CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist 157th Edition. Press Revolt and other matters.

Press Revolt.

Today’s action revoking access for journalists from CNN, POLITICO, and MSNOW violates the First Amendment. The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future. The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably.  That’s why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting. The WHCA calls on the administration to immediately restore our colleagues’ access.

Jacqui Heinrich, WHCA President

In a really remarkable event, the broadcast media is boycotting the Trump Administration after it banned some press outlets from covering King Donald.

Donny loves, and feeds on, the attention, and it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.  Yesterday the White House blew the coverage on the opening use of the helipad so that nobody could really hear what King Donny had to say.

Today King Donny's admin tried to pass off the press ban as being in the interest of national security, which recently has been his default position on everything.  That's why King Donny is building a ballroom, that's why we need a Triumphal Arch.

The bloom may be off the red stinkweed of Trumpism as by and large, the public just isn't buying it at all.

Good for the press to finally find its courage.  It's been lacking.  This Week expresses addressed the Trump ban.

Dr. John trotted out.

The GOP hauled out the uninspiring Dr. John Barrasso, majority whip, to justify the GOP's malfeasance.  

Dr. John is a pretty uninspiring speaker.  This was no exception.  He attempted to justify the press ban saying that the press had an obligation to report fairly.

That's a really dangerous position for a local politician to take, quite frankly.  He didn't sound like he really meant it as he knows that they do report fairly.  What he also knows is that they don't report, locally, too deeply, at least they haven't until recently.  They're starting too thanks to the online journals which have been a lot more proactive in digging things up than the print media ever was.

Barrasso is turning out to be a worthless Senator for the state.  He has four more years to serve. My suspicion is that this will be his last term, if the 74 year old Senator lives through it.  I think people are tired of him and he won't want to go down in defeat.  He'll retire and move somewhere else, as he was never really from here to start with.

Dr. John was in Iowa where he was campaigning for a Republican candidate there.  Wow, the Midwest must really like bland if somebody thinks Dr. John is going to help.  Asked about what is going on, the doctor mustered up this reply:

Well, people all around the country are feeling the pain. I’m hearing it in Wyoming with our farmers and ranchers as well. But people vote about what’s going on in their life and their future. And we know we need to do more. We need to get more money into people’s pockets. That’s what Republicans want to do. But let’s talk about what we have done. And that is we’ve prevented a $4 trillion tax increase. We’ve gotten rid of taxes on tips and social security and on overtime. And we know what the Democrats would do if they were able to take over. They would put all those taxes back on for the purpose of paying for health care for illegal immigrants. So they want to put on taxes on waitresses, on nurses who work overtime, firefighters, and on our seniors. I mean, there’s a huge difference between where Republicans want to take this country and where Democrats want to take this country. Those Democrats that are so unpopular in your poll, why? They want to eliminate Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They want to defund the police. They want to get rid of the military. They want to open the borders. They talk about opening the prisons and putting these prisoners back in our communities. That doesn’t make us safer, it doesn’t make us more prosperous. And that is the difference between common sense and the craziness. And I think that’s what this election is going to be about.

And

Well, we’re always looking for ways to put more money in people’s pockets. And I hear it in Wyoming all the time at the grocery store, at the gas station, people are paying more. And we need to do more. And that’s why we need more American energy production, we need to get rid of regulations, we need to do more with permitting. That’s legislation we’re working on now. The president and the Republicans are focused on all of those things at the time that Democrats have gone so far to the left that they don’t want to do those sorts of things. And I’ll tell you, once this war in Iran is over, diesel prices are going to go down and stay down under President Trump. But they would stay up forever under the Democrats and specifically diesel in Wyoming, I was in Meeteetse, Wyoming last week, talking to ranchers and farmers there, diesel’s over $6 a gallon now. But in California, it’s over $8 a gallon. And the difference is the rules, the regulations, all the climate issues in California. If the Democrats took over, prices would go up to those levels which are over $2 higher in California than they are in Wyoming right now.

So, inflation is going up and fuel prices are killing us, but the Democrats are bad because Dr. John says so.

Not very inspiring.

Not only that, but Barrasso has joined the GOP liars club.  Raise taxes so we could give healthcare to illegal immigrants. Bullshit. Taxes do need to be raised, but because we aren't paying for the government.

It's almost as if Dr. John had a list of things he had to say, so he made sure he said them all as quickly as possible.

And diesel being $6.00/gal in Wyoming isn't made better by it being $8.00/gal in California.  Oh, we feel so good about that here.

Beef

A popular Trump line right now is that you don't mind paying more for fuel as you don't want Iran to have a nuke.

M'eh.

Secretary Rollins took a similar tone on the price of beef.

Instead of eating less beef as the price continued to rise, Americans began to eat more beef. And even though the price of a pound of ground beef was $6.50, most Americans say, 'I'm good with that. I want this protein for my family.' So they continue to buy.

Um, sure.

When, by the way, did everyone start calling meat "protein".  Knock it off.

Huge

The video footage of the helipad unveiling reveals it to be huge.

I didn't really have an appreciation of its size  until I saw the video.

I really don't know what to make of the helipad.  In some ways it makes sense and it was well done.  I also think that the President doesn't need a giant Sikorsky helicopter and that all the prior Marine Corps 1 helicopters were gigantically overblown as well.  One of the smaller business helicopters would be plenty large enough, quite frankly.

They wouldn't have all the countermeasures, I know. Well, too freaking bad.  The President is supposed to be the chief executive of limited powers, not an emperor.  Flying around in an armored helicopter just gives that much more of a delusion of the opposite.

Speaking of monumental works, I had an exchange, on Twitter, with a MAGA over the ballroom.  It was interesting, as her mind was so completely closed and she was utterly incapable of realizing it.

Besotted

She was convinced that anyone opposed to the ballroom had to be a "liberal" who "hated" Trump.  I'm opposed to it.  I hate what Trump is doing to the country, but I don't hate a living soul.  We are required in Christianity to exhibit agape towards our enemies, and frankly Trump is the enemy of decency in a lot of ways. We should pray for his well-being and salvation.

In the exchange I gave my reasons for opposing the ballroom.  Well, some of them, not all of them. The list would be large.

The principal reasons I detest the ballroom, I'll note, is because of the illegality of its construction and the illegality of the destruction of the wing where it is located.  I'm not a fan of the wings of the White House in general.  I think the whole thing ought to be restored to some prior appearance.

I also think the bunkers that were put in and those being built ought to go.  As with the helicopter, building a bunker is something that shouldn't be done unless it's done for every single American.

I didn't go into it but I also detest the overblown size and the intended interior embellishments are in horrifically bad taste.  

The latter, of course, can and will be removed, if the monstrosity stands.

Anyhow, while I have very wide ranging views, I'm generally very conservative.  Indeed, Trump and the MAGAs are not conservatives at all.  At this point, they're populist of the fascist variety.

Her argument, lifted from Trump, was that the ballroom would benefit future Presidents.  I asked how, and she couldn't provide how. Even though I don't believe it will benefit a living soul, and that it will rightfully be blown to the ground by a future administration, I could make up reasons to support that argument.

Most revealing, however, is that her basic worldview, which came through very clearly, is that if you claim to be an American you have an absolute duty to love Donald Trump.  If you don't, you are a traitor.

During World War Two there was a Marine Corps officer who received the Silver Star for heroism.  He was later killed in the war.  He was also a veteran of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and was an admitted communist.

I have no doubt he loved his country.

For that matter, Sterling Hayden, the famous actor, also was a Marine Corps officer, and a member of the OSS, who was briefly a member of the Communist party.

I have no doubt that he loved his country.

I doubt that Donald Trump loves his.

And I know that those who love Donald Trump so much they see everything he does as correct do not love their countrymen.  And if you hate your countrymen because of their political beliefs, you hate your country.

Fairytale balls

One of the interesting things about the "benefitting future Presidents" line is that it fits into the Trump narrative perfectly. Trump sees himself as a sort of monarch and the White House as a palace.

It's just supposed to be a house.

No. 10 Downing Street doesn't have a ballroom.  24 Sussex Drive doesn't have one either.  The Hôtel Matignon doesn't have one either.  Even the Novo-Ogaryovo Estate doesn't have one, and its quite lavish.

The Kremlin does.  So does Buckingham Palace.

Hmm. . . . . 

That really shows us a glimpse of Trump's mindset. And contrary to what MAGAs like to imagine, no prior President has ever asked for a dedicated ballroom.

It's all just a weird fantasy and a glimpse into the American inferiority complex.  We may have rebelled against a king, but in some ways we never got over being besotted by them. Even to this day we follow what the British royal family is doing as if it matters to us at all.  

So here you have it.  

Abolitio nominis

Back during Roman times, the Senate could issue a decree of abolitio nominis, although it's pretty unclear to me if they called it that.  It was an abolition of a leader's name to the full extent possible.

The Roman Senate well knew that it couldn't really erase an Emperor's name from history, so it was symbolic. But it is worth noting that some very early societies effectively nearly did achieve just that.  The purpose was to express maximum public disdain for the disgraced person.

It's easy to think the US never attempted anything like that, but perhaps it slightly has in the case of the removal of Confederate monuments which started some years ago, and then generally stopped under Trump, whose world outlook doves relatively well with a lot of Confederates or at least Dixiecrats, which is what he really is.  At the time, I was of mixed view as erasing history bothers me, and that reflected the history of the attempt at reviving Confederate reputations.  I find that effort horrific, but I thought having a reminder of it served a purpose. And, also, quite frankly as times change the views of various persons from the past change as well.  Thomas Jefferson was a great man, for instance, but it's pretty clear that he was also screwing his late wife's enslaved half sister when she was only 14.  He was 44. She was his youngest daughters nanny.  The children from the illicit union were born into slaver.

That's warped.

So, suffice it to say, leaders of the past have some warts on them.

But things like rebelling for slavery or ignoring the legalities of things while in office that are open and obvious at the time are another matter.  Jefferson was a domestic creep, and there's no defending that, but the weird mores of his culture made that less weird than it would seem now, although there were plenty of rumors at the time and it's hard not to regard the liasons as starting off, at least, as a type of rape.  Anyhow, the Confederate monuments came up mostly in the 1910s.  It's my view now they ought to all come down. Trump has brought me to that.

Trump is such a horrific person that some sort of decree of abolitio nominis needs to be made when he's gone.  The American instinct is always "well, let's all reconcile". 

Let's not.

Recognizing mistakes is one thing.  Lots of MAGAs who should have known better are now crossing over into sanity as their own wallets are looted by Trump's policies.  I don't care what brings them back into some sort of reality, I think they ought to be welcomed back.  But diehard MAGAs and people who are going to serve Trump until the last days of his administration, not so much.  Karoline Leavitt, for example, can be forgiven, but not readmitted to decent society.  Vance and Rubio should be made to retire from politics.

But because Trump has shown such disdain for the law, he should be made an example of. And the first part of that is to declare his second presidency a legal nullity.  Given his status as an insurrectionist, there's a legal grounds to do that.  Every order, commission, appointment and whatever that depended on his signature should be immediately declared to be null, void, and of no effect by the next President, irrespective of the impact.  Every "agreement" entered into should be declared a nullity, including agreements with foreign powers.  The ballroom should be blown down, and the triumphal arch as well, but the next administration immediately.

Yes, it's extreme, but the correction to fascism is extreme.

Real balls

The first inaugural ball was held for George Washington in 1789 in New York. Washington D.C. did not exist yet, of course.  It was an unofficial ball which, if we must have these, is how they should be in my view.  

The first official one was in 1809 for James Madison.  It was held at Longs Hotel.  Balls didn't occur at all in 1853, 1913, 1921, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, and 2021.  I don't think they should be held at all anymore, but when they are, there are numerous official balls. Clinton had fourteen one year, which is absurd.

Inflation

The GOP is seriously worried about inflation as everyone is seriously worried about it.  It's flopping around like a fish on the deck trying to explain high fuel prices to MAGA bases like agriculture and truck transportation.

It's not going to work.

It took hitting their own pocketbooks but all of a sudden truck drivers are mad at Trump. Well, they ought to be, but it's too late.  Trump's not able to help.

Farmers and ranchers, who started to be angry a while back, are angry once again for the same reason, and in the case of farmers they're upset about potash, most of which comes from Canada, now being tariffed.  

Oops.

King Donny tried to claim that we were going to get potash from Belarus. That claim survived a few hours until the Belarusians said, nope, we don't have any to sell you.

The claim on fuel, of course, is that it'll all go down when the war is over. Given as the war is getting worse, not over, there's not much stock that can be put in that claim.  And the potash situation can only be solved by not being an asshole to Canada.

Even there, the diehard MAGAs are convinced that the Canadians have been picking on us for decades. This is just flat out false.  The border was basically duty free until Trump came in and tore up the very deal that he'd arrived upon with Canada during his first term.

The entire thing has caused now desperate Republicans to ponder taking extreme measures on topics they don't grasp. There's a move, for example, to ban the exportation of diesel fuel.  

The refining of petroleum products doesn't work the way people think it does and the price is very heavily dependent upon the cost of the raw product.  The refractions that become diesel and jet fuel are there no matter what.  There's pretty good reason to believe that banning the export of diesel fuel doesn't do anything to its price, and might just raise it.

We may, of course, get to find out.

Frankly, at this point, my prediction is fuel prices are never coming down.  The wars gone on too long, and too much damage has been done to Middle Eastern infrastructure to change that.

This might have some good side benefits, however.  One might be the acceleration of the switch to electric vehicles.  I actually overheard somebody whose family is employed in the petroleum industry discussing a desire to get an electric vehicle yesterday.  Another may be a switch to rail transportation, which is a much better means of transporting goods in the first place.  In agriculture, there are means of relying on petroleum less, and that may start to occur more and more in livestock production at least.  A lot of the television farmers and ranchers that are interviewed look like they've never walked a day in their life, they might start to.  The end of ATVs and driving everywhere may start to arrive.

Maybe a slight "think this out" trend might start to.  Truckers and farmers who voted for Trump are getting exactly what they deserve.  Unfortunately, the rest of us have been dragged along with them.

Last Edition:

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist 156th Edition. Name Changes, Go home Cynthia, The Merits of Packing Heat.

Labels: Casper College, Crime, Currency, Cynthia Lummis, Education, Highways, Laramie County Community College, University of Wyoming, Weapons, Zeitgeist

 

Religion & Rhetoric: The Significance of Religion to the Patriot Cause in the American Revolution

Friday, November 10, 1775: Founding of the Marine Corps.

 

November 10, 1775: The Birth of the U.S. Marine Corps

This was done by a resolution of Congress, stating:

Resolved, That two Battalions of marines be raised, consisting of one Colonel, two Lieutenant Colonels, two Majors, and other officers as usual in other regiments; and that they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office, or enlisted into said Battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required...

These heraldry dates are subject to some challenge.  It is true that a Marine corps was founded on this day in 1775, but along with the Navy, it was disbanded in 1783.  It was brought back in 1798 due to the need to build up the Navy due to tensions with republican France, the first undeclared war in the nation's history.

There's a collection of lessons here, one being that the founders of the republican feared and detested the idea of a standing military. They regarded a standing military as a threat to democracy, which in fact it is.  That's the reason that the nation's entire defense was based on state militias.  However, as a second lesson, it proved impossible to do, and as a result both a standing Navy and a standing Army had to be created, although the size of the Army was tiny.

A second lesson in this story is that Presidents have, right from the onset, crept up on war, and then later on outright engaged in it, without the required declaration.

Given the climate of the times, all of this should be absolutely frightening.

Last edition:

June 17, 1775. The Battle of Bunker Hill.

Labels: 1770s, 1775, American Colonial Militia, American Revolution, Army, British Army, Bunker Hill, Colonial North America

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

James Madison, June 27, 1787. 

Blog Mirror: The Significance of Newfoundland Fishing Rights in the 1783 Treaty of Paris

 

The Significance of Newfoundland Fishing Rights in the 1783 Treaty of Paris

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming Myths. Sacagawea

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming Myths. Sacagawea: 

Wyoming Myths. Sacagawea

Mural in the Montana State House by Edgar Paxson depicting Sacagawea and the Corps of Discovery in Montana.  Sacagawea's actual appearance, of course, is known only by description, but Paxon was a Montana artist particularly noted for his attention to close detail.  Having said that, she was just a teenager at this time and likely appeared younger than the female figure in this depiction.

Wyoming has an association with Sacagawea, sort of.

But not quite as close as we sometimes like to claim.

Route of the Corps of Discovery.  It wholly avoided Wyoming.

Sacagawea, the Corps of Discovery's justifiably famous guide, or pilot, or interpreter, has a real world close connection with our state in that she was a Shoshone.  Having said that, she was a Lemhi Shoshone. a name they would not have recognized.  To her band, and her times, she was a Akaitikka meaning "Salmon Eater".*  At the time of her birth in 1788 the Shoshone were widely spread throughout Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and, if you consider that their split with the Comanche had already occurred, but that the Comanche are an extension of the Shoshone people, they were widely spread indeed.**

She was born in Idaho what is now near the Idaho-Montana border.  No such border existed at the time, of course, and the Shoshone, including the Lemhi, ranged over wide territories.  Her band most likely ranged into northwest Wyoming, with it being certain of course that other Shoshone bands inhabited the area.

In 1800, at age 12, she was taken in a Hidatsa raid.  The Hidatsa are a Siouan people who are closely related to another Siouan people, the Crows.  Some consider the tribes to be the same, with the Hidatsa the parent tribe to the Crows.  It's important to note, however, that when the Sioux are referred to, its typically the Lakota and Dakota, and related groups that are meant. Indeed the Sioux and the Crows would be bitter enemies in the 19th Century, as would the Sioux and the Shoshone for that matter.

The Hidatsa were wide ranging and she was taken to a location that today is near Washburn, North Dakota. This means that the raiders had effectively traversed what is now Montana, an impressive feat for a raiding party.  The taking of captives in this manner was not unusual, and while this undoubtedly meant that the very young Shoshone girls life had taken a disastrous turn, her captivity by the Hidatsa, while real, was probably not terribly harsh.  In other words, she was a captive, but a captive with domestic duties that were likely not far removed from that of Hidatsa girls of the same age.

At age 13 she was sold to Toussaint Charbonneau as a "wife".  

Histories have sometimes addressed this in various ways, including using such terms as "non consensual wife", but there is no such thing.  Indeed, it's remarkable that even though the circumstances of her initial union with Charbonneau are well known, she's still usually routinely referred to as Charbonneau's "wife."  Effectively she was purchased as a slave, and if the niceties are stripped off of it, she was kept as a involuntary concubine at first, basically, or if you really want to strip the niceties off of it, as sort of sex slave with domestic duties, at first.  She was Charbonneau's second such slave, the first being the equally juvenile Otter Woman who was probably also a Shoshone captive of the Hidatsa.***

Edgar Paxon's depiction of Toussaint Charbonneau, notable perhaps in that its a flattering illustration.  In reality, of course, we have no period depiction for Charbonneau and his reputation has never been what can be called flattering.

In 1804 the Corps of Discovery visited Hidatsa villages in the fall in anticipation of their press across the the upper West to the Pacific the next Spring. They were in search of guides, and in that context hoped to find somebody who knew the territory. They were visited by Charbonneau, who was a French Canadian fur trapper.****  William Clark noted in his journal:

french man by Name Chabonah, who Speaks the Big Belley language visit us, he wished to hire & informed us his 2 Squars (squaws) were Snake Indians, we engau (engaged) him to go on with us and take one of his wives to interpret the Snake language.…

Spelling obviously had yet to be standardized and Clark puzzled out Charbonneau's last name.  He also used a lot of colloquialisms for the names of Indian bands.  The Snakes referred to the Shoshone, which is of course not what they call themselves (like most Indian bands, they call themselves "The People").  

It's of note, fwiw, and noteworthy without trying to be "woke", that the commanders of the Corps of Discovery did not appear bothered that  about Charbonneau's irregular situation with the two teenaged Indian girls.*****  They also didn't claim, as other writers have, that either of his girls were his "wives".  They only claimed that they were his "Squars", meaning his Indian women.  Polygamy was of course illegal in the United States, and Louisiana, the vast newly acquired territory, was within the United States, but there's no good evidence in this early entry that they regarded Sacagawea or Otter Women as wives, but rather simply his held women.  And of course Lewis and Clark were both fully acclimated to slavery, something they did not regard as abnormal nor wrong, and they had a slave with them of their own, York, who belonged to Clark and who was Clark's lifelong body servant.******

On that date in 1804 Charbonneau was contracted to be a guide that following spring and to bring one of his teenage women along with him as an interpreter.  They had no apparent early preference which one that would be.

Charbonneau apparently did, as that following week he'd bring Sacagawea into the Corps of Discovery camp and they took up residence there.  He did not bring Otter Woman.*******  Prior to the Spring she'd give birth to their son, who was named Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, who'd live into his sixties and whom would have an adventuresome life and be the subject of his own Wyoming myth.  We'll get to that one later.

Otter Woman disappeared from history.  She was left with the Hidatsa and while there are oral history references to her, the story grows thin and her fate is unknown. She likely merged into the tribe that captured her and lived the rest of her life as part of the Hidatsa, but its of note that her story does not resume when Charbonneau returned to the Hidatsa for a time after completing his role with the Corps of Discovery.

Charles Russell's painting of the Corps of Discovery arriving at the camp of her native band, which was then lead by her brother.  This reunion occurred, in real terms, only a few years after she had been kidnapped by the Hidatsa.  Note that Russel, who was keen on detail, depicts one of the Shoshone as already being armed with a rifle, which was no doubt correct.

Everyone is of course familiar with the yeoman role that Sacagawea performed for the Corps of Discovery and therefore we'll omit it here.  Suffice it to say, she became the star critical guide, and a sort of diplomatic delegate for the expedition, outshining Charbonneau who seems to have been widely disliked, although the full degree to which he was disliked can be at least questioned as he'd retrain an occasional guiding role for the US Army into the 1830s, that coming to an end when Clark died.  Prior to that, he and Sacagawea would briefly live on a farm in Missouri, where she gave birth to a second child by him, named Lizette.  The invitation to live in Missouri came from Clark.  About Lizette little is known, and she's believed to have died in childhood.

Russell painting depicting the Corps of Discovery on the lower Columbia, with Sacagawea with arms outstretched.  One of the impacts of her presence on the trip was the effect it had on Indian bands they encountered, which convinced them that their intent was not hostile.

Following the experiment with farming, the couple, which by that time they seem to have been, returned to the Hidatsa.  Sacagawea died of what was described as "putrid fever" in 1812.^ At the time, it seems that she left the security of Fort Manual Lisa, where they were living, to return to the Hidatsa in what would have been sort of a premonition of death.  It also seems that she had a daughter with her at the time, who may have been Lizette, or who may have been a subsequent child about whom nothing else was known.  Jean Baptiste was left in Missouri at a boarding school which had been arranged for by Clark.

And with Sacagawea's death in 1812, the myth starts to kick in.

Truth be known, in the 18th and early 19th Centuries deaths in the United States were not well tracked in general and they certainly weren't in the West.  Birth Certificates and Death Certificates were not issued.  Nobody made really strenuous efforts, moreover, to keep track of the deaths of Indians up until the Reservation period, which was far in the future in 1812.  That we know as much as we do with the post 1804 life of Sacagawea is testimony to how important in the Corps of Discovery, and hence notable, she really was.  Period recollections on her fate can be regarded as beyond question.

None of which has kept people from questioning it.

Grace Raymond Hebard, educator, suffragist, feminist, and mythologist.

In the early 20th Century the remarkable University of Wyoming political economy professor, Dr. Grace Raymond Hebard, took an interest in Sacagawea and, with scanty evidence, concluded that she had not died in 1812 but rather had traveled to the Southwest and married into the Comanche tribe, and then came to Wyoming after her husband was killed. These claims surrounded a woman who was known by various names, including "Chief Woman", or Porivo.

The woman in question seems to have come on to the reservation in advanced old age and to have arrived with an adult son.  White figures on the Reservation at the time, including a prominent Episcopal missionary, became fascinated with the elderly woman.^^  Of note, resident Shoshone had a difficult time speaking to her, which was a clue to her actual probable origin.  Be that as it may, her advanced aged and presence with an adult son lead the European American figures on the reservation to believe that she must be the famous female "pilot", Sacagawea, and the adult son, must be Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, apparently not aware that Jean Baptiste's life was very well recorded, including his travels abroad and ultimate death in his early 60s.  No matter on any of that, those in question wanted to believe that the figures must be Sacagawea and Jean Baptiste.

In reality, they were almost certainly surviving Sheep Eater Indians.  

The Tukudeka, or Sheep Eaters, are a Shoshone band who ranged in the mountainous regions of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.  Like the Lemhi, they were named by outsiders for their principal foods source, which in their case was Mountain Sheep.  

The Sheep Easters are the Shoshone band about which the least is known.   They always lived in what European Americans regarded as remote areas.  They were highly adapted to their lifestyle and remains of their sheep traps and other high mountain artifacts are fairly common, but encounters with them were actually very rare.  They did not routinely share their existence with other, lower altitude, Shoshones. Their encounters with European Americans were fairly rare, and they didn't have hostile encounters with them until very late in the Indian War period.  The Sheep Eater War of 1879 was the last major Indian War in the Pacific Northwest for that reason.

Sheep Eaters were a presence on the Wind River Reservation as early as 1870, when the Federal Government acknowledged them as a band entitled to the Shoshone allotment, and Shoshone Chief Washakie accepted them as a Shoshone group, but they had no high incentive to come onto the reservation voluntarily and generally only did very late, as the era of Indian free ranging was drawing down.  In spite of their enormous success in their environment, they were not numerous and generally melted into the Reservation populations when they came in, but they were different at first.  Included in their uniqueness was a linguistic one.  Their language varied from other Shoshones to an extent.

Most likely the elderly woman and her son who came in onto the Reservation and were noted by the Episcopal and Reservation figures were Sheep Eaters.  Their language was different and they just showed up.  By the time that they did, the Sheep Easter era was drawing very much to a close.  Most likely the adult man and his elderly mother decided that they couldn't make it as a solitary two.  Or some variant of that, as in the son deciding that caring for his mother in the mountains had become too burdensome.

The figures noted very much took to them, although conversing with them proved difficult.  The degree to which they adopted their view of what she was saying to fit their romantic conclusion of the rediscovery of Sacagawea or that the elderly woman.  Whomever she was, she passed away in 1884.  If she was Sacagawea, which she was not, she would have been 96 years old, certainly not an impossibly old age, but certainly an old one, both then and now.

Dr. Charles Eastman.

By 1919 the myths regarding Chief Woman had spread sufficiently that they were referenced in a 1919 account on the Corps of Discovery in a second hand way, noting that that a sculptor looking for a model of Sacagawea had learned of her 1884 death on the Wind River Reservation and her supposed status as Sacagawea.  In 1925 Dr. Charles Eastman, a Sioux physician, was hired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to locate Sacagawea's remains.  He also learned of Porivo's 1884 death and conducted interviews at Wind River.  Those interviews, conducted nearly forty years after her death, included recollections that she had spoken of a long journey in which she's assisted white men and, further, that she had a sliver Jefferson Peace Medal such as the type carried by the Corps of Discovery.  He also located a Comanche woman who claimed Porivo was her grandmother.  He claimed that Porivo had lived at Fort Bridger, Wyoming for sometime with sons Bazil and Baptiste and that ultimately that woman had come to Fort Washakie, where she was recorded as "Bazil's mother"  It was his conclusion that Porivo was Sacagawea.

Not all of Porivo's reputed accounts, if taken fully at face value, are fully easy to discount at first, but by and large they become so if fully examined.  Long journeys are in the context of the teller, and peace medals were much more common than might be supposed.  None the less, the retold story was picked up by Dr. Grace Raymond Hebard who massively romanticized it.  Hebard's historical research has been discredited, but her 1933 book caused a widespread belief to exist that Sacagawea didn't die in her late 20s but rather in her 90s, and not in North Dakota, but in Wyoming.  That suited Hebard's Wyoming centric boosting of her adopted state, and her feminist portrayal of an Indian heroine.  It provides a massive cautionary tale about the reinterpretation of history in the context of ones own time and to suit a preconceived notion of how the past ought to be a perfect prologue for hte future.

It is, however, simply, if unknowingly, false.

And the falsity of it gives Wyoming a claim on Sacagawea that it frankly doesn't merit.  One that lead to monuments in the state to Sacagawea, to include a tombstone or over Porivo's grave that identified her as Sacagawea, which is a sort of tourist attraction.

Indeed, there's no actual indication that Sacagawea ever set foot in Wyoming.  She may have, as a young girl, as the Lemhi Shoshone ranged over the mountainous regions of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.  Be that as it may, the Lemhi Valley of Idaho is named after them for a reason.  They're not one of the Shoshone bands that distinctly associated with the state prior to the Reservation era.  Be that as it may, during the known established period of her life, we can place her in Idaho, Montana and North Dakota, in terms of regional states, but not Wyoming. . . at any time.

That does not mean, of course, that she's not an admirable and important figure.  Nor does it mean that she was not an important Shoshone figure, and the Shoshone are an important people in Wyoming's history.  Its almost certainly the case that relatives of her, but not descendants, live on the Reservation today, although that claim would be even better for the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho.  Through her son, Jean Baptiste, she likely has living descendants today, although not ones who would identify as Shoshone.

But giving people a long and romantic life rather than a short and tragic one doesn't do them or history any favors.  In reality, Sacagawea's life was heroic, tragic and short.  She was just a girl when she was kidnapped from her family, and still just a girl when she was sold to a man a good twenty years older than she was and of an alien culture to be a type of domestic slave, kept along with another similarly youthful domestic slave he already held.  In that capacity she went across half the continent and back with an infant, and did come to be hugely admired by the members of the Corps of Discovery.  It was that respect that lead, in part, to the post expedition opportunities afford to her and Toussaint Charbonneau, who seems to have evolved into her actual husband over time.  That also lead to the education of her son at the behest of William Clark.  It didn't save her, however, form a 19th Century death, still in her twenties.

She was a remarkable young woman by all accounts, and deserves to be remembered as such, and accurately.

*Lemhi comes from Fort Lemhi, which was a Mormon mission to the Akaitikka.

**Comanche is a Shoshone word meaning "Arguer"  The argument was over the adoption of horses, and the argument took place in southeastern Wyoming at the time that the Shoshones first encountered horses.  The Comanches were the early adopters of horses.

***The details regarding Otter Woman are extremely obscure.  It's known that she was in an identical status to that of Sacagawea in 1804 and the best evidence is that she was a captive Shoshone.  There are other claims for her tribal origin, however and additional assertions as to her fate.  Like Sacajawea, her history suffers from an unfortunate association with the work of Dr. Grace Raymond Hebert who places Otter Woman in the Corps of Discovery camp in the winter of 1804 and who even has her remaining in domestic union with Charbonneau in later years, along with Sacajawea.  In reality, she seems to have simply been abandoned in 1804 or 1805.  Charbonneau's reasoning for this isn't clear, but Sacajawea was pregnant at the time that Charbonneau was hired by the Corps of Discovery.  It is clear that the Corps desired that one of Charbonneau's wives accompany them to act as interpreter, and he may have chose her due to her pregnancy, not wishing to abandon her in that condition.

Of course, if Otter Woman was in fact not Shoshone, but Mandan or some other tribe as has been claimed, that would also explain why she was not chosen.  

What occurred to her is not realistically capable of being known.

****Toussaint Charbonneau was probably born in 1767 and was from a town that is near Montreal.  His first name means "All Saints Day" or "All Saints".  He had been a fur trapper for an extended period of time by 1804.  His reputation has never been particularly good and for good reason.  One of the earliest records regarding him, prior to his time as a trapper, notes him being stabbed by a woman in defense of her daughter whom Charbonneau was attempting to rape.  

Charbonneau appears to be almost uniformly disliked by people who associated with him over the course of his long life.  He appears to have been temperamental.  He also seems to have a predilection for young women as he had four or five Indian "wives" during his lifetime, all of whom were teenagers at the time of their "marriages".  This includes one who was a teen at the time of his death , which is notable as he was in his 76 at the time, assuming the 1767 birth year is correct (if it isn't, he would have been 84, which seems unlikely).  The name of at least one of his wives is unknown (the name of another was Corn Woman, leaving at least one, or perhaps, unknown as to name).  It's known that two of the four or five where Shoshone, if Otter Woman was Shoshone, and one was Assiniboine.

His estate was settled by his son Jean Baptiste, which is interesting in that it would indicate that he was in some sort of contact with his son at the time of his death in about 1843, at which time he was back in North Dakota.  It's also interesting in that it would suggest that Jean Baptiste may have been his only survivor.  The existing information confirms that he had at least two children, both by Sacagawea, and may have had a third by her.  Only Jean Baptiste is known to have survived but the information about the possible third is very limited.  This is notable as his having four or five native women in domestic arrangements, with only one bearing children, would seem to be unlikely.

Charbonneau's long life is testament to his lifestyle in the wild being of a generally healthy nature.

*****Nor were they apparently bothered by the fact that the enlisted men of the Corps of Discovery indulged themselves with the favors of Indian women, making treatment for venereal disease a medical necessity for the expedition.  This was at least in part due to the fact that some Indian tribes of the period offered Indian women as favors to visitors, although I'm not noting that in regard to the Shoshone but rather to other bands the Corps encountered early in its trip across the western half of the continent. This is significant here only in noting that while Clark in particular came to really respect if not outright adore Sacagawea, the overall view of the men of the Corps was of a rather isolated and not egalitarian nature.

******York had been a slave in the Clark household and had grown up with Clark.  His post Corps of Discovery fate is poorly documented but it seems that Clark likely freed York at some point, probably a decade or so after the expedition, and due to repeated York requests that he be set free.  During the expedition he became a fairly participating member and his slave status, therefore, would have started to wear off.  He seems to have entered the freighting business upon being freed, and it further seems that Clark had granted him a status approach freedom sometime prior to actually freeing him.  York died at approximately age 60, apparently from cholera.  His death in his sixties came a few years prior to Clark's in his sixties.

*******Hebard says that Otter Woman spent the winter of 1804/05 win camp with Sacagawea and Charbonneau and was reunited with them upon the Corps of Discovery's return. She has Otter Woman going to Missouri with them and then returning to North Dakota with Lizette.

In short, it seems that Hebard disliked abandonment and death, and who likes them?  She was an important Wyoming figure and educator, and a suffragist.  Never married, a person is tempted to see in some of this a large element of projection of a period feminist sort in which not only is Sacagawea an important figure in the Corps of Discovery, but a feminist herself, with Otter Woman as an unconventional companion, associate and friend.

The reality of it was much more harsh.  Charbonneau abandoned Otter Woman upon obtaining employment with the Corps of Discovery, which at least left the pregnant Sacagawea with support.  As noted above, her pregnancy may explain why she was chosen over Otter Woman.  At least some oral histories indicate that Otter Woman later married an Indian man, and irrespective of their accuracy this is likely.  Given her slave status, Charbonneau's abandonment of her may have been a better fate for her in real terms.

^There's always a temptation to speculate about what a disease like "putrid fever" is, but in the context of the times its impossible to know.  While in a year like this one its easier to understand than others, even routine diseases could be lethal at the time and a disease like influenza was a real killer.

On an unrelated topic that fits in to this period, it might be worth noting that the actual story of Sacagawea, like that of several other 18th and 19th Century Indian women heroines, was uncomfortable for their European American contemporaries as well as for later generations, and therefore its continually recast.  Sacagawea is, like Pocahontas or Kateri Tekakwitha, an uncomfortable example of a Native American who was acculturated to more than one culture.  This was much more common among Indians than modern Americans would like to believe.

In her case, she had spent the first twelve years of her life about as isolated from the European Americans culture for an Indian as would have been possible south of the 48th Parallel and perhaps about as much as possible outside of far northern North America. This would have changed once she was with the Hidatsa, particularly upon her enslavement to Charbonneau.  It would have changed even more upon her accompaniment with the Corps of Discovery and its notable that at the time of her reunion with the Lemhi she made no apparent effort, nor did they, to rejoin them.  By that time, of course, she had a child and in the reality of the 19th Century her die may have been caste, if not by her own will.  Indeed, her fate was was at that point similar to that of the Sabean women who plead for their attackers after becoming pregnant by them in legend.

But only a few years later she was found in Missouri, a farmer's wife, with the farmer being Charbonneau.  She felt sufficiently comfortable with European American society to surrender Jean Baptiste to Clark before returning to North Dakota.  Her going back and forth between the Indian world and the European world is not seamless, but its not absent either.  This is true of many other period Native Americans including some very well known ones.

^^The Episcopal connection is what caused this thread to be written, although we'd debated doing it for years.  On one of our companion blogs, Churches of the West, a recent comment was posted about the Episcopal church in Atlantic City, with it being noted that the church had been moved from another location and that "Sacagawea" had been baptized there.

It's perfectly possible that the church had been moved from the Wind River Indian Reservation or some other locality in Fremont County, but Sacagawea wasn't baptized there.  Porivo may very well have been, given her close connection with the resident Episcopal missionary at the time.  It isn't known if Sacagawea was ever baptized, but if she was, and its quite possible that in fact this occurred, she would have been baptized as a Catholic.  Charbonneau had been baptized as a Catholic in his infancy.  It's additionally clear that Charbonneau, in spite of his lifestyle, gave his children distinctly French Catholic names and that a known descendant of Jean Baptiste Charbonneau was baptized as a Catholic.

The First Supreme Court. Who were they, and how many of them were there?

There were only six.  That number was set by the 1789 act establishing the Court.

The original Supreme Court heard very very few cases and much of its initial duties surrounded organizing the Court. The cases it heard were important, but the justices themselves had extensive extra obligations as they were also circuit judges, riding a circuit, for circuit courts.

John Jay was the first Chief Justice.  He served for six  years and went on to become Governor of New York.  He as confirmed in 1801 for a second term as Chief Justice, and declined it.

He lived for a long time after his retirement from politics, dying at age 84.

Jay was an opponent of slavery, although like many early opponents, had actually held slaves at one point in his life while still opposing slavery.

Scottish born James Wilson served until his death by way of a stroke at age 55.  He was one of the architects of the office of the Presidency.

His office did not cause him to escape misfortune and he spent his final years in poverty.

William Cushing served until his death at age 78.  He was the last Supreme Court Justice to wear a wig.  He was nominated to be Chief Justice and approved by the Senate, but declined the appointment. 

John Blair stepped down after five years on the Court, living another few years and dying at age 68.

John Rutledge  attained the position of Chief Justice on an interim appointment but he was subsequently rejected by the Senate. That and controversy surrounding his criticism of the Jay Treaty wrecked him and he stepped down prior to dying at age 60.

British born James Iredell maintained the position until his death at age 48, a death partially brought on by the burdens of riding circuit.

In 1801 the number of justices was reduced to five in an effort by outgoing President John Adams to limit Thomas Jefferson, his successors, picks.  That didn't last long and by 1807 the statutory number was seven, when a seventh judicial district was added. In 1837 it went to nine, by which time there were nine districts.  In 1863 it went to ten as there were ten districts.  In 1866 it was scaled back to seven, but then in 1869 it was put back to nine.

Cooking Tech. How things have changed in the kitchen over the past two. . . or maybe three, centuries.

We've been taking a look at cooking and stoves here recently, getting back to more of the roots of this blog and its purpose.  

Frankly, we'd been remiss in doing that.  It's one of those areas that we should have explored, and in fact we did a little, but we didn't know, what we didn't know.  Or at least we didn't know it very well.

Back on August 8, 2009 (yes, this blog has been around that long, and actually as there's a prior variant of it, even longer than that), I posted an item here entitled The Speed of Cooking.  I'm resetting it out here:

The Speed of Cooking

I received an unexpected and surprising of how much things have changed even in my own lifetime this week, and in the kitchen at that.

Last week I happened to have to go to Safeway to buy some odds and ends, one of which was breakfast cereal. I'm bad about buying the same kinds again and again, so I decided to add some variety. It's been fall like here, so I decided to go with hot cereals for a change.

But not only did I decide to go with hot cereals, but I bought Cream of the West and Irish Oatmeal. That is, I did not buy instant Cream of Wheat, instant Oatmeal or quick oats.

Cream of the West is like old fashioned Cream of Wheat, except its whole wheat. Frankly, the taste is identical to "regular" Cream of Wheat. Irish Oatmeal, however, is really porridge, and it has to be cooked. It actually has to be cooked and allowed to stand, so it isn't speedy.

Anyhow, my kids have never had "regular" Cream of Wheat. They like "instant" Cream of Wheat, which has an odd texture and taste in my view. Sort of wall paper paste like. Anyhow, my son cooked some Cream of the West the first day I did, with us both using the microwave instructions.

He hated it. He's so acclimated to the pasty instant kind, he finds the cooked kind really bad.

Both kids found the porridge appalling. They're only familiar with instant oatmeal, and they porridge was not met with favor at all. I really liked it. It's a lot more favorable than even cooked oatmeal.

Anyhow, the point of all of this is that all this quick instant stuff is really recent, but we're really used to it. During the school year my wife makes sure the kids have a good breakfast every day, which she gets up and cooks for them. But it never really sank in for me how much our everyday cooking has benefited from "instant" and pre made. Even a thing like pancakes provides an example. My whole life if a person wanted pancakes, they had the benefit of mixes out of a box. More recently, for camping, there's a pre measured deal in a plastic bottle that I use, as you need only add water. A century ago, I suppose, you made the pancakes truly from scratch, which I'll bet hardly anyone does now.

A revolution in the kitchen.

Early posts here, as you can see, tended to be short.

Now, since that time I've also posted a major thread here on the revolution in the home, that became a revolution in the workplace, in the form of the advance of domestic machery;  That thread, which Iv'e linked into numerous others, is here:

Women in the Workplace: It was Maytag that took Rosie the Riveter out of the domestic arena, not World War Two

Post have grown in length, as you can also see.

Anyhow, given all of this, the ways that cooking has changed over what really amounts to a relatively short time frame should have occured to me.  And it sort of did, as I noted in this "Maytag" entry:

Today we have gas and electric stoves everywhere. But up to at least 1920, most people had wood or coal burning stoves for cooking.  They didn't heat the same way.  Cooking with a wood stove is slow.  It takes hours to cook anything with a wood stove, and those who typically cooked with them didn't cook with the same variety, or methods, we do now.  Boiling, the fastest method of food preparation, was popular.  People boiled everything.  Where we'd now roast a roast in the oven, a cook of that era would just as frequently boil it.  People boiled vegetables into oblivion.  My mother, who had learned to cook from her mother, who had learned how to cook in this era, used the boiling into oblivion method of cooking. She hated potatoes for this reason (I love them) but she'd invariable boil them into unrecognizable starch lumps.

Wood burning stove in Denver.  Typical pre 1920 stove.  Heck, typical pre 1930 stove.  Heck, typical pre 1940 stove.

Turn of century advertisement for stove polish.  Cleaning a wood burning stove would be no treat.

Even something as mundane as toast required more effort than it does not.  Toasters are an electric appliance that most homes have now, but they actually replaced a simple device.

 World War Two era propaganda photograph, trying to depict an inattentive woman letting toast burn, and therefore wasting resources.  Note how complicated this electric toaster is.

You'll still occasionally see old fashioned toasters in sheep and cattle camps, and probably elsewhere. They just hold the bread so that the toast can be toasted over a burner.  Pretty simple, and not much of a labor saving device, right? Well, consider the totality of it.  To toast you had to watch the toast, rather than just slip the bread down into the toaster.

For that matter, everything was relatively labor intensive save for boiling and roasting, which is probably why things tended to be boiled or roasted.

 Man cooking in a cow camp for cowboys.  He's using two cast iron dutch ovens (I still use one routinely) to cook over a fire.  This photo first appeared on this blog in 2009 in a very early entry on cooking changes.

Indeed, if you think of all the electric devices in your kitchen today, it's stunning.  Electric or gas stoves, electric blenders and mixers, microwaves, refrigerators.  Go back just a century and none of this would be in the average home.  And with the exception of canned goods, which dated back well into the 19th Century, nothing came in the form of prepared food either.  For that matter, even packaging was different at that time.  If you wanted steak for five, you went to the butcher, probably that day, and got steak for five.  If you wanted ground beef, you went to the butcher and got the quantity you wanted, and so on.

But nonetheless, it didn't really occur to me that the cast iron stoves of early 20th Century, and late 19th, were an innovation in and of themselves, nor did I really think much about what cooking was like before that.

The recent A Hundred Years Ago thread on igniting a coal stove caused me to ponder this and take a look at what that was somewhat like.

Somebody already has, of course, and in this very interesting Internet article:

Foodways in 1910

I just linked this in recently to another post here.  One of the things that's interesting to me about it, in an odd sort of way, is that its on a website that's sponsored by a woodburning cookstove manufacturer.  Frankly, looking into this pretty much convinces me that I want nothing to do with wood, or coal, burning stoves, but anyway.

It did not occur to me, as part of that cast iron stoves of all types are really a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution.  But of course, they'd have to be.  It's not like average people are going to cast their own stoves.  So how far back do they really go. Well, that article gives us a pretty good look at that, noting:.

Most American homes did not have stoves until well into the 19th century, so cooking was done in an open hearth, using heavy iron pots and pans suspended from iron hooks and bars or placed on three-legged trivets to lift them above the fires. Pots and pans were made mostly of heavy cast iron. Along with long-handled spatulas and spoons, most kitchens featured long-handled gridirons to broil meat and toasting forks to hold slices of bread.

Though some women used Dutch ovens and some had clay ovens built outside, until after the Civil War when stoves with ovens became more common, people ate pancakes more often than bread. Because bread was hard to bake at home, most towns had bakeries. Bread was often the only prepared food that could be bought in town

That's a different type of cooking entirely.

And a different style of eating, for that matter.

Or, for those who use a cast iron frying pan alot, maybe not.

Well, anyhow. . .

Because it isn't all that long ago, it's one that we know a fair amount about, historically, even if we don't think about it much.   And due to reenactors of one kind or another, and historical sites that are accurate, we also can observe ir or even experience it if we wish to.  And thanks to the excellent Townsends series of vlogs about the late 1700s in North America, we can view the topic if we wish to.  Indeed, they've done a comparison and contrast edition of Colonial v. Modern kitchens, which is well worth looking at:

The part of this that's the real shocker, in my view, is the heath.  I.e., fires on bricks right in a house.

It's another one of those things I never would have thought of.

The video mentions smoke, which must have been a constant feature of life before modern stoves.  I've already mentioned the smoke from wood and coal burning stoves, but smoke from a hearth would be right in the house.    Life must have been. . . smokey.

And more than a little dangerous.

Before we move on, on that, we'll have to note cast iron here.  I love cast iron and indeed one of the additional "pages" on this blog is devoted to it.

Cast iron has been around for a long time, of course, but I frankly don't really know how long.  I can find references to it in Asia going way, way back.  At least 2,000 years.  It shows up for the first time in English in 679, but that use didn't refer to a cooking vessel, but a vessel of another type.  By 1170, however, it was showing up in references to cooking vessels.  The Dutch Oven was actually patented in 1708, later than I would have thought, however. At any rate, they've been around for awhile, and in their modern form are highly associated with sand casting, something that was coming in during the 17th Century.

There was obviously cooking in vessels before cast iron, but as this isn't the complete history of cooking from antiquity until the present day.  For the history we're concerned with, cast iron was undoubtedly the default cookware.  Indeed, it's well worth noting that Dutch Ovens were one of the most popular trade items with Indian tribes.  People think of guns, but cast iron was really valuable and rapidly became the Indian cookware of choice once it was available.

Anyhow, the important thing here is up until the Industrial Revolution really took hold, people cooked with fire in ovens and on hearths.  The fuel source was, according to the Townsends, whom I trust to get it right, wood or sometimes charcoal.  That would impact the type of cooking you'd do, of course, but perhaps not quite as much as I imagined as cooking over wood or charcoal does leave you a lot of options.

Cast iron stoves seem to have come in during the 1830s, as industry began to really change the average American's daily life.  It would be a mistake to think, however, that everyone had them overnight. They were expensive and, frankly, wouldn't have fit the way the average person's house had been built at the time.  Still, they may have come in pretty rapidly.  Just imagine what a revolution in cooking and simply life they meant.  No more building fires on the floor, for one thing, and that's a pretty big thing.  A fire that was more reliable, contained, and safe is another.

By 1900 coal was the main fuel for stoves and every family had one.  That was a big change over a period of time of less than a century.  By 1930, however, gas was replacing coal as the fuel for stoves, and no wonder.  It was cleaner and it didn't involve the constant endless cleaning that a coal stove did.  And for the first time some sort of heavy smoke didn't have to be contended with.

It's really gas stoves that brought in modern cooking.  Gas sped up cooking, for one thing, and it sped up the decision making process for meals as well.  Without  having to bank the stove and build the fire, and all of that, cooking, which had been an all day process was reduced down to one that was much less time consuming.  Electric stoves, which started to come in about the same time, accomplished the same thing.  Still, during the 1940s 1/3 of Americans still cooked with coal or wood, probably a partial effect of the Great Depression which slowed the introduction of new technology.  

Now, of course, hardly anyone does.