The Taxpayers' Choice Student Loan Solution

February, 2026

Washington — This post, prepared with the help and in the style of AI, outlines a structural, bipartisan solution to the student loan "zombie debt" trap currently stalling the 2026 housing market and contributing significantly to the economy's affordability doldrums. By amending S.3761 (The Student Loan Bond Expansion Act, to raise the volume cap on such bonds), we can authorize a deficit-neutral transfer of federal student loans to state entities for immediate, principal-based loan discharge.  The results will be remarkable, exceeding in fairness and effect any such previous effort.   

The actual amendment appears at the bottom of this post. Readers are encouraged to read a Q and A post following this one for more explanation.   

The "Taxpayers' Choice Student Loan Solution"

The current federal student loan portfolio is haunted by "zombie debt"—accounts that are either non-performing or trapped in "permanent debt" cycles due to decades of compounding interest and servicer misconduct. Under the 2026 Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), these loans face a 30-year collection tail that creates a massive administrative drag on the Treasury.

The solution isn't another executive order destined for the Supreme Court. It is a statutory asset sale that empowers state authorities across the country—from Vermont (VSAC), Massachusetts (MEFA), and Rhode Island (RISLA) to Texas (Trellis), Georgia (GSFC), and others—to buy this debt and clear it for their residents.

The Amendment: S.3761 "Portfolio Optimization"

The proposed bipartisan amendment to S.3761 creates a high-integrity bridge between federal fiscal needs and state economic growth. Here are the core pillars:

1. The "No-Cost" FCRA Math

To satisfy fiscal hawks, the sale is scored under the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA).

The Efficiency Gain: The federal government currently pays private contractors $3.00–$4.00 per month to service "zombie" accounts.
The Bid: States buy these loans at their Book Value minus these administrative savings. By using low-cost, tax-exempt bonds, states can buy "zombie" federal loans at their actual discounted value and stop the drain of expensive government servicing fees. Because the state’s borrowing cost is so much lower than federal student and parent loan interest rates, they can use that "interest spread" to cancel the remaining balances for borrowers at zero net cost to the taxpayer.
The Result: The Treasury receives immediate cash equal to the "expected recovery," while the "discretionary" cost of servicing is wiped off the federal books. It is a net win for the deficit.

2. Restitution via the "Principal-First" Audit

This is the heart of the proposal. It addresses the moral hazard question while providing justice to those victimized by past servicing failures.

The Rule: Any borrower who has already paid back 100% of their original principal receives an immediate discharge of their remaining interest-inflated balance.
The Justification: This recognizes that interest-heavy structures and "forbearance steering" have artificially ballooned balances. If you returned the taxpayer money, your moral and financial obligation is fulfilled.

3. Federal Integrity Standards

To prevent the errors of the past, only "Certified" state entities with clean regulatory records can participate. 

The Oversight: If a state entity fails to provide the "Paid in Full" status within 90 days of purchase, Federal Integrity Standards trigger a mandatory reversion: the loans return to federal control, the state is fined, and the borrower is held harmless.

Why This Works: Bipartisan Economic Velocity

The Taxpayers' Choice Student Loan Solution avoids political gridlock by focusing on market efficiency and localized stimulus:  

For the Housing Market: Clearing these balances immediately fixes Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratios. It turns thousands of "debt-constrained" renters into qualified homebuyers overnight, specifically helping those most impacted by interest compounding.
For the States: It reverses "brain drain." States can use their bond-market spread (the difference between their 3.85% tax-exempt rate and the 7% federal rate) to offer residency-based credits, keeping essential workers in-state.
For Federal Taxpayers: It stops the bleed of federal funds to private collection agencies and cleans up a $1.7 trillion balance sheet that has become unmanageable.

Legal and Structural Integrity

Constitutional Durability: This approach does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's "Major Questions Doctrine." Unlike previous attempts at mass cancellation via executive interpretation, this model relies on explicit Congressional authorization through the amendment of a statute. By providing a "clear statement" from the legislative branch, it fulfills the Court's requirement that major policy shifts be enacted by the people’s representatives, not administrative agencies.
Eliminating Private-Sector Profit: Crucially, this solution involves no part of the for-profit student loan industry. The transfer is strictly from the federal government to state-affiliated nonprofit authorities. By utilizing tax-exempt municipal bonds rather than private equity or commercial banks, the financial benefit of the low interest rates is passed directly to the borrower in the form of debt discharge, rather than being captured as corporate profit.

National Reciprocity: No State Left Behind

What about states without a high-capacity agency? The amendment includes a Reciprocity Clause. If a state doesn't have an eligible entity, a high-performing agency from a reciprocating state can "adopt" those residents. Whether you are in Mississippi, Ohio, Maryland, or Utah, your path to a "Fresh Start" isn't dictated by a geographic lottery.

A Remarkable Economic Engine

The scale of this solution is unprecedented. Projections suggest this "Principal-First" audit could impact nearly 10 million borrowers who have spent a decade or more in the system, returning 100% of their original principal but remaining "debt-trapped" by interest. This model is targeted at the demographics most harmed by the "interest ballooning" of the last 20 years.  Because Black and Latino borrowers statistically face higher interest accrual due to lower family wealth and longer repayment timelines, this "Principal-First" solution provides restitution where it is needed most. The economic impact is profound: clearing these interest-heavy balances would inject an estimated $80 billion to $100 billion in immediate purchasing power into the national economy. By resetting credit scores and fixing Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratios, we effectively unlock a "frozen" generation of homebuyers, sparking a localized housing boom that generates new property tax revenue and stimulates billions in secondary spending on construction, retail, and local services.

The "No-Loss" Guarantee for Borrowers

As a matter of federal law under this proposal, any state entity acquiring a federal loan is contractually and legally obligated to honor all existing Title IV borrower protections, including Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) accrual, Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) pathways, restitution for servicer misconduct, and discharge rights for disability or school misconduct.  This ensures that the move to a state-managed "Principal-First" audit is an additive benefit: borrowers retain every federal protection they currently have while gaining a faster, interest-free path to a "Paid in Full" status funded by the state's bond-market efficiency.

Improvements for the Direct Loan Program

This strategy strengthens the federal system by offloading "zombie" accounts, instantly stopping the drain of expensive monthly servicing fees for loans the government has already failed to collect. By selling these matured assets at their internal book value, the Department of Education cleans its balance sheet and improves portfolio transparency without any disruption to the issuance of new Direct Loans via the FAFSA. By offloading these high-maintenance "zombie" accounts, the federal government can reinvest the billions saved in administrative servicing fees directly back into the Direct Loan program. These savings provide the fiscal space for Congress to lower borrower costs—such as eliminating the 1% to 4% origination fees—and to fund higher-quality, high-tech servicing for the next generation of students.

The Bottom Line

This approach recognizes that when a debt has been fulfilled, the borrower—and the economy—should be set free. By aligning the statutory authority to sell with the state capacity to buy, we can restore the American social contract and strengthen the housing market, one "Paid in Full" letter at a time.

Here is the formal legislative text of the Taxpayers' Choice Student Loan Solution amendment. This version is ready for the Congressional Record, incorporating the "Principal-First" restitution mandate, the federal integrity safeguards, and the interstate reciprocity provisions.

---

AMENDMENT TO S.3761

OFFERED BY [REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR]

In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

SEC. ___. FEDERAL-STATE STUDENT LOAN PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF PORTFOLIO SALES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Education (referred to in this section as the ‘Secretary’) is authorized to sell and transfer all legal title of specific federal student loan portfolios to an Eligible State Entity.

(b) ELIGIBLE STATE ENTITY DEFINED.—For the purposes of this section, an ‘Eligible State Entity’ is a state-affiliated non-profit authority or state agency that meets the following Federal Integrity Standards:

1. AUDIT COMPLIANCE.—The entity has not been subject to a Final Audit Determination by the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) for material non-compliance in loan servicing within the preceding 36 months.
2. CONSUMER PROTECTION.—The entity is not currently subject to a federal or state consent decree or settlement exceeding $1,000,000 related to unfair or deceptive student loan servicing practices.
3. BOND CAPACITY.—The entity utilizes proceeds from Qualified Student Loan Bonds (QSLBs), as expanded under this Act, to fund the acquisition.

(c) STATE RECIPROCITY AND RESIDENT ACCESS.—

1. AUTHORIZATION TO SERVE OUT-OF-STATE RESIDENTS.—In the event a State does not possess an Eligible State Entity, or its designated entity elects not to participate, an Eligible State Entity from another State may purchase the federal loan portfolios of residents in that State.
2. INTERSTATE COMPACTS.—The Secretary shall facilitate interstate agreements to ensure that Reciprocity Entities provide the same "Principal-First" discharges and interest-rate freezes to out-of-state residents as they provide to their own residents.

(d) VALUATION AND NO-COST CERTIFICATION.—

1. FCRA ACCOUNTING.—The Secretary shall certify that any sale under this section results in ‘No Net Cost’ to the Federal Government as measured by the Net Present Value of future cash flows under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA).
2. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET.—In calculating the FCRA Book Value, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Secretary shall subtract the projected Administrative Servicing and Collection Costs (calculated at a minimum of $3.00 per account, per month) that would have been incurred by the Federal Government over the remaining life of the loans.

(e) THE BORROWER BILL OF RIGHTS AND RESTITUTION MANDATE.—As a condition of purchase, an Eligible State Entity must contractually agree to:

1. PRINCIPAL-FIRST DISCHARGE.—The Entity shall conduct a Financial Fulfillment Audit. If the total lifetime payments made by a borrower (including interest and fees) equal or exceed 100 percent of the original principal disbursed, the Entity shall discharge the remaining balance in full within 90 days. This serves as restitution for documented historical servicing failures and interest-only cycles.
2. INTEREST ACCRUAL FREEZE.—Upon acquisition, all interest accrual on the acquired loans shall cease permanently.
3. CREDIT AMNESTY.—Any loan discharged shall be reported to national credit bureaus as ‘Paid in Full / Account Closed’ to ensure maximum Debt-to-Income (DTI) recovery for the borrower.

(f) TAX TREATMENT.—Any discharge of indebtedness under this section shall be deemed a Qualified Student Loan Discharge under Section 108(f) of the Internal Revenue Code and shall be excluded from the borrower’s gross income for federal and state tax purposes.

(g) FEDERAL OVERSIGHT AND REVERSION.—

1. COMPLIANCE AUDIT.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), shall conduct a compliance review 120 days after any portfolio transfer.
2. MANDATORY REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that an Eligible State Entity has failed to implement the Principal-First Discharge Mandate within the 90-day window, legal title to the affected loan portfolio shall immediately revert to the Secretary of Education, and the State Entity shall be liable for the return of all federal acquisition funds.

The Incredible Destruction of Families in the Civil War

February, 2026

Washington —  After helping to win American independence from the British, often heroically as described in a previous post, what kinds of lives did our Virginia ancestors and their offspring pursue?  What happened to the Smith, Eastham, Strother, Hull, Simmons, Hoover, and Wimer families?

It is not a story easily told.  Several of our families fractured and later fought on opposite sides of the Civil War. Several survivors eventually left for Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska, driven out under judicial and economic pressures.  

After victory over the British, Virginia soldiers received government rewards of land in the state's interior.  Veterans who accumulated large tracts of land acquired enslaved people to clear and farm the properties.  All of the individuals identified in the earlier blog post, or their direct descendants, became slaveholders, if they weren't already.

John Smith's sons, led by Abraham, amassed land in several counties, including Pendleton (formerly Augusta) County around Smith Creek, a tributary of the South Branch of the Potomac.  They farmed the properties with slaves inherited from their father.  The Wimer family expanded along the North Fork of the South Branch, near Strother, Simmons, Hull, and Hoover properties, all with the labor of enslaved people, combined with that of their own families.  Peter Hull was the largest slaveholder in the area. 

There was, however, inner warfare and resistance within the households of the Virginia gentry, even among families who considered themselves benevolent enslavers. In Rockingham County, Abraham's brother Daniel Smith's coffee was poisoned by his slave Charlotte.  He survived; she was arrested, tried, and executed.  

Within two generations, the steep hillsides of the North Fork were increasingly difficult to farm due to soil exhaustion and erosion. Part of the Wimer and Zickafoose (Hull line) families moved in a chain migration to better soils in Ohio, without slaves.  Francis Strother, son of Anthony, moved to Indiana, while Francis's son Nathaniel remained in Pendleton County and spelled his name Strawder.  

These relocations set up cousin-against-cousin, uncle-against-nephew, and even brother-against-brother conflicts in the Civil War.  

Francis E. Strother of the Indiana Strothers fought for the Union with the 10th Indiana infantry at Chickamauga.  Nathaniel Strother's son Isaac Strawder fought for the Confederacy with the 62nd Mounted Infantry (Imboden's Brigade) in the Shenandoah Valley and at New Market.  Henry and Elias C. Zickafoose of Ohio fought for the Union with the 83rd Infantry, while their half-brother Sampson Zickafoose of Pendleton County fought in the 46th Virginia Infantry.  Sampson died of disease in 1863, as did Elias in 1865. Ohio Wimers fought for the Union while their Wimer cousins Ephraim, Jacob, and Aaron (and probably Peter B. as well) fought in the 62nd Virginia Mounted Infantry.  Ephraim was a prisoner of war at Camp Chase, Ohio. 

Family members faced off against each other at least twice on Civil War battlefields. At the 1864 Battle of Lynchburg, private Isaac Strawder's Confederate forces under Jubal Early prevailed over Union General Hunter's army, whose chief of staff was David Hunter Strother, also known famously as Porte Crayon.  But Porte Crayon succeeded in burning VMI for its role in teaching treason, as he described it. Isaac Strawder's Company B, 62nd Mounted Infantry's victorious captain was Immanuel Hull, a descendant of Peter Hull of the Revolutionary War.  

The most consequential Civil War engagement involving our families was the Red River campaign in the western theater in 1864, where Henry and Elias C. Zickafoose, fighting under Union general Nathaniel Banks, faced Confederate general Richard Strother Taylor, son of Zachary Taylor, cousin of Porte Crayon, and at one time the largest slaveholder in Louisiana (but admired by Frederick Law Olmsted for the way he ran his plantation).  The Battle of Mansfield was won by the Confederates, but the next day's Battle of Pleasant Hill saw a recovery by the Union, to allow its forces to retreat.  These were exceptionally bloody battles that caused leadership changes: Ulysses Grant relieved Nathaniel Banks and Confederate general Kirby Smith reassigned Taylor's forces, weakening Taylor's strategic position.

A year later, Henry Zickafoose's 83rd Indiana infantry stood by near Citronelle, Mississippi, when Richard Strother Taylor surrendered, a few days after Lee's surrender at Appomattox, to end the Civil War.  (Notably, Taylor declined the Union band's playing of "Dixie," wanting to get on to reuniting the nation.) Henry's brother Elias C. Zickafoose had died a few weeks before the surrender, and is buried at the U.S. National Cemetery in Natchez.  

Meanwhile, back in 1850 Peter B. Wimer, son of Philip Wimer, Jr. and Mary Ann Hoover, had married Sarah Strother in Pendleton County.  They became, in 1860, the parents of Susan Wimer, who later married William Clark Zickafoose, son of Sampson Zickafoose. Little did they know what lay ahead. 

After the war, Peter B. and other Confederate veterans were sued for restitution for their roles in fierce intra-Pendleton fighting between the "Dixie Boys" and the "Swamp Dragons."  After Sarah Strother died in 1875, he married Catherine Kile and moved in the following decade to Nebraska.  They were followed by his Wimer/Strother daughter Susan, her Zickafoose/Hull husband, and their child, my grandmother Ressie Mae Zicafoose, born on Dry Run, Pendleton County, in 1884.   

In the early 1890s, Peter B., surrounded by Union-veteran farmers in Nebraska, moved to Barton County, Missouri, a nest of Confederate veterans.  Isaac Strawder left Pendleton County even earlier, moved to Kansas and died there in 1869.  His wife Lucinda Wimer and their son Isaac Newton Strawder moved to Nebraska thereafter, eventually near the Zicafooses in Lancaster County. 

William Clark and Susan Wimer Zicafoose moved to Nebraska's Red Willow County early in the 20th century and the Strawders moved to nearby Lincoln County.  In 1930 Ben and Mae Zicafoose Oberg traveled to the Strawder home near Wallace and spent several days with them.  An Isaac Strawder descendant still lives in Lancaster County.  

Cousins Richard Strother Taylor and David Hunter 'Porte Crayon' Strother, both gifted writers, left behind the two best book accounts of the incredibly destructive Civil War, as written by Confederate and Union generals, respectively.  Once close cousins, they never reconciled.  

For decades, the stories of these Virginia families, heroes in the American Revolution but later torn apart over slavery, have been lost to history, at least among descendants in Nebraska. We would be wise to take note of them.    

• 
  

 

Say No to Bait and Switch

February, 2026

Lincoln — Today's Lincoln JournalStar features a letter to the editor regarding the Nebraska Environmental Trust that all Nebraskans should read and heed.  Here it is:

I love a quiet morning fishing with a pole, bobber and a nightcrawler. But at the Capitol, I'm seeing a different kind of angling — one that threatens conservation across Nebraska.

LB1072 is a bait and switch. Sections 124 and 125 would divert more than $40 million from the Nebraska Environmental Trust — funds meant for habitat restoration, clean water, wildlife conservation and community projects. Supporters claim it strengthens conservation, but it simply replaces withdrawn state dollars with trust dollars. LB1072 provides state agencies with funds that were never meant to be theirs, leaving local groups and community partners with fewer resources.

For nearly 30 years, the trust worked as voters designed it: independent, competitive and guided by citizen oversight. But political pressure has chipped away at that model, making the trust an easy target — especially after major tax cuts reduced general fund revenue.

That's why LR298CA matters. It would protect the trust's mission, independence and competitive grant structure by placing them in the state constitution.

Let's keep the trust true to its purpose and stop this legislative snag before it steals the whole stringer. Contact your state senator and urge them to oppose LB1072 and support LR298CA.

Dr. Russell Souchek, president,

Nebraska Wildlife Federation, Seward

LB 1072 is the worst kind of bait and switch bill. It is beneath the dignity of the state to enact it.  Thanks to Dr. Souchek for pointing this out. 

Many years ago I was director of administrative services for the State of Nebraska, required by bond and by oath to uphold the state constitution and its statutes.  I would never transfer funds or approve expenditures from the Nebraska Environmental Trust for purposes other than those for which it was created by voters in 1992 and 2004.

 

Senators Who Might Create an Independent Caucus

February, 2026

Washington — It was heartening yesterday to hear Robert Kagan, former Republican and current writer at The Atlantic, note that four Senate Republicans have it in their power to preserve American democracy.

"I would like to think that some Republicans - it only takes four in the Senate - might stand up for democracy and preserving the American system...."

This corresponds with my previous blog post, the most common response to which has been: who might they be?

One possible group of four Republicans would be those not running for re-election who could register and caucus as independent for the remainder of 2026, namely Senators Tillis, Ernst, McConnell, and Lummis, all of whom have been attacked by the president to one degree or another. They could be joined by four Democrats not running, namely Senators Smith, Durbin, Shaheen, and Peters, to form an independent caucus to vote as a group on questions of checks and balances.  (Noted: Senators King and Sanders are already independent.)

Another possible group could be eight women senators, four from each party, such as Ernst, Lummis, Murkowski, Collins, Shaheen, Smith, Rosen, and Cortez Masto.  Each has demonstrated an independent streak from time to time. They could be known henceforth as Eight Women Patriots Who Stepped Up to Save America, so to speak.  Others might want to join them.    

If an independent caucus of eight senators were now in place, it could be instrumental in asserting Congressional powers over ICE, currently much in dispute.  There is not a moment to lose.   

 

  

 

WANTED: Eight Patriots

January, 2026

Washington — Wanted:  Four Republican U.S. senators who will put their country and the institution of the Senate ahead of partisanship by changing their voter registration to independent.  Also wanted: Four Democratic senators who will simultaneously do the same, to form a new, unaffiliated, independent caucus of eight, so no party has a majority, and Senate actions for the remainder of this term will be bipartisan or nonpartisan.  

The purpose of the caucus will be to protect Article I powers from being eroded or destroyed by Article II powers, in the best tradition of our constitutional checks and balances.  The caucus of eight (or more) will work to make certain that the Senate's legislative exercise over the power of the purse, declaration of war, advice and consent in nominations, progress of science, ratification of treaties, control of commerce with foreign nations, and other constitutional powers are not ceded to the executive.  With the successful efforts of this caucus, no longer will party constriction be the instrument of dissolution of Congress.  No party on its own will have the necessary votes.  The Senate can get back to doing its job.  

An initial question will be whether members of what might be called the "Article I Caucus" retain their current committee assignments.  Precedent suggests they do, but if they don't it is not crucial to the caucus's success.  Those who join may be leaving the Senate anyway and are not looking to build up committee seniority. The same motivation might apply to senators whose committees have been losing meaningful work to Article II overreach. 

The public at large will applaud senators who put patriotism and allegiance to the Constitution ahead of party.  This is not a close call.  The same process could be used in the House, to the same approbation.  

Those who follow the careers of individual senators and representatives closely will know that there are likely to be at least the requisite number of both Republicans and Democrats who would be willing to change their voter registration to independent and join an Article I Caucus — some with relish out of frustration with their parties; some out of pure patriotism; some because they need redemption from past actions for which they have not yet atoned.  

Article I's fate in 2026 must not be a repeat of 2025.  This is a way to make sure that it won't be. 

  

Commission a New Work for Arlington's Confederate Circle

December, 2025

Washington — The ugly memorial statue removed two years ago from the Confederate Circle of graves at Arlington National Cemetery is now, by order of the Secretary of Defense, to be re-installed where it was originally placed in 1914.  Its granite base is still intact.  But the order may be in violation of an act of Congress, so it is not clear what will happen next.  

The memorial is ugly only in the sense it seriously misrepresented the history of the Civil War, as it incorporated Lost Cause propaganda.  In other respects, it remains a remarkable work of art.  Descendants of the sculptor, Moses Ezekiel, would like it to be placed at VMI, which Ezekiel attended and where another work of his is located.  VMI has agreed.

The post-war idea of a Confederate Circle at Arlington was to promote reconciliation, in the same spirit that Lincoln pardoned Confederate soldiers at war's end.  A good solution to the current problem would be to commission a new statue to do just that, a work true to history with no misrepresentations and no political agenda.  

There is a moment in history that could be memorialized for the purpose.  In May of 1865, a month after Appomattox and soon after Lincoln's assassination, Union General Edward Canby met Confederate General Richard Taylor at Citronelle, a few miles north of Mobile, to formalize the end of the war for all remaining Confederate troops east of the Mississippi.  Their meeting was cordial.  Canby arranged a luncheon and brought a military band.  Taylor wrote of his objective for the occasion:

"We could only secure honorable interment for the remains of our cause."   

Note that Taylor was securing an honorable interment for the Confederate cause, just as the Confederate Circle honorably inters Confederate soldiers.  Then he recounted this remarkable story:

"The air of 'Hail Columbia', which the band in attendance struck up, was instantly changed by Canby's order to that of 'Dixie', but I insisted on the first, and expressed a hope that Columbia would be again a happy land..." — General Richard Taylor. 

When Taylor insisted on "Hail Columbia" instead of "Dixie", he did it in the hope of a reconciled, happy land.  Taylor was not simply a Confederate general, he was one of its best battlefield commanders, the son of Zachary Taylor and the brother-in-law of Jefferson Davis.  

His hope at that moment, and Canby's, is worthy of memorializing.   

If a commission for a statue of reconciliation were offered, it should provide an option for the artist to include a historically accurate portrayal of black people, as this was the major problem with the 1914 work. By General Taylor's own account, there were two black men able to provide motive power to a railway hand-car to transport him to the event at Citronelle.  They are potential subjects not only for historical accuracy but for symbolism.  Rather than depicting blacks sending soldiers off to war, as in the 1914 statue, these men transport a war-weary general toward making peace.  

A new statue dedicated entirely to reconciliation, leaving their ancestors to rest in peace, would please at least some, and perhaps many, descendants of the soldiers buried in the Confederate Circle.  As a direct descendant of Confederate veterans myself, I would welcome it, in any worthy medium.   

    

 

Ancestors in The American Revolution

December, 2025

Washington — A new twelve-hour documentary, "The American Revolution," is spellbinding. It continually invites viewers to ask deeper questions about the war, how it was fought, and by whom.  

That would be by our own ancestors.   The following list identifies several who served in the patriot cause, with research assistance from AI (in italics) when it corroborates family genealogical and other evidence from our Susan Wimer (1860-1941) ancestry line in the family tree.  She was born in Virginia before the Civil War and died in Red Willow County, Nebraska, where my father was born. 

After watching "The American Revolution," it is especially gratifying to learn more about ancestors who fought with Greene and Lafayette against the brutal Tarleton and prevailed over Cornwallis at Yorktown.  

John Smith 

John L. Smith (1698-1776), seventh great-grandfather, served as a British officer in the French and Indian War under George Washington. Captain Smith led the defense of Fort Vause in southwest Virginia in 1756 but was captured and later exchanged in Canada for French prisoners. 

Because John Smith was roughly 78 years old at the outbreak of the American Revolution, his role was primarily that of a political patriarch and a mobilizer, rather than a frontline combatant.  Despite his age and the physical toll of his prior two-year captivity in Canada and England, his final year was defined by a shift from being a British Crown officer to a committed Patriot. One of his most significant roles was in the political groundwork for independence.

In February 1775, the freeholders of Augusta County, Virginia, met in Staunton to draft what became known as the Augusta County Resolves. These resolves were among the first in the colonies to explicitly state a willingness to risk "life and fortune" to defend their rights against British tyranny.  As a senior "Gentleman Justice" and the former commander of the county militia, John Smith’s public support for these resolves was crucial in swaying the local population toward the Patriot cause. Though he was too old to lead a regiment into the field, he used his influence to organize the Augusta County Militia for the looming conflict.

He played a role in securing gunpowder and supplies for the local defense. In the early days of 1775–1776, the "Frontier Patriots" were terrified of a two-front war: the British from the East and British-aligned Indigenous tribes from the West.  He oversaw the transition of the militia from a Crown-aligned defense force to a Revolutionary one. This included ensuring that his sons were positioned in leadership roles within the newly formed Patriot militia.

Smith supported the election of delegates to the Virginia Conventions of 1775 and 1776. These conventions eventually instructed Virginia’s delegates to the Continental Congress to propose independence. His role was essentially that of a "Elder Statesman" of the Shenandoah Valley, providing the institutional weight necessary to make rebellion feel like a legitimate legal action rather than a lawless riot.

John Smith died in the summer of 1776, just as the Declaration of Independence was being signed. Because he died so early in the war, he is often credited with "Revolutionary Service" in lineage societies (like the DAR) primarily based on his Civil Service (Justice of the Peace) and his role in the 1775 Resolves.  

Robert Eastham

Sixth great-grandfather Robert Eastham (1706-1790) of Halifax County, Virginia, served as a colonel in the militia during the Revolutionary War, primarily in organizational and county-level defense roles rather than major field commands. He commanded Halifax County militia units, focusing on local security, recruitment, and supply efforts to support Continental forces in the Southern theater.​

Eastham contributed to provisioning campaigns, including furnishing cattle and supplies for American troops under Lafayette and Greene in 1781. His company guarded against Loyalist threats and participated in regional mobilizations. 

Anthony Dabney Strother

Like all members of the Strother family, fifth grear-grandfather and son-in-law of Robert Eastham, Anthony Dabney Strother (1725-1816) served patriot causes.  His nephew Captain William Dabney Strother (1756-1781) was killed in the Battle of Guilford Courthouse against Cornwallis.  

The Battle of Guilford Courthouse was fought in three distinct "lines." Strother was an officer in the Continental Army (the Third Line).  Captain Strother served under his brother-in-law, Lt. Col. Richard Taylor, in the 2nd Virginia Regiment. The fighting reached the Third Line roughly 90 minutes to two hours into the battle (around 1:30 PM to 2:00 PM). While the first two lines (North Carolina and Virginia Militia) had slowed the British, the Third Line saw the most brutal, close-quarters fighting of the day. The Continentals faced a bayonet charge from the British 33rd Regiment and the Guards.  Given his rank and unit, Strother would have been killed during the intense hand-to-hand fighting.  Although the British won the battle, Cornwallis's losses were so heavy that he retreated to Yorktown.

Col. Richard Taylor and his wife Sarah Panhill Dabney Strother, Captain Strother's sister, became parents of Zachary Taylor (1784-1850), the future president. 

Peter Hull

Peter Hull (1733-1813), fifth grand-uncle, was born in Bad Kreuznach, Germany.  His father, Peter Thomas Hull, is a sixth great-grandfather and his sister, Catherine Hull Zickafoose, is a fifth great grandmother.

Captain Peter Hull led troops under General Lafayette during the Virginia Campaign in 1781. Hull commanded a troop of cavalry in the Augusta County militia and participated in the Yorktown campaign, which was part of Lafayette's overall military efforts during that year. His militia company was involved in actions such as pursuing British cavalry under Tarleton and fighting at key engagements in Virginia during Lafayette's campaign to contain Cornwallis and secure victory for the American cause. Records confirm Hull's leadership role in the Augusta County militia and his active service under Lafayette's command in the final phase of the Revolutionary War in Virginia.

Captain Hull fought in the Battle of Green Springs in Virginia in 1781. His company from the Augusta County militia was involved in this engagement, which was part of the attempts to repel British forces under Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton.

The Battle of Green Spring occurred on July 6, 1781, near Green Spring Plantation in James City County, Virginia. It was an ambush set by British forces under Earl Charles Cornwallis against American troops led by the Marquis de Lafayette. American advance units, commanded by Brigadier General "Mad" Anthony Wayne, were nearly trapped while attempting to harass the British rear guard during their crossing of the James River. The battle ended with an American retreat after a bold bayonet charge, but it delayed British movements and boosted American morale ahead of Yorktown.

Hull's company, along with other Augusta militia units, was positioned to contest the British baggage train and pickets, engaging in extended skirmishes that lasted nearly two hours. They fired on British officers and supported Wayne's riflemen in picking off enemy leaders before the main British assault with artillery and infantry. When the trap sprung around 5 p.m., Hull's men joined the bayonet charge to cover the retreat, abandoning some artillery but avoiding encirclement. No specific casualties for Hull's company are detailed, but overall American losses were about 140, including 28 killed, with the militia playing a key role in the escape.

Leonard Simmons

Leonard Simmons (1738-1808), fifth great-grandfather, was a private with Captain Hull's company.

Leonard Simmons of Augusta County militia was present at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse in 1781 as part of the Virginia militia forces serving under General Nathanael Greene and Lafayette. Muster rolls from Captain Peter Hull's company, to which Leonard Simmons belonged, list him as a private, indicating his participation in the militia forces at that battle.

In March 1781, militia companies from Augusta County assembled under commander Colonel Moffett and marched through Lynchburg, Virginia, to Guilford County, North Carolina, where they fought at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse alongside Lafayette’s forces. These Augusta County militia units were involved in engagements to block British movements and protect Virginia during Lafayette’s efforts to contain Cornwallis’ troops. Later, Augusta County militia companies joined the larger Continental Army under Washington for the Siege of Yorktown, the final decisive campaign in Virginia.

Henry Simmons 

Captain Henry Simmons (1760-1825), fourth great-grandfather, of Augusta, Highland, and Pendleton counties, Virginia, and son of Leonard Simmons, was attached to militia companies under various Virginia militia leaders, including Captain Peter Hull's company in Augusta County. He served in the Virginia militia which operated both locally and in coordination with Continental forces during the Revolutionary War. Militia units like his were often assigned to frontier defense, local security, and sometimes to larger campaigns such as those involving General Nathanael Greene's Southern campaign, although Simmons himself was primarily recorded in militia roles tied to Augusta County and surrounding areas. His unit would have been part of larger Virginia militia battalions mobilized for regional defense and engagement.

Michael Hoover

Michael Hoover (1753-1842), fourth great-grandfather, was a private in the Augusta county, Virginia, militia.  Private Hoover's service included expeditions against Native American forces on the Monongahela River and a drafted tour where he marched to Richmond, Virginia, to pursue Tories, capturing a few who surrendered their arms after about three weeks; he provided his own horse for this service.

Philip Wimer

Philip Wimer (1757-1839), fourth great-grandfather, born in Frankfurt, Germany, served in the Virginia Militia cavalry during the Revolutionary War, led by Captain Peter Hull of Augusta County. Philip Wimer was present at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse with Virginia militia forces on March 15, 1781, where he was likely in the Second Line of defense (see above).  He participated in the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, which was a decisive victory leading to the British surrender and American independence. Philip Wimer was originally sold into indentured servitude (on arrival in America in 1771) but after seven years joined the militia and fought on the Patriot side. 

The war deeds of these men, above, however praiseworthy, do not necessarily signify that they lived exemplary lives in other capacities and endeavors.  Many lived in tumult, judged by records left behind.  Their descendants' lives became intertwined, most notably when a John Smith descendant, Rebecca Phares, married a Robert Eastham and Anthony Strother descendant, Nathaniel Strother. Their daughter Sarah Strother married Philip Wimer descendant Peter B. Wimer, who moved to Nebraska and established a farm on the Agnew Road in Lancaster county, which soon became the home of daughter Susan Wimer and her husband William Clark Zicafoose, parents of my grandmother Ressie Mae Zicafoose Oberg.  To be continued.    

On to the December Negotiations

November, 2025

Washington — The bill passed by Congress last week to reopen the government, after a record-long shutdown, deserves more celebration than it has been accorded.

Hardly noticed but worthy of absolute rejoicing is the inclusion in the bill of $1.2 billion for Food for Peace and $240 million for the McGovern-Dole international nutrition program.  By some estimates, this may save 13.7 million people around the world from starvation.  It also provides American farmers improved markets for their products at a time when Trump administration tariffs threaten their livelihood.  The funding reverses an attempt by Trump to kill these international aid programs.  

Likewise of immense importance is the defeat of the President's attempt to open the government on his terms by doing away with minority filibuster rights under Senate rules.  He was steadily increasing the pressure on Senate Republicans to do so — likely readying the same kinds of extortion tactics successfully deployed elsewhere — when bipartisan Senate negotiators came to agreement on the bill to reopen.  Time was of the essence; democracy itself may have hung in the balance.  Republican and Democratic senators alike blanched at the prospect of having to vote on the President's legislative wish list had he succeeded:  voter suppression, increased tariff and war powers, conversion of Congress into a Duma.  

It was a narrow escape.

But you'd hardly have known it from the reaction of many Democrats who used Trumpian viewpoint language to chastise members of their own party, calling the bill a pathetic capitulation and cave-in.  But what was the critics' plan?  There was none, save looking tough at the expense of those who would bear the brunt of food stamp cutoffs and transportation chaos.  Historians will not be kind to the "look tough" Democrats (including the DNC chairman) who failed actual "be tough" Democrats in a moment of national and international crisis.*  Shame especially on Senate Democrats who knew the stakes and were preparing to vote yes on the bill if needed, but then joined in a capitulation condemning chorus. 

All of this could have been foreseen weeks ago, in preparation for a strategy to end the shutdown.  (See the previous blog post, which offered one.)  

It is not too late for Democrats to discern what voters hope for in the upcoming, hard-won December negotiations over medical care affordability, and plan a strategy to achieve it.  People do not want to see a January shutdown redux.  They would like both a medical affordability package and an end to all shutdowns.  

Democrats should offer more than just an extension of the ACA tax credit.  They should look to other countries to learn from their successes and consider Republican proposals to get buy-in.  To broaden enrollment, incentives should be provided especially to younger adults for coverage of health and fitness activities.  Subsidies should also be targeted toward rural areas where medical care availability and affordability are both in crisis.  This is inherent in current policy but could be enhanced. 

Democrats should look to other democracies to review measures they use to avoid shutdowns and propose to amend the Antideficiency Act accordingly, to get out of situations where bargaining chips involve unthinkable human suffering.  Voters will applaud it and reward the party that delivers an end to shutdowns. 

Prediction: how the December negotiations go will have a big effect on election outcomes in 2026 and 2028.  But another factor will be even more important: how the parties see the rural vote.  Republicans continue to take it for granted, believing that no amount of budget program abuse, tariff and trade injury, or medical care deprivation will shake it away from its MAGA capture.  Democrats seem to believe that as well, evincing little appreciation for the fact that if they could lose rural areas by 45-55 rather than 25-75, many more of them would be in office.  Have Democrats touted the achievements they won for rural America in ending the shutdown, like restoration of Food for Peace?  No.  Instead they have disparaged their own good work, and that augurs poorly for Democrats at the polls.  Too bad so much is at stake, or I'd say they deserve it.  

________________________

* I understand that "look tough" Democrats wanted to show resistance and resolve, but there are much better ways to do so.  For example, they should be working more closely with state elected officials to bring legal actions against extortion and civil contempt, as suggested elsewhere in this blog.      

How to End the Shutdown

November, 2025

Washington — The latest U.S. government shutdown began last month with Republicans and Democrats squaring off over whether to pass a clean Republican continuing resolution to fund the government or to accommodate Democrats' efforts to deal with a looming crisis in affordable health care.  With neither side budging, the shutdown has spiraled out of control to snarl the nation's air traffic, end SNAP and WIC food benefits, permanently terminate thousands of employees, miss payrolls for thousands of others, violate multiple appropriations laws, halt operations of the House of Representatives, and disenfranchise representation of all voters in a key congressional district.      

Meanwhile, the President is not proposing compromise to reopen the government but is viewing the chaos as an opportunity to end minority party rights in the Senate, foreshadowing one-party rule with no restraints on his agenda at least until 2027.  If not that, the President may re-open certain parts of the government he wishes by directing DOJ to produce a legal opinion that allows him to ignore the federal Antideficiency Act.  Both of these options expand presidential powers enormously.  Both may be beyond meaningful judicial remedy.

To end this dangerous spiral, which could lead to an end to our democracy, Democrats should immediately name a date in mid-November by which they will re-open the whole government, come hell or high water, by voting for a clean continuing resolution.  They should propose two motions before supporting a clean resolution, however, but make clear that the outcome of those motions will not stop them from taking charge to be the responsible party to end the shutdown and its growing chaos.  One motion would be a last attempt to deal with affordable health care.  The other would create a Select Committee to review why the rise of partisanship has eclipsed loyalty to the Constitution, and what can be done to reverse it.  

Senate Republicans would be wise to support both Democratic motions.  Republicans do not need a vote pricing millions of Americans out of health care without the excuse of Democratic intransigence over the shutdown.  They also should see the value in establishing a Select Committee with representation from both parties.  If they do not agree, Democrats should move ahead on their own in a Select Committee format to hear from panels of experts, along with their potential presidential candidates (especially from popular Democratic governors who have won elections in Republican states).  The goal of Democrats would be to come out of the process re-establishing themselves not only as the party of the working class once again, but as Constitutional Democrats who place our Constitution and the rule of law above partisanship.  Americans will embrace this enthusiastically.  

Republicans would be foolish to try to celebrate these Democratic actions as their own victory, as if Americans will want to rejoice over losing their health care, or applaud Republicans for putting party loyalty above all as the country slips further from its democratic moorings.