Tuesday, December 31, 2013

"The right to bear arms in self-defence is of course a natural and constitutional right which the statute cannot take away..."

A Wise King.

   The end of Mayer King's enforcement of the ordinances regulating the sale and use of explosives in Philadelphia go admirably crowned the work that he derives therefrom great moral reinforcement in his present avowed purpose to prosecute to punishment all violators of the statute law against carrying concealed weapons. He has positively enjoined upon officers that they use their best efforts to arrest and prosecute all persons who shall carry any firearms, slung-shot, or other deadly weapons about their persons, and to apprehend all these that they may have reason to believe are violating the law in that particular. The benefits resulting from a vigorous and thorough enforcement of this order would be immeasurably greater than even the wonderfully gratifying exhibit from the Hospitals of the philanthropic services performed by his regulation of the late Fourth of July observance. To the prevalence of the habit of carrying these weapons and the readiness which a large number of city loungers display in their use may be traced much of the crime, accident and disorder that distinguish city annals and put the life and limbs of all citizens in peril. There can be no doubt that if they were banished the police and hospital records would be greatly shortened and all the best interests of society conserved.

   It is true that in the enforcement of this order the mayor is confronted with the ruling of, we believe, Judge Allisen's court of quarter sessions of Philadelphia, that these acts are unconstitutional, so far as they apply to the carrying of arms for self-defence, and that it is competent for the accused to rebut the unlawful intent raised by the statutory provision. That ruling, if we recollect rightly, was made in the case of a negro who was disclosed on the witness stand to be carrying a concealed revolver. It was at a time of great excitement and when many people felt, and encouraged negroes in Philadelphia to feel, that their color put them at constant risk of assault. Under that pressure Judge Allisen made this ruling. If there was any occasion for it, that occasion has passed away, and such a remark expressed gratuitously at the time, would hardly be made new, to afford encouragement to the evil-disposed. The right to bear arms in self-defence is of course a natural and constitutional right which the statute cannot take away, but few people in Philadelphia or in any ether part of this state would need to carry arms in self-defence if all were stripped of them. It is against the rowdies with their slung-shots and billies, and dirks and pistols, that decent people have te arm themselves, and if the former were shorn of their weapons of offense, the latter class would be glad to lay down their defensive equipment, especially as most peaceably disposed people who have to carry a pistol are in constant dread of sheeting themselves, from inexpertness. Moreover, when the arms are borne in self-defense, that is a matter of evidence, which can be shown by testimony. There is nothing in our state of society to create a presumption that a man who carries a pistol carries it for self-protection. But if he does he ought to be able to establish it to the satisfaction of a court and jury. Only in that case is his constitutional right invaded by the prohibition. Even then it is a question whether his theory of self-defence would not be more manifest if he carried his shotgun over his shoulder, or were his dirk in a girdle, rather than by concealing his weapon and his purposes.

[The Lancaster Daily Intelligencer, Lancaster, PA., Saturday, July 16, 1881. Volume XVII---No. 272 Pg. 2]
   And it was just this type of presumptuous theorist which brought us to the situation that we have today. Which begs the question: Just what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed". Does the treasonously minded people such as this author NOT understand?

Sunday, December 29, 2013

"quantities of arms for Americans in Mexico to use for self-defense..."

[The Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, Monday Morning, September 8, 1913. Vol. LXXXVII, No. 148. Pg. 2]

"and where they have used their arms, it has merely been in self-defense..."


   The declaration of the Mexican Consul at El Paso, representing the Mexican Government, that the American refugees from Mexico may return to their homes and possessions there only on condition that they return unarmed, is a cruel mockery. For, first of all, they would then make themselves easy victims of bloodthirsty brigands, and surely there has never been any claim that the Americans in Mexico have used arms in any other War except to protect themselves, and especially have they not used arms against the Mexican Government, save in the possible cases of Americans who may have enlisted under the insurrectionary banner; and as to these, they must look out for themselves; but as to that it is a clear case that far more Americans took part in the Madero insurrection than have ever identified themselves with the Orozco insurrection. It is therefore all the more ungrateful for President Madero to make this restriction against Amercau refugees returning to Mexico only on the condition that, they return unarmed. It is true that most of those who disliked Diaz and have taken any active part in the Mexican fighting did so in behalf of Madero; and second, the American residents in Mexico, almost without exception, have studiously avoided taking part in the war on either side, and where they have used their arms, it has merely been in self-defense, as in the case of the Mormon men that recently were driven out from their homes and who had to defend themselves in getting out, this defense not being, however, against the Mexican forces, but against the forces in insurrection. One might fairly couclude, therefore, that the Madero Government would look upon Americans in arms in Mexico as a friendly reinforcement rather than as a hostile array; so that the mocking restriction put upon their return to their homes and possessions in Mexico is all the more indefensible and unfair.

   It is not a matter, of course, in which our own National Government could intervene, for we have no right to insist that any inhabitants of any foreign country shall be allowed to go into that country with arms in their bands. But the necessity of Americans who return to Mexico in the unsetttled conditions there, having arms with them to protect themselves, is so evident that the Madero insistence against this is both cruel and in effect a prohibition against their return.

[The Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, Wednesday Morning, August 21, 1912. Vol. LXXXV., No. 129. Pg. 4]

"Would you take up arms in defense of your own life, or the lives of your wife or children? . . ."

[Cleveland Morning Leader, Cleveland, Wednesday Morning, November 26, 1862. Vol. XVI. No. 282. Pg. 1]

"Besides this there are thought to be two million of private arms."

[Cincinnati Daily Press, Cincinnati, Monday Evening, September 23, 1861. Volume VI. Number 22. Pg. 1]

Friday, December 27, 2013

"The collection of arms to be used in self defense of person or property is of itself proper and lawful..."


Pleads Right Of People To Self Defense


Killing Confessed on Stand
Is Murder, Says Judge
In Charge


Bench at Montesano Leaves
Little Hope for Reds
From Verdict

(By Associated Press)

   MONTESANO, Wash., March 12.
 --The case of ten Industrial Workers of the World charged with the murder of Warren O. Grimm, one of the former soldiers shot during an Armistice day parade at Centralia, Washington, last November, went to the Jury at 10.20 o'clock tonight.


(Special to the Review)

   COURTHOUSE. Montesano Wash., March 12.-- What accused I.W.W. admitted from the witness stand makes them "guilty or murder," according to instructions delivered by Judge John M. Wilson this afternoon to the jury trying the case of ten men charged with the death of Lieut. Warren O. Grimm, a victim of the Armistice day shooting at Centralia. In his charge to the Jury Judge Wilson* held that legal interpretation of justifiable homicide did not include a scheme of supposed self defense "stationing men in outside places for the purpose of shooting the persons real



or apparent from whom force or violence is expected."

   In the presentation of the defense's case. Bert Bland took the stand and said he fired from Seminary hill, into a crowd in front of the I.W.W. hall. His brother. O.C. Bland, said that he and John Lamb posted themselves, with a loaded rifle and revolver, in a window across from the hotel but did not shoot. Lamb corroborated this testimony.

   The Court's instructions were delivered before a crowd that packed every part of the court room. Perhaps 800 persons were present. Many of them had waited for five hours, prosecutor C. D. Cunningham, at four o'clock this afternoon, began his opening argument for the State. A night session was held in an effort to complete the arguments. The ease probably will be submitted to the jury late tonight. At 9:40 o'clock the addresses by counsel had been completed.

   No matter what verdict jury returns, the ten defendants cannot be freed. Attorney Herman Allen of Lewis county, today filed in chehallis a second charge of first degree murder against each of the prisoners. It is an information accusing them of the murder of Arthur McElfresh, another of the four ex-service men killed in the Armistice day tragedy. The preponderance of evidence, indicated that McElfresh was killed instantly as he stood before the I.W.W. hall. McElfresh was a druggist, 24 years old and an overseas veteran. He had served in Company M of the 16th Infantry. The warrants from Lewis county will arrive before the jury has agreed. In case of conviction the new charge is not expected to be pressed.

   The part of the instruction of Judge Wilson's which went to the crux of the issue said: "The collection of arms to be used in self defense of person or property is of itself proper and lawful, but the law does not authorize the killing of people stationed about, or property inside the habitation, and if you find, that any two or more of the defendants, in the manner and form and at the time charged in the information, planned to defend the I.W W. property therein or by of the persons therein, by the stationing of armed men in the Avalon hotel, the Arnold hotel, or on Seminary hill, for the purpose of shooting from those points, all persons actually or apparently engaged in a raid or attack upon the I.W.W. hall, or the persons or property therein, the placing of such men and the shooting from said outside points would not be lawful acts of defense of person or property but would be unlawful, and if you find that any two or more of the defendants carried out said plan and as a natural, necessary or probably result thereof. Warren O. Grimm was shot and killed as charged in the information, then such killing would be unlawful and would be murder and each and all of the defendants so planning or participating therein would be guilty of murder. But the mere collection and presence of arms is not sufficient Weheron to place information guilt on any of them, nor proof of conspiracy."

   The court also advised the jury that none of the defendants should be convicted simply on prejudice against the I.W.W.. which is not on trial.

   The jury was told that if the only evidence against Elmer Smith, Centralia atorney charged as accessory, was that he informed the I.W.W. they had a right to protect their hall then he should be acquitted....
[The Bisbee Daily Review, Bisbee, Arizona, Saturday, March 13, 1920. Vol. 24.--No. 58. Pgs. 1 & 2]
 * - Judge John Wilson of Olympia, WA. Grays Harbor County Superior Court. The incident about which the trial concerned was known as "The Centralia Massacre", or the "Armistice Day Riot". The killings had taken place on Tuesday, November 11, 1919.

"among these which they share in common is the right to bear arms for their defense and protection..."

From the Indianapolis Sentinel.

Letter from Hon, D.W. Voorhees 
[U.S. Senator from Indiana, and leader of the Democratic party]
to Brig. Gen. H.B. Carrington.

General Henry B. Carrington, Indianapolis Ind,

   Sir:--Your favor of the 16th is at hand, in which I am informed that certain letters belon[g]ing to me have been stolen. You do not directly state whether you committed the theft yourself, or whether you employed some one else; but inasmuch as you have possession of the stolen property, and avow it as if you had done something to be proud of, you will of course not object to being considered the principal in this act of petty larceny and lock-picking. There are some titles to distinction which you claim, and which are not, I believe, generally conceded to you by the public. No one, however, will dispute your right to this.

   You take great pains in your communication to convey a false impression in regard to the circumstances under which you examined and purloined my private correspondence. In November, 1863, I locked my desk, my drawers and my office in the usual manner, and left for Washington City. I did not return to Terre Haute until the 10th of dune, 1864.

   During my absence I authorized the owner of tho property to rent it and take charge of my books and papers, He rented it some time in the spring to a man by the name of Muzzy, and with a mistaken confidence, suffered everything belonging to me to remain under his control. Here, General, was your easy opportunity. I was nearly a thousand miles away, a political enemy had possession of my desks and drawers, and all you had to do was to apply tho burglar's art, prepare false keys, pick my locks, and you at once had access to my private, confidential correspondence, embracing a period of seven years. I have every reason to believe that you read it all letter by letter. You took your time, and like the furtive, thieving magpipe, narrowly inspected each line and word, to find, if possible, some expression of opinion which your servile political creed holds to be disloyal. There were many letters there from cherished friends who are dead. There was a bundle also from my wife in regard to our domestic affairs. If you have stolon these, also, please return them as they can be of no value except to the owner. I have heard of generous house-breakers and pickpockets doing as much as that.

   I confess to one very disagreeable sensation in this affair. It is the thought that the evidences of long years of friendship and affection should be subjected to the scrutiny of such an eye as yours.

   You wear the uniform of a Brigadier General. and I believe you are a colonel in the regular army. Do you imagine that such an act as robbing private drawers and publishing private letters, will bring honor to your rank in the estimation of gentlemen? Have you ever read here and there a scrap of history? Do you know in what a light the slimy informer, the eavesdroper, the pitiful spy on the affairs of domestic and private life, have always been regarded by honorable men? Did you ever read the invectives of Curra before the juries of Ireland against just such conduct as yours? If you have not, I advise you to do so, and you will there see yourself in a mirror as others see you at all times. Titus Oates pretended to see plots, conspiracies and treason just as you pretend you are doing. He got rich at it, as I presume you are doing. He sacrificed the lives of many of the best eitizens of England.--You may do the same in this country by your sensational falsehoods and reckless disregard of the public peace. Just the parallel may go further. A healthy reaction took place, and Titus Oates, the plot-finder of Kngland, stood in the stocks and was pelted by the multitude. His ears were cropped close to his head; he was whipped at the tail of a cart a dozen times through the streets of London. These acts of vengeance against him were only expressive of the feelings which virtuous mankind everywhere entertain towards the wretch who turns universal witness against his fellow men who, in times of great public excitement and trouble, seeks to aggravate the public distress by pretending to find everybody guilty but himself and his own followerss; who crawls into bed rooms, who ransacks bureaus, who picks locks, and pilfers the private thoughts of friends. You have studied this great English informer as your example; would you not do well to study his fate? Popular delusions do not last always, and the day is even now at hand when your presence among gentlemen will be regarded as a signal to cease conversation for fear you will betray it when your presence in a room will cause its occupants to secure every loose letter or paper that may be in sight for fear you steal it; and when your presence in a town will cause everybody to lock their offices or remain in them to guard against your approach.

   I am told that you have been often ordered to the field to meet the armed enemies of your country. I have formerly expressed my surprise that you did not go. You were educated, if I am not mistaken, at West Point by the Government, and my experience among army officers has been that as a class, they were men of courage, high breeding and honor. They have generally esteemed it their duty to be in the front in time of War. But all general rules are, proven by their exceptions, and you are the exception in this instance. I shall no longer wonder that you remain in Indiana, nor shall I be surprised if on an other invasion of our State you are again put under arrest and relieved of your command. Your vocation is certainly not the sword. You should lay it aside as too honorable for you to wear, and in its place, as the enblem of your calling, you should wear a bunch of false keys, and a set of burglar's tools. Nor should you keep the uniform of a soldier any longer--its place should be supplied by the usual disguise, falsefaces, wigs, aud gum elastic shoes, which night prowlers, and housbreakers usually wear.

   But a word or two, General, in regard to the letters themselves. You have raked a drag net over many years of my most private correspondence. What did you get after all your baseness and ail your labor? The result will hardly pay you for the universal detestation which will always cling to your conduct. Let us see. One of my friends writes me that he fears our liberties will be destroyed in the hands of those who are now in power. He predicts that Mr. Lincoln, aided by such willing instuments as you, will attempt to raise a despotism on the ruins of the Republic.--His fears and Iiis predictions thus expressed in June, 1861, hare been fully verified. He says a peaceable separation would have been better than this. It is not for you to complain of such a sentiment. I have heard you publicly express your great admiration for Mr. Chase. He held the same doctrine expressed by Mr. Ristine, and at a later date than Mr. Ristine's letter. I refer you to the speech of General Blair on that point. But the Indianapolis Journal said the same thing only in stronger terms. So did the Cincinnati Commercial the New York Tribune, and many other leading Republican organs. What importance, then can you attach to such an expression of opinion?

   But you found an old letter from my good old Uncle in Virginia. Poor scandal monger that you are, I cannot even permit you much enjoyment in that. I was in Harrisonburg in June, 1860, Mr. Lincoln was not elected. There was no talk of secession in Virginia. On the contrary the feeling on behalf of the Union was overwhelming. But there was a deep irritation yet in the popular mind in regard to the John Brown raid which had recently occurred. I was serenaded at my uncle's house, and made a short speech. Alluding to the murderous invasion of her soil by John Brown, I stated that such deeds were condemned in the State where I lived, and that if needs be a hundred thousand men from Indiana would march to protect the citizens of Virginia against any future abolition raid. In February, 1861, when war became imminent, I supposed it looked to Mr. Hardesty as if it would be an abolition war, and he simply reminded me of what I had said on his door steps to the citizens of Harrisonburg. Do you think the publication of this bit of stolen information will materially effect the Presidential election? Little minds catch at little things.

   But you found a letter from Senator Wall, of New Jersey, enclosing one to him from a gentleman by the name of Carr on the subject of guns. This seems to be the desperate point. I know nothing of Mr. Carr. I never answered his letter.--I am not much of a trader, and such matters as this I rarely find time to attend to. But on this point I do not mean to be misunderstood. I fully endorse the constitutional right of the people to bear arms for their self defense. The value of this right is greatly enhanced when one political party is armed by the administration, at the common expense, to overawe the other. You, of course, will not deny that the Republican party has been armed with Government arms for nearly two years. It is true that this organization is known as the "Home Guard," but guns are distributed by government officials to their political adherents who do not pretend to belong to any military organization whatever.

   And when companies have been formed according to law, and asked for arms, they have been refused because they were Democrats. Why is all this? From the conduct of many of these so-called "Home Guards," and the conduct of such officers as you--the Democratic party has been led to the firm belief that these warlike preparations have more reference to carrying elections and subduing the freedom of speech and of a union in the North, than they have to the suppression of armed rebellion in the South. They have paraded in front of my own house, in my absence, and with United States muskets in their hands, in large numbers, insulted and terrified my wife and children. These were simply members of the Republican party, and the guns which they carried had been given to them by Governor Morton by your advice, I presume, and consent.--What has occurred to me has occurred to thousands of others. Do you suppose that you can arm our neighbors to outrage and insult us without any disastrous results? Do you think we will lick the hand that strikes us? Do you imagine that the Democratic party will submit to be trampled and spit upon? We have borne much, very much, and perhaps you think we will bear all, and everything. If you do, allow me, for the sake of the peace and welfare of the State, to assure you of your error. We will obey the laws of the land. We have always done so, but we have made up our minds that others shall do the same, that is a fair proposition, and those who are unwilling to embrace it can take the conseqences. Democrats have all the rights which Republicans have, and among those which they share in common is the right to bear arms for their defense and protection.

   Now, General, but a few words more and I will leave you to the uninterrupted enjoyment of the glory which you have achieved in this miserable affair. There is one letter of mine in your possession which I am willing you should publish.--You will remember an interview about a year ago between us at Terre Haute House in the presence of Judge Key. You have opened your ears to tale bearers and slanderers, and you came down from Indianapolis in great excitement to quell the terrible outbreak which you imagined was about to take place in this District. You wanted to go to Sullivan County, and at your request, I gave you a note in the shape of a pass, stating that the bearer was General Carrington, and asking for him respectful treatment. You did not need any such protection from me, but you tho't you did, and showed it to my friends for that purpose in the town of Sullivan.

   You seem to be of late in a similar panic and under a similar delusion. There is really, however, no danger of disturbance among the people except such as your own folly and wickedness may create. You do not need a pass to travel through here unless that it might be that the people should fear that you came to ransack their drawers or something of that kind.

   In conclusion, permit me in all kindness, to suggest, that if you could persuade yourself to mind your own business, make a great deal less fuss about nothing, trust the honesty and intelligence of the people somewhat, keep your hands away from what is not your own, speak the truth, give up the trade of common informer and abandon all idea that you can scare anybody, every thing will go well and peace and good order will everywhere prevail.--If you cannot do these things, however, which I suspect is beyond your power, then by all means seek some other field of labor and let a gentleman, and a man of honor take your place.

   It is perhaps proper for me to say by way of apology for this letter that I have written it more to meet the interests of the public than for any regard which I have for your good or bad opinion concerning me or my friends. Your conduct has placed you beyond the notice of gentlemen. I am engaged in no plots or conspiracies, and never have been. What I have done has been in the open day what I shall do in the future will be done in the same manner. But it is of small moment to me what you think on that subject. It is out of respect to a very different class of men that I have thus taken notice of your larceny of my property, and your assault upon my character.

Your obedient servant,
Terre Haute, August 23, 1864.

[The Plymouth Weekly Democrat, September 8, 1864. Volume 10. Number 6 Pg. 1]

Thursday, December 26, 2013

"until the people in self defense took up arms...."

[The Tomahawk, White Earth, Becker County, Minnesota, Thursday, September 29, 1921. Vol. XVIIII. No. 23 Pg. 2]

Pope Leo: "it is permitted to employ arms in self-defense..."

[St. Paul Daily Globe, Saint Paul, Minn., Wednesday Morning, February 13, 1889. Vol. XI. No. 44. Pg. 4]

"...the people always have the right to bear arms in self-defense."

"I point you to the constitution of your state and country to show that the people always have the right to bear arms in self-defense."--Attorney William W. Erwin, The Sylvester Critchlow trial, Pittsburg, Pa. [St. Paul Daily Globe, St. Paul, Minn., Monday Morning, November 28, 1892. Vol. XIV. No. 333. Pg. 2]

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

"The law guards no man; his own guard are his revolver and bowie..."

[WARNING: The following contains severe racist commentary, as well as vivid details of one of the worst atrocities committed on Americans soil.]

Important Testimony Concerning the
Colfax Massacre.

Special Correspondence Cincinnati Times
and Chronicle.

New Orleans. La., April 28.

   I had an interview to-day with a gentleman from Rapides Parish, which adjoins Grant. He is a man of wealth and high social position, and well known throughout the State, and possessing great influence. Every word he says can be relied upon, and his statements are entitled to additional weight, when he speaks favorably for the Republicans of Colfax, from the fact that he is


He desires his name to be withheld for the present, as he will soon be re-required to give testimony in the investigation which is to ensue. His description of the condition of affairs upon the Red River should be heard to be appreciated. I can give but a faint idea of what he so graphically described.

   Said he: "The Republican officers on that side of the river are either rascals or cowards. They refuse, either because they dare not, or, more often, because they will not, to execute warrants or serve writs. To my knowledge there are over fifty warrants in the hands of the officers of Rapides Pariah which they refuse to execute. Some of them are two years old. Any man can commit any crime with impunity. The law guards no man; his own guard are his revolver and bowie. We have been twenty months without a court of any kind. The Judges, Sheriffs, &c., appointed by the Republicans, are all of a piece. They refuse to bring an offender of any kind to trial. These are the appointees of Pinchback and Kellogg. Let them turn out these rascals, and send us men, black or white. Republicans or Democrats, we care not, so long as they will enforce the laws and attend to their duties. By appointing and keeping in power such officers as these, the Republicans have done much to bring on the troubles in Grant. It has encouraged the commission of all sorts of crime, and obliged well-disposed men to take up arms in self-defense and have recourse to violence. The Kellogg Sheriff of Rapides is a man against whom two or three indictments for horse-stealing are filed. The Conduct of Whittier, the United States Tax Collector, is the most infamous of all. He has collected over $50,000, not one cent of which is legally due the United States. His salary is $1,800 per year, yet he lives in grand style with his wife and children, keeping carriages and servants, and gives costly wine-suppers. He lives by systematic plunder and there is no appeal short of the Revenue Department at Washington. Time and again we have sent on papers exposing his rascality and begging for assistance. No attention is ever paid to them.

   "In the first week in January the Fusionists took possession of the offices in Grant Parish by force. The offense for which the Republicans were murdered at Colfax was in retaking them by the same means. Kellogg might have prevented all this blood-shed. He was warned weeks before the fatal Easter Sunday. I wrote him. myself, two weeks before, praying him. for God's sake,' to order on troops before it was too late; yet he never lifted a finger. He is exasperating the opposition and alienating his friends.

   "After Nash and the other McEnery officers had been dispossessed of their places, they set about to accomplish their revenge. Shaw, the Kellogg Sheriff, fearing trouble, enrolled a posse comitatus, consisting, necessarily, of negroes mostly, as they form the majority of the population. Rutland, Hudnot, the Fusion member of the House from Grant Parish, and Nash raised a gang of men from Grant and other Parishes, and began to scour the country around Colfax, committing all sorts of depredations, murdering the negroes, burning their houses, and driving off their stock. Every day the people flocked to the Court House at Colfax for protection, until nearly all the population was gathered there. The men as they came in were promptly ordered to join the posse, until it numbered between three and four hundred men. Armed men rode into tho town occasionally, and several fights took place. The negroes threw up a breast work around the Court House, and prepared themselves for defense as best they could. The negroes were all from Grant Parish alone. Those attacking them were gathered from a dozen different parishes, some coming from fifty miles away, and it is asserted that there were men from New Orleans in the ranks.

   "On the morning of Easter Sunday Hudont and Nash, at the head of their crowd, rode into Colfax and told Shaw he could have thirty minutes to get the women and children out of the way. They were sent out, and the fight began. It lasted until near sundown. I know that many whites were killed and wounded. The negroes stoutly contested the struggle, and old soldiers who were with Lee told me it was the hottest fighting they were ever in. At last Rutland's cannon was opened upon the negroes, and panic-stricken they fled to the Court House. The beseigers forced a negro to go up under their guns and set fire to the cypress-shingle roof, which could be easily reached from the outside. As the fire burned down into the terror-stricken, struggling, shrieking crowd of negroes, the half roasted wretches broke from the building, swinging handkerchiefs, pieces of their shirts, or anything of the kind they could lay hands on in token of surrender. The whites formed in front of the building and poured in a steady fire upon them as they came out. Hudnot sprang in front of his men and shouted to them to stop, as the negroes had surrendered. He fell dead shot by his own men. whether purposely or accidentally it cannot be determined. The negroes were not firing at the time. Men from his own gang tell me this is the true statement of the flag-of-truce story. Then the work went on, and in a few minutes a hundred and fifty of the negroes were killed. Thirty-seven were taken alive, marched down to the river, shot, one by one and thrown into the river. In the evening Shaw went to visit the house where Hudnot was lying. While there a gang came to the door and said they 'wanted him.' He went out and never came back. The male population of Colfax was almost annihilated.

   "Of the men who composed the attacking party I have this to say: There was not a representative man among them. Hardly any property-holders or tax-payers. All the men of any character or social position refused to take any part in the affair. But two of the men who went from Rapides Parish are upon the tax roll. Many of them were


They were idle, reckless scoundrels, or irrepressible, thoughtless young men just such men as are encouraged and sustained by the weakness and indecision of the Kellogg Government. The stories of the negro outrages are false; that one of their intending to take the white women for concubines, a silly one, trumped up to gain recruits. These poor blacks thought they could do what they had seen whites do so often, and had no idea of the fearful consequences of their mistake. In all this section the negro is wronged, robbed, and ill-treated past belief. A terrible persecution has been practiced against them ever since the war.

   "I believe there never was a race so abused, so swindeled, so defrauded by employers, and traders, and officers, and black men can get no justice. No one dare speak for him. He is naturally patient, faithful and kind. One word to those negroes in the trenches at Colfax, and they would have laid down their arms. But our people were determined upon a bloody massacre, and wanted no compromise.

   "For all these things the Republican party is indirectly responsible. They have the power and the strong arm of the National Government to back them. Why do they not exercise It? Give us courts and good officers and protect us. While Kellogg hesitates and compromises, and appoints Funionists to office, in tne endeavor to please both sides, this bloody revolutionary spirit is encouraged and strengthened. This State is not in a condition to be ruled by a kid glove government. I know our people; by fear alone they must be ruled, and when the iron hand is laid upon them they will be quiet, and such fiends as perpetrated the Colfax horror will sink away to their holes. Our people refuse to understand their position; that they have been subjugated; that the negroes are free, and their political and social equals. They refuse to accept this situation and reconcile themselves to it. We want force, we want an iron military rule to bring them to their senses."


   A negro who was in the Court House and was wounded in the massacre, told me the following story, in his simple, pathetic manner: "I warned our people not to go into the Court House. I knowed it would be the end of 'em. But when the cannon went off they were all skeered, and huddled into the building like a flock of sheep. Then the burning roof began to fall on us, and every one was praying and shrieking and singing, and calling on God to have mercy. The flesh of those furderest from the do' began to roast. I could smell it. Our clothes was all on fire, and we broke fo' the do'. The white men shot us down as we came out. Then we rushed back, trampling each other down in the fire and smoke. The hair burnt off our heads, our clothes burning and skin roasting. But we had to make for the open air. Then Hudnot's men used their knives, revolvers, and gun stocks. Our people did not resist. It was


   One of the white men would grab a negro by the hair, jerk his head back, and another would cut his throat. They would shove their revolvers into our people's mouth's and fire them off. They smashed their heads with gun stocks and revolver butts, and stabbed right and left with their long knives. In a few minutes almost all our people were killed, except some who were taken prisoners. They were marched off to the woods and shot."


   A man who was in the attacking party said to me: "Our fellers came from Grant, Rapides, Catahoula, Franklin, Natchitoches, Bossier, Caddo, Winn and Winnsboro. We had about 250 to 300. The niggers fit us all day like the devil. Nigger'll never fight unless he is cornered. They stood musketry pretty well, but the howitzer was too much for them. When they first began to come out we used our guns, but when the whole crowd rushed out we begun on 'em with our knives and revolvers. We worked lively, but some got away. Most of these, however, was picked up in the woods afterwards and disposed of. I think we did the business for about a hundred around the Court House, perhaps more."

   "You took some prisoners, did you not?" said I.

   "Yes, we took thirty-seven. They came out so fast we couldn't dispose of them all."
   "What did you do with them?"

   "The boys took them down to the river and shot them, or cut their throats. Two of the boys would hold one up, another would give him the shooter between the eyes or draw his knife across his throat, and then they would pitch him into the water and take another. While this was going on. some of the fellers hung up a few on the trees around there, just by way of variety."

   "What became of Shaw?"

   "The men that took him handed him over to some of the Catahoula boys, and they took him on a little excursion to the woods. He got so scar't." continued my informant, grinning, "as he was riding along, that he fell out of the wagon and broke his neck, which was a very sad accident."

   "How many negroes do you think were killed?"

   "Nigh on to three hundred, I reckon, was put where they'll do the most good, from beginning to end of the Grant scrape. The job was well done. We sha'n't have no more trouble with niggers in Grant Parish. And when as clean a job as that is done in every parish in the State we shall begin to have some quiet, and niggers will know their place."

   "Very likely." said I, "considering that you killed nearly all the negroes in the parish."

   "Yes, and that is the only hope there is left for us."


   Let the reader, who has shuddered over the horrid massacres which history records in times gone by, and thank Heaven that they were of a past age and impossible in the Christian enlightment of the present, consider that history records no deed more brutal, more horrible than this one, perpetrated in our own day, in our own land, under our own government. Not one-half the dreadful details can ever be known. Think of that bloody butchery before the Court House, of those burning, screaming, maddened wretches; of that cold-blood[e]d, deliberate series of executions beside the river. Picture in your imagination the death of Shaw, an old man of nearly seventy. He steps out of the house at the summons, and no one ever saw his face again. There is the flash of a torch amid the pine trees; from the lonely depths of the forest comes the muffled report of a musket; and the bleeding body of the old man is lying alone in the darkness, and the wretches who murdered him are slinking away in searoh of new victims.

   Something better than McEnery is needed here; something mightier than Kellogg. Twelve years ago Louisiana had a ruler who knew how to handle her. She needs him, or his like, again. F.D.M.

[Nebraska Advertiser, Brownsville, Nebraska, Thursday, May 15, 1873. Vol. 17.--No. 31. Pg. 1]
   And our treasonous government wants to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY restrict and/or disarm us? Knowing that evil such as above has occurred in the past on American soil? The traitors that desire to enact even more Constitutionally perverse 'gun control' can go STRAIGHT TO HELL. They should be arrested and tried for treason, and have the sentence carried out immediately on public television.

   Anyone think I'm being a tad bit too harsh? Think again: 

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241

Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
   Keep pushing We The People, you vile and treasonous hired servants. And We The People just might decide to PUSH BACK.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

"that every foreigner in Minersvllle is a walking arsenal and is spoiling for the opportunity to use his weapons..."




Unnaturalized Residents Buying Fire-
--Water Flooding Mines--In-
dustrial Workers Urging Men to
Reject Compromise and Strike.

   Wilkesbarre, Pa., May 10.--At the East Boston colliery of W.C. Payne at Luzerne a mob of 600 men, women and boys took possession of the road leading to the works, drove men on their way to work back to their homes and before dispersing beat John Riddick badly for refusing to comply with their order.

   At the Nottingham colliery of the Lehigh and Wllkebarre Company at Plymouth a mob of 600 men and boys gathered at the entrance to the works and turned back the men who have been carrying on the repair work and the engineers, firemen and pumpmen who have the union's consent to work.

   At the Delaware colliery of the Delaware and Hudson Company at Hudson a crowd of 600 collected and drove back men who started for their regular places of employment. In no instance did the State police appear.

   At the Liggetts Creek colliery of the Delaware and Hudson in the Scranton district a crowd of 500 men and boys armed themselves with clubs and stones and took their position on the road leading to the colliery. They held up the men who appeared for work and informed them that they would not be permitted to start their labor. John Z. Anzenburg raised an argument over the order and the mob led him to the bank of Liggetts Creek and threw him in, pelting him with clubs and stones. After all workmen had been sent home the crowd broke up.

   At Minersville the men are angry over the shouting and threaten to even up matters with the "Black Cossacks," as the State troopers are called.

   Pottsville, Pa., May 10. During the past two days foreigners have almost exhausted the supply of firearms and ammunition of local dealers, while dynamite magazines have been robbed of of large quantities of explosives. It is said these people have enough dynamite to blow up the whole of Minersville.

   Since seven of the State police put a crowd of over 700 to rout in a pitched battle the bitter feeling has become intense and the troopers have been warned to beware of ambuscade on the mountain roads. Although the State laws prohibit unnaturalized residents from owning firearms it is said that every foreigner in Minersville is a walking arsenal and is spoiling for the opportunity to use his weapons.

   The rains have swollen all the mountain streams and the water is pouring into the mines. The interference with the pumpmen and firemen has tied up some of the collieries and as a result the mines are rapidly filling.

   Minersvllle, Pa., May 10. Representatives of the Industrial Workers of the World have arrived here and are endeavoring to induce the mine workers to repudiate President White by voting against the sub-committee's agreement in the Wilkesbarre convention and casting their fortunes with the new organization. The Industrial Workers are indorsed by the socialistic element in the mine workers, which element is away in the majority here.

[The Forest Republican, Tionesia, Pa., Wednesday, May 15, 1912. Vol. XLV. No. 12. Pg. 1]

"the judge decided the law prohibiting unnaturalized foreigners from carrying a firearm is unconstitutional..."

   The state game commission will appeal to the higher courts from the decision of Judge Telford, of Indiana county, in which the judge decided the law prohibiting unnaturalized foreigners from carrying firearms is unconstitutional. Decisions have been rendered for and against the constitutionality of the law which went into effect but recently and the game commission is desirous of knowing where it is at and will take an appeal in order that the new law may be finally adjudicated at the earliest possible moment.

[The Forest Republican, Tionesta, Pa., Wednesday, December 15, 1909. Vol. XLII. No. 40. Pg. 2]

"there was so much disorder and confusion and display of firearms..."


What Attorney Stanley Says of the
Recent Convention In Kidder County.

   In a recent communication, regarding the "double header" convention in Kidder county, Attorney Charles H. Stanley gives the following claimed to be the facts in the case:

   The primaries resulted in the Belden combination securing twenty-two out of thirty-two delegates to the county convention, but Lyons attempted a contest against delegates from the precincts at Steele, Dawson, Allen Township and Rexin precinct on the grounds of illegal voting and general intimidation. The republican county central committee by a vote of ten to five rejected the Lyons contests as frivolous and without merit and reported in favor of seating the Belden delegates, who were the only ones having credentials of any kind.

   As to the merits of the contests the writer has personal knowledge of many of the facts and can say truthfully that the central committee acted fairly. In the Rexin precincts Lyons lost by one vote but claimed Belden received two illegal votes, the votes of young Russians. It was claimed these Russians had not taken' out citizenship papers but the facts are their fathers' were naturalized while they were minors and were living with their parents, and two men from this county were present as delegates in our convention who knew of the naturalization of the parents of those Russians and who were witnesses for such parents when naturalized. As to the Steele precinct Lyons claimed one legal vote was refused but this is denied. In this precinct Belden had eighteen majority over Lyons and every man in the precinct but eight voted. The Belden delegates in every precinct carried by him were given regular credentials, in one instance such credentials being signed by a personal friend of Lyons.

   As to the Dawson precincts Belden had one majority and it is claimed that there were four illegal votes cast there for Lyons, and the central committee so found.

   At the opening of the county convention the Lyons men seated themselves together and immediately after the chairman of the central committee called the convention to order they proceeded to go through the form of electing chairman and secretary without waiting for the report of the central committee and before it was known by anyone, excepting members of such committee, whom the committee had voted to seat in the convention. Then they pretended.to nominate a county ticket and to elect delegates to the two state conventions, the legislative convention and to the judicial convention. Of those who so pretended to elect such delegates and nominate such ticket only ten were regularly elected delegates to the county convention, the balance being men who claimed to be entitled to seats in the county convention but who, it was shown by the report of the central committee, had no lawful right to sit as delegates in any convention.

   When the report of the central committee was read the Belden combination organized the convention and proceeded regularly with the work before it and carried every motion by decisive majorities, the Lyons legal delegates voting against every motion made by the Belden delegates, notwithstanding the fact that they, Lyon's delegates, claimed they had an organization of their own. In other words from their own standpoint they were participating in two conventions at one and the same time. After they had unsuccessfully opposed several motions made by the Belden delegates some one of their number discovered the awkwardness of their position and they then refused to longer vote in the convention but thereafter voted in what they chose to call their own convention. The Belden combination had twenty-two votes on every proposition and every one of the twenty-two was a legally elected delegate to the county convention. Lyons secured but ten delegates at the primaries and sought to get control of the convention by a so-called contest presented to the central committee by twelve men who claimed seats in the convention, such "contest" being in the following words and figures: "To the county central committee of Kidder county, the undersigned hereby respectfully submit their contest as follows: During the caucuses held on April 13, 1904, there were such irregularities and unlawful proceedings in the township of Woodlawn, Allen and Rexin No. 2, and Sibley, that the chairman of Woodlawn Township refused legal voters who had a right to vote therein and permitted others to vote who were not entitled, the same facts being true of all the above named townships wherein contest is made that in Sibley Township there was so much disorder and confusion and display of firearms that the legal and qualified voters were intimidated and did not vote; that all of the legal votes offered were counted it would change the result in favor of the contestants. The names of the contestants, as well as the so called accredited delegates appear in the affidavits hereto attached and made a part of this petition. Wherefore they respectfully submit this their petition of contest and ask that the accredited delegates as now appear before this convention be set aside, the contestants seated in their stead and be granted full power and lawful authority to act. Dated this 18th day day of April, 1904, P.J. Lyons, Henry Dell, Frank Leamy, Bruce Miller, Elihu Thompson, Fred Mclntyre, Ulysses Wise, M.F. Woessner, C.S. Roberts, John S. Werner, P.M. Immel, A. W. Thompkins.

   This "contest" was dismissed by the central committee after the taking of sworn testimony from both sides and by a vote of ten to five.

[Bismarck Daily Tribune, Bismark, North Dakota, Saturday, April 23, 1904. Pg. 2]

Concerning obama's new adiser making [false] comparison that the G.O.P. is ‘Cult Worthy Of Jonestown’

   No, Mr. John Podesta, actually it is the Democrat party that is more like a "cult worthy of Jonestown". To Wit:
The move of Peoples Temple headquarters to San Francisco in 1975 invigorated Jones' political career. After the Temple served an important role in the mayoral election victory of George Moscone [Democrat] in 1975, Moscone appointed Jones as the Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission.[43]

Unlike most other figures deemed as cult leaders, Jones was able to gain public support and contact with prominent local and national United States politicians. For example, Jones and Moscone met privately with vice presidential candidate Walter Mondale [Democrat] on his campaign plane days before the 1976 election and Mondale publicly praised the Temple.[44][45] First Lady Rosalynn Carter [Democrat] also personally met with Jones on multiple occasions, corresponded with him about Cuba, and spoke with him at the grand opening of the San Francisco DEMOCRATIC Party Headquarters where Jones garnered louder applause than Mrs. Carter.[44][46][47]

In September 1977, Willie Brown served as master of ceremonies at a large testimonial dinner for Jones attended by Governor Jerry Brown [Democrat] and Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally [Democrat] and other political figures.[48] At that dinner, while introducing Jones, Willie Brown [Democrat] stated "Let me present to you what you should see every day when you look in the mirror in the early morning hours.... Let me present to you a combination of Martin King, Angela Davis, Albert Einstein... Chairman Mao."[49] Harvey Milk [Democrat], who spoke at political rallies at the Temple,[50] wrote to Jones after a visit to the Temple: "Rev Jim, It may take me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something dear today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours and energy placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave."[51][52]

In his San Francisco Temple apartment, Jones hosted San Francisco radical political figures such as Angela Davis for discussions.[53] He spoke with friend and San Francisco Sun-Reporter publisher Dr. Carlton Goodlett about Jones' remorse regarding not being able to travel to socialist countries such as People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, speculating that he could be Chief Dairyman of the Soviet Union.[54] After his criticisms caused increased tensions with the Nation of Islam, Jones spoke at a huge rally healing the rift between the two groups in the Los Angeles Convention Center attended by many of Jones' closest political acquaintances.[55]

While Jones forged media alliances with key columnists and others at the San Francisco Chronicle and other media outlets,[56] the move to San Francisco also brought increasing media scrutiny. After Chronicle reporter Marshall Kilduff encountered resistance to publishing an exposé, he brought his story to New West Magazine.[57] ...
[From the Wikipedia article: Jim Jones]
      Clearly it is the Democrat party that has far more to do with Jim Jones and Jonestown than the Republicans.

"We handle Shotguns, Rifles and Pistols and Ammunition..."

[The Austin Weekly Statesman, Austin, Texas, Thursday, November 29, 1894. Pg. 3]

"With Firearms the Striking Furnace Workers Parade the Streets of Ironton Ohio...."

[Bismarck Daily Tribune, Bismarck, North Dakota, Thursday, June 2, 1904. Pg. 1]

"Complete Assortment of Fireams, Ammunition...."

[The Donaldsonville Chief, Donaldsonville, LA., Saturday, November 19, 1904. Vol. XXXIV. No. 15. Pg. 8]

Monday, December 16, 2013

"and added $20 more for a too promiscuous use of firearms...."

[Los Angeles Herald, Los Angeles, Cal., Thursday Morning, July 6, 1905. Vol. XXXII, No. 278. Pg. 5]

We don't have a "gun" problem, we have a democrat party problem....

   The chart below is of the top Twenty States with the highest numbers of firearms homicides. It includes the number of firearms homicides committed within those states. As well as the major cities within those states, and the political affiliation of the mayors of those cities.

State Total Murdered
1. California 1,304 Los Angeles – Democrat

Oakland – Democrat

San Diego – Democrat

San Francisco – Democrat

San Jose – Democrat
2. Texas 745 Corpus Christi – Democrat

Dallas – Democrat

El Paso – Democrat

Houston – Democrat

San Antonio – Democrat
3. Michigan 536 Detroit – Democrat

Flint – Democrat
4. Pennsylvania 522 Allentown – Democrat

Harrisburg – Democrat

Lancaster – Democrat

Philadelphia – Democrat

Pittsburgh – Democrat
5. Illinois3 439 Chicago – Democrat

Peoria – Democrat

Schaumburg – Democrat

Springfield – Democrat
6. New York 407 Albany – Democrat

Buffalo – Democrat

New York City – Democrat

Rochester – Democrat

Syracuse – Democrat
7. Georgia 390 Atlanta – Democrat

Augusta – Independent

Macon – Democrat

Marietta – Independent

Savannah – Independent
8. Louisiana 370 Baton Rouge – Democrat

Lafayette – Republican

New Orleans – Democrat

Shreveport – Democrat
9. North Carolina 309 Asheville – Democrat

Charlotte – Democrat

Greensboro – Democrat

Raleigh – Ind./Dem. Backed

Wilmington – Democrat
10. Missouri 283 Branson – Republican

Columbia – Republican

Kansas City – Independent

St. Louis – Democrat

Springfield – Democrat
11. Ohio 278 Akron – Democrat

Cincinnati – Democrat

Cleveland – Democrat

Columbus – Democrat

Dayton – Democrat
12. Maryland 277 Annapolis – Republican/Democrats trying to strip of power

Baltimore – Democrat

Gaithersburg – Democrat

Ocean City – Democrat

Rockville – Independent
13. New Jersey 273 Atlantic City – Republican (Recent)

Jersey City – Democrat

Newark – Democrat

Seaside Heights – Republican

Trenton – Democrat
14. Tennessee 254 Chattanooga – Democrat

Gatlinburg – Republican

Knoxville – Democrat

Memphis – Democrat

Nashville – Democrat
15. South Carolina 237 Charleston – Democrat

Columbia – Democrat

Greenville – Republican

Myrtle Beach – Dem/Rep
16. Virginia 220 Charlottesville – Democrat

Norfolk – Democrat

Richmond – Democrat

Roanoke – Democrat

Virginia Beach – Republican
17. Arizona 211 Flagstaff – Republican

Glendale – Republican

Mesa – Republican

Phoenix – Democrat

Scottsdale – Republican

Tempe – Democrat

Tucson – Democrat

AZ. is Constitutional Carry
18. Indiana 205 Evansville – Republican

Fort Wayne – Democrat

Indianapolis – Republican

South Bend – Democrat
19. Oklahoma 149 Broken Arrow – Independent

Edmond – Unknown

Oklahoma City – Republican

Norman – Democrat

Tulsa – Republican
20. Mississippi 132 Biloxi – Republican

Gulfport – Republican

Hattiesburg – Democrat

Jackson – Democrat/Communist

Natchez – Democrat

Tupelo – Democrat

   Those are twenty states in the United States where the majority of firearms homicides, (7541 out of 12,765), occur. There are 96 major cities that make up the bulk of the populations of these states. The vast majority of those cities, (Seventy), have Democrat mayors. Which include the TOP TEN with the greatest populations in the country. Many of which are among the number with the highest number of firearm homicides.

   The remainder have Republican mayors, (19), Independent, (6), and (1) of unknown party affiliation. There is also an openly avowed communist mayor in America. He is the mayor of Jackson, Miss., and ran under the Democrat party affiliation.We The People don't have a "gun" problem. We have a communist-demonrat-LIEberal problem. The numbers just do not lie.