An American Civil War Battle In France?

A hilltop behind our little town of Glencoe, California, is named Alabama Hill. It was named after a Confederate warship the CSS Alabama by a group of gold miners who were Southern sympathizer during the Civil War. I was looking into the reason why a hilltop near my home is named after the CSS Alabama when I discovered that she had an interesting history. Yes, including being part of an American Civil War battle in France of all places.

Believe it or not, her last battle did in fact take in what I believe was a very unlikely place during the Civil War. The Battle of Cherbourg, as it became known as, took place off of Cherbourg, France, in 1864.

Now if you didn't know that there was an American Civil War sea-battle between the North and South that took place in France, well that makes two of us. Frankly, I had no clue until lately that Union and Confederate Navy vessels engaged each other outside of American waters.

Knowing that those miners here in Glencoe named a hill after the Alabama, let's look at the fascinating CSS Alabama first. Of course, the question becomes why was she there in France in the first place?

The CSS Alabama was a sloop-of-war that was built for the Confederate States Navy in 1862, She was built in England. Her sole purpose was as a "commerce raider". Her job was to attack Union navy and merchant ships. A quirk of history is that she was a Confederate navy warship that never ever docked at an American port, North or South, during her lifespan.

Fact is, the CSS Alabama was built in what was thought to be complete secrecy in England. Her construction was arranged by Confederate agents who worked through a Confederate cotton broker in England. That cotton broker was Fraser, Trenholm & Co who was in fact the Confederacy's overseas bankers. Fraser, Trenholm & Co supported slavery in the American South even though slavery was already outlawed in England. Fraser, Trenholm & Co supported the Confederacy by arranging the sale of cotton for the South, and by arranging the financing and construction of a Confederate fleet of blockade runners and commerce raiders in England. 

Loopholes being what they are when it comes to laws, English laws had loopholes no different than any other nation. Ehen it came to England's neutrality laws, their laws stated that a ship could be designed and built as an armed vessel as long as it didn't carry any armament guns until after it sailed into International waters. So basically, the CSS Alabama was designed and built with Navy regulations of reinforced decks for cannons, magazines storage, gun ports, and other specifications for a warship as long as she did not have guns. 

She was initially named the "Enrica" in May of 1862. Then, as stealthy as possible to avoid detection by a Union vessel the USS Tuscarora which was dispatched to find that new Confederate warship, she is said to have slipped out of England in early July. She had a civilian Captain and crew when she sailed to Terceira Island in the Portuguese Azores. 

Capt. Raphael Semmes and Lt. John Kell 

aboard CSS Alabama 1863

Once in the Azores, she was met by Confederate Navy Captain Raphael Semmes in August. Captain Semmes is interesting to me in that prior to jumping ship from the U.S. Navy and joining the Confederate Navy during the Civil War, he actually served in the United States Navy from 1826 to 1861. That's a 35 year Navy career before joining the Confederates. Also, he's the only Naval officer that I've ever heard of who was supposedly promoted to Confederate Navy Rear Admiral and then later was supposedly promoted to Brigadier General in the Confederate Army.  

Of course, records show that while he only preformed the duties of a Brigadier General in the Confederate Army for about four days, his actual promotion to that rank was never approved of by the Confederate Senate. Fact is, his appointment to that position was never approved because he only held that rank for only a few days before General Robert E. Lee surrendered and the war ended. As for his insistence that he was a Brigadier General, some say that he insisted on being referred to as a Brigadier General so that he wouldn't be hanged for piracy on the high seas after the war.

At Terceira Island in the Azores, the "Erica" was outfitted as a Naval cruiser of the time. She was equipped with six British-made 32-pounder broadside cannons. Forward of the main mast was a 7-inch pivot cannon, and aft was an 8-inch pivot cannon. Those cannons were positions so that they would be able rotate fire port or starboard. She was armed and fast. Fact is, she could make up to ten knots under sail alone. She could do 13.25 knots when using both her sails and steam powered screw which was powered by a 300 horsepower horizontal steam engine.

On July 29th, 1862, the Confederate Navy commissioned her the Confederate States Steamer (CSS) Alabama. She was considered a cruiser that the South designated a "commerce raider." The CSS Alabama's motto was "Aide-toi et Dieu t'aidera." In French, that's translated to "God helps those who help themselves." Her motto is said to have been engraved in a bronze plate on her great double ship's wheel.

The Alabama's crew boarded nearly 450 vessels. They captured, burned, and scuttled 65 Union ships which were mostly merchant vessels. She took more than 2,000 prisoners which she turned over to neutral ships or offloaded on neutral ports. Those figures make the CSS Alabama the most successful "commerce raider" in Maritime History. 

Fact is, as strange as it might sound, the CSS Alabama conducted seven expeditionary raids in areas of the globe that I would have never imagined a Confederate ship having gone to the areas that it did.

For example, the CSS Alabama's Eastern Atlantic Expeditionary Raid from the end of August to September of 1862 took place right after being commissioned. That was when she set sail for the shipping lanes Southwest and then East of the Azores. She is known to have burned and scuttled ten Northern whaling ships to prevent whale oil from being used in the North.
  

The CSS Alabama's New England Expeditionary Raid was from October into November of that same year. Captain Semmes pointed his ship to the Northeastern seaboard of New England. The Alabama worked that area venturing as far south as Bermuda. Off of Virginia, the Alabama's crew set fire to ten Northern merchant ships.

The CSS Alabama's Gulf of Mexico Expeditionary Raid which was from the middle of November of 1862 to the end of January of 1863. During that time, she supported the Confederate state of Texas against a Union expeditionary force. That action is also known as the Battle of Galveston when Confederate Major General John B. Magruder expelled occupying Union troops from Galveston. The Alabama is know to have sank the Union side-wheeler USS Hatteras.

The CSS Alabama's South Atlantic Expeditionary Raid took place from February to July of 1863. That was when the Union Navy started to hunt down the Alabama in earnest. The reason was that she burned and scuttled 29 Union merchant ships while raiding off the coast of Brazil. Yes, Brazil.

The CSS Alabama's South African Expeditionary Raid lasted from August to September of that same year. She patrolled off the coast of South Africa while working with the CSS Tuscaloosa to stop Union shipping.

The CSS Alabama's Indian Ocean Expeditionary Raid was from September to November. She made a 4,500 mile journey across the Indian Ocean, all while evading the Union gunboat USS Wyoming. During that time, the Alabama sunk three Union merchant ships near the Sunda Strait and the Java Sea.

The CSS Alabama's South Pacific Expeditionary Raid in December of 1863 was her final raiding expedition. During that time, it's said she sunk a few Union merchant vessels in the Strait of Malacca before finally heading to Confederate friendly France for a refit and repairs.

Those seven expeditionary raids took 657 days. During that time, the Alabama was at sea for 534 days of those 657. As stated before, she never visited a Confederate port. Yet even though that's the case, it seems as though she traveled all over the world. 

As for the Union's response to "commerce raiders" such as the CSS Alabama, they were not completely asleep at the wheel when it came to trying to stop them. In fact, before the "Erica" ever left England heading for the Portuguese Azores for armament, the Union's USS Tuscarora was in Southampton, England, with the mission of intercepting the Alabama. Sadly for the Union, the Tuscarora wasn't successful at stopping her at the time.

Capt. Winslow & officers aboard the USS Kearsarge 

So now after almost two years of sinking Union merchant ships pretty much all over the globe, the CSS Alabama returned to European waters for a refit, repairs, replenishment. Of course, it's a safe bet to say that the crew wanted time ashore as well. She put into the port at Cherbourg, France, on June 11th, 1864.

The Union's sloop-of-war the USS Kearsarge arrived on June 14th to meet her, and sink her. She was a Mohican-class United States sloop-of-war named after New Hampshire's Mount Kearsarge. She was built and commissioned at the Portsmouth Navy Yard in Kittery, Maine, on January 24th, 1862. She could do a top speed of 11 knots under sail and steam, and was armed with two 11 inch cannons, four 32 pounderss, and one 30-pounder. Her mission was to search out Confederate commerce raiders and blockade runners, and sink them. 

The USS Kearsarge was actually a bit smaller and almost 3 knots slower than the CSS Alabama. She also had one less gun than the Alabama, and they were small than which the Alabama was armed with.

While smaller, slower, and having less guns, she had one advantage over the Alabama. It was a secret that the Alabama's Captain did not know about. The Kearsarge was built to take hits while hunting Confederate commerce raiders. What that means is that it had a concealed iron chain armor cladding over its wooden hull. That armor was disguised, concealed, with wood. It's true, it was concealed behind 1 inch boards painted black to match the upper part of the ship's hull color. This cladding was positioned along Kearsarge's port and starboard mid-section down to her waterline. This was to protect her engines, boilers, and coal storage. 

I found it interesting that the Portuguese in the Azores did work on both Union and Confederate ships during our Civil War. For example, the same port that outfitted the CSS Alabama with British armament in July of 1862 had also installed the armor cladding on the USS Kearsarge's hull when she was in port in the Azores earlier that same year.

The USS Kearsarge left Portsmouth Navy Yard on February 5th, 1862, and immediate headed for the coast of Spain. After a brief three day stop in the Azores, the three says that it took to put on her armor, she steamed to Gibraltar to join the gunboat USS Chippewa in the blockade of the CSS Sumter which was also a Confederate commerce raider.

In early 1862, the CSS Sumter was making repairs in Cadiz, Spain, which was neutral during our Civil War. The Sumter was then forced to British Gibraltar. During the Union Navy's blockade which kept her there, she was unable to get the repairs and after almost a year of being guarded by a number of different Union warships, she was abandoned. 

Yes, as strange as it sounds, the Captain and crew of the CSS Sumter ended up just abandoning her in December of 1862. The CSS Sumter's Captain was none other than Confederate Captain Raphael Semmes. After he left the Sumter, he and his crew were reassigned to the Alabama which was in the Azores.  

From the neutral port at Cadiz, Spain, from November of 1862 to mid-March of 1863, the USS Kearsarge searched for the Alabama. The Kearsarge is said to have searched for the Alabama all along the coast of Europe and down the North African coast. The break for the Kearsarge came when a Union agent in France sent word of the whereabouts of the Alabama.

The USS Kearsarge arrived at the mouth of the horbor in Cherbourg, France, to find the CSS Alabama on June 14th, 1864. It was there that the Kearsarge took up a position at the harbor's entrance. It was there that she waited for the Alabama to come out and fight.

This must have felt like a second chance for Confederate Captain Semmes in command of the Alabama. He was face to face with one of the ships that got the better of his last ship the Sumter. Maybe that's why the CSS Alabama's Captain Raphael Semmes reportedly sent a challenge to the USS Kearsarge's Captain John Winslow for a ship-to-ship duel on the open sea. Imagine that. 

Mindful of French neutrality, Union Captain Winslow took the Kearsarge out away and clear of French waters. No one questioned whether or not Captain Winslow would answer Captain Semmes challenge. The challenge suited Captain Winslow just fine as he led the Alabama out to sea almost seven miles from the Cherbourg harbor in France.

On June 19th, 1864, two American warships, one Union and the other Confederate, fought an American Civil War battle in France of all places. After four long days of refitting his vessel, drilling his men and preparing for battle with the Kearsarge, the CSS Alabama steamed out of Cherbourg harbor. The Alabama was escorted by the French Navy ironclad Couronne and a British yacht the Deerhound. Some reports say that two other French Navy warships escorted the Alabama out to sea and remained close to the battle to make sure that the fighting stayed out of French waters.

It is said that the Kearsarge steamed further out to sea as the Alabama approached. Some say Captain Winslow wanted to make sure that the Captain of the Alabama couldn't make a run for the French harbor if fate fell out of favor for the Confederate ship. Some say Captain Winslow simply wanted fighting room.

Either way, at 10:50 a.m., on the morning of June 19th, 1864, at a distance of about a mile, Captain Winslow spun the USS Kearsarge around and head straight for the CSS Alabama. When Captain Semmes saw the Kearsarge turn, and expose her starboard side, the Alabama opened fire. She was the first to open fire, and she continued to fire as the Kearsarge got closer.

As soon as the ships closed to about a half-mile of each other, it was then that the Kearsarge turned again and opened fire. And it was then, that the ship's reportedly engaged at a circular course of engagement, both firing mainly from their starboard side cannons. Witnesses stated that the ships neared to within 600 yards of each other.

Going in opposite directions, and then turning about to counter the other, the deadly dance at sea took place with cannon and smoke and death. During the battle, the armored hull of the Kearsarge was hit twice. The first shell hit was to the starboard side. It was one of the Alabama's 32-pounders. That hit would have sank any normal hulled ship, but all it did was cut part of the chain armor and dent the hull planking underneath. The second hit from one of the Alabama's 32-pounders actually exploded. That shell broke a link of the chain cladding and tore away some of the 1 inch boards covering the armor. One of Alabama's massive 100-pound shells hit the Kearsarge's sternpost but failed to explode. A piece of that post with the shell still lodged in it survives as a museum piece today.

Fact is, though the CSS Alabama hit the USS Kearsarge a number of times, the shells caused relatively little damage. As for the CSS Alabama, she was not fairing well at all as whole parts of her were being exposed. Soon Captain Semmes twice turned his vessel and tried to run back to Cherbourg harbor just as Captain Winslow suspected he would. Captain Winslow stopped each attempt by using the Kearsarge to cut him off.

It's true. The Alabama's sides were torn open by Union shells. And close to noon, as the action continued, the CSS Alabama headed for shore in an attempt to get back into French waters and safety now a few miles away.

Soon water flooded the Alabama's engines and they stopped. That was when Captain Semmes struck his colors. With that, both ship's cannons went silent. Captain Winslow is said to have stopped the Kearsarge uncertain as to whether or not the Alabama had actually surrendered or if it's battle flag had simply been shot away.

There is a story that a white flag was seen, and with that Captain Winslow called for a cease fire. The story goes on to say that the Alabama renewed her firing when the Kearsarge ceased firing. With that, Captain Winslow opened fired again with a vicious barrage. This went on even though the white flag was still flying.

All firing stopped again when Captain Semmes sent one of his longboats to the Kearsarge with a message of surrender. In his message, he also requested assistance in rescuing his crew. After that, for the next 15 to 20 minutes while the Alabama slowly sank, her crew tried getting safely away from the Alabama as she slipped beneath the sea. The Battle of Cherbourg ended when the CSS Alabama loss power and began to sink. Several of its crew were killed, and many were wounded. Among the wounded was Captain Semmes himself.

The Alabama's survivors were rescued by the Kearsarge and by the British yacht the Deerhound. The British yacht Deerhound went along side of the Kearsarge to ask Captain Winslow if they could assist in rescuing the Alabama's officers and crew. The Alabama was sinking fast. The Deerhound is said to have picked up between 39 and 42 crew members, which included Captain Semmes and 11 to 14 of his officers.

After the Deerhound picked up those survivors, she turned and sailed off back to Southampton, England. By going to England which was an ally of the Confederacy during the Civil War, they avoided capture and prison. Of course those Confederate sailors who made it to the Kearsarge were lucky to be alive, but they did become prisoners of war.

There is a story that Captain Winslow's officers aboard the Kearsarge watched in anger as the Deerhound left the area and headed back to England with the Confederates aboard. It's said that the officer begged him to fire upon the Deerhound for taking escaping prisoners, but Captain Winlow refused to do that.

The Battle of Cherbourg lasted by some accounts an hour and twenty minutes. The CSS Alabama sank out of sight. It is belived that about 40 of her crew were killed, and 70 became prisoners of war. The 39 to 42 Confederate sailors aboard the Deerhound escaped to England. As for the USS Kearsarge, she walked away from that battle the victor with one crewman killed and two others wounded.

I find it interesting that the wounded Captain Semmes is said to have thrown his sword into the sea just to deprive the Kearsarge's Captain Winslow of being handed his sword upon surrender. I also find it interesting that the Alabama out shot the Kearsarge almost 2 to 1 with little to show for it.

Believe it or not, as hard as it is for me to believe the figures, only 28 shells actually hit the Kearsarge. That's 28 rounds out of what is believed to have been at least 370 that the Alabama fired during the battle. In contrast, the Kearsarge only fired 173 projectiles with most of her rounds hitting the Alabama with effect.

Some say poor gunnery skills on the part of the Confederate gunners turned the battle against the Alabama. Some say it was the quality of the Alabama's powder, fuses, and shells. They say that the Alabama's powder and shells were in a deteriorated condition during that fight. But frankly, I really don't know how anyone would know that? Besides, the Alabama's gunners fired at least 370 rounds so that show that the powder couldn't have been bad. The problem the Alabama had was it's failure to hit its target.

And while some would insist that the Kearsarge go lucky that day, for me looking at what took place, I really believe that Union victory goes to a combination of factors. First, the armored hull of the Kearsarge was a huge advantage. Second, the Union gunners who were simply good at their job.

And lastly, the difference between the ships was a factor. They were designed with specific missions in mind. Very different missions. The CSS Alabama was designed to sink poorly or completely unarmed merchant ships. While the CSS Alabama did have bigger guns than the USS Kearsarge, the Kearsarge was designed with an armored hull to do battle with other ships of war.  I believe that gave the Union Navy an advantage that day. The day an American Civil War battle was fought in France.

Tom Correa

Mass Shootings Have Long History

As we all know, on Sunday, October 1st, concert-goers in Las Vegas, Nevada, came under attack by a ruthless killer intent on slaughtering as many innocent people as possible.  The killer opened fire from a 32nd floor hotel room at the Mandalay Bay Resort in Casino. His target was a crowd of 22,000 concert-goers 400 yards below attending the Route 91 Harvest festival, a country music festival. 

His rampage lasted a little over 15 minutes. Sunday's mass shooting left 59 people dead and 527 injured or wounded. It panicked concert-goers who tried to take cover while being completely unaware at first of where the gunfire was coming from. No one suspected a room on the 32nd floor of a nearby hotel where the killer could just rain down fire.

The Las Vegas Police SWAT broke into the killer's room and found Stephen Paddock dead by suicide. This horrific tragedy is now considered the deadliest mass shootings in modern American history. 

As for motive, the big question as to why Paddock did it? No one knows. And frankly, I don't think anyone ever will. No, it's not like the Orlando, Florida, mass shooting where we know that it was a Muslim terrorist attack targeting gays. 

In Orlando, Florida, on June 12th, 2016, 49 people were killed and 58 were wounded. Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen walked into the Pulse nightclub as the club was hosting a "Latin Night." before he was killed by Orlando police.  The Pulse is a gay nightclub in Orlando, and many of the victims were Latino.

During the shooting, Omar Mateen called the Orlando Police to swear allegiance to the ISIS. It is the  deadliest act of Muslim terror in the United States since September 11th, 2001.

On April 16th, 2007, Virginia Tech University, South Korean-born Seung-Hui Cho, a senior at the school, killed more than 30 students and 2 instructors. In two separate attacks about two hours apart, he killed 32 people, and wounded 17 more before committing suicide.

The 2007 mass shooting on Virginia Tech University's campus remains the deadliest school shooting in United States history. Yes, considered worse because of the numbers of innocent people killed than what took on December 14th, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School where 26 people were killed and 2 were wounded.

Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, saw killer Adam Lanza enter the secured school and killed 26 people inside the school. Twenty students between the ages of 6 and 7, and six teachers were killed in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Minutes before he went to the school, the 20-year-old Adam Lanza murdered his mother at their home using her rifle. Adam Lanza committed suicide when the police arrived at the school.

In Killeen, Texas, on October 16th, 1991, George Hennard drove his pickup truck through the glass front window of a Luby's restaurant. He then began shooting patrons and staff inside.  All toll, 23 people were killed and 27 people were wounded before he finally shot himself dead. 

On July 18th, 1984, James Huberty shot 40 people at a McDonald's restaurant in the San Ysidro district of San Diego, California. Among those that the 41 year old Huberty murdered was an 8 month old little boy and a 9 year old girl. Among those he wounded was a 4 month old baby girl.

Before he went out to commit mass murder, according to the New York Daily News, he told his wife, "I'm going hunting. Hunting for humans." His shooting spree was ended when Huberty was shot and killed by a San Diego SWAT Team sniper positioned on a nearby roof. He killed 21 adults and children while wounding 19 others. 

Back on August 1st, 1966, the University of Texas-Austin, saw a sniper on the observation deck of the University of Texas's main building, known as the Tower, shot dozens of people. 

In that mass shooting, local police actually got assistance from Texas students who used their own hunting rifles to try to pick off the shooter. All toll 15 died and 31 others were wounded. But what many do not realize is this, those students who used their rifles to put pressure on that sniper in the Tower actually minimized the number of people killed that day. 

The shooting lasted a little more than 90 minutes. It ended when police officers were finally able to storm the Tower and shoot the killer dead.

On December 2nd, 2015, another mass shooting that was a Muslim terrorist attack took place when married couple Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire on unsuspecting folks inside the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. 

Besides shooting everyone they could inside the building, the couple also planted three homemade pipe bombs in the building. Happily, they failed to detonate. All toll, they killed 14 innocent people while wounding another 22 wounded before the couple fled the scene and were killed by police. 

On August 20th, 1986, a part-time mail carrier by the name of Patrick Sherrill shot 20 fellow postal workers at the US Post Office in Edmond, Oklahoma. The attack ended when Sherrill fatally shot himself in the head. This was the first of a number of shooting involving postal workers between 1986 and 1999. This killing of 14 people and wounding 6 others, inspired the expression "going postal."

Another mass shooting that was a Muslim terrorist attack took place at Ford Hood, an U.S. Army base near Killeen, Texas. That Muslim terrorist attack on November 5th, 2009, left 13 people dead and 30 wounded.

It all took place with Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist became a Muslim terrorist, and decided to wage "jihad" on his fellow American soldiers. It is the deadliest mass shooting to take place on a U.S. military base. As for Nidal Hasan, he was sentenced to death in 2013 and remains in prison to this day.

Five years later, in 2014, Fort Hood was the site of another shooting spree which left three people dead and 14 wounded.

Below is an article that you may find interesting. I did. 

Mass Shootings Have Long History

By Rossella Lorenzi 

Senior Correspondent — Discovery News

December 20th, 2012

He came along with a shotgun on his shoulder while a group of children were playing in front of the school. Without warning or provocation, he raised the gun to his shoulder, took deliberate aim, and fired into the crowd of boys.

Although it sounds sadly modern, the account was published in the New York Times more than a century ago.

Dated April 10, 1891, the article described an elderly man firing a shotgun at children playing in front of St. Mary's Parochial School in Newburgh, NY.

"None of the children were killed, but several were well filled with lead," the report said.

More than a century earlier, on July 26, 1764, a teacher and 10 students were shot dead by four Lenape American Indians in Greencastle, Pennsylvania, in what is considered the earliest known U.S. mass school shooting.

Indeed, killing or trying to kill a mass of people is not a modern phenomenon. For as long as there has been history, there have been gruesome mass murders.

"The terms amok, a Malayan word, and berserk, a Norse word, have been used to describe individuals going on killing sprees. Both terms have been around for centuries, which reflects the fact that mass murder is neither a modern nor a uniquely American phenomenon," Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, told Discovery News.

Defined as bloody events that occur within a 24-hour period and that involve a minimum of four victims, mass murders have occurred all over the world, in different times, societies and cultures.

Some of the earliest recorded cases include the 1893 killing with guns and swords of 11 people (including an infant) in Osaka, Japan, the 1914 shooting of 7 people in the Italian village of Camerata Cornello, not to mention the case of German spree killer Ernst August Wagner.

In 1913, he stabbed to death his wife and four children in Degerloch, near Stuttgart, then drove to Mühlhausen an der Enz where he opened fire on 20 people, killing at least nine, leaving two animals dead and several buildings burned to the ground.

In 1927, South African farmer Stephanus Swart shot dead at least 8 people and injured 3 others in Charlestown, South Africa, before committing suicide.

In 1938 almost half of the population of the rural village of Kaio, near Tsuyama city in Japan, was murdered as 21-year-old Mutsuo Toi killed 30 people with a shotgun, sword and axe, injured three others and then shot himself to death.

Between 1954 and 1957, William Unek murdered a total of 57 people in two separate spree killings in the Belgian Congo.

He first killed 21 people with an axe, then shot dead ten men, eight women and eight children, slaughtered six more men with the axe, burned two women and a child, and strangled a 15-year-old girl.

More recently in the bloody timeline of shooting sprees, some of the most dramatic incidents include the 1987 Hungerford massacre in England, where gun enthusiast Michael Ryan shot 16 people dead and wounded another 15 before committing suicide, the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia, where 28 year old Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 21 before being caught by police, and the 1996 school shooting in the Scottish town of Dunblane.

There, failed shopkeeper Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school, killing 16 children and a teacher before turning his gun on his mouth.

"I could have been one of those children," tennis player Andy Murray wrote in his autobiography, "Hitting Back."

Britain's highest ranked player, Murray was eight when Hamilton burst into the school and began shooting. He and his 10-year-old brother Jamie escaped the fire by hiding under a desk.

In the United States, two mass murder waves characterized the 20th century. One appeared in the 1920s and 30s and another in the mid-1960s, following a tranquil period in the 1940s and 50s.

The two waves, however, were qualitatively different, according to Duwe.

The author of "Mass Murder in the United States: A History," Duwe researched 909 cases of mass killing that occurred in the United States between 1900 and 1999.

"The first mass murder wave in the 1920s and 30s was comprised mainly of familicides and felony-related massacres, which, then as now, are less likely to garner extensive media coverage," Duwe said.

On the contrary, the second mass murder wave from the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s consisted of a greater number of mass public shootings, similar to the recent Aurora movie theater shooting and Newtown school shooting.

These incidents "have always captured a great deal of interest and concern," Duwe said.

Marked by the 1966 Texas Tower shootings where student Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus shooting dead 14 people and wounding 31 others, the mid-1960s do not actually represent the beginning of an unprecedented mass murder wave in the United States.

"Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S.," Duwe said.

According to the criminologists, the 1990s had the highest number of mass public shootings with a little more than 40 -- an average of a little more than 4 each year. The number of mass public shootings dropped below 30 in the years between 2000 and 2009.

"This year, however, the U.S. has had at least seven mass public shootings, which is the highest number since 1999," Duwe said.

-- end of article.

Rossella Lorenzi is the archaeology correspondent for Discovery News. She lives in Florence, Italy, and she says she divides her time among an 18th-century Florentine house, virtual archaeological digs, and travels to report on new historical discoveries. She writes for Discovery News, Fox News, CBS News, Yahoo, Scientific American, HuffPost, Mashable, LiveScience, and Archaeology Magazine.

Her article points to the fact that mass shootings happen all over the world. The perpetrators are of every race and color. Contrary to what some on the Left are now saying after the Las Vegas Massacre, these acts are not committed only by White men. Mass shootings are not just an American problem, contrary to what some in the Media are now saying.

As for what made Paddock do it? This tragedy has no rhyme or reason to it. And frankly, people can guess and wonder and speculate until the cows come home, but I don't think we'll ever really understand what drove him to do it. We will never really understand the premeditation, the deliberate act of planning such an attack, and the big question as to why people like Paddock do what they do when it's pure evil. 

Just as no one knows why some folks are so consumed with hate for President Trump, Republicans, and Conservatives, that such a person will shoot up a baseball game between Congressmen, I believe that no one will ever truly understand how someone is so consumed with evil that they would want to rain gunfire on innocent country music concert-goers. And while some in the mainstream media are trying to say that mass shootings only take place in the United States, please don't believe that. That's just a lie.

Tom Correa

The NFL Is A Disgrace

As we all have found out last year, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick hates America. He proved that to everyone when he refused to stand and give proper respect to our flag and our nation during the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner"when he was being paid millions of dollars to play football. 

He said his kneeling during our National Anthem was his way bringing attention to what he called social injustice toward Black Americans. Specifically, his protest was in line with the Black Lives Matter propaganda that says America's law enforcement purposely mistreats Blacks because of their race. 

Of course he never mentioned weather those trying to kill a police officer were shot and killed BECAUSE they were trying to kill a police officer. Then again maybe he was too stupid or simply too ignorant to understand the reality of the world we live in. Maybe he is either too dumb or too naive to understand the basics of our civilization. Maybe he it to out of touch with reality because of his being pampered in life. Maybe he is to out of touch because he made millions of dollars while playing a game. Maybe he is incapable of understanding that when one breaks the law, there are consequences no matter what height, weight, sex, color, or race you are. 

This year, a great number of NFL players have picked up where Kaepernick left off. This year, it is believed that 1 in 8 NFL players disrespectfully kneels instead of stands respectfully when America's National Anthem has been played in stadiums across our country.

And yes, as I see it, those who are kneeling are proving to the world that they are truly classless ingrates, nothing but a bunch of spoiled millionaires who would probably have nothing if it weren't for the opportunities that our great nation as afforded them.

They are probably too dumb to understand that they have reached the pinnacle of their sport here in America and would never been able to do such a thing in any other nation but America. Yes, if for any other reason the simple fact that we are the only nation that plays football. They were given the opportunity to strive to be the best and become professionals at what they do. They were given that chance here, yet they don't have the smallest bit of class to stand during our National Anthem as say "Thanks." Yes, ingrates. Nothing but ingrates.

During a speech at a rally in Alabama on September 22nd, President Trump called for NFL owners to fire their players if they engaged in such disrespectful conduct. Challenging the NFL owners, he told the crowd at the rally, "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!'"

Frankly, when I heard President Trump say that, I felt he was talking to me. I would love to see one of the NFL owners say, "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. He's fired" when they see a player disrespecting our flag,

Yes, a large number of polls show that the vast majority of Americans believe the NFL player protest as being done by a bunch of ingrates, believe that the players as nothing but a bunch of pampered millionaires, beleive that they are only doing this because they are a bunch of no class wealthy ungrateful jocks who are catered to by the NFL. And yes, a vast majority of Americans believe like I do in that President Trump was speaking for all of us when he said "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now" if an owner sees one of his players disrespecting our flag. 

Predictably, in the days that followed that rally, President Trump was hammered by the Liberal Media for using such language even thought they themselves have used worse language to describe how they view President Trump on any given day. And yes, this is the same Liberal Media who raved about how wonderful it was when Barack Obama invited the hate group Black Lives Matter to the White House even after knowing that they had committed racist hate crimes by beating and killing White and Hispanic Americans.

There is no difference between the NFL and ANTIFA because they both HATE America.  

I believe that those NFL players who are kneeling are no different than ANTIFA, and other hate groups such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter which are sponsored by the Democrat Party. And yes, the Liberal Media is really no different than those ingrates that are kneeling during our National Anthem. Their common denominator is their hate for America. 

What amazes me is how the NFL thinks that they are representing America and that OK with Americans? They don't represent America in the exact same way that ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, and the Democrat Party doesn't represent America today. And no, it's not OK with Americans. Liberals sure, but not real Americans.

If the NFL players want to do something constructive, then maybe, just maybe, they'd have the cojones to take on the real issues plaguing Black Americans? Yes, not take a knee during our National Anthem to protest cops, but show that they have what it takes to speak to the real issues such as Black on Black crime which is an epidemic today. 

Talk about how more Black Americans are slaughtered by other Blacks than the cops, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, anyone else that one can name. Talk about how 16% of the American population which is made of Blacks is responsible for 54% of all homicides in America. Talk about how Blacks murder Blacks to such an extent that Blacks are responsible for 97% of all Black homicides. 

If anything, why don't these self-righteous NFL players use their wealth to speak to the Black Community as a whole about the problems that plague them?

Why no talk to their fellow Blacks about the soaring abortion rate of Black Americans, the out of this world incarceration rate of Blacks, the out of sight crime rate among Black teens, the increasing number of Black dead-beat dads? Why not talk about Blacks who use race as a way to benefit their bank accounts while stirring divisiveness and contempt? 

Why aren't these disgraceful NFL players addressing the need for the police, or how to better cooperate with the police? Why not figure out ways of working with the police instead of protesting the police? Why not take a hard look at what fighting the police has gotten them?

As a result of 8 years of Barack Obama trying to divide America by race, Americans are more divided by race than we have been in the last 40 years. As for what effect the Black Community's open hatred of the police has had on their lives, the police are patrolling Black neighborhoods less than ever. Subsequently, crime in the Black Community is higher today than it's been in 10 years.

Why are the police patrolling Black neighborhoods less? For one thing, police have very little support in the Black Community. The Black Community has demonized the police to such an extent that the police rightfully fear lawsuits, ruined careers, terminations, being placed in no win situations, and even facing the possibility of being arrested for not conforming to political correctness which rules most big American cities because of Democrat mayors. 

Of course many departments face the problem of having their enforcement methods questioned by Liberal city administrators and the Black Community in general. And the irony of all of this is that the police are in a no win situation as never before. City administrations and the Black Community screams when the police are doing their jobs and when the police withdraw and play it safe. 

Yes, I know a few police officers who have written saying that using deadly force to safe their own lives can be the end of their career and their families financial security. One officer wrote to say, he now carries insurances to protect himself from his own department, his city administrators, the Black Community's legion of lawyers, the Federal and State governments. He said that most officers are feeling hampered and can't do their job to such an extent that they have decided patrol other sections of their cities and let the Black Community police themselves. Yes, that sounds like a no win situation. 

So are ingrate NFL players trying to help out and maybe make a bad situation better? No. Instead the NFL is now inspiring Black teens and small children to do the same as they do. Around the country there are a number of school football programs that have been cancelled simply because there are coaches who approve of children want to emulate the disgraceful actions of their NFL heroes. 

While the NFL is teaching a whole new generation to disrespect American traditions, our National Anthem, and our flag, the NFL and its disrespectful players are not completely getting away with this scott free. They are now realizing that actions have consequences. 

For example, DirectTV announced that it would break its own rules and allow outraged fans to cancel their sports package, and get a full refund. Along with this, sponsors are withdrawing their ads, viewer ship is down, and ticket sales are down drastically. Because fans see the NFL as condoning disrespect for our flag, fans are declaring war on the NFL by hitting them right in the wallet.

The Washington Examiner has just reported that NFL ticket sales have plummeted nearly 20 percent since the start of this season. And it's not only game day ticket sales that are down as some teams are reporting that season ticket holders are not renewing. The low ticket sales combined with the fact that NFL merchandise sales are at an all time low, this proves that the American people are angry that multimillionaires are nothing but spoiled classless ingrates.

Yes, most Americans agree with President Trump that their actions should not be tolerated and they should be fired. But since it appears NFL owners support what their players are doing, fans realize that their only action is to boycott the NFL.

If the NFL thinks that we the American people will just sit by and do nothing while a bunch of spoiled rotten millionaire players through a tantrum and spit on our flag, they have another thing coming. While they think we need them, and that we everyday Americans are the all racist because we refuse to support their disrespectful conduct, they and the Left-leaning groups who are supporting them are drastically under-estimating the effect that a boycott will have.

Somehow or another, maybe it's simply because of their huge egos, the NFL believed that they can insult America, our flag, our Anthem, our Troops who are fighting right now overseas, our Veterans, our citizens as a whole. Well, we're now proving them wrong.

Tom Correa

Henry Reed Farley - Death Of A Lawman 1899

Here's a story about the needless killing of a County Sheriff in 1899. His murder sent local vigilantes on a frantic search to lynch his killer. 

According to the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, Henry Reed Farley was born in Salinas, California, in March of 1870. He was Michael and Rodalee Farley’s fourth of six children.

Henry's father was a lawyer originally from Massachusetts. His mother was originally from Alabama. Henry grew up and lived in Salinas. He attended school there, and while not yet 24 years of age, Henry was appointed Postmaster of the small town of Gonzales, California. That was on January 11th, 1894.
Gonzales is a town in Monterey County about 17 miles Southeast of Salinas. At the age of 26, Henry was said to be a journalist for a local newspaper in Gonzales.

On January 1st, 1899, at age 29, he became the Sheriff of Monterey County. He may have been the youngest man to ever be elected County Sheriff in the State of California up to that time.

He had only been with the Sheriff’s Department for 9 months when he was shot and killed while attempting to arrest a suspect. He was 29 years old when he was killed. Newspapers stated "never before has this county seen such a large funeral." All stores, saloons, and schools were shut down from 9 am to 12 pm, and all flags were flown at half-staff. At the time of his death, Sheriff Farley was survived by his mother Mrs. Rodalee Farley.

Among other newspapers such as the San Francisco Call, Monterey County Sheriff Farley's death was in the Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 98, Number 29, September 19th, 1899. It ran the following story.

TRAGEDY AT SALINAS.

H. R. FARLEY, SHERIFF OF MONTEREY COUNTY,

Shot and Killed by a Man Whom He Attempted to Arrest — Talk of Lynching the Murderer.

SALINAS, Sept. 18. H. R. Farley, Sheriff of Monterey County, was shot and killed at 11 o'clock to-night by George Ceasar, whom he was trying to arrest for arson.

Ceasar, who is a German, aged 22 years, had been drinking heavily, and threatened to shoot four officers and burn up the town. About 10 o'clock an alarm was turned in, and it was found that a barn was on fire. Soon afterward fire was discovered in an adjoining cottage, and it was at once suspected that Ceasar was carrying out his threat.

Sheriff Farley, accompanied by former District Attorney Zabal, went in search of Ceasar, who had run home and armed himself with a double-barreled gun. As Farley entered the house Ceasar advanced a few feet, fired, and shot the officer through the head. Farley died in a few minutes.

While Zabal was administering to his dying comrade the murderer escaped. The entire country was soon aroused, however, and posses went out from near and far to search for the assassin. An hour after the shooting he was discovered hiding in a cellar.

The mob frantically proclaimed its intention to lynch him, and a posse of Deputy Sheriffs and Constables had a most difficult time in protecting the prisoner. While argument ran high one of the Constables, unobserved, managed to smuggle Ceasar into a buggy and drove off at a gallop to the County Jail before the mob realized the ruse. 

Sheriff Farley was perhaps the most popular man in Monterey County. He was 29 years of age, and last November was elected Sheriff by a large majority over John Matthews, who had filled the Sheriff's office for twelve years. 

Prior to his election Farley had been a newspaper man, his last journalistic venture having been the editorship of the Gonzales "Tribune." 

His murderer was as much despised in Salinas as the Sheriff was beloved. He has been considered a worthless character. He has no occupation. 

TALK OF LYNCHING THE MURDERER. SALINAS 

Sept. 19—1 a. m. — The revengeful men of Salinas declare that they will hang Ceasar to-night, provided he does not die from the loss of blood. He was shot in the stomach by Constable Allen, and when captured in the cellar was weak from loss of blood. It is also believed he shot himself, but inflicted only a flesh wound. 

No one in Salinas now knows whether Ceasar is dead or alive, because he was driven off by a Deputy Sheriff to protect him from the certain vengeance of the mob.

It now transpires that Ceasar was never in the jail, although many for a time believed him to be there. The officers, knowing that they could not protect their prisoner, drove him toward the hills, and it is generally believed the murderer was taken to Hollister, as it is said he would have been safe nowhere in Monterey County.

Meanwhile the crowd has never left the jail. They are all armed with ropes as well as pistols and shotguns, and they say the murderer of the youngest Sheriff in the State will be summarily punished.

The town, and in fact the entire county, is aroused as it never was before. The men who are trying to lynch Ceasar are not the disorderly element, but comprise some of the most important citizens of the county. They are firm in their resolve to promptly avenge the death of Sheriff Farley, and say they will remain at the jail all night. 

Detachments of citizens mounted and in buggies are scouring; the foothills, and they say if they find the murderer in charge of his guardians the latter will be forced to give up j their prisoner to swift punishment. At 2 a. m. excitement in Salinas has in no wise abated, and many still hope to avenge Farley by lynching his murderer.

Frederick Ceasar, a brother of George, came into town about 1:30 a. m., proclaiming that he was the "brother of the man who killed Farley." Had he not been hustled away he would certainly have suffered violence at the hands of the infuriated citizens.

-- end of Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 98, Number 29, September 19th, 1899 article. 

Besides a few different newspapers of the times to compare stories of his death, and since the standard line of "he was shot and killed while attempting to arrest a suspect" really doesn't sit well with me, I dug deeper to find out how Sheriff Farley died.

On the night of September 18th, 1899, George Ceasar tried to ditch the pursuing officers and eventually made it to his father's house on Pajaro Street. Sheriff Farley and Deputy Keef arrived on the scene close behind him.

As soon as they arrived, the Sheriff came face to face with Ceasar in an alley behind his father's house. George Ceasar was indeed armed with a shotgun. And yes, reports state that Sheriff Farley made a number of attempts to defuse the situation and talk Ceasar into surrendering.

Sheriff Farley was heard to have said, "George, George, be quiet, keep cool."

To which Ceasar reportedly replied, "Stand back or I'll shoot you."

Sheriff Farley's last words were "No you won't George, you know me."

Ceasar fired both barrels and killed the young Sheriff.

A newspaper stated, "The Spirit of Henry Reed Farley winged it's flight to the Great Beyond".

Monterey County Sheriff Henry Reed Farley's life was cut short on September 18th, 1899. He had only been County Sheriff for 9 months when he was senselessly murdered by George Ceasar.

Newspapers like the Sacramento Daily Union and the San Francisco Call reported that the Sheriff had been murdered. Citizens in the town of Gonzales were angry and wanted to lynch Ceasar. A few newspapers reported how, among other things taking place, gun shop owners opened their doors and  passed out rifles and pistols and shotguns to local vigilantes that were out beating the bushes looking for Ceasar. Hardware store owners are said to have passed out lanterns and ropes so that he could be lynched.

George Ceasar was arrested by Salinas City Marshal William Nesbitt and Deputy Keef. Nesbit himself later became County Sheriff. Deputy Keef was the officer who took Ceasar to the jail in San Jose to avoid the vigilantes that had surrounded the county jail in Monterey.

Ceasar was hanged at San Quentin Prison on July 15th, 1904. It's said that the people of Monterey County celebrated when they got the word that George Ceasar had finally been hanged. Yes, they loved Sheriff Farley that much.

Tom Correa

Wisconsin Native Americans Ate Their Enemies?

Dear Friends,

I'm sure it's obvious that I love history. More specifically I love American History. I love reading about cowboys, cattle drives, and settlers coming West. I love researching outlaws and lawmen, gold strikes, silver strikes, cattle towns, boom towns, wagon trains, and learning more about ships making the journey around the horn. I love reading about the Civil War, slavery, and I love researching Indentured Servants since my grandfather was just that. I love researching Native American tribes, especially about the way they lived pre-European contact .

I love visiting historic sites. I love visiting Civil War battlefields, ghost towns, old towns, and hardly there towns. I love whaling ships, clipper ships, and old steamboats. I love old graveyards, old gravestones out in some pasture in the middle of nowhere or in some forgotten cemetery, inscriptions about loved ones long forgotten, and I love the places that only locals know about.

I loved seeing the wagon ruts of the Oregon Trail that are still visible near a rest stop in Idaho.I loved walking on the boardwalks of Virginia City, Nevada, and touching the Red Dog Saloon doors in Juneau, Alaska. I love knowing that I'm visiting the same places where others lived and worked back when America was young and not so full of stifling rules.

Yes indeed, I love stopping at places where I've only read about, and places that I didn't know existed. I love confirming stories about the history of the Old West, but also about other eras in our history. And yes, I love being shocked by what I didn't know. Or more honestly, being surprised at what I should have been taught in school but wasn't. I love learning how truly full of shit Hollywood truly is, and wonder why can't they get it right since the real story is right there in front of them?

Yes, I'm the guy that loves reading road markers. I'm that guy who sees a sign that says to this or that point of interest and takes it. In fact, I was going through some of my old notes from my travels and found something that may interest you.

It has to do with a historic site that I found just outside of Madison, Wisconsin, if I remember right. That place is the Aztalan State Park. It is about 172 acres and is the site of an ancient Native American Indian village. An ancient village that existed before Europeans ever stepped foot on the North American continent.   

Back in 1836, an American settler came across a number of earthen mounds on the west bank of the Crawfish River. The mounds are part of what was the actual village. The village is said to have had anywhere from 500 to a thousand or more Native Americans of the Mississippian culture there. The village is believe to have flourished from around the year 900 AD to about 1300 when they just disappeared. 

Yes, their disappearance is just one of a number of mysteries related to that site. As for the people who vanished before any contact with Europeans, no one knows why they vanished suddenly. While one mystery has to do with the question as to why it's original inhabitants suddenly disappeared, another has to do with the stockade walls that they built to keep out other tribes? Was it breached somehow by enemy Native American tribes? Was it finally breached and were they slaughtered?

Of course if that were the case, then why hasn't the bones of the original inhabitants been found there?

Another mystery is why build the mounds? We do know that the people who lived there built those earthen mounds, which resemble the work of the Aztecs -- hence the name given to that area. Over time, since no one was interested in maintaining the mounds or the remnants of the stockade walls that surrounded the area, sadly it was plowed over for farming. In the process of being plowed over, a number of the mounds were actually leveled. Today, two of the three large ceremonial mounds are still intact. 

It is said that the first really formal archaeological excavation of Aztalan was in 1919. That excavation established the actual perimeter of the stockade and that it had watch towers. It was then that they also found evidence their homes, along with pottery pieces, tools, and even weapons. 

Aztalan 1850 Map

Researchers also found fire pits and what is believed to be piles of refuse. In those areas researchers found butchered and burned human bones, including the heads of men, women, and children. They ascertained that people who inhabited that area had actually eaten people.

But actually, it is said that soon after its discovery in 1836, it was already determined back then that the mounds were used for religious ceremonies which included human sacrifice. And that leads us to the final mystery of why they ate their enemies?

Those human sacrifices are said to have been part of the cannibalism of that tribe. But since food is said to have been abundant there, why resort to cannibalism? Why eat your enemies? 

Historian David Scheimann wrote, "Of all the North American Indian tribes, the seventeenth-century Iroquois are the most renowned for their cruelty towards other human beings. Scholars know that they ruthlessly tortured war prisoners and that they were cannibals; in the Algonquin tongue the word Mohawk actually means 'flesh-eater.' There is even a story that the Indians in neighboring Iroquois territory would flee their homes upon sight of just a small band of Mohawks. Ironically, the Iroquois were not alone in these practices. There is ample evidence that most, if not all, of the Indians of northeastern America engaged in cannibalism and torture -- there is documentation of the Huron, Neutral, and Algonquin tribes each exhibiting the same behavior."

Robert Birmingham, a professor of anthropology at University of Wisconsin in Waukesha, wrote a book entitled "Aztalan: Mysteries of an Ancient Indian Town", published in 2006.

He is quoted as saying, "Aztalan was the northern outpost of a great civilization comparable to other great early civilizations in the world. We call them the Mississippians; they rose after AD 1000 and had, at its center, the first city in what is now the United States – that’s Cahokia, in present-day Illinois. It was a very large city and had a society that was very complex. It was similar to Mayan cities in Mexico. They built large earthen mounds as platforms for important buildings. The major mound at Cahokia, where the ruler probably lived, is 100 feet high and greater in volume than the Great Pyramid of Egypt, though built of earth."

Birmingham said those there were a farming society. The Aztalan village is said to have lasted anywhere from 100 to 150 years. It is said that around the year 1200, the Mississippian civilization eventually collapsed in the Midwest for unknown reasons.

War with other tribes is thought to be a factor in their disappearance. Birmingham says, "The Mississippian culture was aggressive and expanding. Aztalan is one of most heavily fortified sites in the archaeological record of Eastern North America."

Since we know human remains were found at the site in 1919, what are Birmingham's thoughts about their cannibalism and if it was all about "ritual cannibalism"? Well Birmingham says those remains "Have been analyzed and don’t fit the pattern of cannibalism, at least for food." 

So I have to wonder what's it all about if not for food? Why eat your enemies if there was available sources of food and the inhabitants were not starving? Why was that a Native American trait of so many tribes?

Birmingham explained that eating others, particularly your enemies, is an ancient consequence of warfare that is certainly not restricted to Native American Indians. He said, "The taking of trophy heads, cutting up the bones of your enemies and eating them ritually -- taking the power of your enemies -- is well-documented in many cultures. In Wisconsin, the Ho-Chunks themselves recite a story in which they greeted some Illinois people who were potential enemies by killing them, putting them in a pot, then boiling and eating them. It was not for food, but to show great disdain."

He thinks that the Mississippians at Aztalan co-existed fine with some Woodland tribes, but others may have been seen as trespassing. 

While that's the reason for the walls and for the wars, I can't help but wonder if the idea of eating one's enemy to show disdain is too easy an answer and there's more to it. My skepticism comes from the fact that while I see torturing an enemy as an act of vengeance, I've read where eating of one's enemy was actually a religious ritual of many Native American tribes. 

So all in all, the tribes who practiced ritual cannibalism did not so for food. Instead it was more about their belief in the supernatural powers held within the souls of their enemies. A power that they wanted to harness by eating their enemies. Imagine that.    

Tom Correa

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?

Slave Ship

The following comes from an article entitled How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?

Amazing Fact About the Negro No. 1: How many Africans were taken to the United States during the entire history of the slave trade?

Perhaps you, like me, were raised essentially to think of the slave experience primarily in terms of our black ancestors here in the United States. In other words, slavery was primarily about us, right, from Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Banneker and Richard Allen, all the way to Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass. Think of this as an instance of what we might think of as African-American exceptionalism. (In other words, if it's in "the black Experience," it's got to be about black Americans.) Well, think again.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.)

Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.

In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.

Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans. And I, for one, find this amazing.

By the way, how did historian Joel A. Rogers — writer of the 1934 book 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof, and to whom this series is an homage—do on this question? Well, incredibly, in his "Amazing Fact #30," Rogers says, "About 12,000,000 Negroes were brought to the New World!" Not even W.E.B. Du Bois got this close to the most accurate count of the number of Africans shipped across the Atlantic in the slave trade.

-- end of article written by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

The above article was written for PBS. It was originally posted on The Root, a website created by Professor Gates and others. If Gates name sounds familiar, it should. In 2009, after a problem with the police at his home, the local police detained Gates.

President Obama called the police having to detain Gates, "a stupid act." The incident resulted in what the media called a "Beer Summit" between Gates, the responding police officer, and President Obama. Professor Gates is a personal friend of former president Obama.

While Gates's numbers are correct, there are a few errors regarding dates of what took place. One huge error regarding this article is its title. How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?

From 1655 to 1783, slaves were not brought to the United States. Fact is, during that time period, the United States did not exist. The United States only became a sovereign nation when we officially won our independence from England in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. So in reality, slaves were legally transported to the United States for only a 25 year period. That was from 1783, when we separated from Great Britain, to 1808 when U.S. law made it illegal to import slaves into the United States.

A second error is that slavery officially ended in the United States in 1865 and not 1866. A third error is his reporting that the entire era of the African slave trade took place from 1525 and 1866. We need to make a distinction between the lawful importation of slaves versus the illegal importation of slaves from Africa. And of course, when did it really start.

The African slave trade started with African chiefs selling their own people to whites in 1516. But it should be noted that the first slave ship from Africa did not arrive in North American continent until 1655. And as for the legal importation of slaves to North America, that took place from 1655 to 1808. It was illegal to import slaves to the United States from 1808 to 1865, just as it is today.

Of the 388,000 slaves that were landed in North America between 1655 and 1865, there were 93,185 that were brought to the United States after we declared our independence from England. Those 93,185 were shipped here from 1783 to 1865.

Breaking it down further, we can see that during the 25 years from 1783 to 1808 when President Thomas Jefferson banned the import of slaves to the United States, there were 45,846 slaves brought to the United States legally. From 1808 to 1865 when the slave trade was illegal in the U.S., there were 47,339 slaves smuggled into the United States in violation of Federal law.

One other point, of the 10.7 million slaves who actually survived being shipped west across the Atlantic Ocean, only about 388,000 were off-loaded in North America. Yes, that's less than 5% of the original 12 million slaves brought from Africa to the Americas. As Gates stated in his article, "Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage." 

These numbers are not mine. I didn't pulled them out of thin air. These numbers come from Professor Gates's source, The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database.

Basic math tells us that the remaining 10.3 million of those shipped west across the Atlantic Ocean, the 95% rest that didn't land in North America, were actually off-loaded in the Caribbean and South America. This proves that the great majority of African slaves were not brought to the United States of America, or the North American continent. In reality, most all were shipped to South America to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and Brazil.

What may surprised many is that slaves were in huge demand in South America and the Caribbean. In fact, much of the slave trade in the United States had to do with American slavers buying and selling slaves to ship out of the United States -- destined for Brazil and other Latin America countries.
Tom Correa

Liberals Have Zero Respect For Others

Dear Friends,

I was asked to pull my last post from a group that I belong to on Facebook because it's discussion was pulled off topic.

My last article was about child slave labor in the North during the Civil War. The point of my article had completely gone over the heads of some Liberals who branded it a "racist post".

The point is regarding child slave labor during the Civil War in the North. It is about the hypocrisy of those in the North who were against slavery in the South, but were OK with it taking place in the factories and the mines in the North.

Their hypocrisy is in regards to what offended them. It was selective at best. While they were rightfully offended by blacks in chains, they were hypocrites in that they should not have turned a blind eye to the child slave labor practices that were in fact taking place around them in the North at the same time.

Those labor practices, while no longer applied to blacks, were certainly applied to children until it stopped in the late 1930s. And the only reason it stopped is that adults needed jobs. Adults saw children as taking jobs away from adults during the Great Depression, and that's when it stopped.

So how is it a racist post? Well one Liberal wrote to me and put it this way, it "detracts from the suffering of blacks". Imagine just how dumb you have to be to say such a thing. Talking about child slave labor in the North, detracts from the suffering of blacks in the South? Is that dumb or what!  

Of course, from a Facebook discussion and the comments that I've recieved, it's very apparent that the name callers and the holier-than-thous on the Left refuse to allow anyone else to have an opinion of any sort. Especially an opinion that is polar opposite to their own.   

An opinion, the dictionary defines as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Opinion is synonymous with belief, judgment, thoughts, way of thinking, mind, point of view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective, persuasion, standpoint.

Instead of respecting the opinions of others, Liberals always resort to name calling and threats instead of discussion. I'm not talking about Republicans or Democrats who respect each other. I'm talking about Liberals who hate for the sake of hating.

When Obama was in office, I wrote about his inept job performance, his expensive vacations, the over-regulation, the wasteful spending, the divisiveness of President Obama. And yes, I was called a racist. One person actually wrote to tell me that I can't criticize him because he is black. Another jerk actually said that it's OK to criticize a white president, but not Obama because he's black. Talk about racist.

When I wrote about my favorite quote from Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, when he said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," I was called a racist because I said that I judged Obama by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

Friends, I really believe that I could have written about how I like white peaches and be called a racist. No, that wouldn't have surprised me.

When I talked about the statue of Robert E. Lee and how 200 Confederate troops protected the town of Charlottesville from being burned to the ground by 1,600 Union troops under the command of General George Armstrong Custer, I was called a racist. I said that I really believe that we don't know the exact motivations of those who erected those statues after the Civil War. And because I said that, I was called a racist. I said that I believed some of those statues were put up to salute those defenders of towns and cities in the South during the Civil War. Yes, I was called a racist. 

Friends, the term racist is losing it's meaning. And no, I have no idea what they call a person who is really and truly a racist. When everything can be labeled racist, the term racist means squat.  

As for the Liberals who attack my blog, both on Facebook and here in the comment section? They don't like my research, they don't like my sources, then they resort to personal attacks after I've given them my sources or the links to some of my research material.

Of course, they don't like the fact that I have friends who work as Wikipedia contributors, friends who are historians of merit, friends who have spent their lives researching history. They don't like that I have friends who know guns even better than I do, friends who are ranchers who I've helped over the years, friends who raise and breed horses.  

They don't understand that I pick the brains of my friends for information if I need to. They do help me with finding information whether it's about cattle or horses or history.

It amazes me that Liberals don't understand that people can talk about all sorts of things and actually learn from each other. They refuse to understand that during the course of a conversation, that people can have different views than their own and actually learn from each other. Yes, I repeat myself because I'm amazed that Liberals are so narrow minded and shallow, so filled with hate for others who don't think like them.

If they believe that the cause of the Civil War was ONLY slavery, then fine. If they believe everything that Hollywood and Left has to say about how things were in the Old West, that's fine as well. So why not take their narrow minded points of view somewhere else! Why bother coming here just to put in their political spin and pick arguments is beyond me.

So now, I want to known why do they stop here? Why bother reading what I have to offer if it angers them so much? Why bother reading and writing comments filled with swearing and hate? Comments that I will not allow posted on my blog. 

Why not just start their own blogs? Why not open another Liberal blog where they can put out more hate and politically correct crap? Why not cater to fellow hate mongers on the Left?

My advice is simple, if you want to make your voice heard, check out the New York Times Facebook page. Go to some other venue with a giant readership. Go somewhere where your hate and shit disturbing is appreciated. 

I have a small blog that I use to talk about things that interest me. Things that I hope others find interesting. And since I've visited a great number of different places around the country, I want to share the true stories about the history that I find amazing. Yes, things that Liberals refuse to even consider in the slightest. 

They call themselves "progressives," but that's a joke! They are stuck looking at things in their politically correct hate filled minds. They refuse to expand their horizons and see things with fresh eyes. They have a total distaste for thinking for themselves. They accept the standard line even if it is wrong. And yes, from my experience with them, especially lately, I find they refuse to allow any other way of looking at things to enter their minds. But worse, they want us to shut up and not speak our minds.

And while this is a rant, I may as well tell you what really bothers me. It is their hate. They venomously hate others who try to look at things differently then the way they do. Because I'm not into their hate, I ask only this, if someone doesn't like what I post, instead of coming here with a political agenda, just go away. 

I would rather have readers that are open to thinking about things that they may not have considered, right or wrong, off base or not. Readers who are not tied to political correctness. Readers who want to explore history, talk about things that some people want covered up, maybe even learn something that wasn't known before. As the saying goes, the possibilities are endless. 

For the Liberals who sends me hate mail and messages about how screwed up I am, for you Democrats who don't want me to write about the Civil War for fear of "stirring the pot," go somewhere else. 

There are all sorts of Liberal blogs out there that preach nothing but hate and political correctness. If you are a Liberal, a person who hates others who do not think the way you do, you will be more at home there. Those blogs are filled with people who also can't think for themselves and simply drink the Kool-Aid. 

Tom Correa