Citizens That Took Up Arms Against A Tyrannical County Government

Status
Not open for further replies.

Attala_County

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
45
The Battle of Athens, Tennessee

As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort

Against Corrupt Government Officials.

Published in Guns & Ammo October 1995, pp. 50-51

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution -- Article 1, Section 26 -- recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff's department from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936,1938 and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The sheriff was the key county official. Cantrell was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946 Paul Cantrell again sought the sheriff's office.

At the end of 1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly returned ex-GIs decided to challenge Cantrell politically by offering an all-ex-GI, non-partisan ticket. They promised a fraud-free election, stating in ads and speeches that there would be an honest ballot count and reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p.1 ). At the end of July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn County residents' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942 and 1944.

FROM BALLOTS TO BULLETS

The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens, Paidia Productions, Chattanooga, TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot counting "Public" A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p.165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history" (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire.

Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail" (Byrum, p.189).

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.

THE AFTERMATH: RESTORING DEMOCRACY

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GI's did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On August 2, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI... To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf" (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned up county government, the jail was fixed, newly elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit and Mansfield supporters who resigned were replaced.

The general election on November 5 passed quietly. McMinn County residents, having restored the rule of law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened" (Byrum pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

The 79th Congress adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn County residents. Jennings was delighted that "...at long last, decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn.. " (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870).

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

A New Challenge.

Riviera Beach,Florida
Nov.29,2005
Eminent Domain proceeding that would strip 6,000 people from thier homes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ov29,1,7251814.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
If all peacable means of resistence fails,then i would call for the people of Riviera Beach,Florida to form Militias among themselves and protect thier God-Given right to own thier own private property.This is a critical time in America when our rights are being assaulted left and right.If the courts decide in the favor of the government,then this means that the only way our government will respect our constitutional rights,our God-Given liberties,is when the government sees the people forming militias and arming themselves in preparation to defend thier rights.Such as, the people of Florida actually REFUSING to be moved and standing together in defiance of tyranny.Before you start labeling me an extremist,maybe, you should decide on whether you have the integrity to defend your home, your son's and daughter's homes,your community's home(present),your state's homes, your country's homes FROM THEIVES!!They were more commonly known as bastards to our forfathers.(lol)But really,do you have this integrity?Do you have what it takes?... Patriot?:fire:
 
I wish them luck.

Will be interesting how the liberal media portrays this type of action.
 
Look for the Deacons for Defense story. HBO had a movie.
 
If all peacable means of resistence fails,then i would call for the people of Riviera Beach,Florida to form Militias among themselves and protect thier God-Given right to own thier own private property.This is a critical time in America when our rights are being assaulted left and right.If the courts decide in the favor of the government,then this means that the only way our government will respect our constitutional rights,our God-Given liberties,is when the government sees the people forming militias and arming themselves in preparation to defend thier rights.Such as, the people of Florida actually REFUSING to be moved and standing together in defiance of tyranny.Before you start labeling me an extremist,maybe, you should decide on whether you have the integrity to defend your home, your son's and daughter's homes,your community's home(present),your state's homes, your country's homes FROM THEIVES!!They were more commonly known as bastards to our forfathers.(lol)But really,do you have this integrity?Do you have what it takes?... Patriot?

All that this would accomplish is to give the antis more leverage to have an outright nation-wide ban.
 
Just remembered.

The media didn't demonize the lady I think from Denton that held Walmart at bay. She told the media that the first person that comes on her property to take it would be shot. The news spread and the state gov I think told the city to back off.

When I get a few minutes I'll do a search and try to find the story.
 
Does anyone know the legality of promising that land ceded under duress would be rendered unusable by deliberate pollution, booby traps or unspecified other means?
 
Oleg Volk said:
Does anyone know the legality of promising that land ceded under duress would be rendered unusable by deliberate pollution, booby traps or unspecified other means?

I am sure one would be held liable for any intentional acts of sabotage. :(
 
Oleg Volk said:
Does anyone know the legality of promising that land ceded under duress would be rendered unusable by deliberate pollution, booby traps or unspecified other means?

Due to the business my dad was in before he passed (crop spraying) I do have limited knowledge of land pollution.

It would be up the the previous owners or the persons proven to contaminate the soil to pay for the VERY expensive clean up.

How or if that would apply in this case ?????? me don't know.
 
Oleg, if one's property, unknown to the owner, had somehow been an illegal dumping site for oil/other chemicals.... oh well for the ones shoving you off the land.
 
If all peacable means of resistence fails,then i would call for the people of Riviera Beach,Florida to form Militias among themselves and protect thier God-Given right to own thier own private property.This is a critical time in America when our rights are being assaulted left and right.If the courts decide in the favor of the government,then this means that the only way our government will respect our constitutional rights,our God-Given liberties,is when the government sees the people forming militias and arming themselves in preparation to defend thier rights.Such as, the people of Florida actually REFUSING to be moved and standing together in defiance of tyranny.Before you start labeling me an extremist,maybe, you should decide on whether you have the integrity to defend your home, your son's and daughter's homes,your community's home(present),your state's homes, your country's homes FROM THEIVES!!They were more commonly known as bastards to our forfathers.(lol)But really,do you have this integrity?Do you have what it takes?... Patriot?
All that this would accomplish is to give the antis more leverage to have an outright nation-wide ban.
Yeah, and show them what will happen if they try it, as well as making other town think just what can happen to them if they try this. I watch Hanity with the mayor on FoxNews, that mayor is a moron and a criminal.
 
Third_Rail said:
Oleg, if one's property, unknown to the owner, had somehow been an illegal dumping site for oil/other chemicals.... oh well for the ones shoving you off the land.

The problem with that is that under Federal environmental laws, the owner is responsible any pollution on the property. It is the owner's responsibility to prove that someone else is responsible. The "midnight dumper" defense doesn't work too well in those cases.
 
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but...

If all peacable means of resistence fails,then i would call for the people of Riviera Beach,Florida to form Militias among themselves and protect thier God-Given right to own thier own private property.This is a critical time in America when our rights are being assaulted left and right.If the courts decide in the favor of the government,then this means that the only way our government will respect our constitutional rights,our God-Given liberties,is when the government sees the people forming militias and arming themselves in preparation to defend thier rights.Such as, the people of Florida actually REFUSING to be moved and standing together in defiance of tyranny.Before you start labeling me an extremist,maybe, you should decide on whether you have the integrity to defend your home, your son's and daughter's homes,your community's home(present),your state's homes, your country's homes FROM THEIVES!!They were more commonly known as bastards to our forfathers.(lol)But really,do you have this integrity?Do you have what it takes?... Patriot?

All that this would accomplish is to give the antis more leverage to have an outright nation-wide ban.

Something about that answer...

Oh Yeah! You don't think the people that would take up arms to defend (just) their livelihood and homes would also not hesitate to oppose, forcefully if necessary, an all out ban on the only tools that could protect that livelihood and home (and very lives)? Not only from a corrupt local government, but from anyone bigger, stronger, or more vicious?

Do you also think that not only would the residents of Riviera Beach take up arms to defend themselves, but at least a few fellow Americans might decide it's better to shoot it out when THAT ban hits, and hope the government will realize they've awakened a sleeping giant, than to lose the ability forever to defend their lives and property? If it's come to the point that my government will criminalize me with the stroke of a pen, and no other so-called Americans will stand up beside me, maybe it's time to go out in a hail of gunfire.

I'd rather not be a serf or subject. I'm not a member of any militia, and surprisingly enough, I still have some faith in our government, because it's not ALL scummy politicians, but I'll be damned (along with all our descendants) if I give up the only defense I have against tyranny like this.

That's awful wordy...but I'm leaving it. Hope somebody can make sense of it.

S/F

Farnham
 
All that this would accomplish is to give the antis more leverage to have an outright nation-wide ban.
Wow, when you put it that way I guess all we can do is roll over and pass them the vasoline :rolleyes:
 
Oleg,

I agree with buzz_knox. The property owner would be responsible for contamination they put there or allowed to be put there. This would result in remediation costs that would be the financial responsibility of the property owner and in criminal charges. Costs for the clean up could exceed the value of the property if the contamination were extensive and of a particularly difficult type to clean up, like PCB, dioxin, hydrofurans, tetraethyl lead, tritium, etc.

If the property owner were to have no means to pay for the remediation then the state could pick up the tab or the fed. Regardless, the contaminating property owner would find themselves charged with criminal violation of environmental law, certain seizure of the property, and because they had destroyed the value of the property no compensation of any type.
 
nfl1990 said:
All that this would accomplish is to give the antis more leverage to have an outright nation-wide ban.

And if that happened, well, it sure isn't "Miller Time" is it? It would at least be intellectually and politically honest to see an "outright nation-wide ban" passed and enforcement attempted. It would add some much needed moral clarity.
 
Farnham said:
Something about that answer...

Oh Yeah! You don't think the people that would take up arms to defend (just) their livelihood and homes would also not hesitate to oppose, forcefully if necessary, an all out ban on the only tools that could protect that livelihood and home (and very lives)? Not only from a corrupt local government, but from anyone bigger, stronger, or more vicious?

Do you also think that not only would the residents of Riviera Beach take up arms to defend themselves, but at least a few fellow Americans might decide it's better to shoot it out when THAT ban hits, and hope the government will realize they've awakened a sleeping giant, than to lose the ability forever to defend their lives and property? If it's come to the point that my government will criminalize me with the stroke of a pen, and no other so-called Americans will stand up beside me, maybe it's time to go out in a hail of gunfire.

I'd rather not be a serf or subject. I'm not a member of any militia, and surprisingly enough, I still have some faith in our government, because it's not ALL scummy politicians, but I'll be damned (along with all our descendants) if I give up the only defense I have against tyranny like this.

That's awful wordy...but I'm leaving it. Hope somebody can make sense of it.

S/F

Farnham


+1 man.
 
hso said:
Oleg,

I agree with buzz_knox. The property owner would be responsible for contamination they put there or allowed to be put there. This would result in remediation costs that would be the financial responsibility of the property owner and in criminal charges. Costs for the clean up could exceed the value of the property if the contamination were extensive and of a particularly difficult type to clean up, like PCB, dioxin, hydrofurans, tetraethyl lead, tritium, etc.

If the property owner were to have no means to pay for the remediation then the state could pick up the tab or the fed. Regardless, the contaminating property owner would find themselves charged with criminal violation of environmental law, certain seizure of the property, and because they had destroyed the value of the property no compensation of any type.

The criminal violations are the only ones where the property owner's own contamination come into play. If the state can't prove the owner did the contamination, the owner can't be charged. However, environmental statutes are focused on remdiation, not punishment. If you owned the property at any point, you are responsible for cleaning it up unless you can prove you had nothing to do with the contamination (i.e. your ownership ended before the particular chemical was invented or before a survey revealed no contamination). And if you did contaminate the property in any way (say, by dumping your motor oil), you could be on the hook for the entire remediation.
 
200 gallons of PERC that got sprayed over the property would destroy the value and cause problems for years to come by contaminating groundwater, but the state probably wouldn't have too much trouble prooving that you purchased it after the proprety seizure issues had come up.

Intentionally creating your own Times Beach to prevent anyone from using the property is not just Pyrrhic, it creates problems for people that weren't even involved with the decision to steal your property. Regardless of the sympathy I would have for someone fighting such a seizure of property, intentionally contaminating your property with toxic chemicals is evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top