laws were state laws voted into state constitutions to mandate segregated churches, public schools, public places, and public transportation, including segregated restrooms, restaurants, and later drinking fountains between white and black Americans. 

The laws in the South during Reconstruction ushered in racial violence, riots, and oppression of black Americans. It was a hostile place with conditions worse than that of the Antebellum South because violence was perpetrated on freed slaves who left the plantations. Democrats who were former slave-owners saw blacks still as property, as less than human. Because of the threat of death at the hands of the Democratic Party's militant arm, it's no wonder many blacks, both free-born and freed slaves, sought to escape the South.

What made black Americans flee the South even faster was what became known as the Compromise of 1877. That was the unwritten political deal among U.S Congressmen who settled the disputed 1876 Presidential Election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. 

The Compromise of 1877 involved Democrats who controlled the House of Representatives and the Republican minority. It was the only way that Democrats in control of the House would allow for the Electoral Commission's decision to take effect.

As a result of the Compromise of 1877, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president. But also as a result of the Compromise, the federal government was to end what was known as Reconstruction and pull the last remaining federal troops out of the South. Once the troops were removed, Democrats took control. 

Of course, along with the federal troops being removed, so were the protections for freed slaves and Republicans in state governments and administration posts in the South. As Democrats took over state legislatures, they changed voter registration rules to strip most blacks and poor whites of their ability to vote. 

The Democrat Party sought to have the wealthy plantations regain control as they had before the war. As I said before, poor white Americans were in the same boat as poor black Americans. No, there was no such thing as "White Privilege" -- only "Wealthy Privilege."

In a wave of violence following the removal of the federal troops, the militant arm of the Democratic Party, groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the White League, and the Red Shirts, increased their efforts to intimidate, terrorize, and heap violence upon black voters all to suppress black Republican voting. Black Republicans were hit by violence, discrimination, intimidation, harassment, and the Democratic Party's militant arm burned even more homes -- all to suppress their voting. 

Democrats created those paramilitary groups such as the KKK to ensure Democrats got into office. Their mission was to disenfranchise black voters through violence, intimidation, and murder, including lynchings. And it worked very well. 

If you think the Democrats who sought power and control were quiet about it and did it clandestinely, that was not the case. In fact, Democrat militant groups disrupted Republican meetings, they killed Republican political leaders and state officeholders, intimidated voters at the polls, or kept voters away from the polls altogether. 

In Louisiana alone, there were over a thousand political murders in the late 1860s and 1870s. Most of the victims were freed-slaves. Imagine this, over two hundred freed slaves were killed in the Opelousas Massacre. More than a hundred Republican blacks were killed by the Democratic Party's militia in the Colfax Massacre. 

Known as the "Opelousas Massacre," it was a race riot from September 28 until November 3, 1868, in Opelousas, Louisiana. It started as a riot that turned into widespread attacks on Black Americans in the vicinity. In all, it's believed anywhere from 200 to 250 Blacks were killed. 

As for the Colfax Massacre, which has also been called the Colfax Riot, it was a race riot that took place on Easter Sunday, April 13, 1873, in Colfax, Louisiana. In the wake of the contested 1872 state election for governor of Louisiana and local offices, a group of White Democrats armed with rifles, handguns, and a small cannon, overpowered Republican freedmen and state militia, which included Black troops. 

The state militia had occupied the Grant Parish County Courthouse there in Colfax after the riot broke out. After the White Democrat militia promised to allow all of the 70 or so Republicans, both Black and White, to leave the city. After the Black freedmen and White Republicans surrendered to the mob and taken prisoner, what took place was ghastly. 

Late that night, after being held as prisoners for several hours, those who surrendered were killed by the Democrats who promised them safety. While it is believed that only a handful of White Republicans were killed, it is really unknown how many Black Republicans were killed. The reason for that had to do with the fact that many of the Black Republicans were killed, and their bodies were thrown into the Red River. Some estimates say that from 70 to 160 militia freedmen who were murdered by white Democrats. Black Republicans were being found dead on the river for weeks. 

As for Democrats disenfranchising the vote of both black and white Republicans, Democrats regaining political power passed state laws requiring poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements, and other political schemes to deprive freed blacks and poor whites who were registered as Republicans of the right to vote. It worked, and they effectively disfranchised nearly all blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites. 

Starting in the 1870s, it's believed that hundreds of thousands of blacks and poor whites registered as Republicans were removed from voter registration rolls by way of Democratic Party disenfranchising tactics. As surprising as it might sound, more poor whites registered as Republicans have been disfranchised --mostly because of poll taxes and literacy tests.

By some estimates, many hundreds of thousands of registered Republican blacks and poor whites were deprived of their right to vote.

Of course, those who could not vote -- could not run for office or serve on juries. This meant they were shut out of running for all offices at the local and state, and federal levels. Because of this, there was a one-party voting block in the South for decades. Democrat control was with an iron fist. 

As a result of the Compromise of 1877, the Reconstruction Era died. With it, so did all hope for national enforcement of adherence to the newly created 13th, 14th, and 15th Constitutional Amendments that the Republican Congress passed in the wake of the civil unrest after the Civil War. As the last federal troops left the former-Confederacy, the issues of state rights and race returned. 

Political power, control, state rights, excessive tariffs, and slavery were why Democrats pushed our nation into a Civil War in 1861. And while some say the Union and subsequently the Republicans won the Civil War, by 1877, the former-Confederacy and the Democrats had reaffirmed control over the South -- and a return to "home rule" was the order of the day.

How bad was it for non-political blacks and poor whites in the Democrat-controlled South? The Democratic Party had a grip on the labor force. It was total and reminiscent of slavery. For example, the Democrat-controlled state legislatures passed vagrancy and "anti-enticement" laws to make it illegal to be jobless or leave a job before one's labor contract ended. 

This meant blacks and poor whites were stripped of independence since wealthy plantations controlled them. Yes, this was a new form of slavery that affected both blacks and whites. A new form of slavery that lasted generations.

This Was The South That Led To The Exodus of 1879 

While blacks and poor whites had been fleeing the South ever since the end of the Civil War specifically because of the violence and intimidate by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the White League, and the Red Shirts, which were the Democratic Party's militia, the end of Reconstruction saw the first real mass migration of freed slaves leaving the South. With their exodus, places like Kansas became overwhelmed. In fact, it is said that the reality of life for the Exodusters in Kansas was difficult. Many who attempted to homestead remained poor. Many went to work for others on farms only to find conditions as pitiful as was had in the South. 

It's said that most successful black Exodusters were those who migrated to urban areas, bigger cities and towns, where manufacturing, domestic help, and trade work could be found. Of course, as with any place with an influx of cheaper labor, resentment broke out among many of those already there. And yes, there was resentment from whites who were already there. Mostly, their resentment was over a large influx of new labor arriving as competition in what was already a limited job market. That's not an excuse for their resentment. That was just the reality of the situation -- newcomers are blamed in many cases when jobs become harder to find. That happens even today.

It's said that Kansas, in particular, became a place where many whites resented the presence of blacks fleeing the South. While, in some cases, it was simply a case of not having enough jobs for everyone arriving, in other cases, it was a matter of a drain on social support and local governments that was not being able to provide relief to the new arrivals. Because of local government failing to meet citizens' needs, some Exodusters founded their own black communities, partly by using the Homestead Act of 1862. 

Homesteading was a practice where governments awarded "free" land to settlers. That practice dates back to the early Colonial period, long before the 13 British Colonies declared their independence. As with what Spain did in Florida, Texas, and California, and the French did in Louisiana, the British promoted homestead settlements in the "New World." Most were huge land grants awarded to settle the land through private ownership. Of course, the owner takes risks, including to his life, to keep it. 

After the United States won its independence, our government kept up the practice. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established the Northwest Territory, modern-day Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. That pact prohibited the extension of slavery into that territory. Over the years, land-grant legislation in the United States was tied to the issue of slavery. 

Homesteading was a heated issue because Republicans wanted to open the land to settlement -- to individual farmers who were not slave owners. At the same time, Democrats sought to make the land available only to slaveholders. Because of that, homesteading and the admission of free states and slave states into the Union were tied together.

The Homestead Act of 1862 changed that. It was only after most Democrats left the U.S. Congress to join the Confederacy that the Homestead Act of 1862 was passed. In fact, since it was passed during the Civil War, Democrat slave owner legislators could not stop it from passing. Because of that, Republican President Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act of 1862 into law.

A homestead was a plot of land, typically 160 acres in size, awarded to any U.S. citizen who pledged to settle and farm the land for at least five years. The only requirements were that the applicant must be at least 21 years of age, or be the head of a household, and the applicant must never have "borne arms against the United States Government or given aid and comfort to its enemies." Of course, that last clause meant that ex-Confederate soldiers were ineligible to apply for a homestead after the Civil War.

With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed U.S. citizenship to black Americans, including freed slaves, the Homestead Act applied to freedmen. A Supreme Court decision in 1898 enabled immigrants to be eligible to apply to the federal government for a homestead as well.

From 1862 to 1934, the federal government granted over a million and a half homesteads to private citizens of all colors. Those million and a half homesteads represented approximately ten percent of the entire landmass of the United States. It is still considered one of the largest transfers of land ownership from a government to individual citizens. 

As for the "land rushes," homesteaders rushed in to settle the land on a first-come-first-serve basis. The Homestead Act facilitated the settlement of territories in the West and the Midwest. It turned the Great Desert into America's Breadbasket. And yes, Exodusters who fled the terror of the South benefitted from the Homestead Act of 1862. 

The Homestead Act created small parcels of land out of millions of acres of land -- all specifically meant for settlers. The Homestead Act of 1862 gave free land to Americans willing to improve it. This was absolutely true regardless of race, sex, or nation of origin. 

That meant all American citizens, including black Americans, freed slaves, women, and immigrants, were all eligible to apply to the federal government for a "homestead," a 160-acre plot of land. To keep a "homestead," a "homesteader" had to meet certain requirements for five years. If the "homesteader" met those requirements and lasted the five years, which only a third of the homesteaders ever accomplished, then the land was theirs. 

As for Exodusters who became homesteaders, they were on equal ground with white homesteaders. And whether a black homesteader wanted to start a farm or a cattle ranch, that was his choice. It was certainly not up to someone else. In the West, a freed slave, as with whites and anyone else, realized that the limits to their achievements were only the limits that they put on themself. 

Many of those fleeing the war-torn South, black and white, became cowboys. 

Exodusters made up a large part of the black cowboys in the Old West. It is believed that black Americans made up 25 percent of all cowboys who were in the West in the mid-1860s at the end of the Civil War. Many former slaves already had skills in working and handling cattle. While the cattle drives were new to most all, many freed slaves who headed West at the end of the Civil War worked for the same pay and on completely equal footing as the white, Mexican, and Native American Indian cowboys.

As for the black and white cowboys who worked in the cattle industry specific to the time period between 1879 and 1884? Many white cowboys came West after the Civil War, many fled the South escaping the oppression there. As for the black cowboys, it is believed that most were among the Exodusters who also fled the South during Reconstruction and headed West. 

Did they find what they were looking for? In my opinion, I believe they did.

As for black cowboys, they found freedoms unimagined if that's what they were looking in the West. It's true. They were treated equally to white and Mexican and Native American Indian cowboys in terms of pay, responsibilities, and expectations on the job and off when riding for a brand. All ranch hands worked for equal wages. All lived by the Cowboy Code. Color didn't matter. What mattered was one's character, an ability to pull one's own weight, and a desire to do what was right.  

Black cowboys were offered opportunities that were never offered to them in the South. As cowboys, blacks were offered freedoms the same as were offered all cowboys. They were free to vote for who they pleased. They were free to attend whatever church they desired, discuss whatever they wanted to talk about, go where they wanted, associate with whomever they pleased, to carry guns, to work, to earn,  to build a good life for themselves and their families, and of course free to leave if they had a mind to do so. In the West, they found what was never afforded them. 

Frankly, the West and the cowboy life offered freedoms to black Americans, especially recently freed black Americans fleeing persecution and continued oppression by Democrats in the South. Let's not fool ourselves, the loss of the Civil War made the Democrat Party hungry to regain the power that they had and they fought with everything they had, including creating groups like the KKK, to regain their control of blacks and poor whites. 

As for black Americans heading West, in essence, they found the freedoms which they were deprived in other parts of the country. They also found a cattle industry that offered equal pay and equal opportunity that was really ahead of its time.

Tom Correa

The Life of Thomas Archer

While I've written about people like Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, and Wild Bill, here is a story about an American who I believe is a great deal more impressive than the three men I mentioned. His name is Thomas Archer. And since there's a good chance that you have never heard of him, I'm here to tell you about him. I hope you find him as interesting as I do.  

Thomas Archer was born near Louisville, Kentucky, on July 18, 1833. He was in Kentucky for less than a year when his parents E. B. and Eliza Allen Archer, moved their family to Missouri in 1834. At the age of 17, Thomas Archer moved out of the family home and left for Pittsfield, Illinois, where he lived for about three years before returning to Missouri. In 1857, Thomas arrived in Topeka, Kansas, and found a job in a brickyard. 

During the late 1850s, abolitionist John Brown was operating his part of the "underground railroad" moving escaped slaves to freedom in the North. The town of Topeka was one of the "stations" when the underground railroad was in operation, and Thomas Archer worked with John Brown to make it happen.

Our history as Americans shows that we give the government time to right things, but when they fail or are too slow to act -- Americans take action. This was the case when it came to abolishing slavery. While some folks think the "underground railroad" was started and ran by a relatively small handful of freed Black slaves, that's not true. What became known as the "underground railroad" was, in reality, a network of places run by mostly White Americans and a few escaped slaves who offered shelter and aid to fugitive slaves from the South.

  

While the exact dates of its existence are really unknown, it is believed that it may have been operated from the late 1790s into the Civil War's turbulent days. Quaker Abolitionists were the first to organize groups to actively assist escaped slaves. In fact, by the early 1800s, Quaker abolitionist Isaac T. Hopper set up a network in Philadelphia to help escaped slaves on the run. At the same time that was going on in the North, Quakers in the South, starting in North Carolina, organized abolitionist groups that laid out secret routes and stations for escaped slaves seeking shelter.

Later in 1816, like the Quakers, the African Methodist Episcopal Church organized a group to help fugitive slaves heading North. Also, Vigilance Committees were organized at the time with the mission of protecting fugitive slaves from bounty hunters in the North. Those Vigilante Committees later expanded their mission to include guiding escaped slaves on the run. Robert Purvis, an escaped slave who became a Philadelphia merchant, formed a Vigilance Committee there in 1838 to help other fugitive slaves.

In the South, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 made capturing escaped slaves a fairly lucrative business. This gave rise to bounty hunters who sniffed out the hiding places of escaped slaves. Some of those hiding places were the homes of ordinary people, farmers, business owners, and ministers, known on the underground railroad as "conductors" and "stationmasters." 

Those folks guided the fugitive slaves to the next station in the chain of "stations." While some "stations" were private homes, they also included churches, schoolhouses, stores, warehouses, and other places where sympathetic people could hide them safely. Besides known as "stations" and "depots," those "safe places" were also known as "safe houses." 

Routes stretched west through Ohio to Indiana and Iowa, while other routes led escaped slaves to Pennsylvania and New England. Some led all the way to Canada, where Black people had the freedom to live where they wanted, sit on juries, run for public office, and, most importantly, avoid the American Fugitive Slave Laws as a result of the Fugitive Slave Acts. 

The first Fugitive Slave Act was passed in 1793. It allowed local governments to apprehend and extradite escaped slaves from within the borders of free states. Those escaped slaves were sent back to their point of origin. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 setup punishment for anyone helping the fugitives. While there was an attempt by Northern states to try to over-rule the Fugitive Slave Act with what was called Personal Liberty Laws, the efforts by Northern states were struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 1842.

As for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850? It was designed to strengthen the previous law, which Southern states saw as being inadequately enforced. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 created much harsher penalties for those assisting fugitive slaves. It also made Commissioners that sided with slave owners and led to some freed slaves being recaptured. 

Abolitionist John Brown was a conductor on the underground railroad. During that time, he established the League of Gileadites -- a group of devoted believers who helped fugitive slaves get to Canada. While John Brown was a fervent believer in eliminating slavery and did whatever was called for to help fugitive slaves, he is famously known for leading a raid on Harper’s Ferry in West Virginia. But frankly, Brown and his group did more than that to free slaves.

Thomas Archer became involved in the underground railway and was a companion to John Brown. In fact, Archer was with John Brown at the "Battle of the Spurs" near Holton, Kansas. What became known as the "Battle of the Spurs" is interesting for a few reasons, but mostly in regards to who has the deeper commitment. You'll see what I mean in a moment. 

What became known as the "Battle of the Spurs" took place about 7 miles north of Holton, Kansas, on January 31, 1859. At the "Battle of the Spurs," what took place was a pathetic display of cowardice by pro-slavery authorities there.

John Brown and his men, which included Thomas Archer, were escorting 11 escaped slaves. Some of the fugitive slaves were women and children. He had brought them from the Slave-state of Missouri and was heading to the Free-state of Iowa. At one point, Brown and his group faced a posse of U.S. Marshals and citizens. The Marshal's posse was hoping to cash in on the $3,000 reward offered for Brown's capture. 

Brown's group consisted of about 21, which included the 11 slaves. And among the slaves, more than half were women and children. Marshal John Wood, who led the posse, was hidden in a nearby stream crossing with his 35 deputies. And while this was going on, Freestaters heard about Brown being in trouble and gathered to march from Topeka to support him. 

Brown's group faced that Marshal's posse of reportedly 35 armed men. The pro-slavers were hungry to divide up that $3,000 reward money. Brown’s party was outnumbered two to one. But instead of surrendering, Brown led his party to charge straight toward the Marshal Wood's posse. Brown defiantly ordered his group to ford the creek. Brown and his group all reached Iowa unharmed.

A witness later recalled, "Scarcely had the foremost entered the water when the valiant marshal but mounted his horse and rode off in haste." Another witness said, "The closer we got to the ford, the farther they got from it." In response to Brown's advance, the Marshal's posse panicked and turned and ran for their lives. People hearing about what happened mocked the pro-slavery posse’s retreat, and a newspaperman dubbed what took place as the "Battle of the Spurs." 

During the incident, not a single shot was fired. So why is it called the Battle of the Spurs? It's because "Free-Staters labeled the confrontation the 'Battle of the Spurs,' in mocking reference to the pro-slavery posse fleeing on horseback." The battle received its name because the Marshal Wood's posse and Missouri citizens used their spurs to getaway. There is a historical marker located where it took place near Netawaka, Kansas, in Jackson County.

The inscription on that marker reads as follows: Just before Christmas, 1858, John Brown "liberated" eleven slaves in Missouri. He hid them in a covered wagon and circled north on the underground railway toward Nebraska and freedom. En route, a Negro baby was born. Late in January, they reached Albert Fuller's cabin on Straight creek, a mile and a half south of this marker. Here a Federal posse barred their way. Both sides sent for reinforcements. Help for Brown arrived first, Topeka abolitionists leaving in the midst of Sunday church. Declaring he would not be turned "from the path of the Lord," Brown, though still outnumbered, crossed the creek in spite of high water and the enemy entrenched on the other side. Demoralized by his audacity, the posse mounted and spurred away -- thus giving a name to the bloodless battle. This was Brown's exit from Kansas. In December 1859, he was hanged for his treasonable attack at Harper's Ferry. This sign marks the site of Eureka, a trading center on the Parallel Road which ran from Atchison to the Pike's Peak goldfields.

As for Thomas Archer, he continued being a part of Brown's group but was not there at Harper's Ferry, which took place from October 16th to the 18th, 1859. At Harper’s Ferry, Brown's mission was to capture arms at the Federal Armoury located there, to create an armed force. That force was to make its way into the South and free slaves by force of arms. Brown’s men were defeated, and Brown hanged for treason in 1859.

Archer kept working with the underground railroad after the federal authorities hanged John Brown for his Harper's Ferry Raid. And it wasn't long after the start of the Civil War that Archer joined the Fifth Kansas Volunteer Cavalry. 

Then during the Battle of Pine Bluff on October 25, 1863, Archer received a wound to his the shoulder that would change his life. The Battle of Pine Bluff was a Civil War battle that was fought on October 25, 1863, in Jefferson County, Arkansas. 

It was there near the Jefferson County Courthouse, where the Union garrison under the command of Col. Powell Clayton successfully defended the town against attacks led by Confederate Brig. Gen. John S. Marmaduke. The Union victory ensured the safety of the garrison until the end of the war.

After the capture of Little Rock, Arkansas, Union forces occupied several towns along the Arkansas River. Confederate Brig. Gen. John S. Marmaduke decided to test the Union strength at the town of Pine Bluff. On October 25, 1863, at 8:00 a.m., when Gen. Marmaduke sent his cavalry, a force of 2,000, to attack the town from three sides. Their target was the Union post at Pine Bluff. 

Confederate Brig. Gen. Marmaduke believed the 550 Union cavalrymen and the Missouri militia, supported by 300 freedmen, commanded by Col. Powell Clayton would not stand a chance against such odds. In response to the attack, the Union troops barricaded themselves in the courthouse square. Using cotton-bales and wagons as barricades, and utilizing single cannon in such a position to command the adjacent streets, the smaller unit of Union troops held their position. 

After several attempts to take the square, including trying to set the county courthouse on fire, the Confederate forces withdrew and retreated to Princeton, Arkansas. It's said Gen. Marmaduke never got over the demoralizing defeat that day.

As for Archer, the result of his shoulder wound was the loss of the use of his right arm. But though that was the case, Archer remained in the Union Army until he was discharged on August 11, 1864. It was then that Archer returned to Topeka, Kansas, and became a Shawnee County Sheriff’s Deputy. I found it interesting that he was a County Deputy and a Constable in Topeka at the same time.

On August 3, 1866, The Topeka Tribune reported that a prisoner who was being guarded by Archer had escaped custody. The prisoner was Charles Gillison. And believe it or not, Gillison did not escape from jail but from this room in a boarding house. 

For me, I mark this story as learning something new every day. Why? Well, at the time, if a prisoner could afford it, it is said that a prisoner could rent a room and "hire a deputy" to guard him rather than spend time in jail. And no, I never heard of such a thing. 

As for Charles Gillison, it's said he took complete advantage of that option, rented a room on the second floor of what some describe as a boarding house with the only access down an outside stairway, and then he hired Deputy Thomas Archer to guard him. Imagine that! 

While Gillison was in his room, Thomas Archer positioned himself on a landing outside the rented room. It was while Archer was sitting there when Charles Gillison suddenly came running out the door, pushed past Archer, and then ran down the stairs. Once Gillison made it outside, there was no stopping him. He headed out of town, and no one in Topeka ever saw Charles Gillison again. Despite Thomas Archer's attempt to pursue him, Gillison was gone. 

The Topeka Tribune is said to have poked fun at Archer by reporting, "His guard was in a reclining posture on the stairway – the prisoner is a young, active and strong man and wholly unencumbered, while Mr. Archer was encumbered by a heavy revolver, heavy boots on his feet and a lame arm." 

Thomas Archer married Ruth Hard on September 26, 1867. Then in 1873, Thomas Archer ran for Shawnee County Sheriff but lost the election. He was a Deputy and Constable there for 12 years.  

He left law enforcement after he passed the bar exam and became a lawyer. Soon after that, he became a Jefferson County Judge. He was a Judge for the next 26 years before finally retiring. Even before retiring, he was known to contribute editorials to the local newspaper. 

After living a life that benefited all around him, Thomas Archer died in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 4th, 1913. He is buried in his beloved Topeka, right there at the Topeka Cemetery, Shawnee County, Kansas.

All in all, no one can deny, he had a fascinating life.

Tom Correa

Will We Need Vigilance Committees Soon?

We need to admit that Americans are being blackmailed. ANTIFA and BLM groups are using domestic terrorism as a weapon to blackmail America today. Their threats to burn our cities, loot, intimidate the innocent, assault the helpless, and murder those they please are nothing new regarding our history. We have had problems with such vermin before.

Frankly, I can't help but see many similarities between those groups and other terrorists and criminals in our history. For example, right after the Civil War, the Democratic Party created the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize and blackmail both freed slaves and Republican administrators in the South throughout Reconstruction. And please don't make the mistake of thinking the KKK was some sort of "Vigilante Group." They were not interested in prosecuting criminals. They were criminals. They were nothing less than a criminal domestic terrorist group supported by an American political party.

The KKK carried out their reign of terror as the militant arm of the Democratic Party. The same as ANTIFA and BLM are today.  Like ANTIFA and BLM today, the KKK waged war on anyone supporting the Republican Party, Black, and White.

Among their vicious tactics, the KKK especially targeted Blacks sympathetic to the Union and Republicans. Once learning which Black men and families were Union supporters, the KKK would torch their homes, destroy their farms and businesses, even set their churches afire. Besides burning the homes and destroying freed slaves' farms, the KKK beat and lynched whoever they pleased.

We should understand that the KKK had a mission. They surely wanted something out of it. The fact is, they used violence and intimidation to ensure freed slaves would not vote and remain subservient to former slave owners. The KKK also targeted Republican administrators, in the same way, to rid the South of Republicans since Republicans were there to assist the freed slaves into assimilating into American society.

While black men stood tall despite the threats, they were supported by White men like Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, who was a champion for Civil Rights for Blacks. Grant signed into law equal rights for Blacks and made it possible for Blacks to serve on juries and hold office. He also pushed for the Fifteenth Amendment's ratification, which says states can not disenfranchise Black Americans.

President Grant created the Justice Department just so his Attorney General would be able to prosecute the KKK. And it was Grant's Justice Department that led the fight to diminish the Klan's power by jailing its members on federal charges. It was President Grant who put through the first Anti-KKK federal legislation to stop their terrorist acts.

The Klan, Jim Crow laws, forced segregation were all attempts by the Democratic Party to disenfranchise Black voters and "keep Blacks in line." And for all of the terror groups like the KKK waged on them, Americans should take pride in knowing that their terrorist tactics did not win the day.

In fact, it was Americans of all colors who remained steadfast in the fight against the Klan, the Red Shirts, and the White League. It was Americans who showed the grit and resolve to refuse to bow to their vicious demands. They ultimately won against such terror.

Years before the Civil War and the later formation of the KKK, years before it was known as the "Barbary Coast," San Francisco's waterfront was known as "Sydney Town." The reason it was called "Sydney Town" had to do with the Sydney Ducks. The "Sydney Ducks" was not a political terrorist group like the Democratic Party created Klan. The Ducks were a gang of criminals from Australia.

They arrived in San Francisco because the British penal colonies in Australia thought it a good idea to ship their convicts to California when people worldwide arrived in California during the 1849 Gold Rush. It's said Australia ordered ship Captains to throw convicts overboard if they acted up in any way. And when they were dropped off in California, the convicts quickly took to mugging, murder, and extortion instead of doing the more challenging work of finding a job or digging for gold.

While the Sydney Ducks were not a political terrorist group like the Klan, they had something in common with the Klan -- they used arson to get what they wanted. But unlike the Klan that set fire to homes and businesses to intimidate Blacks on behalf of the Democratic Party, the Sydney Ducks used arson and the threat of fires to criminally extort money from their victims.  

The Ducks were known to extort money from merchants, saloons, and any other business they believed could meet their demands. Of course, they beat the owners, threatened families, and set fire to their business if they refused. Their intimidation worked, and people paid because everyone saw that the Ducks meant business. After all, no one wanted to see their business burned to the ground. It was common knowledge in San Francisco that the Sydney Ducks used arson to get what they wanted. Yes, very much like ANTIFA arsonists today.

People today might not know how much people in the Old West feared fires. It was actually a town's number one concern even before setting up organized law enforcement. As for the Ducks, arson was their weapon of choice for extortion. Arson was what they used to prove they were serious. In fact, the Ducks are believed responsible for the 1849 fire that devastated San Francisco.

They set fires, and no one really knows how many died in those fires as they spread through the city. They did so without thought or care for human life. Sound familiar, it should. Of course, there was a reason that the Ducks were blamed for the fires. That's what they did. Like ANTIFA today, everyone knew arson was their weapon of terror. And just as we know why there is an increase in crime today because of ANTIFA and BLM groups' rampage for more than 3 months, the rampant crime in San Francisco from 1849 to 1851 had to do with the criminal behavior of the Sydney Ducks.

Many arrived chasing the dream of getting rich during the California Gold Rush, yet only to reap failure. Many craftsmen who wanted to shed their trade in favor of going after gold soon found themselves working their trade to keep themselves fed. Indeed, many a ship in San Francisco Bay arrived to lose its crew to the goldfields. Of course, the other part of that story is that many a sailor returned to the sea. Many a seeker of gold and fortune found only despair and disappointment when learning gold wasn't just lying around for the taking.  

It's said the Sydney Ducks were criminals who took up to the criminal ways without finding such despair of the slim picking in the gold camps. It's believed the Ducks saw it easier to get rich through intimidation, violence, murder, and extortion. While some opened businesses to get the gold out of hard-working miners' pockets, the Ducks saw that as unnecessary. Instead, they robbed, killed, and burned down the city for gold.

As for following through on their threats to burn down the city? It is believed they started at least a half-dozen major downtown fires that leveled thousands of buildings between 1849 and 1851. All started by the Sydney Ducks as a way to get their victims to meet their demands.

If that does not sound like what is going on today, here's this. It is said that the Ducks lit a fire, especially picking those days when the wind blew downwind of Sydney Town, then they would loot the warehouses and businesses while others were busy fighting the fires.

The threat was real, and people knew it. They understood the ruthlessness, the fact that the Ducks didn't care who died in the fires. They intimidated business owners and city officials. Both paid the Ducks to ensure that their city wouldn't burn. Their lawlessness reached such a level that robbery, arson, and killings in San Francisco took place daily.

As for the law, they were simply too under-manned to search them out. Part of the problem with apprehending the Ducks is that they were part of a large proportion of foreign-born immigrants who had a history of looking at law enforcement and the authorities as oppressors. Though that was the case, the Sydney Ducks were criminals. Those Australian criminals were the dregs of society.

People came to believe that it would take a large force to deal with the Ducks. Certainly a party more extensive than what the county sheriff had on hand. Though brave and resourceful, the county sheriff was too limited to cure the situation.

But because the citizens had enough of what they saw as weak-kneed responses, political promises, and a corrupt city government either too afraid to take strong measures or seen as being run by incompetent officials, the citizens banded. Of course, some of the city fathers wanted to declare Martial Law and alert the militia to deal with the ongoing threat.

Using members from dozens of independent militia groups in San Francisco county, more than 700 citizens formed the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1851. Among them were sailors, longshoremen, teamsters, wheelwrights, shipwrights, domestic servants, store owners, merchants, bartenders, saloon keepers, former soldiers, laborers of all types, and others. 

The Sydney Ducks were the reason for the formation of the Committee of Vigilance of 1851. After a few years, and the burning of their city more than a half-dozen times, the death and the destruction, San Francisco citizens were fed up with the promises to stop the chaos. The citizens acted and formed their vigilante committee.

While some think of vigilante groups as merely "a mob," that wasn't the case. Working parallel with the local law, the San Francisco Vigilance Committee turned over some of those they caught to the local authorities. Others were not so lucky. For example, there's a story about when a Sydney Duck was caught stealing a safe. It's said a dozen members of the newly formed Committee on Vigilance chased the Duck on foot and then by rowboats as the crook tried to row away.

The criminal was not merely taken to a tree and hanged, as would have happened in many gold camps and California's ranchlands where other Vigilance Committees were not so inclined to work within the law's confines. While most such groups were not unruly mobs but instead were organized and used such things as Miners Courts as the basis for their judicial system, not all Vigilance Groups were the same. One such group in Northern California tried a rustler on their way to a hanging tree. Another is known to have pronounced judgment fifteen minutes after catching a sluice box thief in the act. He was caught, tried, and tarred, and feathered within an hour. 

The Sydney Duck caught stealing the safe in San Francisco was accused and tried in a vigilante court where evidence was provided. He was actually afforded a defense lawyer who was a member of the vigilantes. His trial lasted five hours. He was hanged from the Mexican customs house in front of 1,000 citizens in Portsmouth Square. It's said that after the third hanging of Sydney Ducks, Australia looked like a much safer place for Ducks to apply their criminal ways. With that, Ducks were put on ships and shipped out of town. They left being warned that they would be shot on sight if found anywhere in California.

So how long did the Committee of Vigilance conduct their trials and hangings and conduct forced deportations of Ducks who, in many cases, were beaten before taken a board out-going ships? The citizens of San Francisco formed their Vigilance Committee, decimated the Sydney Ducks, and then disbanded in just 100 days.

Today, the threat of domestic terrorist groups like the KKK and the Sydney Ducks are still with us. There is no difference in what ANTIFA and BLM groups are doing today than what the KKK and the Sydney Ducks did years ago. They riot, loot, assault, murder, and promise to commit arson to get their way. They even threaten America, saying that they will keep it up if they don't get what they want in the November 2020 election. That's domestic terrorism and criminal extortion.

We should all understand that the riots, looting, the murders, and the burning of our cities are simply domestic terrorism to extort something from Americans. Just as those same crimes were used back in the day, it is being used today to achieve political and monetary extortion.

The Political Goal

Today, the Left's political goal is to institute Socialism and, ultimately, Communism. The riots and destruction is being done to eliminate a police presence. The coordinated riots and attacks we are watching take place in the Democratic Party-controlled cities across the country are being enabled because the Left knows that law enforcement is an impediment to getting what they want. The Left believes they can take over the city and state governments. But only if they can first defund and disband law enforcement agencies. Without the law, they feel they will be free to take over. They believe without the police, they can instill fear in the American people.

The rioting is also seen to keep Trump supporters from voting at their polls in November. Yes, no different than Democrats allowing the New Black Panthers to carry clubs outside voting polls to intimidate voters. ANTIFA and BLM believe they can serve the Democratic Party in the exact same way by making the polls appear too dangerous.

Let's Not Forget The Money! 

As for the Left's monetary goals for conducting these riots? This has to do with the money ANTIFA and BLM get out of all of this. To reward those creating chaos, the Left's loyal soldiers, those destroying cities with Democrat city officials' passive approval, are demanding money and property. To repay them, the Left has convinced their foolish followers that there will be trillions of dollars had in reparations for slavery. They are being promised that they will be paid. Their followers have been promised reparations for something no living person in the United States can say they were ever a part of.

And no, they don't want to stop there. The Left worship's Communism and promises that their massive school loans totaling billions of dollars will be absolved if Democrats are put in power. That's quite the incentive to riot after squandering their educations listening to Communist professors promising them they will not have to work or produce, just sit on their ass like good Communists. And there's more, the Left is telling their followers that others will support them, that others will surrender their property, that they will be fed and cared for, all as part of that Socialist / Communist Utopia they are promising.

Sounds Insane?

Yes, this sort of insanity propels the Left's followers to risk arrest and prosecution. But wait, Democrats in charge of those riotous cities are not charging all of the rioters. While some are being arrested and charged, others, including arsonists caught trying to set a building on fire while knowing people were still inside, are simply being released. That's what is taking place in the Democratic Party-controlled cities today. Rioters are not being prosecuted for breaking state laws.

It's an ongoing game of "catch and release" with no consequences for those breaking the law, including assaulting police officers and setting fires. According to my readers in the law enforcement community, that is exactly what is taking place since ANTIFA and BLM are protected by Democrat city officials. 

Imagine how frustrating that must be? I have friends in law enforcement who write to tell me that it's a terribly frustrating situation. I believe the reason most officers don't quit and simply walk away has to do with the fact that they are made of better stuff than those who run their cities.

So let's see if this sounds familiar to you regarding what's taking place today. The people breaking the law are doing so while making demands. They say they will continue unless their demands are met. They have threatened to burn down cities -- if we do not give them what they want. 

Does that sound like criminal blackmail? Let's remember that for months the media has been calling those people "peaceful protesters"? That fact, in itself, should tell us that the news media is not to be trusted.

As for the police? I can understand the frustration felt by the police. In fact, that's part of the frustration my readers are feeling. My readers want to know if it's time for citizens to take action, recall those mayors and governors, and organize to eliminate ANTIFA and the BLM criminals who are causing the problems. My readers want to know if they should organize to protect their families and communities, to ready themselves against what some see as a widening threat. Some want to see Old West justice used on the arsonists, looters, and those who would kill others simply because they can. 

Friends, you've heard me talk about this before. There were four primary reasons why vigilante groups appeared in the Old West. First, it was because the law was non-existent. Before there were organized law agencies in towns in the Old West, the townsfolk provided their own security in the form of "Citizens Watch Groups," also known as "Citizens Committees," which are also known as "Vigilante Committees" or "Vigilante Groups." Second, corrupt law enforcement. Vigilante groups formed when citizens found that lawmen were crooked.

In some cases, a crooked lawman's evidence was had when a lawman failed to arrest lawbreakers with who they were in cahoots. Third, corrupt courts. Failure to prosecute criminals because of a corrupt justice system's associations and biases was one reason citizens organized vigilante groups. And lastly, when citizens became so frustrated out of the belief that the justice system was simply too inept to do what was needed, citizens organized. 

In the last case, the lawmen and the courts were most likely doing their job. But because of procedural technicalities and evidentiary rules, or possibly dismissals for several reasons, including intimidated witnesses who were too scared to show up for the trial, some witnesses actually disappeared before the trial, citizen frustration grew into forming vigilante groups. 

The latter was the situation with Killer Jim Miller, who I've talked about before. He was a known assassin. He was known to use the system. Consequently, because of court technicalities, including witnesses who failed to testify out of fear of retribution from Miller, he kept being acquitted of his crimes. Finally, frustrated citizens had enough of Miller's witness intimidation and acquittals. They stormed the jail, removed him and a few others. Then the citizens hanged them all from the rafters of an old barn.

     

In almost all cases, no matter the actual reason, citizen frustration created vigilante groups. It makes me wonder when Citizens Committees will be formed in the cities experiencing riots, looting, violence, arson, and murder today?

If city mayors and state governors refuse to request federal troops to come in and stop the chaos, as has been done in more places than one can count throughout our history, are we ready to live with the consequences of what may take place? Why should Americans allow powerful politicians to neuter the police and let America drift further into a complete breakdown of law and order simply to serve some Leftist agenda of altering an election in their favor?

Is a second Civil War with Conservative against Liberal in a shooting war what some want? As most know, the riots and the arson that we see have everything to do with defeating Donald Trump in November. So what happens when the Left doesn't get their way in November? Is it a safe bet to say the riots and destruction will spread outside the cities? Is that really what the Left wants?

If the federal government fails to declare an insurrection and send in troops, it may be up to armed citizens to restore order. If such a complete breakdown of law and order is brought about, will we see frustrated citizens having to form Citizens Committees, also known as Vigilance Committees, to stop the carnage and the murder?

While I can only pray that the course of these events change for the better very soon, if citizens form Vigilance Committees to restore law and order -- we should all understand that it would not be the first time such a thing has had to be done.

Frankly, lawbreakers today might find things a lot different when dealing with a Citizens Committee who are not trained to observe due process rules. ANTIFA may find it a different world when dealing with citizens who don't see arsonists and murderers as being entitled to fair treatment through the normal judicial system. Yes, in the same way, Killer Jim Miller must have found his world change when Vigilantes threw a rope over a beam in an old barn and hanged him.

Tom Correa

Blacks Still Selling Blacks Into Slavery

I received a note from someone on social media saying, "All White people, Hispanics, Latino, Asians, all non-Black people should apologize to Black Americans for what their slave ancestors had to go through. Black Lives Matter."

After shaking my head a little at the thought of someone actually apologizing to Black Americans for things that took place more than a century ago, I thought about how there is no excusing the wrongs of history. I also thought about it was our ancient past.

I thought about how only a fool would try to make excuses and apologize for what took place prior to 1863. That really is ancient history for most of us. Thinking about that fact, I believe someone would be a fool to try to apologize for what took place in ancient history.

But also, imagine what sort of an ego one would have to have to apologize for something that happened in the 19th century, or even make apologies for something that happened in the Middle-Ages. Of course, the adverse is also true as well, imagine what sort of a pretentious jerk would ask for an apology from others of different ancestries? 

I believe someone apologizing for things long before their birth is a special sort of nutcase. I find that someone who thinks that they need to apologize for things that happened in the 19th century and before should be considered insane. They are the same sort of people who confess to crimes they did not commit. They are those pathetic individuals who seek notoriety even if it means taking the blame for things that they didn't do -- or had nothing to do with.

As for those who suffer from idiocy and want everyone who is not Black to apologize to Black people today for something that they themselves had nothing to do with, I can't help but wonder what sort of foolishness, what sort of stupidity, would make them think that people should do that and apologize? I understand university students are listening to professors who put all sorts of garbage in their pea brains, but one has to really have an inflated sense of self-worth to expect others to apologize for something that they themselves had nothing to do with. 

Image how large a sense of self-importance one has to have, how conceited and arrogant, how purely egotistical someone would have to be to expect an apology for what others did in the year 1513 when the Spanish imported the first African slaves to the Western Hemisphere? Yes, that was the year 1513 was when the Spanish took a handful of African slaves to Puerto Rico.   

It is lunacy to ask non-Blacks to apologize for something that happened in 1513. I really believe that that would only be outdone by some crackpot who wants to apologize for the Muslim slave trade that took place during the Middle-Ages between 500 and 1500 AD. Yes, the Arab slave trade that took place for hundreds of years before the Atlantic slave trade took place. I'll talk more about that in a minute. 

As for when did the first African slaves arrive in North America? Well, one reader recently wrote to ask me if the year 1619 was the first year that slaves were brought to the United States?

Well, since the United States did not form and declare its independence from England until 1776 and actually became its own country as a result of winning its Revolutionary War in 1783, the year 1619 has nothing to do with the United States.

Some today are passing on bogus information saying that 1619 was the year that the first African slaves came to North America. But that's not true! The first African slaves were brought to North America in 1526 when the Spanish landed a few African slaves with them in Florida.

The second time slaves were brought to North America was in 1565 when Spanish conquistador Don Pedro Menendez de Aviles brought three African slaves with him to St. Augustine, Florida. It's said that St. Augustine became a hub for Spanish slave traders in Florida for years before the British brought African slaves in Virginia in 1619. In fact, St. Augustine, Florida, was the place where the first birth of an African slave took place in 1606. 

If you're wondering about the year 1619 which seems to be a big deal these days, that was the year that the first African slaves were brought to a British colony. The year 1619 is the year when the first slaves were brought to a British colony in North America. To be more accurate, it was the first time African slaves were brought to one of the 13 British colonies in North America. To be exact, Virginia.

In 1619, it is believed that nineteen African slaves arrived in Point Comfort, Virginia, which is near Jamestown. The British privateer responsible for bringing them to the British colony had stolen them from a captured Portuguese slave ship.

No, that Portuguese slave ship was not maned by my Portuguese ancestors. My ancestors back in the old country were fishermen, whalers, farmers, and cowboys. Yes, Portuguese vaqueiro.

This is one reason why I think apologizing for the slave trade in ancient times is lunacy. None of my ancestors bought or sold slaves. None of them transported slaves or had anything to do with slaves of any color or race. None of my relatives were slave traders. My family did not deal with the African slave trade, the same as how they had nothing to do with the Native American Indian and Chinese slave trades. Most likely, your ancestors did not either. But here's one more thing, if they did have something to do with the slave trade, that is on them -- not me in the year 2020.

Now here's the rest of the story about what took place in 1619 in the British colony of Virginia. Those 19 Africans were not treated as slaves. It's true. And here's why. The Portuguese slave buyers baptized their slaves before embarking -- and they did so when they bought them from Black chiefs in Africa. Why did the Portuguese baptize their slaves? So they wouldn't go to Hell if they died at sea or if the ship they were on went down. Strange reasoning, but true. 

And by the way, when is anyone going to start asking for both apologies and reparations from Blacks in Africa who sold their own people, in many cases their own family members such as their own children, into slavery? It is a question that no one seems to want to ask Black Africans? 

And here's another question, since the Blacks in Africa outnumbered the crews of slave ships a thousand to one in most cases, why didn't they resist being rounded up like cattle and sold? They could have easily defeated any attempts at selling them. Was it because their own people were the very ones doing the gathering, and the selling?

As for what happened in 1619 after that Portuguese ship sailed off with 19 Africans that they had just bought from other Africans? Well, that Portuguese ship was raided by a British ship. The Brits boarded the Portuguese ship and stole the slaves from the Portuguese. But, because the British considered those baptized slaves "Christians," those 19 Blacks were subsequently exempt from being made slaves.

About now, you're saying, but I thought you said they were slaves? And they were, that is until the Brits stole them and realized that they were baptized. As a result of being baptized, the 19 Africans were treated as "Indentured Servants" who would have been able to work their way out of bondage. 

Yes, just the same that my ancestors had to work their way out of bondage when they were brought to Hawaii as "Indentured Servants" in the 1870s. But, as they say, that's a story for another day.

As for the 19 Africans who were in Virginia with the status of "Indentured Servants," they were not treated any differently than the Irish, Scott, German, and other "Indentured Servants" that were already there at the time. In fact, those 19 Blacks were part of over a thousand English "Indentured Servants" who were there in the colony.

And here's something else, some of those Africans were freed after they worked out their indentured servant contracts. Some were given land after working out their contracts in the same as that other indentured servants did from their former masters. 

As for mixed-race Spanish and Portuguese with African lineage? One historian called them the "charter generation" in the colonies because there were mixed-race men who were indentured servants, and whose ancestry included African and either Portuguese or Spanish. The fact is, those who were known as "Atlantic Creoles" were descendants of African women and Portuguese or Spanish men who worked in African ports as traders or facilitators in the slave trade.

One such indentured servant was a man who became very famous for all the wrong reasons. His name was Anthony Johnson. He was a Black man who was an African who arrived in Virginia in 1621. He is said to have arrived as a slave but became an indentured servant. Later, he became free and he was a property owner.

Though he was an African, and a Black man, he eventually bought and sold other African slaves for himself. Yes, no different than his relatives did in Africa. In fact, in 1651, he owned 250 acres and had five indentured servants. Four of his indentured servants were white and one was black. What makes Anthony Johnson famous is that he made history by becoming the first legally observed slave owner in the 13 British colonies in North America. 

In 1653, a Black indentured servant by the name of John Casor claimed his indenture status had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. He actually complained about what was taking place to Johnson's neighbor, a white man by the name of Robert Parker. Parker decided to intervene and try to persuade Johnson to free Casor from his indentured status which had expired.

Parker also offered Casor work, and Casor wanted to sign a term of indenture to Parker. Casor knew that conditions for his Irish and German indentured servants were very good compared to the harsh conditions that were commonplace under Johnson. And by the way, I would have bet good money on the idea that conditions for a Black indentured servant would have been better under a Black master -- but I would have lost. Cruel masters come in all sorts of colors.

When Johnson found out about what was happening, he refused to allow Casor to stay with Parker -- and Johnson even sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of his "property" which Anthony Johnson claimed was John Casor. 

The court initially found in favor of Parker, but then Johnson appealed. And in 1655, a British court reversed its ruling finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor. With that, the court ordered that Casor be returned and that Robert Parker be made to pay court costs. 

That court ruling was the first instance where a judicial determination in the 13 British colonies held that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life. While Johnson became famous because he made history by becoming the "first legally declared slave owner" in the British colonies in America, Casor became famous because he was the first person to be declared a "slave" in a civil case. Both men were Black. Both men were Africans. Both were sold by their own people. 

Johnson believed in owning other Blacks as "property," including his indentured servants who people today seem to think weren't on the same par as slaves. If they weren't on the same par as slaves, why did all of the fugitive slave laws apply to indentured servants who left the plantation? As for his winning that case, Black slave owner Anthony Johnson paved the way for plantation owners to refuse to acknowledge the completion of indentured servant contracts -- thus keeping them slaves. 

When the 13 British colonies gathered together to vote for independence from England, they made an agreement that a vote for Independence had to be unanimous. While many today say that our founding fathers sold out and didn't end slavery in 1776, I don't believe they could have. We should keep in mind that many of the 13 colonies had already ended slavery by 1776.

Of course, there were colonies that had not. The colonies in the South depended on slavery and indentured servants for cheap labor. Because of that, there was no way that a vote for Independence would have passed the Continental Congress on a unanimous vote if a clause to end slavery was included in the draft of the Declaration of Independence.

By the American Revolution, the slave trade was outlawed by individual colonies. After the United States became a nation as a result of winning the war with England in 1783, anti-slavery groups grew and soon went about trying to exert political pressure on representatives to end slavery in the newly formed nation we call our United States.

By 1807, President Thomas Jefferson signed a law banning the importation of African slaves into the United States. It went into effect in January of 1808. From that point until slavery was abolished through an executive order in 1863, by way of the Emancipation Proclamation, slaves coming into the United States were smuggled. 

Every American should be aware of the horrid treatment that African slaves endured in the United States for 80 years from 1783 to 1863. But how many Americans are aware that Africans sold their own people into slavery to Muslim slave traders for hundreds of years -- long before those same Africans started selling their own people to White Europeans?

While today BLACK LIVES MATTER wants to air their grievances regarding slavery in the United States in the 19th Century, they are silent and do not confront Muslim slave buyers who are presently buying Black African slaves sold by Black Africans. Yes, today in 2020. 

Known as the "Arab Slave Trade," Muslims were buying Africans from other Africans for centuries before the Europeans started doing the same thing. It's said the Muslim slave trade benefitted Muslim countries for at least ten centuries. Yes, for a thousand years before Christopher Columbus mistakenly found the Bahamas while thinking he reached Asia. 

So with that, I have to wonder why disregard the Muslim culpability that folks like BLACK LIVES MATTER and others don't care about? Why do Muslim slavers get a pass when it comes to paying reparations and issuing apologies? As far as that goes, why do Black Africans get a pass for the same reason since they were involved in selling their own people into slavery for a thousand years before they ever started selling them to Europeans? Is it because it doesn't fit their political agenda for reparation from Americans?

Here's something more, slavery is taking place today in Africa and the Middle East, and groups like BLACK LIVES MATTER and people like Barack Obama and other Black celebrities refuse to acknowledge what's taking place today. They aren't talking about it when they should be fighting modern-day slave traders who are buying and selling other Blacks to Muslims today.

As for reparations, if BLACK LIVES MATTER and other Leftist groups want reparations -- why aren't they seeking reparations from their Black African ancestors who sold them into slavery in the first place? And since the dirty little secret, today is that the Muslim slave trade is still taking place today, besides not seeking reparations from them, why aren't Muslims being taken to task for still buying and selling Black African slaves today?

I read somewhere that murdered Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi once apologized for Arab involvement in the African slave trade. He said that he "regretted the behavior of the Arabs, how they brought African children, made them slaves, then sold them like animals." He apologized as if he himself were there and could have stopped it. Obviously, since he apologized for things that happened in the Middle Ages, and ancient history, I have no idea who he was catering to. 

The fact is, he apologized for the wrongs that were done by others who built their empires. No, not for the short 80 years from 1783 to 1865 that was in fact the case of slavery in our history as a nation known as the United States. But instead, he apologized for the over ten centuries that Muslim nations were buying and selling slaves. He didn't apologize for the slave trade that was still actively taking place at that time. Yes, the Muslim slave trade is still taking place today.   

The Muslim slave trade today is all about money, wealth, and a complete disregard for human life. No different than it was back in the Middle Ages. Those who buy and sell their people have no soul. 

In the Arab slave trade, as with the Muslim slave trade today, the skin color of the sellers and the buyers are mostly Black. Sadly, this only goes to prove that history tells us that skin color in itself does not guarantee that a person cares about human life any more than someone of a different skin color.

Frankly, before someone asked me and others to apologize for what took place over a century ago, they should demand an apology from Blacks who are still selling their own people to the highest bidder.

Tom Correa

The La Paz Incident 1863

In my last post, It's Better To Have A Gun And Not Need It Than To Need A Gun And Not Have It, I talked about Deputy U.S. Marshal George W. Leihy who was also the Indian Agent in La Paz, Arizona, in 1866. In that article, I talked about how Marshal Leihy foolishly went about unarmed in his capacity as a lawman. A few years earlier in 1863, a young Union Army officer learned how unwise a policy that is when it came to his troops being unarmed during their routine day.

While La Paz, Arizona, is today just a ghost town made up of an old graveyard and adobe ruins, it was once a producing gold mining town. When gold was discovered in the Arroyo De La Teneja on the Eastern bank of the Colorado River on January 12, 1862, that gold strike set off the start of what became known as the Colorado River Gold Rush. Though short-lived, the mining town of La Paz grew out of the stampede that followed.

By the spring of that year, 1862, La Paz had a population of over 1,500 and was a stage stop between Fort Whipple,  Arizona, and San Bernardino, California. In 1862, it was part of the New Mexico Territory. In 1863, it became part of the Arizona Territory when the area was officially declared a U.S. territory by then-President Abraham Lincoln.

During those days the town served the miners in the La Paz Mining District. As for hitting pay-dirt, the area is said to have produced about 50,000 troy ounces of gold per year for the years 1863 and 1864. Believe it or not, that ghost town today was the county seat of Yuma County from 1864 to 1870. And here's something else, some sources say tiny La Paz was considered as the site for the Arizona territorial capital. Imagine that. 

It was so prosperous, that what is today a ghost town was once the largest town in the Arizona territory by 1863. Of course, in that same year, by late 1863, things started to change when the gold started to peter out. After that, the town tried to hang on as a port for transportation and shipping serving steamboats on the Colorado River. It was about that time that it became a supply base for the Army for a while.

Sadly, that all pretty much ended when the Colorado River shifted its course west in 1866. Believe it or not, that shift in the river left La Paz landlocked. With that, its use as a shipping port came to a complete halt. By the early 1870s, there were only a few folks hanging on for a while. Some say they hoped for the river to shift again. By 1875, it was abandoned. 

La Paz, Arizona, does have the distinction of being the place of the westernmost confrontation during the Civil War. In fact, it's the location of what became known as the La Paz Incident in 1863. 

What became known as the La Paz Incident took place on May 20, 1863. The story of that incident started in February of 1862 when Confederate troops planted their flag at Mesilla, New Mexico, and claimed the Arizona Territory for themselves. To take back the territory which the Confederates were claiming as theirs, Union Commanders sent the California Column east to reinforce the Union Army and engage the Confederates head-on in what became known as the New Mexico Campaign. 

For a while, Confederate cavalry actually occupied Tucson. That was from late February to early May of 1862. As soon as the California Column showed up, the Confederate forces withdrew soon after the skirmish at Picacho Peak. A year later, La Paz would be an important Union Army supply base used to supply Union garrisons along the Colorado River in Arizona. In 1863, Union General James H. Carleton had several California secessionists, most Copperhead Democrats who were sympathetic to the Confederacy, arrested and detained at Fort Yuma.

On the evening of May 20th, the Colorado River steamer Cocopah arrived at La Paz. It was headed to Fort Mohave. Aboard her was a small party of Union soldiers, under the command of Lt. James A. Hale of the 4th California Infantry. After docking, the unarmed Union troops left the steamer to go to Cohn's Store to purchase needed supplies.

Among the California secessionists was a man by the name of William "Frog" Edwards. Edwards was a Copperhead Democrat who had already been confined in Fort Yuma and released in La Paz. He watched as the Union soldiers approached the store. He was a Southern sympathizer who hated the Union and wanted to do something for their cause. It was then that he made his move and approached the unarmed Union soldiers. Yes, this would be another case when being armed would have either dissuaded their attacker or possibly saved lives. 

Out of seemingly nowhere, William "Frog" Edwards pulled a revolver and opened fire on the unarmed Union troops. First to die, almost instantly was Private Ferdinand Behn. Private Truston Wentworth was shot and would die the following day. Private Thomas Gainor was shot and believed close to death, but he would recover from the attack.

Lt. Hale gathered his man. Once armed, they set out to search La Paz for Edwards. Unable to find Edwards, Lt. Hale returned to board the steamer Cocopah. Lt. Hale and his men returned to Fort Yuma along with their dead and wounded the following day.

Almost immediately upon returning, Lt. Hale was put in command of a fully supplied contingent of forty Union troops which returned to La Paz to hunt for Edwards. The Union soldiers stayed on his trail and tracked Edwards into the desert. It was in the desert that they found him there several days later. He was dead. The cowardly Confederate sympathizer who shot three unarmed Union troops apparently died of exposure and dehydration.

After that, it's said that whether his men were on a work detail, routine duty, or even a night in town, Lt. Hale never allowed his men to go unarmed again. Sadly, the need to be armed in a hostile land was a lesson Deputy U.S. Marshal George W. Leihy would learn the hard way in 1866.

Tom Correa

It's Better To Have A Gun And Not Need It, Than To Need A Gun And Not Have It

With all of the chaos going on in the streets of several of our cities these days, with ANTIFA wanting to plant their Communist flag in any city that they can intimidate, and with Black Lives Matter telling Whites that they are somehow responsible for slavery that happened over 200 years ago, things have gotten a little scary for inner-city travelers. One such traveler is a reader who wrote to ask a simple question, "Is it better to have a gun on me, even if I'm never going to need one?"

My first response when I read her email was a bit of a chuckle. I chuckled at the idea of someone assuming that we will never need something. I'm a good driver, why do I need a seatbelt? My house is not a fire trap waiting to happen, so why do I need a fire extinguisher? My plumbing is fine, why do I need a drain plunger? And you get the idea. The list of what we keep on hand because we may need it overrules our false sense of security when it comes to life in general.

My reader merely asking the question tells me that she's concerned with her safety. According to her letter, she has to commute into a fairly big city that is working to defund its police department while the danger all around grows daily. She feels that she is in a hostile land and the police are outnumbered. Worst, she feels the police chief is being kept from doing his job in the midst of the bad guys taking over the city. The mayor is scared and is bowing to the threats from the bad guys. The townsfolk, they are looking for peace and salvation in the form of help that is being turned away.

Does it sound like an old Hollywood movie? Does it sound like any of a hundred films made back in the 1930s, '40s or '50s, about a town that needs taming? Does it sound like a situation that no one in any city should be facing? Do you get the feeling that she's at her wit's end when looking for answers regarding how to protect herself or her family? Do you get the feeling that she has lost faith in the local police and has essentially given up depending on the local city and state government to provide her with some semblance of safety and security?

It's been my experience that there comes a moment in time when people realize that they are ultimately responsible for their own security. While there are many things that trigger that realization, in some cases, it comes out of an overwhelming sense of fear. In other cases, it comes when realizing that the people you depended on for protection are simply not there anymore.

While I'm not going to go into the reasons, or what started me doing it, I've carried a gun or had one nearby for close to 45 years. It has been a conscious decision of mine to do so for my safety. That's what carrying a gun comes down to. After weighing the reasons for considering it, it comes down to making a conscious decision -- a decision that you made after deliberating about both the pros and the cons.

Why is that so important? It's because carrying a gun for personal protection is a personal preference. And with it, one has to understand the seriousness of using a gun in self-defense. The use of deadly force should be used if one's life or the life of another is in mortal danger. Simply put, carrying a gun is insurance. It is there to keep one alive.

I'm just one of the millions of American gun owners who believe in the real-world wisdom that says, "It's better to have a gun and not need one than to need a gun and not have it." Like millions of other Americans, I've always believed that I would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to providing security for myself and those I love.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we really are responsible for providing our own security. The police, as much as I respect the job they do, simply can't be everywhere at a moment's notice. It's silly to think they can. That's never changed over the years. And because of that fact of life, having a gun may be the determining factor when your life is on the line.

About now, there may be a reader who is about to write me a note to say that many an armed citizen was killed during the Old West. Frankly, they'd be right. Armed citizens were killed for several reasons back in the day. But while that's true, taking precautions such as arming one's self also saved many lives. Guns were used not only while protecting the person armed, but also while protecting their families and homes.

Tom Correa

 

Sam Elliot on the American Cowboy

Sam Elliot as Virgil Earp in the film Tombstone (1993)

In an article in American Cowboy magazine titled Tombstone Rides On, dated January 19, 2015, and updated February 13, 2017, writer Amy Herdy wrote about talking with the cast of the film Tombstone (1993). In her article, some of those who made that great film possible shared their stories about what it took to make it.

She wrote about how actor Sam Elliott said he "regards Tombstone as one of the last great Westerns." She also quoted Sam Elliot views on the American Cowboy. Below is that part of her article, she wrote:

The film seems to capture the culture of "true cowboys," and that likely appeals to the audience as much as it appeals to Elliott.

"I don’t consider myself a cowboy, but I consider myself a cowboy at heart," he says. "And I think it's in the way one conducts themself, what kind of a person you are. I'm used to hard work — I've worked hard all my life. I think that's a big portion of it. I think it's how you treat people, how you treat women, what kind of integrity you want to have, what kind of character one has, my love for livestock of all kinds. 

I feel very fortunate to have grown up where I grew up. I wouldn't have minded growing up years before, a couple of generations earlier, but I think that I had the best of it. I look around at what's going on today and damn, I'm glad I'm not my kid's generation, my daughter's generation. 

It's a pretty sad world out there right now. And it's hard to be optimistic about it. I feel like on some level you don't know who to believe any more. And that's not a good thing, regardless of where you stand politically."

Movies like Tombstone, however, keep the cowboy creed alive.

"[Cowboys] stay close with their family," Elliot continues. "We have a set of values that goes with that code. You know, you get sick of hearing the talking heads talk about the moral decline and the moral decay and all that. You hear all this talk, it's an awful lot of lip service, but there doesn't seem to be an awful lot of people doing anything about it. 

I think those people that wear hats — or don't even wear hats, but those people that understand the cowboy way (or whatever you wanna call it), the code of the West — ranchers, farmers, or any of those people who are close to the land, who work off the land, they get it. They get it. And that's gonna stay alive there. And I think that's gonna stay alive there for a long time. I'd bet on that more than I would anything else in this country. I think those guys are gonna survive all of us. Outlive all of us."

I agree with Mr. Elliot's sentiments on the American Cowboy. Yes indeed, I really like what he had to say. I hope you do as well.

For writer Amy Herdy's full article, click here American Cowboy.com Tombstone Rides On

Tom Correa

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez A Racist Who Hates Whites

Racist Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Following the death of Black American George Floyd, who was killed during his arrest by Minneapolis police officers, Democrat rioters have burned and looted businesses and destroyed parts of cities across America. With political cover by Democratic Party politicians who refuse to condemn their action, those rioters have also vandalized and attempted to remove statues of historical figures across the nation.   

Among those statues which they consider "offensive" are statues of Christopher Columbus, President Ulysses S. Grant, and escaped black slave Frederick Douglass. Frankly, I've found the targets of their hate and disdain for America a little strange. Whether they know it or not, Christopher Columbus never set foot on North American soil and died thinking he found Asia. 

It is a fact of history that Ulysses S. Grant emancipated a slave that was gifted to him before the Civil War. During the Civil War, Union General U.S. Grant was instrumental in defeating the Confederacy, which wanted to keep slavery alive. While president, he fought the Ku Klux Klan created by the Democratic Party -- and President Grant used federal troops to put down attacks on freed black slaves that were being murdered and lynched by Democrats who still saw themselves as slave-owners.

As for Frederick Douglass, after escaping slavery, he joined the Republican Party becoming a national leader of the abolitionist movement to end slavery. Besides Booker T. Washington and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Frederick Douglass is America's most famous Black social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. So no, tearing down a statue of him, as with Columbus and Grant, makes no sense to an educated person.

While talking about an uneducated person who should sue to get whatever funds she spent on her failed college education, on July 31, 2020, it was reported that the uneducated New York Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has singled out a statue of Catholic priest Father Damien in the U.S. Capitol, National Statuary Hall, as an example of the "white supremacist culture."

In her video taken at the U.S. Capitol, she can be heard saying: "Even when we select figures to tell the stories of colonized places, it is the colonizers and settlers whose stories are told – and virtually no one else. Check out Hawaii's statue."

"It's not Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii, the only Queen Regnant of Hawaii, who is immortalized and whose story is told. It is Father Damien. This isn't to litigate each and every individual statue, but to point out the patterns that have emerged among the totality of them in who we are taught to defy in our nation’s Capitol: virtually all men, all white, and mostly both.

"This is what patriarchy and white supremacist culture looks like! It's not radical or crazy to understand the influence white supremacist culture has historically had in our overall culture & how it impacts the present day."

In addition to Father Damien's statue, the Capitol houses Hawaii's other contribution to the National Statuary Hall Collection, a statue of King Kamehameha I, who united the Hawaiian islands as one kingdom by 1810. The two statues were gifted to the National Statuary Hall Collection from the State of Hawaii in April of 1969.

I remember listening to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change ..." 

Frankly, it was then that I realized how much of a pity it is that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says things that she knows nothing about. I found it disappointing that she never learned what Mark Twain said, "It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

As for Father Damien, he was not a "white supremacist," as she said. He was born Jozef de Veuster in Belgium. He arrived in Hawaii in 1864 when the islands were ruled by a monarchy. As a Catholic priest, Father Damien conducted missionary work on the islands. And for the last 16 years of his life, he ministered to a leper colony on the island of Molokai.

While serving the Kingdom of Hawaii on Molokai, Father Damien built six chapels at the colony, heard confessions and comforted the sick and dying every day, and was said to have held Mass daily for all there. Father Damien even built coffins and dug graves until he himself contracted the disease and couldn't anymore. For what he did for others, he became Saint Damien after the Vatican canonized him in October 2009.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't care that her slanderous attack aimed at Father Damien is in reality aimed at a compassionate and selfless man, a spiritual hero and an icon of love in Hawaii, a man of courage, a good man who himself died of leprosy after spending his life serving others who had that disease.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't care that, before becoming Queen, Liliuokalani visited Father Damien on Molokai to present him with honors from the Kingdom of Hawaii. Or that in the state of Hawaii, October 11th is Saint Damien Day because of his selfless humanitarian service to those in need.

It's shameful that such a character assassination of Father Damien, a man who ministered to a Hawaiian leper colony, an exceptional person who we all know dedicated his life to others, who died helping those infected with that horrible disease, is attacked simply because he was "White."

Yes, my friends, as sad as it is to say about a sitting Congresswoman, I believe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aimed her slanderous attack at Father Damien for no other reason other than his being "White." 

It's pathetic that she only sees the color of his skin and not his great works and deeds. And that that's what true racism is all about. Yes, that's what true racists do. True racists ignore the content of one's character and focus on the color of one's skin -- Black or White. She's as true a die-hard racist as I've ever seen. She's no different than other White hating racists that I've seen in my lifetime. 

The pure racist we know as Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has shown us that she doesn't care what we think of her racism against "Whites." She has shown us all that she has absolutely no shame when falsely and maliciously accusing a "White" historical figure, in this case, Father Damien, of being "a white supremacist." 

A good person would feel shame and apologize if they did or said something wrong. From what I can see, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a good person. 

Tom Correa

It Was Hell On Earth: Andersonville Prison

Andersonville Prison

Camp Sumter, which is better known as Andersonville Prison, was established in February of 1864 and served the Confederacy until May of 1865. As a Confederate prisoner-of-war camp, it was used to hold about 45,000 Union prisoners during the final fourteen months of the Civil War. When first opened, it was only about 16.5 acres in size. Less then four month later, it was enlarged by 10 acres. The stockade walls were 15 to 16 feet high. It was 1,620 feet by 779 feet in size. Imagine putting 45,000 men to live in area that small. 

 
As for it's infamous "Dead Line," a small fence known as "the dead line" was erected about 19 to 20 feet inside the stockade wall to keep the prisoners away from the stockade walls. That 19 to 20 foot area was considered a "No-Man's Land." It's said any of the prisoners who simply touched the "dead line" was shot without warning by Confederate sentries in the guard platforms which were called "pigeon roosts."

The prison was commanded by Confederate Army Captain Heinrich Hartmann Wirz. At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, Wirz who was married and 37 years-old, enlisted in the Confederate Army near his Madison Parish, Louisiana, home. He enlisted as a private in Company A, Madison Infantry, 4th Battalion of Louisiana Infantry.

There are a couple of conflicting versions as to how Wirz became a Confederate Army Captain. On version says that he was wounded and cited for bravery, spent three months of rehabilitation at his home, before being promoted to Captain on June 12, 1862. Supposedly, because of his wound, it's said he was assigned to the staff in charge of Confederate prisoner-of-war camps.

Another account says that he was promoted to Captain by Confederate President Jefferson Davis before sending him to Europe as a courier to take dispatches to Confederate Commissioners James Mason in England, and John Slidell in France. Supposedly, Wirz returned from Europe and began working on the staff in charge of Confederate prisoner-of-war camps.

In February of 1864, the Confederate government established Camp Sumter which was intended to hold only 10,000 Union POW in barracks. When Wirz arrived at Camp Sumter, no barracks were being built simply because the Confederacy didn't have the funds to build them. Instead, the prisoners were housed in the open. 

The prisoners gave this place the name "Andersonville", which became the colloquial name for the camp. It soon filled to over 32,000 at its peak. Of course over it's lifespan, it would see about 45,000 Union troops confined there. Severe overcrowding made sanitary conditions completely out of the question. Water was not available, there was a lack of food, and medical treatment and supplies was pretty much non-existent. 

It's said Wirz recognized that the conditions were inadequate and petitioned his superiors to provide more support, but his requests were denied. The Swiss born Confederate officer was 41 years old when he was later tried and executed after the war for war crimes committed at Andersonville prison. In reality, he was executed for conspiracy and murder relating to his command of the camp. 

While Wirz was charged and hanged for what took place there with its overcrowding at four times its capacity, its inadequate water supply, lack of food, and unsanitary conditions, Wirz received little to no support from the Confederate government in terms of food, water, and medical supplies. So yes, the Confederacy itself bears a great deal of responsibility for the death toll at Andersonville. 

And please, don't think it wasn't a hellish place. Among the dead that were left in place for days, the filth and the disease, the only source of drinking water was from a creek which also served as the camp's latrine. It said that it was filled with fecal matter from thousands of sick and dying men. 

Of the causes of death at Andersonville, there were many, including:

• Abscess - Swollen, inflamed area in body tissues with localized collection of pus.
• Anasarca - Abnormal accumulation of fluid in tissues and cavities of the body, resulting in swelling. Also known as dropsy.
• Ascites - Accumulation of fluid in the abdominal cavity.
• Asphyxia - Loss of consciousness due to suffocation; inadequate oxygen, and too much carbon dioxide.
• Catarrh - Inflammation of mucus membranes of nose and throat causing increased flow of mucus. (Common cold).
• Constipation - Condition in which feces are hard and elimination is infrequent and difficult.
• Diarrhea - Frequent, loose bowel movements. Symptoms of other diseases.
• Diphtheria - Acute, highly contagious disease. Characterized by abdominal pain and intense diarrhea.
• Dysentery - Various intestinal inflammations characterized by abdominal pain and intense diarrhea.
• Enteritis - Inflammation of intestines.
• Erysipelas - Acute infectious disease of skin or mucus membranes. Characterized by local inflammation and fever.
• Gastritis - Inflammation of stomach.
• Hemorrhoids - Painful swelling of vein in region of the anus, often with bleeding.
• Hepatitis - Inflammation of liver, often accompanied by fever and jaundice.
• Hydrocele - Accumulation of fluid in the scrotum.
• Icterus - Characterized by yellowish skin, eyes, and urine. Also known as jaundice.
• Laryngitis - Inflammation of the larynx.
• Nephritis - Acute or chronic disease of kidneys, characterized by inflammation and degeneration.
• Pleurisy - Inflammation of membranes covering lungs and lining of chest cavity. Characterized by difficult and painful breathing. Also known as pleuritis.
• Rubeola - Measles.
• Scurvy - Disease resulting from deficiency of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), which is found in fresh fruits and vegetables. Characterized by weakness, spongy gums, and bleeding from mucus membranes. Also known as scorbutus.
• Smallpox - Acute, highly contagious disease. Characterized by prolonged fever, vomiting, and pustular skin eruptions.
• Tonsillitis - Inflammation of tonsils.
• Typhoid - Acute infections disease, characterized by fever and diarrhea.
• Ulcus - Ulcer.

Of the approximately 45,000 Union prisoners held there over a period of 14 months during the war, nearly 13,000 died. That's 13,000 deaths in just 14 months. The majority died of scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery. And during its worst months, over 100 men died each day.

As for lack of food, by 1864, the entire Confederacy was in dire straits when it came to food and supplies. Some might not realize it, but because of the Union blockade of sea-ports, Union attacks on the South's food producers, and their attacks of the South's supply-lines, the Confederacy was starving by 1864.

So while there was a lack of food for the prisoners, it was not that much better by then for the Confederate personnel guarding them or the Confederate Army as a whole. And think about this, how would anyone justify taking prisoners more rations when the general population of most Southern cities which were shelled into ruins were actually starving. For example, just a year earlier during the Siege of Vicksburg -- it's said the people there were eating rats to get by.

As for attempted escapes, Confederates after the war testified that 351 prisoners escaped through tunnels. The Union Army knew of less than 40 that made their way back to Union lines. It there were 351 POW who made it out, no one really knows if they returned home without notifying the Union Army, or if they simply died. Most believe they simply died. 

Remember, these men were weak from starvation and escape was fairly impossible because of their poor health. If a prisoners was caught trying to escape, the small rations they were already getting was cut, they were put working in chain gangs, or simply shot and killed. And believe it or not, the prisoners played dead as a way to escape. 

Because the dead amounted to around a hundred per day, some of the dead were not moved for days. Of those moved, the guards found that some of the prisoners would pretend to be dead to be carried out to the row of dead bodies outside of the walls. It's believed that as soon as night fell the men would get up and try to get away. Because of their poor health, those who tried it usually didn't make it. It's said when Captain Wirz found out about the prisoners playing dead, he ordered all of the dead to be examined by surgeons before any of the bodies were taken out of the camp. This backed up the dead in the camp, which of course created more disease. 

As for the clothing of the dead, because their clothing was often falling to pieces, clothing was often taken from the dead. John McElroy, a POW who survived Andersonville, later wrote, "Before one was fairly cold, his clothes would be appropriated and divided. And I have seen many sharp fights between contesting claimants."

Uncooked food was eaten because very little wood was given to the prisoners for warmth or cooking. This, along with the lack of utensils, made it almost impossible for the prisoners to cook the meager food rations they received, which consisted of poorly milled cornflour. Because of that, during the summer of 1864, Union prisoners suffered greatly from hunger, exposure and disease. Within seven months, buried in mass graves were those who died. 

All in all, survival for a prisoner in Andersonville really depended on who one knew. It's said a prisoner with friends inside Andersonville was more likely to survive than a loner. Prisoners with friends could get some food even if it were meager, clothing even if it were off the dead, have shelter in the way of sharing a tent, moral support, traded for their needs, and of course had protection against other prisoners who would kill to stay alive.

That bring us to a group of POWs who called themselves the "Andersonville Raiders". Those were prisoners who attacked their fellow inmates to steal food, clothing, shoes, and anything else of value. They resorted to primitive alliances and used primitive weapons such as clubs to kill to get what they wanted. 

To combat the Andersonville Raiders was a group that called themselves "Regulators". It's said they caught all of the Raiders, and tried them in a make-shift court run by a Regulators' judge in front of a jury selected from the prisoners. That jury, upon finding the Raiders guilty, set punishment that included being beaten, being stoned or flogged, running the gauntlet, spending time in the stocks, being sent to the guards to be outfitted with a ball and chain. And yes, it's recorded that in at least a half a dozen cases, Andersonville Raiders were hanged.

Union soldier John Ransom was a POW who survived Andersonville. Ransom was a typesetter at a newspaper before the war. While at Andersonville, he kept a diary. Ransom wrote in his diary on June 26, 1864: 

"They die now like sheep, fully a hundred each day. New prisoners come inside in squads of hundreds, and in a few weeks are all dead. The change is too great and sudden for them." 

Union Army Sergeant Major Robert H. Kellogg of the 16th Regiment Connecticut Volunteers, wrote about his time as a POW starting in May 2, 1864. He wrote:

As we entered the place, a spectacle met our eyes that almost froze our blood with horror, and made our hearts fail within us. Before us were forms that had once been active and erect;—stalwart men, now nothing but mere walking skeletons, covered with filth and vermin. Many of our men, in the heat and intensity of their feeling, exclaimed with earnestness. "Can this be hell?" "God protect us!" and all thought that he alone could bring them out alive from so terrible a place. 

In the center of the whole was a swamp, occupying about three or four acres of the narrowed limits, and a part of this marshy place had been used by the prisoners as a sink, and excrement covered the ground, the scent arising from which was suffocating. The ground allotted to our ninety was near the edge of this plague-spot, and how we were to live through the warm summer weather in the midst of such fearful surroundings, was more than we cared to think of just then.

Andersonville was liberated in May of 1865. Over the next months, news of the hellish conditions at Andersonville would come forward. As news of the death camp reached the newspapers, Northerners were outraged at the South. 

Famed American poet Walt Whitman summed up the feelings of all after hearing of the miserable conditions and high death rate in the camp. He wrote, "There are deeds, crimes that may be forgiven, but this is not among them."

Today, the Andersonville National Historic Site, located near Andersonville, Georgia, preserves the former Confederate prisoner-of-war camp. The National Prisoner of War Museum opened in 1998 as a memorial to all American prisoners-of-war. The cemetery there is the final resting place for the Union prisoners who died while being held at Andersonville as POWs. It's said to contain 13,714 graves. Of those, 921 are marked "unknown".

The prisoners' burial ground has been made a National Cemetery. And while I as a Veteran would never think of being interned there, because it is a National Cemetery, it's also used as a burial place for more recent veterans and their dependents. Imagine that.

Tom Correa