A question for writers of fiction.

If you are a fiction writer, by which I mean novels, how many significant, or central, characters do you feel is the limit for a novel, assuming you feel there is a limit?

To Kill A Mockingbird, by my recollection, has basically five.  The Killer Angels, on the other hand, has at least seven and probably more like ten, if I recall correctly.  War And Peace has enough of such characters such that keeping them all in mind is a bit difficult, even though it is, in my view, the greatest work of fiction ever written.  The small Irish classic Durango has seven or eight.  McMurtry's magnum opus Lonesome Dove is centered on two, but they interact with a bare minimum of eleven other significant characters, and at least that many minor ones.

Thoughs?

April 30, 1921 Pope Benedict XV issued In Praeclara Summorum

 

Pope Benedict XV issued In Praeclara Summorum on Dante Alighieri.  It reads:

Beloved Children,
Health and the Apostolic Benediction.

Among the many celebrated geniuses of whom the Catholic faith can boast who have left undying fruits in literature and art especially, besides other fields of learning, and to whom civilization and religion are ever in debt, highest stands the name of Dante Alighieri, the sixth centenary of whose death will soon be recorded. Never perhaps has his supreme position been recognized as it is today. Not only Italy, justly proud of having given him birth, but all the civil nations are preparing with special committees of learned men to celebrate his memory that the whole world may pay honour to that noble figure, pride and glory of humanity.

2. And surely we cannot be absent from this universal consensus of good men; rather should We take the lead in it as the Church has special right to call Alighieri hers.

3. So, just as at the beginning of Our Pontificate by a Letter to the Archbishop of Ravenna We promoted the restoration of the temple where the ashes of the poet lie, so now, to initiate the cycle of the centenary celebrations, it has seemed most opportune to Us to speak to you all, beloved children, who cultivate letters under the maternal vigilance of the Church, to show even more clearly than before the intimate union of Dante with this Chair of Peter, and how the praises showered on that distinguished name necessarily redound in no small measure to the honour of the Catholic Church.

4. And first of all, inasmuch as the divine poet throughout his whole life professed in exemplary manner the Catholic religion, he would surely desire that this solemn commemoration should take place, as indeed will be the case, under the auspices of religion, and if it is carried out in San Francesco in Ravenna it should begin in San Giovanni in Florence to which his thoughts turned during the last years of his life with the desire of being crowned poet at the very font where he had received Baptism. Dante lived in an age which inherited the most glorious fruits of philosophical and theological teaching and thought, and handed them on to the succeeding ages with the imprint of the strict scholastic method. Amid the various currents of thought diffused then too among learned men Dante ranged himself as disciple of that Prince of the school so distinguished for angelic temper of intellect, Saint Thomas Aquinas. From him he gained nearly all his philosophical and theological knowledge, and while he did not neglect any branch of human learning, at the same time he drank deeply at the founts of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Thus he learned almost all that could be known in his time, and nourished specially by Christian knowledge, it was on that field of religion he drew when he set himself to treat in verse of things so vast and deep. So that while we admire the greatness and keenness of his genius, we have to recognize, too, the measure in which he drew inspiration from the Divine Faith by means of which he could beautify his immortal poems with all the lights of revealed truths as well as with the splendours of art. Indeed, his Commedia, which deservedly earned the title of Divina, while it uses various symbolic images and records the lives of mortals on earth, has for its true aim the glorification of the justice and providence of God who rules the world through time and all eternity and punishes and rewards the actions of individuals and human society. It is thus that, according to the Divine Revelation, in this poem shines out the majesty of God One and Three, the Redemption of the human race operated by the Word of God made Man, the supreme loving-kindness and charity of Mary, Virgin and Mother, Queen of Heaven, and lastly the glory on high of Angels, Saints and men; then the terrible contrast to this, the pains of the impious in Hell; then the middle world, so to speak, between Heaven and Hell, Purgatory, the Ladder of souls destined after expiation to supreme beatitude. It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design. If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in a such way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.

5. But among the truths that shine out in the triple poem of Alighieri as in his other works We think that these things may serve as teaching for men of our times. That Christians should pay highest reverence to the Sacred Scripture and accept what it contains with perfect docility he proclaims when he says that "Though many are the writers of the Divine Word nevertheless there is but one Dictator, God, Who has deigned to show us His goodwill through the pens of many" (Mon. III, 4). Glorious expression of a great truth. Again, when he says that "The Old and the New Testament, prescribed for eternity, as the Prophet says, contain 'spiritual teachings transcending human reason,' given 'by the Holy Ghost who by means of the Prophets and sacred writings, through Jesus Christ coeternal Son of God and through His disciples revealed the supernatural truth necessary for us"' (Mon. III, 3, 16). And therefore regarding the life to come "It is assured by the true doctrine of Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life: the Way because by that way we advance without hindrance to the happiness of that immortality; the Truth because He is free from all error; the Light because He enlightens us in the darkness of ignorance of this world" (Conv. II, 9). And no less reverence he pays to "those venerable Great Councils the presence of Christ in which no one of the faithful doubts"; and great is his esteem for "writings of the Doctors, Augustine and the others, and if any one doubt that they were aided by the Holy Ghost either he has not seen their fruits or if he has seen he has not tasted" (Mon. III, 3).

6. No need to recall Alighieri's great reverence for the authority of the Catholic Church, the account in which he holds the power of the Roman Pontiff as the base of every law and institution of that Church. Hence the outspoken warning to Christians: You have the Old and the New Testament: the Pastor of the Church as Guide; Let that suffice for your salvation. He felt the troubles of the Church as his own, and while he deplored and condemned all rebellion against its Supreme Head he wrote as follows to the Italian Cardinals during the stay at Avignon: "To us who confess the same Father and Son, the same God and Man, the same Mother and Virgin; to us for whom and for whose salvation the message was given, after the triple Lovest thou Me? Feed My sacred sheepfold; to us, driven to mourn with Jeremias - but not over things to come but over things that are - for Rome - that Rome on which Christ, after all the old pomp and triumph, confirmed by word and work the empire of the world, and which Peter, too, and Paul the Apostle of the Nations consecrated with their very blood as Apostolic See - now widowed and desolate; to us it is as terrible grief to see this as to see the tragedy of heresy" (Epist. VIII). For him the Roman Church is The Most Holy Mother, Bride of Him Crucified and to Peter, infallible judge of revealed truths, is owing perfect submission in matters of faith and morals. Hence, however much he may hold that the dignity of the Emperor is derived immediately from God, still he asserts that this truth "must not be understood so strictly as to mean that the Roman Prince is not subject to the Roman Pontiff in anything, because this mortal happiness is subjected in certain measure to immortal happiness" (Mon. III, 16). Excellent and wise principle indeed which, if it were observed today as it ought to be, would bring to States abundant fruits of civil prosperity. But, it will be said, he inveighs with terrible bitterness against the Supreme Pontiffs of his times. True; but it was against those who differed from him in politics and he thought were on the side of those who had driven him from his country. One can feel for a man so beaten down by fortune, if with lacerated mind he breaks out sometimes into words of excessive blame, the more so that, to increase his feeling, false statements were being made by his political enemies ready, as always happens, to give an evil interpretation to everything. And indeed, since, through mortal infirmity, "by worldly dust even religious hearts must needs be soiled" (St. Leo M. S. IV de Quadrag), it cannot be denied that at that time there were matters on which the clergy might be reproved, and a mind as devoted to the Church as was that of Dante could not but feel disgust while we know, too, that reproof came also from men of conspicuous holiness. But, however he might inveigh, rightly or wrongly, against ecclesiastical personages, never did he fail in respect due to the Church and reverence for the "Supreme Keys"; and on the political side he laid down as rule for his views "the reverence which a good son should show towards his father, a dutiful son to his mother, to Christ, to the Church, to the Supreme Pastor, to all who profess the Christian religion, for the safeguarding of truth" (Mon. III, 3).

7. Thus, as he based the whole structure of his poem on these sound religious principles, no wonder that we find in it a treasure of Catholic teaching; not only, that is, essence of Christian philosophy and theology, but the compendium of the divine laws which should govern the constitution and administration of States; for Dante Alighieri was not a man to maintain, for the purpose of giving greater glory to country or pleasure to ruler, that the State may neglect justice and right which he knew well to be the main foundation of civil nations.

8. Wonderful, therefore, is the intellectual enjoyment that we gain from the study of the great poet, and no less the profit for the student making more perfect his artistic taste and more keen his zeal for virtue, as long as he keeps his mind free from prejudice and open to accept truth. Indeed, while there is no lack of great Catholic poets who combine the useful with the enjoyable, Dante has the singular merit that while he fascinates the reader with wonderful variety of pictures, with marvelously lifelike colouring, with supreme expression and thought, he draws him also to the love of Christian knowledge, and all know how he said openly that he composed his poem to bring to all "vital nourishment." And we know now too how, through God's grace, even in recent times, many who were far from, though not averse to Jesus Christ, and studied with affection the Divina Commedia, began by admiring the truths of the Catholic Faith and finished by throwing themselves with enthusiasm into the arms of the Church.

9. What We have said above suffices to show how opportune it is that on the occasion of this world centenary each should intensify his zeal for the preservation of that Faith shown by Dante pre-eminently as support of learning and the arts. For We admire in him not only supreme height of genius but also the immensity of the subject which holy religion put to his hand. If his genius was refined by meditation and long study of the great classics it was tempered even more gloriously, as We have said, by the writings of the Doctors and the Fathers which gave him the wings on which to rise to a higher atmosphere than that of restricted nature. And thus it comes that, though he is separated from us by centuries, he has still the freshness of a poet of our times: certainly more modern than some of those of recent days who have exhumed the Paganism banished forever by Christ's triumph on the Cross. There breathes in Alighieri the piety that we too feel; the Faith has the same meaning for us; it is covered with the same veil, "the truth given to us from on high, by which we are lifted so high." That is his great glory, to be the Christian poet, to have sung with Divine accents those Christian ideals which he so passionately loved in all the splendour of their beauty, feeling them intimately and making them his life. Such as dare to deny to Dante this award and reduce all the religious content of the Divina Commedia to a vague ideology without basis of truth fail to see the real characteristic of the poet, the foundation of all his other merits.

10. If then Dante owes so great part of his fame and greatness to the Catholic Faith, let that one example, to say nothing of others, suffice to show the falseness of the assertion that obedience of mind and heart to God is a hindrance to genius, whereas indeed it incites and elevates it. Let it show also the harm done to the cause of learning and civilization by such as desire to banish all idea of religion from public instruction. Deplorable indeed is the system prevalent today of educating young students as if God did not exist and without the least reference to the supernatural. In some places the "sacred poem" is not kept outside the schools, is indeed numbered among the books to be studied specially; but it does not bring to the young students that "vital nourishment" which it should do because through the principle of the "lay school" they are not disposed towards the truths of the Faith as they should be. Heaven grant that this may be the fruit of the Dante Centenary: that wherever literary instruction is given the great poet may be held in due honour and that he himself may be for the pupils the teacher of Christian doctrine, he whose one purpose in his poem was "to raise mortals from the state of misery," that is from the state of sin, "and lead them to the state of happiness," that is of divine grace (Epist. III, para. 15).

11. And you, beloved children, whose lot it is to promote learning under the magisterium of the Church, continue as you are doing to love and tend the noble poet whom We do not hesitate to call the most eloquent singer of the Christian idea. The more profit you draw from study of him the higher will be your culture, irradiated by the splendours of truth, and the stronger and more spontaneous your devotion to the Catholic Faith.

As pledge of celestial favours and witness of Our paternal benevolence we impart to you, beloved children, with all Our heart, the Apostolic benediction.

Given at Rome at St. Peter's, April 30, 1921, the seventh year of Our Pontificate.

A Year in the Life of Raising Sheep in Idaho

April 29, 1921. "16 Raiding Villistas Not Guilty"

News hit in Cheyenne that a jury in Deming had acquitted some accused of crimes during the Columbus raid. As noted yesterday, this wasn't the first trial, and in fact this one was remarkably late.  Indeed, so late that a person really has to wonder about the justice involved in holding prisoners for six years before going to trial.  And we learn from this article that these sixteen men had been tried and convicted previously, and then pardoned, and the rearrested on new charges.  A pretty questionable set of events.

It was news in other venues as well.

The long delay may have worked in these prisoners favor as well as obviously evolving views on their role in the raid. Those tried rapidly were tried in the heat of the immediate events, which as we know included these men, received much less favorable results.

President Harding had spoken the day prior and that was front page news everywhere, including on the USS Arizona.

On another note, grocery prices for this day in 1921.

April 28, 1921. Jury Acquits Defendants on the Columbus Raid

Jury Acquits 16 Mexicans of Columbus Raid Murders

So read the headlines of the New York Times on this day in 1921.

This is an aspect of the raid, which started off the day by day habit here, i.e., posts in "real time", a century removed, that we still haven't broken.  We probably should have considered it before.

Villa declared the raid a success in that his forces took over 300 longarms, 80 horses, and 30 mules, from Columbus and Camp Furlong by way of the raid.  While that may be so, he directly lost 90 to 170 dead, thereby paying a steep price for low returns it its considered that the raiding force had been made up of 484 men.  Sixty-three of his men were killed during the raid and the remainder died of their wounds thereafter, explaining the imprecise tally.

Some were captured and tried rapidly, with six being sentenced to death.

Other captured men, however were tried later on with differing result, but the overall results are, unfortunately, quite unclear to me.  It hadn't occurred to me that any were tried at all, as I would have regarded Villa's army as that, an army, albeit an irregular one.  Prisoners from armies aren't tried and aren't executed for simply participating in a military action, irrespective of the action itself being illegal.

Indeed, that logic later caused at least one prisoner to have a death sentence commuted to a life sentence. But there were at least three trials and many of the men tried were those who had been taken prisoner by the Army following the launching of its expedition into Mexico.  As far as I can tell, some death sentences were carried out.  A shocking number of the prisoners simply died in captivity due to the horrible condition, in part, of the county jail in which they were held.  We have to recall here that the 1918 Flu Epidemic was ongoing.  

As things moved along there came to be a fair amount of sympathy for the prisoners, some of whom  were in bad physical shape, and many of whom had only vague connections with what had occurred.  Soldier witnesses for the trial ended up being deployed to France so conducting the trials became difficult.  One defendant was only twelve years old and was released.  

Other than the citation to this headline, I can't find any evidence of trials occurring as late as 1921, but apparently they did.  By this time, it was probably too late to really convict many.  In this trial, apparently there were twenty defendants, and sixteen were found not guilty by the jury.

Should any have been tried at all?

Well, some appear to have been tried because of direct murders of civilians, something that's illegal in any war.  That's another matter. But the wisdom of trying soldiers, at least one of whom was a conscripted Carranzaista who was sent into action on that day without ammunition, is and was questionable.  What to do with them no doubt was also problematic, something we've learned again in recent years due to our wars with the Taliban and Al Queda.

On this same day President Harding, who seems to have been photographed with visitors nearly every day, posed with Pop Anson and Anson's daughters.  Adrian "Pop" Anson had been a professional baseball player and later a vaudeville performer.  In his vaudeville role, he performed with his two daughters depicted here, Adele and Dorothy.  Anson would have been about 68 at the time this photograph was taken, and both of his daughters were in their 30s.  Anson died the following April at age 69.

The dog was Laddie Boy, an Airedale.  He was the first White House dog to be followed by the press.  He wasn't even one year old when photographed here, and would outlive his master.

Lives of The Downtrodden in Early America

Today In Wyoming's History: Reviewing the Wounded Knee Medals of Honor.

Today In Wyoming's History: Reviewing the Wounded Knee Medals of Honor.: 

Reviewing the Wounded Knee Medals of Honor.

Sgt. Toy receiving the Medal of Honor in 1891.  Sgt. Toy was cited for "bravery while shooting Indians" at Wounded Knee.  He is known to have shot two during the engagement, which is about all that his citations and the supporting material relates.

 Tribes Want Medals Awarded for Wounded Knee Revoked.

While this isn't a Wyoming item per se, the Battle of Wounded Knee has been noted here before, as its a regional one.

It would likely surprise most readers here that twenty Medals of Honor were awarded to soldiers who participated in the actions at Wounded Knee.  The odd thing is that I was under the impression that the Army had rescinded these medals long ago, and I'm not completely certain that they haven't.  Having said that, I can't find that they were, so my presumption must have been in error.

To put this in context, the medals that were rescinded, if any were, weren't rescinded because Wounded Knee was a massacre.  They were rescinded because they didn't meet the post April 1917 criteria for receiving the award.

The Medal of Honor was first authorized in 1861 by the Navy, not the Army, following the retirement of Gen. Winfield Scott, who was adamantly opposed to the awarding of medals to servicemen, which he regarded as a European practice, not an American one.  The award was authorized by Congress that year, at the Navy's request.  The Army followed in 1862 in the same fashion.  The medals actually vary by appearance, to this day, depending upon which service issues them, and they've varied somewhat in design over time.

During the Civil War the award was generally issued for extraordinary heroism, but not necessarily of the same degree for which it is today.  Because of this, a fairly large number of Medals of Honor were conferred after the Civil War to servicemen who retroactively sought them, so awards continued for Civil War service for decades following the war.  New awards were also issued, of course, for acts of heroism in the remaining decades of the 19th Century, with Army awards usually being related to service in the Indian Wars.  Navy awards, in contrast, tended to be issued for heroic acts in lifesaving, a non combat issuance of the award that could not occur today.  Indeed, a fairly large number were issued to sailors who went over the sides of ships to save the lives, or attempt to, of drowning individuals, often with tragic results to the sailors.

At any rate, the period following the war and the method by which it was retroactively issued may have acclimated the Army to issuing awards as there are a surprising number of them that were issued for frontier battles.  This does not mean that there were not genuine acts of heroism that took place in those battles, it's just surprising how many there were and its clear that the criteria was substantially lower than that which would apply for most of the 20th Century.

Indeed, in the 20th Century the Army began to significantly tighten up requirements to hold the medal. This came into full fruition during World War One during which the Army made it plain that it was only a combat medal, while the Navy continued to issue the medal for peacetime heroism.  In 1917 the Army took the position that the medal could only be issued for combat acts of heroism at the risk of life to the recipient, and in 1918 that change became official.  Prior to the 1918 change the Army commissioned a review board on past issuance of the medal and struck 911 instances of them having been issued.  I'd thought the Wounded Knee medals had been stricken, but my presumption must be in error.

Frontier era Medals of Honor, as well as those issued to Civil War era soldiers after the Civil War, tend to be remarkably lacking in information as to why they were conferred.  This has presented a problem for the Army looking back on them in general.

Indeed, the Wounded Knee medals have this character.  They don't say much, and what they do say isn't all that useful to really know much about what lead them to be awarded.  There is a peculiar aspect to them, however, in that they don't reflect what we generally know about the battle historically.  

Wikipedia has summarized the twenty awards and what they were awarded for, and this illustrates this problem.  The Wounded Knee Wikipedia page summarizes this as follows

·         Sergeant William Austin, cavalry, directed fire at Indians in ravine at Wounded Knee;

·         Private Mosheim Feaster, cavalry, extraordinary gallantry at Wounded Knee;

·         Private Mathew Hamilton, cavalry, bravery in action at Wounded Knee;

·         Private Joshua Hartzog, artillery, rescuing commanding officer who was wounded and carried him out of range of hostile guns at Wounded Knee;

·         Private Marvin Hillock, cavalry, distinguished bravery at Wounded Knee;

·         Sergeant Bernhard Jetter, cavalry, distinguished bravery at Wounded Knee for "killing an Indian who was in the act of killing a wounded man of B Troop."

·         Sergeant George Loyd, cavalry, bravery, especially after having been severely wounded through the lung at Wounded Knee;

·         Sergeant Albert McMillain, cavalry, while engaged with Indians concealed in a ravine, he assisted the men on the skirmish line, directed their fire, encouraged them by example, and used every effort to dislodge the enemy at Wounded Knee;

·         Private Thomas Sullivan, cavalry, conspicuous bravery in action against Indians concealed in a ravine at Wounded Knee;

·         First Sergeant Jacob Trautman, cavalry, killed a hostile Indian at close quarters, and, although entitled to retirement from service, remained to close of the campaign at Wounded Knee;

·         Sergeant James Ward, cavalry, continued to fight after being severely wounded at Wounded Knee;

·         Corporal William Wilson, cavalry, bravery in Sioux Campaign, 1890;

·         Private Hermann Ziegner, cavalry, conspicuous bravery at Wounded Knee;

·         Musician John Clancy, artillery, twice voluntarily rescued wounded comrades under fire of the enemy;

·         Lieutenant Ernest Garlington, cavalry, distinguished gallantry;

·         First Lieutenant John Chowning Gresham, cavalry, voluntarily led a party into a ravine to dislodge Sioux Indians concealed therein. He was wounded during this action.

·         Second Lieutenant Harry Hawthorne, artillery, distinguished conduct in battle with hostile Indians;

·         Private George Hobday, cavalry, conspicuous and gallant conduct in battle;

·         First Sergeant Frederick Toy, cavalry, bravery;

·         Corporal Paul Weinert, artillery, taking the place of his commanding officer who had fallen severely wounded, he gallantly served his piece, after each fire advancing it to a better position

For quite a few of these, we're left without a clue as to what the basis of the award was, at least based on this summation. But for some, it would suggest a pitched real battle.  A couple of the awards are for rescuing wounded comrades under fire.  Others are for combat actions that we can recognize.

Indeed, one historian that I know, and probably only because I know him, has noted the citations in support for "it was a real battle", taking the controversial, albeit private, position that Wounded Knee was a real, pitched, engagement, not simply a slaughter.  This isn't the popular view at all, of course, and its frankly not all that well supported by the evidence either.  But what of that evidence.

A popular thesis that's sometimes presented is that Wounded Knee was the 7th Cavalry's revenge for the Battle of the Little Big Horn.  Perhaps this is so, but if it is so, it's would be somewhat odd in that it would presume an institutional desire for revenge rather than a personal one, for the most part.  Wounded Knee was twenty four years after Little Big Horn and most of the men who had served at Little Big Horn were long since out of the service.  Indeed, some of the men who received awards would have been two young for service in 1890, and while I haven't looked up all of their biographies, some of them were not likely to have even been born at the time.  Maybe revenge was it, but if that's the case, it would demonstrate a 19th Century retention of institutional memories that vastly exceed the 20th and 21st Century ones.  Of course, the 7th Cavalry remains famous to this day for Little Big Horn, so perhaps that indeed is it.

Or perhaps what it reflects is that things went badly wrong at Wounded Knee and the massacre became a massively one sided battle featuring a slaughter, something that the Sioux on location would have been well within their rights to engage in. That is, once the things went wrong and the Army overreacted, as it certainly is well established that it did, the Sioux with recourse to arms would have been justified in acting in self defense.  That there were some actions in self defense which would have had the character of combat doesn't mean it wasn't combat.

And that raises the sticky moral issues of the Congressional efforts to rescind the medals.  Some of these medals are so poorly supported that the Army could likely simply rescind them on their own, as they have many others, and indeed, I thought they had.  Some seem quite unlikely to meet the modern criteria for the medal no matter what, and therefore under the practices established in 1917, they could be rescinded even if they were regarded as heroic at the time.  Cpl. Weinert's for example, unless there was more to it, would probably just merit a letter of commendation today.

Indeed, save for two examples that reference rescuing wounded comrades, I don't know that any of these would meet the modern criteria. They don't appear to.  So once again, most of these would appear to be subject to proper unilateral Army downgrading or rescission all on their own with no Congressional action.

But what of Congressional action, which has been proposed. The Army hasn't rescinded these awards and they certainly stand out as awards that should receive attention.  If Congress is to act, the best act likely would be to require the Army to review overall its pre 1917 awards once again.  If over 900 were weeded out the first time, at least a few would be today, and I suspect all of these would.

To simply rescind them, however, is problematic, as it will tend to be based neither on the criteria for award today, or the criteria of the award in 1890, but on the gigantic moral problem that is the Battle of Wounded Knee itself.  That is, these awards are proposed to be removed as we regard Wounded Knee as a genocidal act over all, which it does indeed appear to be.

The problem with that is that even if it is a genocidal act in chief, individual acts during it may or may not be. So, rushing forwards to rescue a wounded comrade might truly be heroic, even if done in the middle of an act of barbarism.  Other acts, such as simply shooting somebody, would seem to be participating in that barbarism, but here too you still have the situation of individual soldiers suddenly committed to action and not, in every instance, knowing what is going on.  It's now too late to know in most cases.  Were they acting like William Calley or just as a regular confused soldier?

Indeed, if medals can be stricken because we now abhor what they were fighting for (and in regard to Wounded Knee, it was questioned nearly immediately, which may be why the Army felt compelled to issue medals to those participating in it, to suggest it was a battle more than it was), what do we do with other problematic wars?

Eighty six men, for example, received the Medal of Honor for the Philippine Insurrection.  In retrospect, that was a pure colonial war we'd not condone in any fashion today, and it was controversial at the time.  Theodore Roosevelt very belatedly received the Medal of Honor for leading the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry up Kettle Hill during the Spanish American War, and he no doubt met the modern criterial, but the Spanish American War itself is morally dubious at best.  

Of course, none of these awards are associated with an act of genocide, which takes us back to Wounded Knee.  As noted above, maybe so many awards were issued there as the Army wanted to to convert a massacre into a battle, and conferring awards for bravery was a way to attempt to do that.

Certainly the number of awards for Wounded Knee is very outsized.  It's been noted that as many awards have been issued for heroism at Wounded Knee as have been for some gigantic Civil War battles.  Was the Army really more heroic at Wounded Knee than Antietam?  That seems unlikely.

Anyway a person looks at it, this is one of those topics that it seems clear would be best served by Army action.  The Army has looked at the topic of pre 1917 awards before, and it removed a fair number of them.  There's no reason that it can't do so again. It was regarded as harsh the last time it occurred, and some will complain now as well, but the Army simply did it last time.   That would honor the medal and acknowledge the history, and it really shouldn't be confined to just Wounded Knee.

Dead men and horses at Wounded Knee following the conflict.

April 27, 1941. Greece Falls

 

German propaganda poster issued on this day in 1941. The text, which is oddly in the German script more or less reads "The gigantic work of our Furher's in the struggle of the war is the highest and best duty of all Germans to support."^[1]

On this day in 1941, the Germans took Athens and the Greek government surrendered.

Today in World War II History—April 27, 1941

Almost 1,000 men died in British naval evacuations on this day when the ships carrying the evacuated troops were sunk in Luftwaffe raids. The event is known as the Salmat Disaster.

Churchill delivered a radio address:

Westward Look, the Land is Bright (Audio) - International Churchill Society: April 27, 1941. Broadcast, London. http://ia800205.us.archive.org/19/items/Winston_Churchill/1941-04-27_BBC_Winston_Churchill_Westward_Look_The_Land_Is_Bright.mp3 Related Story

All in all, obviously, it was a bad day for the Allies in what had been a bad month.

Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but relating these events now, what do they say about the actual state of the forces?  We know, of course, how the story ends, but even then there were certain things that seem evident, if considered.

One is, and the one the Germans were obviously focused on, that the Germans were pretty much the top contenders in ground combat at the time.  They'd now defeated all of the continental European powers they'd fought and had pushed the British off of the continent twice. And at the moment, they were besting the British in North Africa.

Having said that, and it wasn't quite evident yet, that strength waned considerably once they were removed from the continent, and the opposite was the case for the British. The British were retreating in North Africa in the face of the modern new opponent, the Afrika Corps, but they weren't defeated and hadn't been pushed out of Tobruk.

Moreover, the British, with naval power the Germans couldn't match, were capable of landing troops wherever they wished, and whenever they wished.  They'd commenced naval based raids and had conducted them on German held Norway, in North Africa, and on the Italian peninsula.  This meant that the Axis, which had a massive coastline, was really incapable of defending it against such raids but it had to try. The British, for their part, were not really subject to them due to their superior naval strength.

Additionally, the Italians had proven completely incompetent in the war.  This is something that is well known, and the reasons for it are debated by historians, but it was a fact. Without German direct support the Italian military was completely useless.  Indeed much of its more "modern" equipment was now obsolete, having peaked its point of being cutting edge in the mid 1930s prior to the onset of the war.  In the rapidly developing armor and aircraft industries of the time, that meant that their equipment was old and past its prime.

This in turn meant that for the most part the Italian army was of no real aid to the German war effort other than that it simply existed.  Indeed, Italy had caused the Germans to commit men to North Africa and to an effort in Greece which caused it to have to invade Yugoslavia.  The German Army, in 1939-1941, was the best on the ground in Europe, but it was spread pretty thin.

All of this sets the background, of course, for what was coming. But what was, was this.  Germany could go where it wanted and when it wanted on the European landmass. . . against conventionally sized European states.  It couldn't, however, knock the United Kingdom out of the war, and the UK could strike the Axis coast anywhere it wanted at any time.  Germany was committed to an air campaign against the UK but it wasn't denting British resolve and it wasn't really impacting British production much.  The British, in turn, could and did hit Germany fairly frequently in bombing raids conducted at night, which also weren't denting German resolve and which weren't really impacting German production much, but which should have been a red flat to the Germans that in spite of their ability to occupy the European landmass they weren't even remotely close to defeating the British and whatever they might wish to do next, the British remained a power capable of really harassing them, at a bare minimum, and one that needed to be constantly guarded against.

And, in the background, the United States was openly edging closer to war every day with the Roosevelt Administration openly backing the British and coming as close to bringing the country into the war without openly asking for a declaration of war.  The German Navy's "Happy Time" had ended and now the production scale was tipping towards the British.

Not obvious yet, with the occupation of Yugoslavia and Greece the Germans now would, additionally, have to maintain a fighting garrison as those countries would soon be the seen of guerilla warfare.

With all of this in mind, the Germans looked east towards the Soviet Union, which had started a rolling slow mobilization earlier that week.  Hitler and his lieutenants calculated, perhaps rationally, that German land forces had been invulnerable to date and they would be again.  But they discounted, and rather seriously, that their rear was completely exposed from the air and sea, they hadn't been able to really absorb what they'd taken to date, and with every miles they gained anywhere, they were spread that much thinner with no real source of additional manpower to supply them with replacements other than from Germany itself.

Footnote:

1.  This is one of those odd texts that doesn't translate directly from one language to another, so it can be translated more than one way.

Monday Morning Repeats. From the Week of June 11, 2011. Communications and Road Miles

This entry was actually the only post for June, 1911.  This blog used to have big intervals between publication.

Communications and Road Miles

April 25, 1941 Echoes of wars past.

On this day in 1941, the Afrika Corps took Halfaya Pass between Egypt and Libya and entered Egypt from the west.  Given the dire situation, the British withdrew its Hurricanes from Tobruk, although they were down to two there at the time.  This left only Westland Lysanders stationed there for artillery spotting purposes.

Westland Lysanders over Madagascar in 1942.

The move conceded control of the skies to the Luftwaffe over Tobruk.

On the same day, Arab recruits to the British forces paraded in Jerusalem.

 

In spite of manpower shortages, and in spite of the fact that Arab volunteers were forthcoming, the British made very little use of them.  It made some, but not much.  All in all, there seems to have been an element of lingering mistrust of Arab volunteers and forces in spite of the significant cooperation between the Hashemites, now ruling Transjordan (and recently overthrown, albeit temporarily, in Iraq), during World War One.  This was partially amplified by Arab unrest between the wars.

On this day, the British forces were defeated at Thermopylae.  

Be that as it may, however, the British defense there did amount none the less to a strategic victory given as the delaying action gave the British forces now withdrawing from Greece much needed time.  The British forces made a 100 miles strategic withdrawal in twelve hours, a remarkable feat, and were greeted with flowers by crowds in Athens.

Many of the troops in Greece were New Zealand, so here again we'll not a bit of an irony in that on this day the British in the Middle East were observing ANZAC Day.

Australian troops at Anzac Monument in front of cemetery, April 25, 1941.

Regarding German intervention in Greece a complete success, Hitler ordered, on this day, the invasion of Crete.

In a press conference, President Roosevelt compared Charles Lindbergh's position on the war to that of the Copperheads to the Civil War.

Blog Mirror. Grocery prices, April 25, 1971.

 

1971 Grocery Prices

April 25, 1921. Famous visitors

Elsa Einstein, Albert Einstein, and President Harding.  Elsa and Albert Einstein were fairly newly married at this time, having been married in 1919 following Albert's divorce from his first wife.  They were not only related by marriage, but by blood, as their mothers were sisters and their father's first cousins, a circumstances that would have prohibited their marriage in most, if not all, US states.

On this day in 1921, Albert Einstein and his wife Elsa visited President Harding.  Einstein was suddenly famous following the fairly recent eclipse which went to support his general theory of relativity.

The Japanese government voted against a resolution to allow women to participate in political parties.

Communist in Fiume staged a coup after losing an election there.

The Allied Reparations Commission demanded that Germany pay 1,000,000 Marks in gold to France by April 30.

Nebraska prohibited anyone who was not a U.S. citizen or resident alien from owning property in the state.

A city in Maryland should not get to be its own state.

Not everything the founders did makes sense now, and one of those things is Washington D.C.

Not the city party.  You need a seat of government and that's going to be a big city.

No, the "District of Columbia" part.

Look, I get the reasons for it.  It was a really big country when it was founded and the founders were worried about boosting the power of a state that housed the national government.  Okay, made sense at the time, although it was probably a little paranoid frankly.  Does it make sense now?

Not so much.

The idea, of course, is that a reservation of Federal land is by nature a Federal Reservation, and Washington D.C. is sort of a super reservation.  Originally, the founders thought of Federal power applying to a very limited number of things it was reserving to itself.  Forts, some port facilities, things like that.

Well, that didn't work out and there's a lot more than just that, and that's fine, but the capital of the country doesn't need to be a super reservation that's separate from the state its in, which is Maryland.  And making it a state is just moronic.

The argument is that it has a lot of people and no representation.  Well, it does have a lot of people, around 700,000, but making it a state would not only defeat the original purpose of making it a Federal reservation, it'd actually go exactly the opposite way, making a city that exists on nothing other than Federal largess a state.  

Washington D.C., as a state, would have interests obviously completely separate from the rest of the country's on everything, that one interest being the interest of the government itself.  Big infrastructure bill, they'd be for it every time.  Create a Bureau of Tabbies and Norwegian Forest Cats?  They'd be for that too.  Whatever it is, as long as it was the Federal government, they'd be game. That's the town's only product.

Warren Air Force Base is a Federal Reservation in Wyoming and people who live there get to vote in the state's elections. Why? It's in the state.

Ft. Riley is a Federal Reservation and the people who live there get to vote in Kansas' elections. Why, well its in Kansas.

You get the point.

No other large nation has taken the approach the somewhat paranoid founders of the U.S. did.  St. Petersburg was the capital of Imperial Russia and it was not its own special district. When the capital was moved to Moscow, it didn't become one.  Berlin is some German federal reservation inside of Germany.  Paris hasn't been separated from France.  London isn't separate from the United Kingdom.  Dublin isn't separate from Ireland.  Ottawa in in Ontario.

Is it unfair that Washingtonians don't get to vote in congressional elections?  No, not really.  That was the entire idea.  And making Washington D. C. a state wouldn't increase fairness, it'd defeat it for the reasons mentioned above.

Want to give Washingtonians a say in Congress?  Make the city party of Maryland.  Yes, that would mean that Washingtonians would only be 700,000 out of some 7,000,000 in that state, but that's fair.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Carpenter United Methodist Church, Carpenter Wyoming.

Churches of the West: Carpenter United Methodist Church, Carpenter Wyoming.: 

Carpenter United Methodist Church, Carpenter Wyoming.

This is the Carpenter United Methodist Church in Carpenter, Wyoming.

Carpenter is a very small, but still there, town in southeastern Wyoming.  Indeed the town is almost in Colorado and and is has much of the character of western Nebraska.  Founded as a railroad town, the town hangs on in spite of its very small size and is quite isolated.

This church was obviously built early on as a Prairie Goth style church and then modified, probably in the 1970s, to have a new entry way.  The entry way is architecturally inconsistent with the remainder of the church so the exact thinking of the addition isn't obvious to an outside viewer.

Best Posts of the Week of April 18, 2021

 The best posts of the week of April 

Drawdown in Afghanistan

April 18, 1921. "Grave of Edith Barnett of New York City. An American Red Cross nurse who died in Siberia, Aug. 15, 1919. Monument placed at Tomsk, Siberia on April 18, 1921. Photograph taken on April 19, 1921"

April 18, 1941. The Camp X Escape.

April 19, 1941. National Service.

"We all do things we said we never would"

Pandemic, Part 5

Assumptions

Wars and Rumors of War. 2021

Today is Earth Day for 2021. . .

Some odd things you can do for the environment on Earth Day that may or may not have occurred to you.

Dazzling urbanites. . . buy a car.

April 24, 2021: Statement by President Joe Biden on Armenian Remembrance Day

 

Each year on this day, we remember the lives of all those who died in the Ottoman-era Armenian genocide and recommit ourselves to preventing such an atrocity from ever again occurring. Beginning on April 24, 1915, with the arrest of Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople by Ottoman authorities, one and a half million Armenians were deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in a campaign of extermination. We honor the victims of the Meds Yeghern so that the horrors of what happened are never lost to history. And we remember so that we remain ever-vigilant against the corrosive influence of hate in all its forms.

Of those who survived, most were forced to find new homes and new lives around the world, including in the United States. With strength and resilience, the Armenian people survived and rebuilt their community. Over the decades Armenian immigrants have enriched the United States in countless ways, but they have never forgotten the tragic history that brought so many of their ancestors to our shores. We honor their story. We see that pain. We affirm the history. We do this not to cast blame but to ensure that what happened is never repeated. 

Today, as we mourn what was lost, let us also turn our eyes to the future—toward the world that we wish to build for our children. A world unstained by the daily evils of bigotry and intolerance, where human rights are respected, and where all people are able to pursue their lives in dignity and security. Let us renew our shared resolve to prevent future atrocities from occurring anywhere in the world. And let us pursue healing and reconciliation for all the people of the world.  

The American people honor all those Armenians who perished in the genocide that began 106 years ago today.