Vulgarity

It wasn't all that long ago on this site that I voiced strong opposition to the election columns of Mark Shea, most recently here.  I did this on the basis that I found his writing, taken in the context of his being a Catholic Apologist employed by the National Catholic Register, morally questionable in regards to his urging voters to vote for Clinton in the Fall while also condemning the Democrats as immoral.  Shea clearly sympathizes with at least some Democratic positions, but the problem here is that you can't argue its moral imperative to do something without fully weighing that out.  Shea's scale seemed to be broken in those regards.

He was let go from his position at the NCR a couple of days ago, which doesn't surprise me. But what does surprise me is that there was also a vocal set of people urging that Simcha Fisher be let go as well.

Now, I don't follow all of Fisher's writings, and indeed I rarely read Shea.  Of any of those columnists I'm most likely to read Jimmy Akin, who is a prolific writer, but if I stopped in to read the blogs on that site I would always check out Fisher's.  I really like her writing and found it to be uniformly interesting.

Well, what occurred in regards to Fisher (which isn't to say that anything really occurred, as she's still a columnist at the NCR) is that she resorted to really vulgar language on her Facebook site in the context of criticizing Trump.

From reading it, what appears to be the case to me is that she did what a lot of decent people do, she got mad and lost it linguistically.  Rarely does that make a person's argument better, and indeed it tends to reduce it to the junior high level.  If Fisher were a secular columnist I wouldn't have thought much about it (which is my point, I'll get to it in a second), but frankly, if I did publish the NCR, as much as I like Fisher's writings, and I do, I'd have canned her.  Indeed, Fisher, whom I have no doubt is devout, should have taken counsel of the fact that the Apostolic writers and their fellows counseled several times not to use vulgar language.

And as a writer who writes from the prospective of a mother with a large brood of children, it's all the more shocking and inappropriate.  I think some of the reaction to her writing may be a bit much as well, but I also think that if one of her kids ran in the house spouting the same things she said, he'd be getting the soap in the mouth treatment, although probably only figuratively.  So what was she thinking?

Well, there's a lot of that talk around anymore.

And that's the point of this entry.

There are writers and columnist who resort to argument that's not really appropriate all the time. I don't follow Ann Coulter much, but her satire is very sophomoric for example and has no place in an educated decent society.  But she's hugely popular.  In the Republican campaign the candidates had a surreal episode when they were discussing the size of their hands but not at the same time. None of the candidates who engaged in that conversation should have made it past the electoral bar.  On popular television shows vulgar topics are discussed constantly, dropping the standard of acceptable conversation as well as the moral standards down with each passing year.

And in average conversation vulgar speech has spread like wildfire. It's everywhere.  It's tolerated.

Well, it ought not to be.

This blog is at least ostensibly about the early 20th Century and seeks to track changes that have occurred in that time.  Well, one such change is the decline in speech.  It's massive.

And that's a trend that society would be well served by reversing.

Postscript

It turns out that Fisher was also let go.   For some reason, her blog entries remain up on their site, while Shea's were pulled, perhaps reflecting the degree of discomfort that the publisher had with them, or not.

Shea wrote a very nice and well reasoned statement about his being let go, but really lambasted Fischer being let go in a separate item.  That latter entry reflected poorly on him, in my opinion, but it is perhaps understandable.

The perfect storm

This hasn't been a good year for me.

In April, my mother died.  I wrote about it earlier, but it's had a bigger impact on me that I would have anticipated. That may seem a strange thing to say, but she was in her 90s, and death is clearly around the corner at that age, which isn't to say, quite frankly, that death isn't lurking around quite a bit earlier than that.  Indeed, it's always there in the background somewhere.  But I haven't adjusted really well to it, for some reason.

 

Added to that, I have a family member that's been ill, and that's created some huge stresses, but I'll omit the personal details of those, even though its on my mind all the time, and it impacts me in ways that are extremely stress laden.

And, added to that, my son graduated from high school this past spring, which is a joyful event of course,  but which dredges up all the angst associated with the passage from youth to young adult, and all the recollections of your own time at that age, which at least in my case tends to remind me of the numerous errors committed by me then and later, and how I often knew that they were mistakes but wondered (not charged) into them anyhow. It also emphasizes, I think, just how poor of father I have been in comparison to my own father, to whom I compare very poorly in ever sense.  Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.

When I was small.

I didn't take any time off, I couldn't afford to, when my mother died, and it's been catching up with me a bit.  Indeed, I didn't take time to trail cattle this year, again, which is not a good thing.  Added to that, I have to deal with her estate, which isn't a huge problem, but it does mean that we (my wife and I) now own the house that was hers.  For some reason, this is proving to be a bigger chore than I thought it would be, but I'll omit those details.

I don't intend to sell the house as I figure that it can be retirement income for my wife and me, and unlike a lot of lawyers I hear say "I intend to keep working" (there are many that don't say that), I don't intend to be practicing law in my 70s, assuming I'm still living at that age, which is very far from a safe assumption.  Indeed, I question the motivation of those who do that really, or rather I question the wisdom of it.  They say it keeps the mind sharp, but do we so become our jobs that that's all  we can think to do?  I hope not.

Anyhow, as was the plan before my mother died, somewhat, my son has moved into her old house as its located just a block from the college and is an ideal location for college students.  A high school friend is sharing the tenancy of the house with him.  So far so good, it would seem.

Well, it was pointed out to me that a house built in the 1950s will lack three prong plugs, so after a two day ordeal with the whole topic, I learned about gfci outlets and how they worked, and installed a set.  I don't like doing electrical work at all, and I didn't want to spend a lot of money at the house, but I did it as it seemed wise or necessary. So far so good, I thought. All upgrades finished.

 The GFCI outlet.  Any electrician could do this in seconds, but for me, not so much.

Well, then there was a plumbing incident, followed by a second one.

The second one came last Thursday, and resulted in an after hours plumbing call.  Okay, that'll happen. Well, the diagnosis was not anticipated.  The sewer line is wrecked and has to come out.

Great.

Well, not only does it have to come out, at about the time my mother started to fall ill some concrete men who were working next door convinced her that they should poor a new pad of cement.  And, boy, did they.  I stopped the project before it ended up covering the entire basement, but the long and the short of  it was that they really went to town and poured a pad a freakin' two feet thick. Two feet.

Indeed, that may have been the source of the sewer line failure, or may not be.  The house always had problems with tree roots and a neighbors line failed the year before last.

I got this news late at night, the day before I was to run up to Cody for a hearing.  It's a 210 mile drive.  I tossed and turned all night long, and then the next day got up, got dressed, and headed out.  I got up really early, I was up anyhow.

I'd agreed to take my son as he had the day off and it'd make for a nice trip. We determined, and in fact did, stop by the museum in Cody.  But he's one of those people who simply cannot wake up.  That's the opposite of me, and in fact it drives me crazy as I really hate waking people up. Waking people up is one of my least favorite things on earth to do.  It's awful.

Well, all the lights in the house were dark, and I thought, we'll, I'll drive on.  Particularly after I called him twice with no answer. But, I thought, we'll, I'll knock on the door.

By this time, I had my truck turned off.

Now, I've been driving a stick shift vehicle since I was about 10 years old, and I've never, ever, left one in neutral so that it would roll off. And I instinctively set the parking brake.

But I failed to do both of those things.  And while I was at the door ringing the doorbell, the truck started to roll off.

I'm amazed that I made that failure. Fatigue?  I hope so.

I tried and did catch it, but I couldn't stop it, and it rolled away from me down the street, right towards a house.  I was sure it was going to go into the house.  But, in the intersection, the unmanned truck made a backwards right turn.

Modern trucks, mind you, don't make turns by themselves.

Well, this one did.

So, it didn't hit the house, Thank God. And I mean that in the literal sense.  But it did hit the Subaru Forester those folks had parked in front of their house.  And it destroyed it.

It didn't do my own truck any favors, and it'll go into the body shop as a result, but it's still drive-able.  Indeed, I did drive it to Cody as planned.

 As an experiment in mass, it proves to be true that the heavier object is the one that is less likely to be badly damaged.

Well of course the police came, as they should and must for such an event.  And of course, it was a policeman we'd had experience with.

When my son was first in high school, he accidentally backed into a vehicle at the high school.  It was not a bad collision, but we told him to call the police, as everyone is instructed to do.  The policeman was a jerk to him, and way overcharged him in the bond schedule which we ended up having to take care of in court.

Well, we got that policeman.

And he was, once again, a total jerk.  A second policeman came as well and was very nice, but the first was quite a jerk and indeed did some things I think are inappropriate.  I'm thinking of filing a complaint regarding him with the department.  I took full responsibility for the accident and didn't deserve the treatment received.  Nor did my son deserve to be awakened by the officer who refused to provide substantive details.  Nor did the basement dwelling fellow renting the basement who wasn't given any reason for why a policeman "wanted to talk to him."

Jerk.

Now, there may or may not be an added element to this, albeit one that we have nothing to do with.  A couple of years ago, a cousin of mine who was employed in law enforcement got in trouble with the law himself.  I have had no professional or personal involvement in the situation at all, but I will be frank that based upon my outside observation, there was a "not passing the smell test" element to it.  That is, what I think the real story is, is one of a moral failing, but not an actual violation of the law.  I may, of course, be all wet, but the degree to which his former employer turned on him was impressive and I think made defending himself pretty difficult.

As noted, that has nothing to do with me, but my last name is distinct here and every single one of us who carriers it is usually related (there are occasional exceptions).  As it was big news at the time, I sort of wonder, but have no real reason to believe, that this sort of marks us all in the eyes of some.  At least I wonder.  And when the jerk cop went up to the house and got my son up, he asked "Is there a X here?"  Now, that may be the only way to ask it, but it does come across like being asked if a member of some other species lived there, of which I'm part.

Indeed, as a total aside, I'm one of those folks, I'll quite admit, who sympathize pretty heavily with blacks when they claim they live in fear of the police.  I don't live in fear of the police, and I'm friends with some members of the law enforcement community, but I get it.  If I were black and undergoing this experience I'd frankly be afraid of the police at this point.  I'm mad enough about it that I'm extremely tempted to go to the department and ask what's up with this guy.

Well, anyhow, I've had just about enough of 2016.

But it's probably just me.  Death, stress, illness, not being able to get out and take time off.  It's been a bit much.

It's particularly odd for me, in a retrospective context,  as I'm just not that ambitious of guy.  Indeed, some years ago I found a letter or maybe a diary entry of my mother's written when I was a little boy, wondering what would become of me as an adult, as I just flat out lacked the driving ambition that so characterized her family growing up.  She was concerned.  People who know me professionally regard me as a workaholic, but I sure don't see things that way myself.  Maybe it's the case that people who live that way are consumed less by ambition than they are by an overdeveloped sense of duty.  Who knows.  Anyhow, thinking back on it, I think was really tired the other day and I wasn't really in the best state of mine to end up driving 400 miles in a day, by the time the day was over.  But I couldn't do anything about it.

Well, it's been a rotten year so far.

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said:

2Who is this who darkens counsel

with words of ignorance?

3Gird up your loins now, like a man;

I will question you, and you tell me the answers!

4Where were you when I founded the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

5Who determined its size? Surely you know?

Who stretched out the measuring line for it?

6Into what were its pedestals sunk,

and who laid its cornerstone,

7While the morning stars sang together

and all the sons of God  shouted for joy?

8Who shut within doors the sea,

when it burst forth from the womb,

9When I made the clouds its garment

and thick darkness its swaddling bands?

10When I set limits for it

and fastened the bar of its door,

11And said: Thus far shall you come but no farther,

and here shall your proud waves stop?

12Have you ever in your lifetime commanded the morning

and shown the dawn its place

13For taking hold of the ends of the earth,

till the wicked are shaken from it?

14The earth is changed as clay by the seal,

and dyed like a garment;

15But from the wicked their light is withheld,

and the arm of pride is shattered.

16Have you entered into the sources of the sea,

or walked about on the bottom of the deep?

17Have the gates of death been shown to you,

or have you seen the gates of darkness?

18Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?

Tell me, if you know it all.

19What is the way to the dwelling of light,

and darkness—where is its place?

20That you may take it to its territory

and know the paths to its home?

21You know, because you were born then,

and the number of your days is great!

22Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,

and seen the storehouses of the hail

23Which I have reserved for times of distress,

for a day of war and battle?

24What is the way to the parting of the winds,

where the east wind spreads over the earth?

25Who has laid out a channel for the downpour

and a path for the thunderstorm

26To bring rain to uninhabited land,

the unpeopled wilderness;

27To drench the desolate wasteland

till the desert blooms with verdure?

28Has the rain a father?

Who has begotten the drops of dew?

29Out of whose womb comes the ice,

and who gives the hoarfrost its birth in the skies,

30When the waters lie covered as though with stone

that holds captive the surface of the deep?

31Have you tied cords to the Pleiades,

or loosened the bonds of Orion?

32Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season,

or guide the Bear with her children?

33Do you know the ordinances of the heavens;

can you put into effect their plan on the earth?

34Can you raise your voice to the clouds,

for them to cover you with a deluge of waters?

35Can you send forth the lightnings on their way,

so that they say to you, “Here we are”?

36Who gives wisdom to the ibis,

and gives the rooster understanding?

37Who counts the clouds with wisdom?

Who tilts the water jars of heaven

38So that the dust of earth is fused into a mass

and its clods stick together?

39Do you hunt the prey for the lion

or appease the hunger of young lions,

40While they crouch in their dens,

or lie in ambush in the thicket?

41Who provides nourishment for the raven

when its young cry out to God,

wandering about without food?Do you know when mountain goats are born,

or watch for the birth pangs of deer,

2Number the months that they must fulfill,

or know when they give birth,

3When they crouch down and drop their young,

when they deliver their progeny?

4Their offspring thrive and grow in the open,

they leave and do not return.

5Who has given the wild donkey his freedom,

and who has loosed the wild ass from bonds?

6I have made the wilderness his home

and the salt flats his dwelling.

7He scoffs at the uproar of the city,

hears no shouts of a driver.

8He ranges the mountains for pasture,

and seeks out every patch of green.

9Will the wild ox consent to serve you,

or pass the nights at your manger?

10Will you bind the wild ox with a rope in the furrow,

and will he plow the valleys after you?

11Will you depend on him for his great strength

and leave to him the fruits of your toil?

12Can you rely on him to bring in your grain

and gather in the yield of your threshing floor?

13The wings of the ostrich flap away;

her plumage is lacking in feathers.

14When she abandons her eggs on the ground

and lets them warm in the sand,

15She forgets that a foot may crush them,

that the wild beasts may trample them;

16She cruelly disowns her young

and her labor is useless; she has no fear.

17For God has withheld wisdom from her

and given her no share in understanding.

18Yet when she spreads her wings high,

she laughs at a horse and rider.

19Do you give the horse his strength,

and clothe his neck with a mane?

20Do you make him quiver like a locust,

while his thunderous snorting spreads terror?

21He paws the valley, he rejoices in his strength,

and charges into battle.

22He laughs at fear and cannot be terrified;

he does not retreat from the sword.

23Around him rattles the quiver,

flashes the spear and the javelin.

24Frenzied and trembling he devours the ground;

he does not hold back at the sound of the trumpet;

25at the trumpet’s call he cries, “Aha!”

Even from afar he scents the battle,

the roar of the officers and the shouting.

26Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars,

that he spreads his wings toward the south?

27Does the eagle fly up at your command

to build his nest up high?

28On a cliff he dwells and spends the night,

on the spur of cliff or fortress.

29From there he watches for his food;

his eyes behold it afar off.

30His young ones greedily drink blood;

where the slain are, there is he.

 The LORD then answered Job and said:

2Will one who argues with the Almighty be corrected?

Let him who would instruct God give answer!

3Then Job answered the LORD and said:

4 Look, I am of little account; what can I answer you?

I put my hand over my mouth.

5I have spoken once, I will not reply;

twice, but I will do so no more.

6Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said:

7Gird up your loins now, like a man.

I will question you, and you tell me the answers!

8 Would you refuse to acknowledge my right?

Would you condemn me that you may be justified?

9Have you an arm like that of God,

or can you thunder with a voice like his?

10Adorn yourself with grandeur and majesty,

and clothe yourself with glory and splendor.

11Let loose the fury of your wrath;

look at everyone who is proud and bring them down.

12Look at everyone who is proud, and humble them.

Tear down the wicked in their place,

13bury them in the dust together;

in the hidden world imprison them.

14Then will I too praise you,

for your own right hand can save you.

15Look at Behemoth, whom I made along with you,

who feeds on grass like an ox.

16See the strength in his loins,

the power in the sinews of his belly.

17He carries his tail like a cedar;

the sinews of his thighs are like cables.

18His bones are like tubes of bronze;

his limbs are like iron rods.

19He is the first of God’s ways,

only his maker can approach him with a sword.

20For the mountains bring him produce,

and all wild animals make sport there.

21Under lotus trees he lies,

in coverts of the reedy swamp.

22The lotus trees cover him with their shade;

all about him are the poplars in the wadi.

23If the river grows violent, he is not disturbed;

he is tranquil though the Jordan surges about his mouth.

24Who can capture him by his eyes,

or pierce his nose with a trap?

25Can you lead Leviathan about with a hook,

or tie down his tongue with a rope?

26Can you put a ring into his nose,

or pierce through his cheek with a gaff?

27Will he then plead with you, time after time,

or address you with tender words?

28Will he make a covenant with you

that you may have him as a slave forever?

29Can you play with him, as with a bird?

Can you tie him up for your little girls?

30Will the traders bargain for him?

Will the merchants divide him up?

31Can you fill his hide with barbs,

or his head with fish spears?

32Once you but lay a hand upon him,

no need to recall any other conflict!

 Whoever might vainly hope to do so

need only see him to be overthrown.

2No one is fierce enough to arouse him;

who then dares stand before me?

3Whoever has assailed me, I will pay back—

Everything under the heavens is mine.

4I need hardly mention his limbs,

his strength, and the fitness of his equipment.

5Who can strip off his outer garment,

or penetrate his double armor?

6Who can force open the doors of his face,

close to his terrible teeth?

7Rows of scales are on his back,

tightly sealed together;

8They are fitted so close to each other

that no air can come between them;

9So joined to one another

that they hold fast and cannot be parted.

10When he sneezes, light flashes forth;

his eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn.

11Out of his mouth go forth torches;

sparks of fire leap forth.

12From his nostrils comes smoke

as from a seething pot or bowl.

13His breath sets coals afire;

a flame comes from his mouth.

14Strength abides in his neck,

and power leaps before him.

15The folds of his flesh stick together,

it is cast over him and immovable.

16His heart is cast as hard as stone;

cast as the lower millstone.

17When he rises up, the gods are afraid;

when he crashes down, they fall back.

18Should a sword reach him, it will not avail;

nor will spear, dart, or javelin.

19He regards iron as chaff,

and bronze as rotten wood.

20No arrow will put him to flight;

slingstones used against him are but straw.

21Clubs he regards as straw;

he laughs at the crash of the spear.

22Under him are sharp pottery fragments,

spreading a threshing sledge upon the mire.

23He makes the depths boil like a pot;

he makes the sea like a perfume bottle.

24Behind him he leaves a shining path;

you would think the deep had white hair.

25Upon the earth there is none like him,

he was made fearless.

26He looks over all who are haughty,

he is king over all proud beasts.

 Then Job answered the LORD and said:

2I know that you can do all things,

and that no purpose of yours can be hindered.

3“Who is this who obscures counsel with ignorance?”

I have spoken but did not understand;

things too marvelous for me, which I did not know.

4“Listen, and I will speak;

I will question you, and you tell me the answers.”

5By hearsay I had heard of you,

but now my eye has seen you.

6Therefore I disown what I have said,

and repent in dust and ashes.

From the Book of Job.

Terrierman's Daily Dose: Dog Carts and the Extinction of Memory

Terrierman's Daily Dose: Dog Carts and the Extinction of Memory: Dog cart selling meat scraps for pets. The first thing that goes extinct is memory. Who alive, among us today, remembers when dog car...

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: State Capitol, Cheyenne Wyoming

Courthouses of the West: State Capitol, Cheyenne Wyoming:  

 

This is the State Capitol building in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  While I didn't realize it at the time that I took this photograph, the State Capitol contains a courtroom which was used by the Wyoming Supreme Court up until it had a courthouse of its own.  The courtroom is soon to be restored.

 

State Capitol as viewed from the street.  The current Wyoming Supreme Court building would be off to the right in this photograph.

US Soccer in 1916?

American Soccer Team Victorious.

In 1916.

Shoot, but for reddit's 100 Years Ago Today, where this item was linked in, I wouldn't have known we fielded a soccer team in 1916.  Let alone a good one.

Blog Mirror: Editorial: August 21, 1916: We Live In An Unromantic Age

We Live In An Unromantic Age, An editorial from the Philadelphia Enquirer, and reprinted in The New York Times a century ago (as picked up on Reddit's 100 Years Ago Today.

Prophetic?

Peru declared its neutrality. August 21, 1916

Peru declared its neutrality in the Great War.  That it would need to do so shows the vast extent of the global conflict.

That there would have been any risk of Peru being drawn into the conflict was surely small, but keeping in mind that the British and Germans had clashed on the seas off of South America, and that indeed South American ports would come to see British and German warships visiting in ways that weren't always fully welcome, it makes sense.

Churches of the West: First United Methodist, Cheyenne Wyoming

Churches of the West: First United Methodist, Cheyenne Wyoming:

The Best Posts of the Week of August 14, 2016

The Punitive Expedition and technology. A 20th Century Expedition. Looking at Horses and Tack. Part 3(a), the Equines

Mexico in WW1 - The Mexican Revolution I THE GREAT WAR Special

Friday Farming: Hoeing strawberries, 1916

LOC Title:  Conrad Elrod, R 3, hoeing strawberries. Location: Warren County--Plano, Kentucky / Lewis W. Hine.  Published August 19, 1916.

Friday Farming: Working tobacco, 1916

LOC Title:  "Charlie Howard, a colored tenant on farm of B.F. Mitchell, R. 1, and his 2 boys. Robbie is 6 and Willie is 11 years old. Worming and suckering tobacco. Father says children will go to Rocky Ridge School when it opens. Location: Trigg County--Gracey, Kentucky / Lewis W. Hine".  Published August 21, 1916.

We don't usually do two of these, but then what the heck.  Some time next week a century will have gone by since this photo was taken.

Today In Wyoming's History: August 18, 1916

Today In Wyoming's History: August 18: 1916   Fire destroyed coal chutes and four freight cars that

belonged to the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company in Douglas.  Attribution:  On This Day.

Douglas has a nice park dedicated to railroad today.

Douglas Wyoming railroad sites
 

These are scenes from Douglas Wyoming, which is the location of a Railroad Interpretive Center.  The old Great Northwestern depot serves as its headquarters, as well as the chamber of commerce's headquarters.

 

  

 

 

The last photograph is not at the Railroad interpretive center, but is nearby. This is the former Burlington Northern depot, now a restaurant.

Updated on April 28, 2015, from the original March 31, 2012 publication.  Most of these photos depict things already photographed, but an old railroad building of some kind, now in use for another purpose, also now appears.

Posted by Pat at 5:29 AM

Mid Week at Work: Working at the dairy, 1916

 LOC Title:   Edgar Kitchen 13 yrs. old gets $3.25 a week for working for the Bingham Bros. Dairy. Drives dairy wagon from 7 A.M. to noon. Works on farm in afternoon (10 hours a day) seven days a week--half day on Saturday. Thinks he will work steady this year and not go to school. See previous labels in June. Not in Div. 5 or 6. Lives in Bowling Green. Location: Bowling Green [vicinity], Kentucky / Lewis W. Hine.  Published August 18, 1916.

U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Abram I. Elkus leaving New York

U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Abram I. Elkus leaving New York on the ocean liner Oscar II with wife Gertrude Hess Elkus, daughters Ethel J. and Katharine, son James Hess Elkus. The previous ambassador Henry Morgenthau stands with them. August 17, 1916.

Confessions of a Writer of Westerns: Writing the Blogs

Confessions of a Writer of Westerns: Writing the Blogs: Have you ever noticed how bloggers come and go? I started blogging toward the end of the year in 2006, eleven years ago – how time flie...

USS Maine, August 16, 1916

LOC Caption:  Photograph shows civilians on a training cruise on the U.S.S. Maine where they learned to be sailors as part of the Preparedness Movement before the entry of the United States into World War I. The ship left New York harbor in August, 1916. (Source: Flickr Commons project, 2014).  

Note, date on negative.

The Migratory Bird Treaty entered into.

The Migratory Bird Treaty, a major piece of international conservation and a great success, was entered into between the United States and Canada.  The United Kingdom signed for Canada, given its dominion status at the time.

The Punitive Expedition and technology. A 20th Century Expedition. Looking at Horses and Tack. Part 3(a), the Equines

 Remounts, World War One.

We earlier posted this item entitled  The Punitive Expedition and technology. A 20th Century Expedition.This went into some of the new technologies that were making their appearance in the expedition.  So, it might seem now to reuse the same title, or recall the earlier one, as we start to delve into something we really should have before.

The story of the expedition is, of course, tied up with the horse.

 Jumping, 1920, Ft. Meyers Virginia.

Indeed, so much so, we should have covered this a long time ago.  But it's actually such a big story, with so many facets, it's harder to do than it might at first appear.  Indeed, the more you know about horses, the harder it is to actually do.  I suppose a lot of topics work this way.

It is almost impossible to describe the significance of the horse to the military of 1914-1918, even before we consider the Punitive Expedition itself.  Contrary to the widespread popular myth, the horse was very far from obsolete and World War One would not change that.  Perhaps that's why dealing with the horse in the Punitive Expedition is so difficult as it isn't as if military horse use was unique, but it was the rule, and those who look into the topic are well aware of that.  So, what seems perhaps an exceptional swan song, is in fact not.

Indeed, the British author of the multi volume series on the history of the British Cavalry found that he was forced to dedicate several volumes of his work to World War One, far more text than he was required to dedicate to any other British conflict.  Every army in the Great War relied tremendously on horses and not only in the context of horses in draft used for artillery and material transport, but also in terms of cavalry, and even a bit for infantry.  Indeed, it's arguable that the German defeat in 1918 came not because its fighting men were exhausted, although they were, but rather because they'd exhausted their supply of horses.  In March 1918, during their final offensive, they were reduced to trying to use specialized infantry in the cavalry role, and it didn't work.  The British expected the German cavalry to appear at any moment and overrun them, just as the large numbers of retained British cavalry would have done, and ultimately did do, to the Germans. The Germans no longer had them.

German lancer, World War One.  It was men and horses like these that the Germans lacked in March 1918, to their tremendous detriment.

Its hardly surprising, given the context of the situation that the conflict with Mexican irregulars presented that cavalry would be the predominate arm of the U.S. Army in the Punitive Expedition.  The country was open and the enemy, fully mounted, was highly mobile.  Cavalry was the only arm capable of catching the Mexican raiders, and of course ultimately, it didn't.  But it did remarkably well.  Indeed, but for the interference of Mexican Constitutionalist forces, which themselves were also fighting Villa, the U.S. Army might very well have caught Villa, although it would have been frightfully deep in Mexico when that would have occurred.

 Villa's Division del Norte, 1914.

The US sent five cavalry regiments into Mexico, organized into two cavalry brigades.  The cavalry regiments were the 5th, 7th, 10th, 11th and 13th Cavalry.  The 10th Cavalry was an all black regiment in the segregated Army of the day. The Army also sent two infantry regiments organized into a single brigade.  Support artillery and engineering units also went with the infantry and cavalry. The Army's brand new 1st Aero Squadron, the only fully motorized unit in the U.S. Army, was also committed.  Ultimately four infantry regiments would be committed, and two artillery regiments.  The Apache Scouts were also sent.  Horses were used in all of these units except for the 1st Aero Squadron.

 

10th Cavalry in Mexico.

American cavalry in 1916 had entered a new era, as is so often noted, but what is little appreciated is that its mobility was increasing, not decreasing.  The use of trucks for supply, as earlier discussed, liberated the cavalry from its slower logistical tail.  And its combat effectiveness had not decreased at all, and indeed was arguably increasing. Cavalry had always been a scouting arm and at a disadvantage with infantry, but contrary to the common assertion to the contrary, the introduction of automatic weapons had not rendered the battlefield so hostile as to render it ineffective in combat.  Indeed, the British experience in Europe would prove that.automatic weapons had almost no impact on the cavalry in the charge, and indeed charging cavalry remained such a freighting prospect that massed infantry continued to panic in the face of it, supported by machine guns or not.  What did prove to be a problem for cavalry was barbed wire and the shell caused lunar landscape.

 The 5th Cavalry at Las Cruces stopping for a meal.  Note the rolling kitchen.  This troop had ridden 34 miles prior to this stop.

Indeed, this latter situation would prove to be the undoing of Pancho Villa.  Villa, for all his odd peculiarities and strange character traits, was truly a great cavalry commander.  He was, however, more of a mid 19th Century type of cavalrymen and adjusted poorly and slowly to wire and trench. It was wire and trench, in the end, that did him in, as the Mexican Constitutionalist forces began to deploy the same in the same way that the French, Germans, and English were in Europe.  This shows, in spite of our romantic recollections of ti, that the war south of the border was a much more modern war than we care to remember.

And in that war, just as in World War One in the Desert, and on the Eastern Front, and occasionally on the Western Front, cavalry remained a very real factor.  And it was particularly important in the Punitive Expedition which was, after all, a cavalry pursuit in pursuit of cavalry, with our cavalry supported by artillery, infantry, radio, telegraph and aircraft, and the Villistas supported by the native population.  In the end, it was the native population that really made the difference.

The US Cavalry that entered Mexico in 1916 came at a time of significant transition for that arm in the American military.  Nearly everything about the cavalry was in a period of transition, right down to the horses themselves.

Cavalry, and hence cavalry horses, had not been a feature of the Regular Army for as long as people tend to imagine.  Cavalry had existed during the Revolutionary War, but Washington did not favor it and it decreased, rather than increased, as a US combat arm during the Revolution in spite of giving some solid performance during the war.  During the War of 1812 American cavalry was to be found in the mustered state forces, not in the standing Regular Army.  But as the nation pushed west the need for horse soldiers became too significant to ignore and cavalry was reestablished just prior to the Mexican War.  Dragoons, a type of mounted infantry, and Mounted Rifles, true mounted infantry, were  a feature of the American forces during that war, and in some ways they set the pattern for American cavalry, which always tended to be nearly mounted infantry, thereafter.  The dragoons, as a category, yielded to being redesignated as cavalry just prior to the  Civil War, and that war saw the only period of time in which US Cavalry was truly classic cavalry, rather than mounted infantry.

Following the Civil War cavalry entered what might be regarded as its golden age in some ways as it played such an important role in the American West.  That role featured a lot of hard learned lessons and one of those lessons was that the US Cavalry was not ideally mounted for a frontier campaign. During the decades of the Indian Wars the Army came to incorporate more and more "range horses" which were hardly grade ponies raised in the western regions, although the Army also continued to acquire larger grade horse that were purchased by conformation rather than by breed.  This situation continued on throughout the balance of the 19th Century.

As the Indian Wars closed, however, American cavalry officers began to be more and more attracted to the type of hot blooded horse favored by European cavalries.  A debate broke out in the US Army about this, and whether the Army should start to look more towards horses like Thoroughbreds and Arabians rather than the range horses and big American horses that had carried it through the Frontier period. By the early 20th Century this debate had yielded towards a definite trend toward more hot blooded horses although by 1916 this had not yet produced a full scale remount program as it would soon after World War One.

 Jumping demonstration, some time around World War One.

In the years leading up to World War One the U.S. Army still acquired horses largely by conformation, rather than breed, although Morgan brood stock had been donated to the Army for artillery horses and formed a bit of an exception.  The United States was a major horse producing nation and this system worked to provide the horses needed by the cavalry branch of the Army and the National Guard although, even by this time, there were real concerns that the inroads made by automobiles were cutting into a reliable supply of saddle horses.

This concern wasn't just the U.S. Army's.  The British Army, which relied upon imported horses for saddle mounts, also had this same concern.  Indeed, the British determined during the early stages of the war to rely upon the United States more than Canada as it was worried that American horses would become denied to it if the US entered the war, in which case the Canadian horses would still be there.  As it was, British remount agents, and French ones, combed the country looking for mounts and a horse boom ensued.

None of which kept the Army from having sufficient mounts for the Punitive Expedition and for the Guardsmen stationed along the border.  A sufficient supply of big American horses existed such that each cavalryman had a mount.

The situation with officers differed a bit.  It had long been the case that officers were expected to supply themselves with a horse but it was also the case that in the event of a campaign an officer could and usually did check out a public mount. So, officers drew saddle mounts from unit stocks for field usage. On occasion, however, they might use their own mount, or they might bring their own mount with them.  Maj. Frank Tomkins, for example, who served throughout the Punitive Expedition used both a unit mount and his own Arab that he brought with him, switching back and forth between the two with the other used a s pack horse while he was not riding it.

As noted, cavalrymen had but one horse.  If the horse became injured or disabled, or dead, he was afoot until he could be supplied with a replacement, if he could be.  But there were far more horses than just cavalry horses in any military formation.

Horses were also present in infantry formations.

 Company A, 6th Infantry, coming into camp with pack mules including what appears to be pack artillery.  Note mounted men in the rear.

For one thing, officers rode in infantry formations, and not merely for convenience but by necessity.  The same role that Jeeps would play in World War Two was played by the hose right up until that that war.  Officers needed the ability to get quickly from one spot to another and therefore they needed to ride. As late as the start of the US involvement in World War One newly minted officers were required to buy their own tack (more on that below), with many actually opting for French patterns that were similar to the US ones they were required to buy. They were, obviously, required to know how to ride.

The conditions described above would also, of course, apply to an officers staff and to certain personnel whose role was to deliver messages.  As we've already discussed in this series of topics on the Punitive Expedition other means of communications were rather unreliable, as opposed to a man on horseback (and as we'll see, a man on a motorcycle).

 Machine gun troop in Mexico.

Artillery of all types was very dependent on the horse, going down, obviously, to the smallest pieces but also up to very large ones.  Artillery tractors were just coming in, but they were truly tractors.  While the US Army would experiment with, and use, heavy trucks during World War One for heavy guns, artillery remained nearly universally horse drawn for all but the heaviest guns in this era.  Artillery, as we've noted, did go south of the border during the Punitive Expedition, although it seems to have seen little use.

Indeed, artillery is a bit of a remount exception in the US Army in this period, as the Army had acquired a Morgan farm or an interest in one at this time for a supply of remounts. That story is outside the context of this post, but starting in 1905 the Army had a direct supply of Morgans, unlike other types of horses.  Morgans generally fit into a class of horse known at the time as a "chunk".  Today we tend to think of horses being riding horses and draft horses, but that's quite inaccurate. Large draft horses were generally not favored for anything except very heavy draft work.  Chunks, a more versatile smaller, but still stout horse, were favored for most hauling, including hauling artillery.  The supply of chunks was declining in this time period due to the increase of motor vehicles in cities for hauling. The Army's acquisition, therefore, of a direct supply of Morgans was fortuitous, even if it did not supply every artillery horse in the U.S. Army.

 C Battery,  4th Field Artillery, with pack howitzers, in Mexico.

 

Expedition headquarters site of Colona Dublan, 1916.

With cavalry such an important arm in the expedition, and horses in every other kind of combat unit, it probably is obvious, if underappreciated, to what extent horses were vital in transportation, i.e., logistical transportation.

 

Soldier on the back of a horse in draft, New York National Guard mobilized for border duty.

 Army wagons in foreground, Army truck in the background

Some time ago we posted a movie made of Army wagons during the Expedition that more than give a hint at this.  The Expedition saw the introduction of transport trucks, as we've already discussed in an earlier thread, for transport.  But the Army wagon very much remained.  Wagons were present in the Army in large numbers, were capable in rough terrain, and they didn't break down at the rate that trucks did.  None of this is to say that trucks were not revolutionizing logistics, as that would be untrue. They did. But the wagon remained.

In addition to the reliable wagon, thousands of pack mules were deployed south of the border.

The use of mules, we should note, is extremely interesting in that its really the last example of a long running US history of contract mules.  The Army did have its own mule packers, to be sure, in the Quartermaster Corps.  But in addition to Army packers, the Army made use of a lot of civilian packers.  This had been the case throughout the Army's role on the Frontier and the use of civilians in Mexico was a logical extension of that.  Quite a few Army posts in the West had packers who were more or less permanently contracted to the Army at that location, with huge strings of mules, and naturally they went along with the units that they were contracted to.   The Punitive Expedition was the last time this would happen, however.  When the Army deployed to France the following year the packers didn't go, or if they did, they went as soldiers.  It wouldn't be until the war in Afghanistan until the US military would hire civilian packers again, and the use of substantial contractors in a transport role would not reappear until the second Gulf War.

All of which is to say that, while the Punitive Expedition did see the introduction of motorized transport, it remained very much a horse driven affair. But then all of the armies of the period were, and its perhaps only because of its cavalry focus, and the misunderstanding of the role of cavalry in World War One, that perhaps we conceive of it as a unique swan song.   Indeed, if Pershing had his way, a large amount of American cavalry would have been deployed to France during the Great War, but shipping concerns prevented that from occurring.

So much for the horses, next we look at the tack.

For more information, check out the excellent Society of the Military Horse website.  It's the source for information on everything military equine.

Related Posts:

The Punitive Expedition and technology. A 20th Century Expedition

The Punitive Expedition and technology. A 20th Century Expedition. Part Two. Radios and Telegraph