Taking advantage of Madero's revolution against Diaz, a small party of Mexican rebels of the Mexican Liberal Party, a socialist party, bloodlessly took Mexicali. They were not aligned with Madero except in their goal of overthrowing the Mexican government.
Colorado's salons were looking at a new bill restricting who could marry.
Wyoming ws seeing a push towards adopting the initiative and referendum and there was campaigning for the direct election of Senators.
A Rough Rider militia movement was organizing in the state.
Ecuador abandoned plans to lease the Galapagos Islands to the US, which overall, was a good thing for the islands. Protests in the country reversed the plan.
The United States and Canada entered into their first reciprocal trade agreement.
The US, of course, wasn't governed by a senile chief executive, and for that matter, the chief executive at the time was not given unfettered powers.
Glenn H. Curtiss made the first sustained seaplane flight, taking off from San Diego Bay in his D-Hydro-Aeroplane and then landing on the Pacific Ocean off San Diego. Meanwhile, Roger Sommer set a new record for number of passengers on an airplane, flying five passengers in France thirteen miles.
Life magazine, which came out at odd times of the week, came out.
The cover illustration was by James Montgomery Flagg, and it wasn't one of his better ones.
The Battle of Ambarawa began between Indonesian and Dutch forces, proof, I suppose, that war doesn't tire people from war, in spite of what people may suppose.
Mongolia voted 100% in favor of leaving China, which it had really done in 1911 anyway, with over a 98% voter turnout.
100%?
And that voter turn out?
Anyhow, Mongolia became de facto independent in 1911, although China entered with force in 1919. In one of the bizarro incitements of history, the Chinese were forced out by the forces of the uber creepy White Russian forces of Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, whose forces were in turn routed by the Red Army in 1921, whereupon it became a defacto Soviet satellite.
A Soldier fires an M17 handgun at targets during the Victory Week Pistol Competition, or Regional Combat Pistol Championship, June 4. The top 10% of firers at the event earned a bronze Excellence in Competition marksmanship badge. (Photo Credit: Nathan Clinebelle)
The M17 and M18 pistols, manufactured by SIG, which are versions of their P320 handgun, are really taking the heat.
They have been for awhile, but this local incident really ramped things up:
Air Force Division Grounds M18 Handguns After Airman Dies On Wyoming Base
Let's first say, anyway you look at this, this is a terrible tragedy (but see below).
But is anything really wrong with the pistol. SIG says there isn't.
SIG, or expanded Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft, is one of the premier firearms manufacturers in the world. In this context its party of a trade union with the German firm of J. P. Sauer und Sohn GmbH in order to work around Swiss laws that would largely prohibit the export of military weapons. SIG did export some prior to the industrial union, with the excellent Stg 57 in export variants, being a prime example, but in recent years SIG has seriously moved into the export arms market in a way that it had not before, following the well blazed trail of Mauser and Fabrique Nationale, both of which at one time occupied the stage of supplier of small arms to the world at different points.
The US was never part of that market until Robert Strange McNamara vandalized Springfield Armory and foisted the AR15 upon the military against its will. That had the impact of making the US a commercial small arms purchaser in a way that it had not been since the American Revolution, and we've paid for it every since. It's completely true that the US had purchased commercial arms prior to that, with it notably going to commercial sidearms after Colt's perfection of cap and ball revolvers, and it interestingly relied upon commercial firms for machineguns, but when Springfield Armory was around, it always had an excellent in house backup. After that, the US became entirely reliant upon civilian suppliers.
A lesson there, interestingly enough, is that to some degree being a commercial supplier of small arms to the US military has been historically a really bad deal for commercial firms. Being the manufacturer of the M1917 rifle during World War One nearly killed Remington right after the war, and relying on sales of AR15 models to the service has actually been sort of a bad economic bet for Colt. The lesson probably is that really relying on military sales to the US is risky.
The old model that Colt used, which was basically "here's what we have, it's really good, buy if you want it" is probably the best one.
Advertisement for Colt double action revolver.
And that's particularly the case as there hasn't been a single US handgun the US military has purchased since the M1873 was replaced by the M1892 which hasn't drawn criticism.
The M1892 is a nice double action revolver, but its .38 cartridge, ideal for police use, was anemic for combat, something that the Philippine Insurrection rapidly demonstrated. M1873s were brought back into service (more on that in a minute) and .45 Colt New Army's were purchased as M1982s were pulled. That was a stopgap measure until the Army could adopt an "automatic" pistol, which it did after leisurely testing in the form of the M1911.
The M1911 is a contender for greatest military handgun of all time, so its surprising that at first there were plenty of Army officers who hated it. They regarded it outright dangers as it was too easy to fire and it was found that excited cavalrymen would accidentally shoot their horses in the head during charges. Criticism of its short trigger pull lead to a new version of the pistol, the M1911A1, coming out during hit 1920s, simply to make it a bit harder to shoot, but as late as World War Two old cavalrymen were clinging to double action revolvers, which had no safeties at all, but which featured a long heavy trigger pull.
By that time the M1911 was beloved and for good reason.
The M1911 took the services all the way into the late 80s. In 1985, the Baretta M9 was chosen to replace it, when it really didn't need to be replaced. Indeed, the Army had to be forced to make a decision, which it was resisting, by Congress threatening to turn the project over to the Air Force, which had been responsible for the adoption of the AR 15. That caught Colt flat footed as even t hough they'd been the supplier of most military handguns to the military for over a century, they weren't really expecting the Army to move forward with the entire project.
There were three reasons in reality to find a new handgun. One was that no new M1911s had been purchased since the Second World War, so they were all getting internally rebuilt. New pistols needed to be ordered. The second one was tha ti was felt that the .45 ACP round was too stout for women, who now were in roles where they needed handguns. That was moronic, as women can shoot any handgun a man can. The third was that the US was foisting the 5.56 on our NATO allies and by adopting a 9mm pistol, we were throwing htem a bone, as every other NATO member save for NOrway used a 9mm pistol.
Which is something we shoudl have paused to think about right there.
The US, until after World War Two, had never been a supplier of small arms to other nations in any signficiant degree. Even after World War Two we were't a supplier of new arms, but our suprlus arms. IT wasn't until after teh Vietnam War that this changed. The big suppliers of military arms to the Western World were Germany and Belgium. The Browning designed Belgian handgun, the High Power, was to some degree the handgun of the free world. It had a proven track record.
The Baretta was a reengineerd P-38. The P-38, like the High Power, and the M1911, is a contender for greatest military handgun of all time. Given that, the M9 is a very good handgun.
US troops at first hated it.
Marines with M9s.
They hated it because they didn't want it, and soon attention was focused on breakages in the slides of the early Italian manufactured pistols. Baretta stated there was nothing wrong with the gun, and in fact, there wasn't.
It never really fully replaced the M1911, as if you really need a pistol, the M1911 wins hands down every time. But as 9mms go, it was a really good one.
Well, then came the Glock.
Glocks are frankly nothing special and a lot of real pistol aficionados do not like them. But they used a striker instead of an external hammer. There are some advantages to that, but for the most part, the advantages are more theoretical than real. Frankly, anyone carrying a striker pistol would be just as well off with a hammer fired one and never notice the difference if they actually had to use it.
Anyhow, the service determined that it needed a striker fired pistol because everyone else was getting one. Not too surprisingly, some in the service dithered on the project as it wasn't really needed, but them some senior officers who didn't know what the crap they were talking about threatened to directly procure Glocks, which would have been a horrible idea.
Tests were held and the P320 chosen.
Disclaimer here, I have one.
I have one, oddly enough, due to a Ducks Unlimited event. I didn't go out and look for one.
Having said that, it shoots extremely nicely. I can see why people like/liked them. In a heads up contest between the M9 and the M17/18, I think the SIG wins every time.
And now we have this issue.
Is it one?
I don't really know. I hope that its figured out. SIG, which also won the Army contest for new rifle (M7) and machine gun (M250), is taking piles of ill informed heat right now.
Let's take a look at the problem, some potential causes, and some fixes.
First, let's start with this.
Is there really a problem?
Sounds fantastical to even ask that, but the chatter about the SIG fits into a long US service tradition of claiming that the prior firearm was perfect and the new one plagued with flaws. Sometimes its even true, or perhaps a little true. Sometimes, it's bunk.
The history of Army handguns certain fits that, however. The Army was really long in replacing the M1873 and soldiers came to immediately hate its replacement. Was the M1892 bad? Well, not as a design, it was far more advanced than the M1873, but the cartridge really was a bad choice. The criticism was warranted.
What about the criticism of the M1911, which actually lead to it being redesigned a bit? Not hardly. The M1911 was a great pistol from day one and its defects, so to speak, were ones of perception on the part of those who were used to old heavy trigger double actions.
And the M9. Well, I'll admit that I was one of its critics. But the M9 is a really good handgun. The frame cracking was a freakish event and not something that proved to be an overall problem. The eral problem is that its a 9mm, but that doesn't have anything to do with the design itself.
And, if we expand out and look at the history of US rifles we'll find the same thing. When the M1 Garand was adopted there were some legitimate problems wtih its gas system, which lead to that being rapidly resdesigned. Still, that didn't keep pleny of critics of faulting the rifle as inferior to the M1903 and soldiers actually were very conscerned that stoppages they experienced in stateside training, which apparently were due to the ammunition being used for a time, meant the rifle was defective. Combat would rapidly prove that to be false, but it received that criticm at first.
The M14 received criticism for having some supposed problem with its bolt and action, which critics of the rifle will reference even today. One civilian produced variant supposedly featured reengingeering to address the prblem, whatever it is. It's difficult to find out hwat hte supposed problem was, and in actual use, ti seems to have been completely unnoticed. Some M14s, for that matter, featured M1 Garand lock bar rear sights which drives some competitive rifleman absolutely nuts. Anyhow, the rifle didn't have faults, but it received criticism for having them.
The M16 of course, did have real faults, and still does, all of which are attributable to its direct impingment gas system. However, the Army made the faults worse by suggesting the rifle never needed to be cleaned, wich was absurd, and by using fouling powder in early cartridge production. AR15 fans and the military seem to have gotten largely over this, but at first the rifle was really hated, and I'll admit that I didn't like it.
The point is that there might not be anything wrong with the M17 at all. What we could be seeing is an element of operator error.
Something about the entire "it discharged all on its owned from its holster" story sounded like a fable.
I started this post before the news above broke, but I kept expecting something like this. Frankly, murder or manslaughter wasn't what I was expecting, but some sort of operator error, or I'll confess suicide.
But here's the deal, once something gets a bit of a bad wrap in American society, particularly litigious American society, it's hard to unring the bell on the story.
And the story here, dare we say it, involves a lot of service users. . . .
Now ,why would that be significant?
Well, frankly, because service users are amongst those who are the least likely to be paying attention to what they're doing and screw up. Being in the Armed Forces or a police department doesn't make you a gun fan. It doesn't even really make you all that knowledgeable on weapons, quite frankly.
SIG might be right. There might be no problem here at all.
And if there is one, it might be an introduced one. That is, users messing with their sidearm accidentally or intentionally. Some police forces actually issue sidearms just to keep their policemen from doing that with firearms they own.
But let's assume there is a problem. What would it be?
The M17 features a really complicated striker design and the pistol was designed not to have a safety. Those two things alone may mean that the design has been somewhat compromised by complication and the addition of a safety it wasn't designed to have. That might, somehow, be defeated the need for a trigger "command". It's important to note that if the pistols are firing on their own, they're defeating the safety, but then the safety only prevents the trigger from being pulled.
That is, I'd note, a much less effective safety design than that on the M1911, but we'll get back to that.
Anyhow, the safety isn't going to stop block the striker. It doesn't work, say, like the safety on a M1903 or G98, which does. It just keeps the trigger from being accidentally pulled.
Another possibility is that something about the holsters is playing a weird role It seems unlikely, but its not completely impossible.
If I were a SIG engineer, and I'm not an engineer at all, I'd look at trying to develop a safety that hold the striker, if possible, and it might not be.
Okay, let's assume that it's all just hopeless, there's something wrong with the SIG and it can't be fixed. I'm not saying that's the case, but what if there is. Clearly a different handgun is in order.
Some have suggested just going back to the M9, and that's not a bad idea. The problem might be that after decades of use most of the M9s are in rough shape. I doubt that, but it's possible.
Well, so what. Just sort through the ones in the inventory and weed out those in bad shape. Issue the ones that aren't, and adopt the newest variant of the M9, which is nearly universally regarded as a very fine weapon.
The only reason not to do that is it has a hammer.
M'eh.
The other possibility. . . oh my. . .dare we say it. . . is to bring back the M1911.
Marine Corps MEU-SOC, the M1911 that proceeded the M45.
There's no reason not to, and in fact the Marine Corps did for awhile. There's nothing the M17/18 and M9 can do that the M1911 doesn't do better.
The Amundsen Polar Expedition team of six explorers, stranded since May 22 near the North Pole, was able to depart on Amundsen's Dornier Wal N-25 seaplane. A second seaplane was left behind.
The Philadelphia Athletics tied the record for greatest comeback in a major league baseball game. Trailing 14 to 2, after six innings, the Athletics scored 13 runs in the eighth inning to win, 17 to 15, tying the record set on June 18, 1911 by the Detroit Tigers against the Chicago White Sox.
Pascual Orozco was a Mexican Revolutionary who originally supported Madero before falling out with him. He was of immediate Basque descent, something we tend not to think about in regard to Mexico, which is in fact more ethnically diverse than we commonly imagine. He was an early recruit to Madero's 1910 revolution, and was a natural military leader, and could be rather morbid. After his January 2, 1911, victory at Cañón del Mal Paso he ordered the dead Federal soldiers stripped and sent the uniforms to Presidente Díaz with a note that read, "Ahí te van las hojas, mándame más tamales" ("Here are the wrappers, send me more tamales.").
On May 10, 1911 Orozco and Pancho Villa seized Ciudad Juárez, against Madero's orders, a victory which caused Díaz to briefly resign the presidency. Madero would naively choose to negotiate with the regime, which resulted in The Treaty of Ciudad Juárez allowing for the resignations of Díaz and his vice president, allowing them to go into exile, establishing an Interim Presidency under Francisco León de la Barra, and keeping the Federal Army intact.
Like Zapata, he went into rebellion against the Madero government, which he felt had betrayed the revolution. He openly declared revolt on March 3, 1912, financing it with his own money and confiscated livestock sold in Texas. His forces were known as the Orozquistas and the Colorados (the Reds). They defeated Federal troops in Chihuahua under José González Salas. Madero in turn sent Victoriano Huerta against him, who in turn were more successful. A wounded Orozco fled to the US. After Madero was assassinated and Huerta installed, Orozco promised to support him if reforms were made, and he was installed as the Supreme Commander of the Mexican Federal forces. As such he defeated the Constitutionalist at Ciudad Camargo, Mapula, Santa Rosalía, Zacatecas, and Torreón, causing his former revolutionary confederates to regard him, not without justification, as a traitor.
He refused to recognize the government of Carvajal after Huerta's fall and was driven into exile again. He traveled in the US in opposition to Carranza along with Huerta. In 1915, he was arrested in the US, but escaped. An unclear incident at the Dick Love ranch in Texas led to claims that he and other like-minded combatants had stolen horses from the ranch, which in turn resulted in a small party of the 13th Cavalry, Texas Rangers, and local deputies pursing the supposed horse thieve with Orozco being killed once the party was holed up. What exactly occured is not clear.
His body interred in the Masonic Holding Vault at the Concordia Cemetery in El Paso by his wife, dressed in the uniform of a Mexican general, at a service attended by a very larger gathering of admirers. In 1925 his remains were retuned to Chihuahua.
Why the commemorative? I have no idea. He is not an obscure figure in the Mexican Revolution, but not a well known one like Villa or Zapata. I can't see where he's associated with the M1911 either, a weapon that was brand new at the time the Revolution broken out. The .38 Super, which is apparently popular in Mexico, wasn't intruduced by Colt until 1929.
Adolfo de la Huerta and his staff withdrew by boat to Mérida, Yucatán, after federal troops recaptured Veracruz.
Crowd going to the National Cathedral, under construction, where President Wilson had been laid to rest.
Italy recognized the Soviet Union.
Around this time, Colt began to ship what is called the "Colt Transition Model 1911", which were actually the first of the M1911A1s.
The Colt M1911 is a John Browning designed semi-automatic pistol that can legitimately be regarded s the greatest handgun ever made, although there are, or perhaps more accurately were, a few other contenders. Other than the mostly John Browning Designed Hi Power, none of the other contenders remain in service somewhere however and the M1911 has by far the longest period of service.
Adopted by the U.S. on March 29, 1911, in 1923 the handgun received some minor modifications, the most significant of which is a curved spring housing which changed the profile of the grip. The trigger was also shortened. In 1924 the modified design started to ship, this month, from Colt. The M1911A1 designation came in 1926.
Large quantities of M1911s were made in World War One, and even larger quantities of M1911A1s were made during World War Two. So many were in fact made that no new orders were placed for M1911s through the rest of its primary service life, up to when the M9 Beretta 9mm handgun was ordered to replace it.
MEU(SOC) pistol.
The M9 actually failed to completely replace the M1911A1, although it nearly did so. Some small quantities of M1911A1s that had been issued to officers remained in ongoing use. In addition, the pistol never ceased being used by special troops, who favored it over the 9mm M9 due to its larger .45ACP cartridge. The Marines nearly immediately resisted the change and adopted a reworked and custom-built M1911, with flat spring housing, as the MEU(SOC) pistol for close combat, taking in quantities of M9s at the same time.
Female Marine firing M45A1.
During the war in Afghanistan, the M1911 started to reappear in force, being rebuilt by service armorers and with some small numbers being once again purchased for special forces. In 2012 the Marine Corps began to acquire modernized M1911s, with the flat spring housing, which were ultimately adopted as the Marine Corps service pistol with the designation M45. Theoretically, these passed out of service in 2022, but it's frankly unlikely that they fully did. The pistol almost certain remains in use to some degree by the US.
The pistol, given all of this, has an incredibly long service life, likely the longest of any US weapon. And the M1911 itself has rebounded in popularity and is as popular as a civilian handgun as ever, perhaps more popular than ever. As a police weapon, it was used by the FBI for decades, and also in various cartridge chamberings by law enforcement agencies. No handgun rivals it.
At one time, I assumed that the entire globe had the same Catholic Holy Days of Obligation, but this is not true. No, not at all.
The United States has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Ascension of the Lord
Assumption of the Virgin Mary
All Saints' Day
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary
Christmas
In contrast, our immediate neighbor to the north, Canada, has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Christmas
What the heck? This seems rather light.
Mexico has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
The Body and Blood of Christ
Christmas
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Mexico is, of course, a Catholic country, but it has a history of anti-Catholic revolution, so that may explain it. We share two of its four, one of which we also share with Canada.
I think frankly Canada should receive a couple of more. Canada had its only sort of civil anti-Catholic revolution, quietly, which has made Quebec a mess, and perhaps an added Holy Day might be in order.
Having said that, Australia and New Zealand, which like Canada has a strong English history, also has only two. The United Kingdom, however, has more than that.
Likewise, which devolved a strong Lutheran influence after at first having a very lukewarm one (Scandinavians have forgotten that the Reformation wasn't really that keenly received there at first, and then foisted upon them by a Swedish King who probably didn't believe at all), has only two.
But them, Sweden has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Epiphany
Feast of the Ascension
Feast of Saints Peter and Paul
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
All Saints' Day
Christmas
That's more than the U.S. And Qatar has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Thomas the Apostle
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Birth of our Lady
Christmas
And even Saudi Arabia has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Christmas
Serbia has only two, but it's mostly Orthodox. So is Ukraine, but it has the following:
Epiphany
Presentation of the Lord
Annunciation of the Holy Virgin Mary
Feast of the Ascension
Transfiguration of the Lord
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Presentation of Mary
Christmas
Ukraine, however, has a strong Eastern Rite Catholic tradition in its west, minority population though it is. Its Catholic population persevered through Communism, even though its adherents were compelled to attend Orthodox services, which they did, before going to secret Catholic ones later.
Venezuela, in contrast, has a Catholic heritage, but like Canada, has only two Holy Days of Obligation.
The total possible Holy Days of Obligation are, currently:
Placed in the order of the liturgical calendar, the ten days (apart from Sundays) that this canon mentions are:
8 December: Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
25 December: Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord (Christmas)
1 January: Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God
6 January: Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord
19 March: Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Thursday of the sixth week of Eastertide: Solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord
Thursday after Trinity Sunday: Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ (Feast of Corpus Christi)
29 June: Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles
15 August: Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
1 November: Solemnity of All Saints
That's ten.
Prior to 1911, the total possible was thirty-six. Then, as now, Bishops could reduce the number. Today, only Vatican City and the Swiss Diocese of Lugano observe all ten, although some Dioceses have added Holy Days not on it, such as Ireland, which as St. Patrick's Day, and Germany and Hungary which have Saint Stephen's Day on 26 December, Easter Monday, and Pentecost Monday.
Now the country has fewer than two.
And two seems too few to me.
The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, I'd note, has the following:
The Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord (Christmas)
The Epiphany
The Ascension
The Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
The Dormition of Holy Mary, the Mother of God
Note, however, the situation in Ukraine. The Orthodox have a duty of worship on the following days, although what that means is not clear to me:
The Nativity of Our Lord, December 25
The Circumcision of Christ, January 1
Ascension Day, 40 Days after Pascha (Easter)
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15
All Saints Day, November 1
The Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8
In noting all of this, I feel a little bad and whiny about Holy Days, as I've often felt it a burden to get to Mass on them. But, in my defense, I've often not grasped why no noon Mass was offered for them in my Tri Parish locality. All in all, looking at it, I think we should add a couple to that six, and that the other country of which I am a citizen, ought to double the number of theirs.
Yes, it's a bit of a burden, and yes you stand out. But perhaps that's part of it.
Most of the time when I put a newspaper up here, it's to mark some big or at least interesting century old event. Every now and then, however it's to comment on something and how it was perceived, which by extension comments on how we perceive things now.
I see around here fairly frequently stickers that say "Welcome to Wyoming--Consider everyone armed". It's an amusing joke based on the fact that firearms are really common here. That's been the case as long as I can personally recall, but it also refers to the fact that over the past two decades there's been a real boom in the concealed carry movement. I've taken a look at that and its history in this old post here:
Now, by mentioning this here, I don't mean to suggest that I'm opposed to these state laws allowing for concealed carry. I'm not. But I do want to point out how carrying hasn't always been perceived the way it is now.
In 2020 we can take it for granted that the press is universally liberal, and indeed "progressive", unless we specifically know otherwise about a particular outlet. In 1920, however, its a little more difficult to tell. Papers were Democratic or Republican and generally weren't shy about noting it, but they were also pretty slavish followers of social trends, unless they were absolutely bucking them. All of which makes the headline about Gerald Stack engaging in an act of "Slander" against Wyoming men interesting.
Under the same circumstances today, there aren't very many Wyoming men who would regard his comment as slanderous. Some would find it childish and inaccurate, and some on the political fringes would hold it up as a positive or negative example. But quite a few people would take some secret pride in the thought that everyone in the state was packing.
In 1920, however, Wyoming was seeking to overcome its frontier image even while preserving it. The Cheyenne newspaper knew that his comment wasn't true and pointed it out. Beyond that, they pointed it out as being slanderous. An insult, as it was, to the men of Wyoming.
Apparently it wasn't an insult to women, presumably because women weren't thought to be packing.
In actuality, quite a few people at the time, including quite a few people were packing and the ownership of pocket pistols was common. Chicago, for its part, didn't have a gun control law addressing handguns until 1981, much later than most people would suppose, and it hasn't been a huge success by any measure. Having said that, Illinois restricted the carrying of concealed handguns in 1949, following World War Two, at which time, contrary to our general myth, there was widespread national support for banning handguns. New York City, in contrast, passed a firearms licensing act for concealable handguns in 1911, making the carrying of them without a license a felony.
Again, this isn't an argument for anything. It's just an interesting look at how we often inaccurately imagine what the past was like.
on this day in 1920, by officers who had betrayed him, pretending to offer him a safe lodging for the night in the town of Tlaxcalantongo. Sometime during the night, their forces surrounded the house and then opened fire into ito. Oddly, the assassins then telegramed Obregon to inform him that "we are at your service" but also asked for permission to bring Carranza's body to Mexico City for burial. Obregon replied with the comment "It is very strange that a group of officers who vouched their loyalty and honor should have permitted him to be assassinated instead of complying with your duty."
And it goes on from there.
So, where are we at on this story that we've been following for years and for which there are now 306 entries on this blog.
The story starts with the revolution against Porifirio Diaz in 1911
Well, not really. Diaz, who had been a lieutenant of Mexican revolutionary and then president Benito Juarez, served as President of Mexico three times with his last period of dictatorial service running form 1884 until May 21, 1911. An odd statement to an American reporter about being willing to hold elections in 1908 lead to one and ultimately he proved unwilling not to run, as he'd promised, with his running meaning an assured reelection.. That lead to the rebellion in 1910 we now call The Mexican Revolution, lead at first by the improbable Francisco Modero.
Diaz at age 77.
On this date in 1920, Diaz had been dead five years. He'd died of natural causes at age 85 in France.
In 1911 he took to his exile and was succeeded by Francisco León de la Barra y Quijano, whom Mexican conservatives called the "white president" due to his purity. He only served until November.
León.
During his short administration León had to attempt to deal with the growing revolution against him and the growing right wing extremism in his army. He wouldn't succeeded, but he did succeed in outliving the revolution He was still living in 1920 and had a career as a diplomat ahead of him. He ultimately retired to Spain, but even there was used unofficially in this capacity as a go between between France and Spain. He died in 1939 of natural causes.
Modero.
León's successor was Modero who was a weak president from November 1911 until he was killed in a military coup on February 19, 1913. His death threw the country back into civil war.
The fallen Huerta.
His successor was the successful head of the coup, Victoriano Huerta. Huerta was able to topple Modero, but he couldn't quell the revolution, and he went into exile in July 1914. Going first to Europe and then the United States, he died an alcoholic in 1916.
His successor, Francisco Sebastián Carvajal y Gual, served for only a month before also going into exile, a victim of Huerta's failed effort to reclaim Diaz's position in Mexico. His story was happier, however, as he met his wife in exile in the United States and he ultimately returned to Mexico in 1922 to resume his legal practice, which he occupied until his death by natural causes in 1932.
And then came Carranza.
So, so far we've seen the assassination of two of the real revolutionary presidents of Mexico, the odd but admirable Modero and the determined and not so admirable Carranza. And we've seen the exile of three of the right wing pretenders, two of whom had died by natural causes.
Not dying by natural causes up to this point were thousands of Mexican soldiers who had fought on both sides of the Mexican Revolution, and in some cases literally on both sides. Included in that number was Emiliano Zapata, the greatest of the Mexican revolutionaries, who was its best post Modero hope.
And the revolution was getting increasingly extreme. Having gone from a hope for democracy with Modero it was coming to increasingly reflect the extreme left wing politics of revolutions of its age, something that would have ill consequences for Mexico in coming years.
Indeed, a real oddity of Mexico's post Maximillian politics in general, up to this point, is how radical it was even when seemingly combined with conservative elements. If Diaz sometimes dressed like Napoleon, his politics, he in some ways was like him. He was a political liberal but one who did not trust the democratic process. Ultimately he governed as a moderate liberal with a focus on stability. Even today he is credited with having laid the foundations for modern Mexico. His real fault was in not trusting democracy and running for reelection in 1910, when he promised not to.
Had Diaz held to his initial promise, Modero would have been elected in 1910. Whether Diaz stepping away from politics voluntarily would have necessarily resulted in a Mexican army that would have accepted the election is another question, and one we will never know the answer to. Had that occured, Mexico would have stepped into being a true democracy in 1910, something that would take another century to occur. Diaz's failure to trust his own people lead to a revolution in which propelled radicals to the top. One of those radicals was Carranza, who ended up sharing that lack of trust with Diaz. He sought to dictate the results of the upcoming 1920 Mexican election, which in turn lead to his bloody end in May, 1920. That put Obregon in the position of being the assured ultimate next president of the country, with extreme radicals rising up right behind him.
.jpg)
