An extension of support for small businesses got delayed in Congress.
Senate Democrats shot down Republican Senators’ plans to provide up to $250 billion more in loans for small businesses. The proposed plan would allow more businesses to apply for loans to keep employees in their jobs.
Democrats want to expand the support in the emergency funding beyond small businesses to include state/local governments and hospitals.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a proposal that only included small business funding would not get Democratic backing. The two parties have competing proposals, so it may take some time to find and approve the funding.
David Gay says
Remember the Pelosi led obstruction of aid to American Workers and Businesses. You suffer while she pigs out on expensive ice cream in her walled compound in California. Why isn’t she in Washington doing the job she was elected to do. Instead she is taking a vacation and laughing all the way to the bank. Americans are fed up with the Democrats and their authoritarian bullshit. Remember how you were treated now when it comes time to vote in November.
Blue Hoss says
November? Why wait? Ostracize and shun them in the communities they call home.
Daniel Morgan says
None so blind as those who will not see…
With the relentless invasion of this Country; Conservatives, Patriots, and the GOP are Dead Men Walking.
We win victories in skirmishes, and ignore the blatant entrenchment of the Enemy’s reinforcements in front of our faces.
America will fall permanently into the hands Democrats, when the 10s of MILLIONS of undeported Illegal Alien invaders are foolishly and inevitably granted amnesty and voting rights.
The seditious and adamant refusal to Deport en masse, the Democrat’s 5th Column, will cost us dearly.
Only a matter of time and we will see America gifted to The Party of Satan and the Illegal alien invaders…on our watch.
Paul Plante says
Just want to say, Daniel, that you and your Virginia riflemen put the whupass real good on Johhny Burgoyne and his Brits back there at Saratoga!
Hat’s off to a job well done.
Daniel Morgan says
As to war, I am and always was a great enemy, at the same time a warrior the greater part of my life and were I young again, should still be a warrior while ever this country should be invaded and I lived.
Paul Plante says
I always find myself that being a formidable enemy is always a good defense.
Henry Lee says
A soldier is always in danger, when his conviction of security leads him to dispense with the most vigilant precautions.
Paul Plante says
“Light-horse Harry,” welcome to the discussion and your words above are so true, at least to those who have ears to hear.
Better to be a foot behind, than an inch too far ahead.
Which takes us back to Saratoga and the controversy which rages to this day about who actually shot Simon Fraser, Burgoyne’s fighting general, who I actually have a lot of admiration for, knowing that battlefield and the land the Brits came down through from Canada to get there so Simon Fraser could meet his maker at his appointed hour.
Had Simon Fraser not died that day, in all likelihood we would still be tugging the forelock and bending the knee to some royalty over in England who don’t know we exist other than as a source of revenue, and don’t care.
Credit is given to “Granny” Gates for that victory, but he was cowering in his hut during the battle, so he doesn’t deserve it.
Who gave the order that won that battle and changed history was Daniel M organ, who was at the front of the battle, not cowering behind like “Granny” Gates.”
That part is not in dispute.
The dispute is about who the order was givcn to.
For example, in 1856 there appeared the “Life of General Daniel Morgan of the Virginia Line of the Army of the United States” by James Graham, who had married one of Morgan’s great granddaughters, and lucky him, he had access to oral family history as well as Morgan’s papers.
Graham describes the shooting of Fraser (which Graham spells with a “z”): “Selecting twelve of his best marksmen, he [Morgan] led them to a suitable position, when, having pointed out to them the doomed officer, he told them to kill him when next he came within reach of their rifles.”
“‘He is a brave man; but he must die’ – the only observation which fell from Morgan’s lips besides his directions to his men – betrayed the struggle of generosity with duty in his breast.”
“He afterwards said, that he attentively and somewhat anxiously observed his marksmen, when, a few minutes having elapsed, and Frazer re-appearing within gun-shot of them, he saw them all raise their rifles and, taking deliberate aim, fire.”
And here we come to the controversy, because we up here since I was young have believed that it was a man named Timothy Murphy that you told to shoot Fraser, but Tim Murphy was not mentioned by James Graham who gives a very plausible scenario.
Getting back to yourself on that fatal day for Simon Fraser and Johnny Burgoyne and his Brits and Hessians, as has been mentioned by others who were at the battle, it seems that more than just one man was ordered to shoot Fraser.
If Morgan intended on making sure that the mission to shoot the distant officer was successful, it seems reasonable that he would assign several marksmen to the task.
This is especially true if the target was distant and moving.
Don Higginbotham’s 1961 “Daniel Morgan, Revolutionary Rifleman,” incorporates Timothy Murphy into the scenario: “At this point General Fraser, with the light infantry and the British 24th Regiment, attempted to form a line slightly to the rear of Riedesel’s men to cover their movement.”
“Mounted on a grey horse, Fraser rode back and forth shouting encouragement to his troops.”
“Believing Fraser’s efforts were prolonging the contest, Morgan called on rifleman Timothy Murphy to shoot the brave Scottish General.”
“Murphy, a skilled Indian fighter and a fine marksman, climbed a tree and trained his double-barreled rifle upon Fraser.”
“Allegedly his first shot severed the crupper of Fraser’s horse, his second creased the horse’s mane, and his third struck the General.”
Higginbotham cites as his source a conversation between Joseph Graham (a British officer) and Daniel Morgan in November or early December of 1781, and which is described by Graham in the 1853 Virginia Historical Register [p. 210.]
However, the conversation as included in the 1853 Virginia Historical Register contains no reference of Murphy.
Higginbotham takes the liberty of inserting Murphy’s name in brackets within Graham’s description, as follows: “Me and my boys’ had a bad time until ‘I saw that they were led by an officer on a grey horse – a devilish brave fellow.'”
“Then ‘says I to one of my best shots [Murphy], says I, you get up into that there tree, and single out him on the …horse.”
“Dang it, ’twas no sooner said than done.”
“On came the British again, with the grey horseman leading; but his career was short enough this time.”
“‘I jist tuck my eyes off him for a moment, and when I turned them to the place where he had been – pooh, he was gone!'”
Higginbotham continues that Charles Neilson, whose father served in Gate’s army, recorded the same story.
Neilson’s version appears in William L. Stone, “Burgoyne’s Campaign and St. Leger’s Expedition,” Albany 1877) pp. 249-250, but Neilson provides no sources for his statements.
Graham’s description is the only primary source known to exist and in it Tim Murphy was not mentioned.
It may have been Tim Murphy to whom Morgan gave the order but Tim Murphy was not mentioned by name.
Higginbotham was in error, or at least did not cite his sources accurately, when he attributed the shooting to Murphy based on Graham’s conversation on pages 73-74 and inserted the name “Murphy” in brackets on pages 270-271.
It may be that this version of the story got blended in with the Simms story and other secondary accounts.
It seems that through repetition the story evolved and grew.
The story of Tim Murphy’s involvement in the shooting of Fraser has not ended.
In the 1997 “Saratoga, Turning Point of the Revolutionary War,” Richard M. Ketchum tells the story of Morgan ordering Tim Murphy to “get rid of the man on the gray horse.”
Murphy, from a tree fires a double barreled rifle three times.
The first shot cut the horse’s crupper, the second shot hit the horse’s mane, the third shot hit Fraser.
Ketchum cites no primary nor contemporary source for the story.
Despite obvious practical difficulties such as loading and firing a double barreled rifle from a tree and observing hits on the crupper and mane from 300 to 500 yards the story has gained new life.
The matter of the use of a double barreled rifle or even the existence of such a weapon would certainly be highly questionable.
The possibility that no such rifle existed in 1777 shall be left to experts in the field.
After sifting through many versions of the shooting of Simon Fraser we are only able to say that Timothy Murphy may have been involved.
While it took over 60 years for Murphy’s name to be associated with the shooting, it may be significant that no other name has ever been connected with the shot.
Of course, many scenarios could easily account for the identity of the sharpshooter becoming lost.
Without discounting the value of oral history it certainly would make the case for Tim Murphy stronger if someone other than his son, more than 50 years after the fact and 20 years after Murphy’s death, would have named Murphy as the shooter.
One wonders why Murphy was not given credit during his own lifetime.
The 1856 version of the story by James Graham, great grandson-in-law of Morgan, who describes Morgan as assigning several men to the task seems entirely plausible and practical.
On balance it appears far more likely than ordering one man to the job.
Whether Tim Murphy actually made the shot that killed Simon Fraser is something we may never know.
Perhaps some long lost diary or letter will surface and provide the answer.
One wonders what Tim Murphy himself would tell us.
Or, perhaps of more interest, what he would think of his legend.
However, as modern and respected historians choose to perpetuate what may only be legend, it appears that when the legend becomes fact then it may be best to continue the legend.