Thursday, August 17, 2017

Who's to Say Which Statues Go?

The idea, that an individual, can have statues that offend him or her removed, is crazy. Just as the idea that statues will be removed because a small minority of people demand there removal.

People who know me know that I am not a fan of the Confederacy. I'm a Northerner, I would have supported the Union. However, people who live in one of the states that seceded during the Civil War may have other ideas.

I heard one Rev. say that all Confederate statues must be taken down because the people represented were traitors and their side lost. But, this opinion doesn't hold water, because, yes, someone from Massachusetts may consider Tennesseans who fought for the South traitors to the United States, the  people of Tennessee, may think otherwise.

In fact, most of the people who took up arms weren't fighting for all of the South, they were fighting for their states, their homes, and their families. Many of the Confederates didn't even own slaves, and yet they still fought.

States and the people of those states have a right to erect statues to their own people, who fought for and defended their states. So although this reverend may find all these Confederates, who have been immortalized in bronze, hate filled, traitors, many of the people of those states may see the same Confederate as a hero. It is all relative.

I do believe that if the populace as a whole decides that it is time to change out some statues, the populace has that right. To let Communists and Klan members congregate and slug it out is not how to handle this situation. The majority vote on a referendum could resolve the problem easily, without having a few mayors or governors deciding the issue against the wishes of much of the population.

To me these statues themselves are now historical artifacts. Most of them are over a hundred years old, they were erected by people who honored these people, people that fought for their states. Like it or not these Confederates put everything on the line for their beliefs and their states.

We are told that the people represented in these statues should be condemned and the statue removed because of the immorality of slavery. But, would these same people demanding these Confederate icons be condemned, also condemn people in this day and age, some whom they revere, because these modern people support the immoral practice of abortion? It is very doubtful. Most of these people calling for the destruction of these statues find nothing even wrong with the killing of the unborn, just like many in the South didn't think that the practice of slavery was wrong.

Seeing a bunch of mindless fascists knock down these works of art simply because they don't agree with the beliefs and actions of these historical figures makes me angry. I call these anarchists "fascists" because anyone who doesn't agree with them must be silenced or even punished.

Ridiculously, it is mostly Democratic leaders who are removing these historical statues, and acquiescing to these violent, fascistic protestors, despite the fact, that it was Democrats who erected them in the first place. What are their motivations? To me there is no doubt that they are trying to eradicate the history of the Democratic Party that in this current era isn't appreciated by their current Democratic voters.

Ultimately, it is the citizens of those states that should decide whether the statues stay or go and not protestors or government officials who are only a very small minority of the populace.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

One immoral practice back then... One immoral practice today...

Here is something to think about. Today, we find the whole idea of slavery as absolutely evil, immoral and repugnant. Because of this we look down upon people who believed in slavery, owned slaves and fought to retain the slave system.

What we have to remember is that before the United States even became a country the majority of people living in the original colonies accepted slavery. It wasn't until some people began questioning the morality of it, like the early Quakers, that it eventually began to be looked at. As more and more people questioned the morality of slavery more and more people realized that it was indeed immoral. There were great arguments between the pro and anti groups on each side of the issue.

It is immoral and it is repugnant, fortunately, most of us realize this now. However, there is an issue which is just as immoral and repugnant if not more so, that we are dealing with in our own age. Just like slavery where people were thought of as sub-human or lesser to another group of people, there is this same issue, only today, instead of race it has to do with people who are unborn and people who are born. The unborn people are seen as lesser or sub-human and therefore these lesser humans can be destroyed. And just like in slavery times the morality of this practice has been questioned. The ones in favor of this practice are very vociferous in there support for it. Much argument has taken place. So far, as in slavery, the people who support the immoral practice are winning and the practice continues.

But, what will happen a hundred years from now? Especially if the people opposed to abortion have ultimately won the morality argument and a future people see the practice as evil, immoral and repugnant, as we do of slavery. Will they be demanding the removal of statues of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, because of their support for such an immoral practice?

So, all of us, who think that we are so superior to our America antecedents because of their practices that we now condemn, should think before we act so high and mighty with moral superiority, because our immoral practices are just as bad if not worse than theirs. It is ludicrous to tear down everything from our past like the Taliban because we are offended by Civil War monuments to members of the Confederacy. We as a people are ultimately no better than they were.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Indiana Pioneer - Noah Beauchamp

Indiana pioneer Noah Beauchamp who moved his family into the Indiana Territory around 1813, settled in Franklin County.

Noah Beauchamp was born in Maryland in 1785 and moved with the family to Kentucky in the 1790s. He married and left Kentucky for Ohio in 1804. The Beauchamps lived in Montgomery County until they eventually left for the Indiana Territory.

Noah purchased land in Section 24 of what was to become Connersville on December 14, 1812. It is most likely that his family would have moved  after his wife Elizabeth had her baby Mary who was born on March 13, 1813. Noah very likely would have gone ahead of his family and cleared some land and built a cabin.

Noah remembered events years later, "I moved to the State of Indiana and purchased a quarter section of land adjoining the town of Connersville... and settled in the woods; made some improvements and then I traded off that place, and my last residence in that county, was on Williams' creek."

It was living in Franklin County that he was commissioned as a lieutenant in the 11th Indiana Regiment during the War of 1812. There are only two sources for this information. A 1900 book which was transcribed from the original hand written Executive Journal of India Territory and another from 1901 by William Pratt, entitled The History of the National Guard of Indiana. In the Executive Journal of Indiana Noah is listed as, "Noah Beachan" and in The History of the National Guard of Indiana he is listed as "Noah Beacham."

According to Pratt many of the early records were lost or destroyed, "official papers relating to the early days of Indiana are few. Many were lost during the moving of the State government from one capital to another, and from one State House to another. A wagon load of these valuable old documents was sold as waste paper by a janitor who did not realize their value. The record of early days is necessarily incomplete."

So for hundreds of soldiers in these early days of Indiana there are either no records of their service or very few. The fact that Noah was appointed a lieutenant is the only reason it is known that he was even in the 11th Regiment because the order survives in the Executive Journal. He died in 1842, before pensions were offered, so he never applied for one. Pension applications and records are a great source of genealogical and historical information.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Randolph R. Harris (b. 1786)

Randolph R. Harris was born in 1786 in Warren Co., North Carolina. He was the son of James H. Harris and Mary Smilley/Smelley. The name is sometimes written as Smilling.

Randolph married Sarah Davis on November 9, 1809 in Warren Co., North Carolina. I believe they are listed in the November 15, 1810 Montgomery Co. Census under Randle Harris as head of the household.

Shortly after this they moved to Dickson Co., Tennessee where Randolph joined Capt. Michael Molton's Regiment in 1813 and fought in the Creek War.

They had several children although I know the name of one for sure who was born in 1815. He was John C. Harris who was born in Dickson Co., Tennessee.

The 1820 and 1830 census records records indicate that Randolph and his family were still living in Dickson County.

In 1824, Randolph purchased goods at Drury Price's estate sale in Dickson County.

After 1830, I believe that Sarah died, for in 1840, the age of Randolph's wife, in the census record is recorded in the next age bracket down from Randolph's.

In February of 1839 a son Thomas H. Harris was born to Randolph and Molly his second wife. What Molly's last name was and when and where they were married is not known. It has been speculated that Mary was the daughter of former Guilford Co., North Carolina resident Thomas Archer who was a Tennessee land speculator in the early 1800s. This speculation is based on family papers that came down through the Harris line.

In 1840 Randolph R. Harris and his family are listed as living in Hardin Co., Tennessee.

By 1850, they are living in Fayette Co., TN and Randolph is just listed as R. R. Harris, his wife Molly is down as having been born in Tennessee circa 1797.

In 1856, Randolph was mentioned in the records as living in the Northeast corner of Fayette County.

Randolph is not listed in the Tennessee census for 1860, instead he and his wife Mary are listed in the 1860 Arkansas Census and are listed as living with T. A. Dixon and his wife Sarah J., who was their daughter, in Duncan Co., Arkansas. Their son Thomas H. Harris age 21 is also listed as living with them.

After this 1860 Census Randolph disappears from the records. He must have died sometime after 1860.

In 1870 his widow Mary is living with her son Thomas H. Harris and his family in Fayette Co., Tennessee.

Thomas H. Harris was a soldier in the Civil War for the CSA from Fayette Co. later he removed back to Arkansas and died there in 1900.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Are you a sick puppy too?

One of the first times in my lifetime that politicians were shot and shot at because of their political party, took place yesterday. Gabby Giffords was shot by one of her constituents who was a satanist and unhappy with her response to some letters he wrote her, so that is not the same situation.

Yesterday, James T. Hodgkinson shot several people simply because they were Republicans. If he had succeeded it would have been one of the biggest slaughter of politicians in our country's history. People have been brandishing the words, "nut," or "crazy," but to be honest, I haven't seen the evidence that he was anymore nuts or crazy than other's, such as the the Julius Cesar play in New York that has converted Julius into a Donald Trump double and the audience cheers as he is attacked and stabbed to death by the senate.

I would argue that Hodgkinson was not insane, he was just full of hate. People just like him can be found all over the internet, on both sides of the isle, but with a much more biting and vengeful crowd on his side of the political scale. One such person was Darryl Moler of Suches, Georgia, posted, shortly after the news of the attack in Virginia came out, this little gem, "At least there were no Christians shot at in VA today just some Republicans." Obviously, Republicans are sub-human, like the slaves were to their Democrat owners before the Civil War.

Closer to me, in Massachusetts is Matthew Dunhan, who can only be described as a union thug.  He graduated from Rockland High School and is a journeyman at Alliance Power. He works as an electrician at Siemens.

He obviously shares a lot of the same beliefs and hatreds as James T. Hodgkinson the would-be assassin. He is also a member of the Facebook page Terminate the Republican Party. He posted yesterday before the injured even had their surgeries that, "The Termination of the Republican Party has begun."

He also gleefully posted on the same page and his own Facebook Wall this: "I haven't been this happy since Scalia died.

I hope that the FBI will begin monitoring these types of individuals because they aren't just writing something in anger, never expecting something bad will actual take place, they are relishing the attempted murder of United States politicians. This monster Dunham went on to make this threat...

"Absolutely time for them (Trump/Republicans) to learn fear. They think we won't shoot back. They are foolishly wrong my friend. Labor will revert to the old days if the continue and blood will run deep. Mark my words. If they try to take it all, our wages, our heathcare, our way of life....."

The reason I concentrated on Dunham, since there are thousands and thousands of examples of this type of violent hatred all over the media and internet I could have sampled, is because this Dunham individual has friends on Facebook who share friends with me! This guy, in my opinion, a sick puppy.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Thomas Archer (1752-1818)

Thomas Archer may possibly be an ancestor or related to my Harris family. Some papers that were handed down through the Harris/Borgman line (John A. Borgman married Mary O. Harris) had the names of both Thomas Archer and John Hamilton. Thomas Archer married John's sister.

Since some of the papers were regarding the Revolutionary War and since most of them were concerning Thomas Archer of Guilford Co., North Carolina, I think it is safe to say that this description of an event during the Revolutionary War is regarding this Thomas Archer.

The incident that was related in Interesting Revolutionary Incidents: and Sketches of Character, Chiefly in the "Old North State" by the Rev. E. W. Caruthers took place on February 13, 1781.

"Tarleton says that, " on the road many skirmishes took place between the British and the American light troops;" and it is said by others that they seldom shot at each other except across a turn in the road or when crossing a stream of water, though they were often in sight and sometimes within rifle shot. Occasionally, however, when the British were pressing too closely on them, they found it necessary to skirmish a little; and in such cases, as Williams, was on the retreat, he could generally select his own ground. On one occasion of this kind, according to favorable tradition, having drawn up the whole of his men in a position, he made show of fight, and appeared very determined on making a stout resistance. The British, thinking they had not force enough to encounter him, sent back for two pieces of artillery and a reinforcement of men. In the corps of Williams was a singular genius, by the name of Tom Archer, from the north-west corner of Guilford county, who, with some others, had probably joined them at Martinville, for the occasion. He was not remarkable for strength of intellect, but had some other qualities which admirably fitted him for the ever varying scenes of that arduous and perilous march. Rather above the medium height and well proportioned, bony, muscular and vigorous, he was always in his place and always ready for service. Though constantly on fatigue and exposed every hour to the most imminent dangers, he never complained or became discouraged. Frank and open hearted, with a good share of ready wit, and a good flow of spirits, he was the life of his comrades, and contributed not a little to their patient endurance of the toils and perils of the march. Inflexible in his purpose, when he thought he was right, and enthusiastic in the cause of freedom, rough in his manners, blunt in his language and never caring whether he "murdered the king's English," and made "Irish bulls," all the time or not, he was ever ready to be on the "forlorn hope," or take his turn at any kind of service. If to the above characteristics we add a great catfish mouth, a big stentorian voice, and a bushy head of hair that would hardly thank you for a hat, you have Tom Archer before you as large as life; and probably the reader will think with the writer that, in some situations at least, such a man would be a very desirable friend; but, at all times, a most undesirable enemy; or in other words, that he would, if not wronged or provoked in any way, be as clever a fellow as could be found in his sphere of life, ready to divide his last ration with a comrade or risk his life for a friend, but would "fight his weight in wild cats" before he would suffer any man or any set of men to trample on his rights. Hunting had been his delight from the time he was old enough to "draw a bead;" and, with his fine rifle, which he always carried and always kept in good order, he hardly ever missed his aim at any distance within two hundred yards.

When the artillery was brought up to its position in the road, Archer stepped out into the middle of he road, directly in front of the guns, and hailed them at the top of his big, strong voice, "Hallo, there— Mister, I wish you would take that ugly thing out of the road, or it may cause some trouble yet before all is over;" and then turning his head over his shoulder, said, to an officer standing by, "Captain, may I shoot that cussed rascal? for he has no business there, no how."

"No," said the captain, "not yet—wait till they are ready to apply the match; for we want to detain them as long as we can."

The enemy, of course, if they heard him at all, paid no attention, as they would take him for a drunken fool or some crack-brained mortal; but while the preparations were making—Williams bringing up and marshalling his men, and the British doing the same—Archer stepped to the side of the road and stood there leaning against a tree, resting his gun with the butt on the ground, and in perfect silence, as if in a " brown study," or anticipating the pleasure of the feat which he expected to perform, and keeping his eye steadily fixed on that " ugly thing," in the road. He had full confidence both in the gun and in himself; and having now a good opportunity as he thought, he was anxious to make another trial. Fear, was a word which had no place in his vocabulary, and he was probably never more composed in his life, but waited for leave to shoot, with as much impatience as he ever waited for a fine buck to come along when pursued by the hounds. The time was short—a very few minutes; and when he thought they were nearly ready to apply the match, he stepped out into the middle of the road and hailed them again. "Hallo, there—Mister, I say you had better take that thing out of the road, or I'll be hanged if I don't shoot some of you." Then turning to the officer, said as before, "Captain, may I shoot that cussed rascal now; for tellin' don't do him one bit o' good?"

"Yes," said the captain, "and as quick as you can, for we have no time to lose."

Having got permission, he clapped his rifle up against the side of the tree and taking sure aim with the quickness of an experienced hunter, and at the distance of about two hundred yards, when the gun cracked, a "red coat" fell. Then vaulting into the saddle, they all dashed off at full speed; and being favored by a hollow or a turn in the road, they had just time to get beyond the reach of the grape shot before the "big gun," was fired. By this manoeuvring on the part of Williams the enemy were probably detained an hour or two, which was no small advantage to the retreating army.

The above anecdote I had, some years ago, from what I consider good authority, and the character of Archer is well known in this community. There are many yet living who, when they were young, were well acquainted with him and they all, when asked, gave me the same account. One old gentleman replied to my inquiry with a laugh, that he had just sense enough to be "fool hardy;" but then he went on to give me his character more seriously, which agreed perfectly with that given by many others. He had considerable military spirit and got some office, that of captain, or one of lower grade; but it was found that, with a courage that feared nothing, he lacked discretion."

Another incident regarding this same Archer, I believe, is recorded in a Revolution War pension application by William Gipson. He relates, “That sometime in the summer of 1779, at one WILLIAM BRAZELTON’s in Guilford County, he and his party were in the house, when suddenly two armed men stood at the door. They, seeing the party within, immediately wheeled, and Colonel MOORE knocked down one of the men, who proved to be the notorious HUGH MCPHERSON, a Tory. His party soon took the other one, who proved to be one CAMPBELL and brother to the CAMPBELL taken prisoner and made his escape during the first campaign above related. His party took both of these Tories to Guilford Courthouse, about fifteen miles from the place of capturing them. There, a court-martial was held, composed of the officers of his party, and MCPHERSON was condemned and shot in the presence of this applicant. And CAMPBELL was condemned to be spicketed, that is, he was placed with one foot upon a sharp pin drove in a block, and was turned round by one THOMAS ARCHER, to the best of his recollection, until the pin run through his foot. Then he was turned loose.

This applicant cannot forbear to relate that as cruel as this punishment might seem to be to those who never witnessed the unrelenting cruelties of the Tories of that day, yet he viewed the punishment of those two men with no little satisfaction, as they were then supposed to belong to the identical band who inhumanly inflicted corporal punishment upon his helpless parent, who had committed no other offense than that of earnestly exhorting her sons to be true to the cause of American liberty.

My speculation is that Randolph R. Harris married into the Archer/Hamilton family, possibly marrying a daughter of Thomas Archer since both Archer and Harris came from North Carolina and lived in Dickson Co., Tennessee.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Solomon Morgan (died Nov. 16, 1847)

Solomon was the son of Major Mark Morgan and his wife Sarah (Hinton) Morgan most likely born sometime in the 1740s in Orange Co., North Carolina.

Solomon married Nancy Sears who was known as Ann. One author who wrote a Morgan genealogy believes he may have been married previously to an Ester.

He became a successful farmer. In his will which was written in 1847 he mentions his wife Ann and his children, Jones, Sampson, Louisa and Mary.

After his death on November 16, 1847 he was buried on land beside Morgan Creek. His body apparently was then transfered to the Morgan and Mason Cemetery, Chapel Hill, Orange Co., North Carolina.