One Hundred and Forty Five (145) Years ago today . . .

. . . on the 25th of June, 1876, my great, great, grandfather, Luther R. Hare, a 19th Century hero, revered American Frontiersman and solider, spoke the last words he ever would to General Custer on that fateful day of the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

Luther Hare, West Point. 17 June 1874

He subsequently gave testimony as to what transpired at the Little Big Horn and I have uploaded it for the curious: The Reno Court of Inquiry into the Battle of the Little Big Horn.  At the Inquiry, Luther Hare testified in part:

“My attention had been called to some Indians ahead by our scouts, and I spoke to General Custer about it. He told me to take the Indian scouts and go ahead and he would follow . . .”

***

"I heard a bugle-call or a trumpet-call.  The [Custer] command moved down the valley to within a short distance of the timber and it was there dismounted and a skirmish line was thrown out.  Up to the time the command was dismounted there were probably fifty or more Indians riding up and down in front and firing.  As soon as the skirmish line was dismounted four or five hundred Indians came out of a cooley which was about four hundred yards in front of us."

***

"I saw what was supposed to be General Custer’s trail that went down on the left bank.  The first evidence of the fight was a dead man of “E” Company probably 300 yards from where the final stand was made there were 28 men of “E” Company.  I assisted in burying the men of “E” Company and remembered more about them."

Later on, he participated in the Nez Perce War (1877), Battle of Wounded Knee (1890) and the Spanish-American War (Philippines Theater). While in the 21st Century the activities of Luther Hare would rightfully and universally be deemed repugnant, those activitites were part  of a larger  cultural movement that has begot the United States of America, the highest form of  individual justice and liberty known on the planet.  But the battles are not yet over to  achieve an even higher level of individual justice and liberty for everyone on the planet.

Get new posts by email:

Read More...

Summary only...

Black History Month, Dred Scott & Me

Montgomery Blair

Dred Scott

I thought it appropriate at the half-way mark of "Black History Month" to add my two bits of Black History which necessarily includes "White History"; as if the two really can be separated.

On July 4, 1854, Dred Scott publishes a pamphlet, concluding: "I have no money to pay anybody at Washington to speak for me.  My fellow-men, can any of you help me in my day of trial?  Will nobody speak for me at Washington, even without hope of other reward than the blessings of a poor black man and his family?  I do not know.  I can only pray that some good heart will be moved by pity to do that for me which I cannot do for myself; and that if the right is on my side, it may be so declared by the high court to which I have appeal.”

By December 30, 1854, when the Supreme Court docketed Dred Scott v. Sandford, no attorney had stepped forward.  Yet, Montgomery Blair agreed to take up a case so unpopular that no one in D.C. was willing to take it and risked his career.  Why?

Montgomery Blair stated in a letter on December 24, 1856, “I believe in the Southern Sates, almost every lawyer feels bound to give his services when asked in such a case arising in the community to which he belongs.”

 In 2007, I gave a 25-minute lecture on Montgomery Blair and the Dred Scott case and how it impacted Montgomery Blair personally.

While I won't here sketch out the history and impact of the Dred Scott case as that is a book length chore, the March 6, 1857 decision by Chief Justice Taney held that the federal Constitution created a "perpetual and impassible barrier" between whites and blacks. This barrier defined blacks as a "subordinate and inferior class of being," with no natural rights. 

We have come a long way, though obviously not far enough.

Read More...

Summary only...

Trump should Pardon Pelosi Now

At the beginning of the 2020 SOTU address, President Trump handed to Vice President Pence as the President of the Senate and to Speaker of the House Pelosi his “State of the Union” address.  He was required to do so by Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution which states: The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” 

When Nancy Pelosi ripped up that document, she committed a federal felony. Eighteen USC §2071(a) – “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Likewise, 18 USC §2071(b) – “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.  

Justice requires accountability for actions by public officers without color of law. If she is not prosecuted by the Department of Justice, then a hue and cry should rise up for she has laid: “Too rude a hand on English ways” thus requiring a “warning down from Runnymede!”

However, I suggest the best outcome is a pardon from President Trump as a gesture of good will towards her which she will be bound to reciprocate thus producing a more cordial atmosphere in our Nation’s Capital.  Or not. But at least President Trump will be the better “person” for the gesture.

Oh, and here is my favorite picture from last the SOTU address:

Read More...

Summary only...

Is Robert Mueller Now a Felon?

At the November 8, 2018, Oral Argument before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Andrew Miller v. United States of America, the Court announced that it was going to consider the implications of the resignation of Mr. Sessions as Attorney General the day before at a subsequent time.  Thereafter, the Court entered its Order asking for Supplemental Briefs on that question to be filed by November 19, 2018.

I took up that request and have filed a Supplemental Letter as I didn't have time to comply with the difficult Circuit Court brief filing rules (number of copies, green cover, spiral binding, etc).  We will see if the Court is going to elevate form over substance and hear what I have to say or, spending its time counting the number of Angels on the head of a pin, refuse my Letter.

However, the technical analysis contained in my Letter leads to an inescapable conclusion:  Mr. Mueller no longer has authority to act as Special Counsel and if he continues to do so, he is impersonating a federal officer: a felony found at  18 U.S.C. §912.

Read More...

Summary only...

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Wants to Hear From Me?!

I was very surprised this week to learn that the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit accepted my request to file an Amicus Curiae brief in the case of Miller v. United States of America.  Andrew Miller, who once worked as an aide to Trump ally Roger Stone, has been held in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Miller attempted to quash his subpoena, but a judge ruled this month that he would have to testify.  Oral arguments in the matter are scheduled for November 8, two days after the midterm elections.

What makes this curious is that it is unusual to allow amicus curiae briefs in a criminal matter.   Yet, by an Order entered October 11, 2018, that is exactly what the Circuit Court did and now I have filed my Amicus Curiae brief.  Here is what is more curious:

• Jeannie S. Rhee of the Department of Justice -- who represented Hillary Clinton during the 2015 lawsuit regarding her private emails and the Clinton Foundation in a racketeering case --  agreed to my filing of the brief; and

• The issue I raise -- that has not been raised on appeal by either the government or counsel for Andrew Miller -- is arguably dispositive:  Regardless of whether Mr. Mueller initially had the authority for his investigation into Russian Collusion, by statute found at 5 U.S. Code §3346 Mr. Mueller's authority ended 210 days after he was appointed by Mr. Rosenstein.  That date was December 17, 2017, and every action taken by him thereafter is void. See: 5 U.S.C. §3348(d)("any function or duty of a vacant office’ performed by a person not properly serving under the statute shall have no force or effect.”)

• Will I be allowed to argue orally? What does all this mean?  

You tell me.

 

Read More...

Summary only...

Mr. President, Robert Mueller is operating without Constitutional Authority

I recently wrote a letter to the President as I believe that Mr. Mueller is acting without Constitutional Authority and hence all his actions are void.  The text of the letter follows:
_________________________________

July 3, 2018

President Donald Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re: Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s Appointment of Robert Mueller Was Constitutionally Void Ab Initio

Dear Mr. President,

I write to assert that based upon the recent holding by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 21, 2018, in deciding the case of Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Docket No.: 17-130, there is no doubt that the appointment of Robert Mueller by Acting Attorney General Rosenstein was both Constitutionally and statutorily a void act.  As a result, all actions taken by Mr. Mueller are void ab initio.  Let me explain:

I.  There Only Three Classes of Federal Agents

In  Lucia, the Court addressed the question as to: “whether the [SEC]'s [Administrative Law Judges] are "Officers of the United States" or simply employees of the Federal Government. The Appointments Clause prescribes the exclusive means of appointing "Officers." Only the President, a court of law, or a head of department can do so. See Art. II, §2, cl. 2”.  In particular, Article II, §2, cl. 2 states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Regarding the distinction between “all other Officers of the United States” and “such inferior Officers” that Congress may delegate the appointment to “the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”, the Court in Lucia stated: “Only the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, can appoint a Principal officer; but Congress (instead of relying on that method) may authorize the President alone, a court, or a department head to appoint an Inferior officer.  See ibid.”

II. Mr. Mueller is Not Simply [an] Employee of the Federal Government

Lucia next addresses the question of who is an “Officer” and who is a mere “employee of the Federal Government” holding:

Two decisions set out this Court's basic framework for distinguishing between officers and employees. United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 510 (1879) held that "civil surgeons" (doctors hired to perform various physical exams) were mere employees because their duties were "occasional or temporary" rather than "continuing and permanent." Id., at 511-512. Stressing "ideas of tenure [and] duration," the Court there made clear that an individual must occupy a "continuing" position established by law to qualify as an officer. Id., at 511. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976)(per curiam) then set out another requirement, central to this case. It determined that members of a federal commission were officers only after finding that they "exercis[ed] significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States." 424 U. S., at 126. The inquiry thus focused on the extent of power an individual wields in carrying out his assigned functions.

Here, Mr. Mueller fails both tests.  First, his appointment is clearly not “occasional or temporary”; rather it is of indefinite duration.  Second, and of greater import, Mr. Mueller is wielding the full power of a United States Attorney: issuing subpoenas, presenting matters to the Grand Jury and offering plea deals to criminal charges.  Plainly, the “extent of power” that Mr. Mueller is exercising is the “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.”  Truly, Congress has mandated by law at 28 U.S.C. Section 541(a) that same authority resides in  U.S. Attorneys who are Principal Officers requiring Senate confirmation under Article II, Section 2, clause 2.  As such, Mr. Mueller cannot be deemed a Federal Government “Employee”.

III. Mr. Mueller is Not a Principal Officer of the United States

In order for Mr. Mueller to be a “Principal Officer” of the United States, he would have had to be: (i) Appointed by the President and (ii) Approved by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.  Neither event occurred here as Mr. Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017, solely upon the usurped authority of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.  See: Rosenstein’s Appointment of Mueller Letter, attached hereto.  As such, Mr. Mueller cannot claim legal authority as a “Principal Officer” of the United States.

IV. Mr. Mueller is Not an Inferior Officer of the United States

In order for Mr. Mueller to be an “Inferior Officer” of the United States, his appointment must be authorized by Congress.  As Justice Thomas noted in Lucia, “While principal officers must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Congress can authorize the appointment of "inferior Officers" by "the President alone," "the Courts of Law," or "the Heads of Departments." Art. II, §2, cl. 2.”  Here, notably, Congress has not authorized the creation of the “inferior” office of “Special Counsel”.  Congress has authorized both Assistant United States Attorneys and Special United States Attorneys, but at present there is no Congressional Authorization for a “Special Counsel”.  As such, the putative appointment of Mr. Mueller as an “Inferior Officer” designated a “Special Counsel” is a Constitutional nullity.

V. In All Events, Mr. Mueller’s Appointment Expired on December 13, 2017

Assuming for purposes of argument, that Mr. Rosenstein could appoint Mr. Mueller as a “Special Counsel”, that appointment was expressly limited by statute.  First, 5 U.S. Code §3345(a) - “Acting officer” states in pertinent part: “If an officer of an Executive agency . . . whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office - (1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346.”  Here, as detailed in Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s letter of May 17, 2017, he had invoked  5 U.S. Code § 3345(a) when appointing Mr. Mueller as “Special Counsel”.  As such, Mr. Rosenstein was expressly limited by 5 U.S. Code § 3346, “Time Limitation” which states:

Except in the case of a vacancy caused by sickness, the person serving as an acting officer as described under section 3345 may serve in the office- (1) for no longer than 210 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs; 

Again, assuming Attorney General Session was “otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” due to his supposed conflict of interest, the authority of Mr. Rosenstein to act as an “Acting Attorney General” expired on December 17, 2017 – 210 days after he commenced exercising that authority.  A priori, Mr. Mueller’s authority, whatever that may be, likewise expired on December 17, 2017, with Mr. Rosenstein’s statutory sunset of his ability to act as “Acting Attorney General”.

VI. Conclusion

In sum:

• If Mr. Rosenstein is otherwise qualified to Act as the Attorney General under 5 U.S.C. Section 3345(a)(1), his term of office would expire 210 days from when he began Acting as the Attorney General, to wit, December 17, 2017;

• The office Mr. Mueller purports to currently hold is not established by Congress as required by the Appointments Clause; 

• The power Mr. Mueller is exercising is equal to or greater than a United States Attorney;

• United States Attorneys are principal officers requiring Senate confirmation under 28 U.S.C. Section 541;

• Returning to Lucia, the Supreme Court has held that “one who makes a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case” is entitled to relief. Ryder v. United States, 515 U. S. 177, 182-183 (1995). . . . This Court has also held that the "appropriate" remedy for an adjudication tainted with an appointments violation is a new "hearing before a properly appointed" official. Id., at 183, 188 as all proceedings by a Constitutionally-invalid officer are void.

Therefore,  Mr. Mueller is acting in violation of the Appointments Clause and his actions are thus void ab initio.

I am available to address any questions, comments or concerns you may have.

Yours,

/s/ Montgomery Blair Sibley

cc:

Attorney General Sessions
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Robert K. Kelner
Stephen Pierce Anthony
Counsel for Michael T. Flynn
Covington & Burling LLP
850 Tenth Street N.W.
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
Email: rkelner@cov.com
Email: santhony@cov.com Kevin M. Downing
Counsel for Paul Manafort
Law Office of Kevin M. Downing
601 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001
Email: kevindowning@kdowninglaw.com

Richard William Westling
Counsel for Paul Manafort
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
1227 25th Street, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20037
Email: rwestling@ebglaw.com

Thomas Edward Zehnle
Counsel for Paul Manafort
Law Office of Thomas E. Zehnle
601 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001

Email: tezehnle@gmail.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Fort Sumter to Charlottesville: A letter from two Montgomery Blairs to two Presidents

On Friday, April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, firing for 34 straight hours.  On Saturday, April 13th, the Fort was surrendered by it commanding officer, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson, and evacuated. Confederate troops then occupied Fort Sumter for nearly four years, resisting several bombardments by Union forces before abandoning the garrison prior to William T. Sherman’s capture of Charleston in February 1865.

Most historians agree that the abandonment of Fort Sumter by Major Anderson would play a major part in triggering the Civil War. In the days following the abandonment of the Fort, more Southern states including Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee cast their lot with the Confederacy.  When the Civil War finally ended, some 620,000 people had been killed in the Civil War.

Could this Civil War slaughter have been avoided? And what does Fort Sumter have to do with the riots at Charlottesville, Virginia and subsequent masked insurrections by the oxymoronically-named anti-fascists --”antifa”?  The “antifa” group is known for its black-clad protesters wearing masks, physically attacking those it opposes and causing damage to property during its protests. One of its leaders, Scott Crow, said members use violence as a means of self-defense and they believe property destruction does not equate to violence. "There is a place for violence. Is that the world that we want to live in? No. Is it the world we want to inhabit? No. Is it the world we want to create? No. But will we push back? Yes," Crow said.

A month before the surrender of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln, on March 14, 1861, asked each of the members of his Cabinet their opinions on whether to provision or abandon Fort Sumter.  His Post Master General -- and my great, great, grandfather -- Montgomery Blair responded the next day by letter.  In that letter, Montgomery Blair wrote in part:

Post Office Department,
Washington, March 15, 1861.
To The President.  

Sir: In reply to your interrogatory whether in my opinion it is wise to provision Fort Sumter under present circumstances, I submit the following considerations in favor of provisioning that fort.  

The ambitious leaders of the late Democratic party have availed themselves of the disappointment attendant upon defeat in the late presidential election to found a military government in the seceding States. 

To the connivance of the late administration, it is due alone that this rebellion has been enabled to attain its present proportions.  It has grown by this complicity into the form of an organized government in seven States, and up to this moment nothing has been done to check its progress or prevent its being regarded either at home or abroad as a successful revolution.  

I, in common with all my associates in your council, agree that we must look to the people of these States for the overthrow of this rebellion, and that it is proper to exercise the powers of the Federal Government only so far as to maintain its authority to collect the revenue and maintain possession of the public property in the States; and that this should be done with as little bloodshed as possible. How is this to be carried into effect ? That it is by measures which will inspire respect for the power of the Government, and the firmness of those who administer it, does not admit of debate.  

They for the most part believe that the Northern men are deficient in the courage necessary to maintain the Government. The evacuation of Fort Sumter, when it is known that it can be provisioned and manned, will convince the rebels that the administration lacks firmness, and will therefore tend, more than any event that has happened, to embolden them; and so far from tending to prevent collision, will ensure it unless all the other forts are evacuated and all attempts are given up to maintain the authority of the United States.  

This would completely demoralize the rebellion. The impotent rage of the rebels and the outburst of patriotic feeling which would follow this achievement, would initiate a reactionary movement throughout the South which would speedily overwhelm the traitors. It will in any event vindicate the hardy courage of the North, and the determination of the people and their President to maintain the authority of the Government, and this is all that is wanting, in my judgment, to restore it  

I am, sir, very respectfully, Your obedient servant,  

Montgomery Blair 

The correlation of the “rebels”  of South Carolina with the “antifa” movement of today makes Montgomery Blair’s March 1861 letter as relevant and prescient today as it was 150+ years ago. Antifa has “availed themselves of the disappointment attendant upon defeat in the late presidential election” to justify their violent action against those they deem in opposition to their agenda.  As in 1861, “nothing has been done to check [antifa’s] progress or prevent its being regarded either at home or abroad as a successful revolution.”

Then, as now, the question is “How is [the establishment of federal authority] to be carried into effect? That it is by measures which will inspire respect for the power of the Government, and the firmness of those who administer it, does not admit of debate.”  In 1861, the necessary “measures” were the provisioning of Fort Sumter so it could resist any attempt to remove it from federal control.  In 2017, the virtual Fort Sumter at issue is the ability of Citizens to exercise their First Amendment right to “petition” peacefully without the threat of violence by antifa.

Hence, were Montgomery Blair writing President Trump today, I believe he would recommend measures against antifa-like violence from whatever part of the political spectrum it emanates that would “inspire respect for the power of the Government” to maintain the cornerstone right to peacefully assemble to petition.  This being done regardless of the odiousness to the sensibilities of the public at large of the substance of the “petition” being made.

Montgomery Blair today would write President Trump and recommend "provisioning" the Department of Justice to investigate, and when warranted, criminally prosecute antifa members and their cohorts on the opposite end of the political spectrum for their grotesque 18 U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights violations.

As Montgomery Blair noted, “It will in any event vindicate the hardy courage of the North, and the determination of the people and their President to maintain the authority of the Government.”

Read More...

Summary only...

A 54 Minute History of the Evolution of the Constitution

How our legal system evolved is an understanding necessary in order to appreciate how far afield we have travelled from the ideal. As I have repeatedly said, we no longer have a justice system, but instead just-a-system.

I recently gave a 54 minute radio interview with Richard Solomon of TCBRadioWCWP on that evolution that perhaps you would find of interest.

Read More...

Summary only...

Six Minutes, Fifty Two Seconds Well Spent

As we all wait for the other shoe to drop as the Grand Jury finishes its concealed-from-public-view investigation of the legitimacy of Mr. Obama’s occupation of the Office of the President, I thought a personal point of pride – and a great way to spend six minutes, fifty-two seconds – was in order. My son has made a short film which was a finalist in the recent D.C. International Film Festival.  I hope you enjoy it:

By the way, you can also support his next film: Cellmate.

Read More...

Summary only...

Montgomery Blair’s Wine Cellar saves the Capital and the Union

I have recently been doing research at the Library of Congress on an issue that intrigues me when I came across two photographs which sent me on an historical frolic and detour to verify the truth of an old family story about Montgomery Blair's wine cellar, Jubal Early and the fate of the Capital.

Montgomery Blair was the eldest of Francis Preston Blair's four children. Born in Franklin County, Ky., Montgomery graduated from West Point in 1835. Having studied law in St. Louis, Mo., he became a U.S. attorney for that state and in 1842 at the age of 29, became the mayor of St. Louis.

Blair moved to Washington, D.C. in 1852, establishing his residence at Blair House, located on Pennsylvania Avenue diagonally across from the White House. In 1857 Blair served as counsel in the case of slave Dred Scott. Scott wanted to sue in federal court for his freedom and that of his wife after their master had moved them to Missouri, then free territory. (The case, argued before the Supreme Court, failed.)

Blair later served as President Abraham Lincoln's U.S. Postmaster General from 1861 to 1864. During his term Blair originated prepaid postage, free mail delivery in cities, money orders, and railway postal cars. In other words, he was the father of the 19th Century Internet and Modern Banking.

Two years after moving to Washington, Blair began construction of his summer estate in 1854 on land adjoining that of his father, Francis Preston Blair. Located just over a quarter of a mile to the northwest, Blair named his mansion “Falkland”. Built on a tree-covered hill, the front entrance faced north towards the present-day intersection of Colesville Road and East-West Highway.

On the afternoon of July 11, 1864, Lieutenant General Jubal Anderson Early sat astride his horse outside the gates of Fort Stevens in the upper Northwestern fringe of Washington, D.C. The 47-year-old Confederate, a veteran of Antietam, Gettysburg, the Wilderness and countless other fights, was about to make one of the Civil War's most portentous decisions: whether or not to order his 10,000 veteran troops to invade the United States capital.

He and his men were camped at Montgomery Blair’s Falkland estate. While Early considered his options his troops looted Blair’s wine cellar. Drunken soldiers ransacked the house, strewing papers and women’s clothing in their wake. Montgomery’s home, Falkland, was burned down. (See Photo above, double click for enlarged view).

As a result of the drunken delay, the Sixth Massachusetts arrived in Washington and immediately fortified Fort Stevens. A battled ensured at Fort Stevens and President Lincoln arrived to support the troops. As President Lincoln climbed the ramparts, a surgeon next to him was hit by a Confederate sharpshooter from 1000 yards away – making him the only President to face enemy fire.

Several people took credit for telling the President to take cover, including future Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Aunt Betty – the freed black slave whose house was demolished to make way for Fort Stevens. He did so but stayed to watch as the Union reinforcements were finally ordered over the walls to chase the enemy north.

Jubal Early and his troops were beaten back and they left the next day for Richmond.

Montgomery Blair's loss of his summer home proves the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. He would suffer through-out his life for representing Dred Scott.

Read More...

Summary only...

A 19th Century American Hero

“My attention had been called to some Indians ahead by our scouts, and I spoke to General Custer about it. He told me to take the Indian scouts and go ahead and he would follow . . .”

At that moment, the 25th of June, 1876, my great, great, grandfather, Luther R. Hare, spoke the last words he ever would to General Custer on that fateful day of the Battle of the Little Big Horn. He subsequently gave testimony as to what transpired at the Little Big Horn and I have uploaded it for the curious: The Reno Court of Inquiry.

Later on, he participated in the Nez Perce War (1877), Battle of Wounded Knee (1890) and the Spanish-American War (Philippines Theater).

While with our 21st Century eyes, Luther Hare may seem a repugnant figure, in the 19th Century he was a hero and revered American Frontiersman and solider. As such, he deserves to be remembered as such.

So I do here.

Read More...

Summary only...