There
are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of
supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat
comes from the furnace.
Aldo Leopold
Monday, September 12, 2011
Aldo Leopold on Farming
There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
Wages
Politicians are long on a "fair days wage", and things of that type. Marxist claimed that working men were "wage slaves" and that each was to receive according to their abilities and needs. Apparently their political class had more ability and needs, as they received more than others. . . funny how that worked.
Anyhow, wages are an interesting deal in a lot of ways, not the least of which is how people perceive their wages, or rather their income.
A real oddity, and one that I've become particularly conscious of, is that people generally spend to their income level, if they receive a middle class or upper income. Not everyone, to be sure, but a lot of people, and seemingly most people. Almost everyone in the middle class and even the lower wealthy class believes they struggle to get by. And some really do. I admit that at my present middle class income, I really wonder how those making less get by. Of course, I'm the only breadwinner as well, which means that if I split my income in half and pretended that it came from two people, we'd still be two middle class income earners, but not doing spectacularly well.
But even those people who make to upper middle incomes in a household will often expand out. People acquire, I guess. I do as well.
By the same token, some will invariably spend more than they make, no matter what their income is. I'm not sure why, but they will.
Making a "decent income" is a big deal with Americans. Of course, it should be, but it's so much of a big deal, that it's often the only focus some people have. "What's it pay?" is frequently the only career question that somebody asks before launching off on a life altering path.
Because a certain income becomes something a family, if not an individual person, becomes acclimated to, a wage can become like a shackle. That's extremely common. Even if the wage earner is prepared to abandon a certain income level, his family may not be, and that's effectively a jail cell.
These random comments amount to nothing more than a casual observation. I'm not arguing for anything. But I note it somewhat in the context of this line from a Man For All Seasons:
Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?
Parking Lot
It's common to hear that everything about aging is bad, and believe you me, having seen a lot of the things that come at the end of life, for a lot of people there are some pretty rough spots. Frankly, a lot of those rough spots come in middle age, when you're dealing with the impacts of aging on your relatives and probably have job concerns and a youngish family. You're pretty busy. Generally, according to statisticians, the middle years are the most displeasing to people.
But, not everything about being a middle aged married male is bad by any means.
Here's an odd example.
Almost every work day, when I pull into my work parking lot, there is a very beautiful young woman (say 20s, I'd guess) who arrives at the same time. I don't know her, and I never will. That's okay with me. Occasionally I say hello, and she often has some wry comment and seems to have a really dry wit.
What does this have to do with the comment above?
Well, this.
When I was younger, say single and closer to her age, this would be on my mind a lot. She's stunning really. I'd wonder if she was single, could I strike up a conversation, maybe meet and get to know her.
But I don't worry about any of that. She's just another interesting human being I see in a very disconnected casual situation. I can take her for what she is in that context, somebody I don't know, will never know, don't need to know, but who is sort of funny in a unique way.
That's a good deal. As we age, unless we manage to stay juvenile forever, it's actually much easier to know people as people.
There are a lot of other things that are like this. You become much less concerned with how people will react to your opinions, if they will react. If you aren't vain, you become almost entirely unconcerned about what people think about your car, and other trappings. All that is good stuff.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Economics
In the film rendition of Band of Brother, the Dick Winter character (the
central figure) notes in a voice over that, after D-Day, he promised
"himself and God" that if he survived the war, he'd find a piece of land
somewhere and "live a quiet life". The book, which does depart from
the film somewhat, also notes that. I haven't read the book in some
time, but if I recall correctly, what he actually desired to do was to
find a farm somewhere.
In actuality, Dick Winters did find a farm, but not until after the Korean War, some years later. Between World War Two and his farm purchase, he was in business and in the Army, a second time, during the Korean War. When he entered farming, he also started a successful business selling animal feed.
The Ambrose book on his unit somewhat overemphasizes his post war business career, underplaying his later farming life.
I note that as I think Winters desire and the portrayal of his desires gives us an interesting insight into the bipolar nature of the American psyche. On one hand, a lot of people desire a quiet, rural, life. ON the other, we're constantly bombarded with the message that our goal in life should be "success" in a "career". It's an interesting dichotomy.
This has always been the case, but earlier on, before World War Two, the big "success in a career" stories were really exceptions to the American rule. While we aren't living in that era, and while it was very imperfect, what seems to largely have been the case is that the primary concern for most men and women were family related concerns. Most men and women married, and most of them worked towards a quiet family life. You don't really find a large number of "success in a career" type stories. Even businessmen of the pre 1940 era often had fairly low key lives, and were basically middle class. If a person was in the middle of the middle class, the were regarded as quite successful. Family, church, community, and the local life was typically a big deal for them.
Somehow, and increasingly the case, after World War Two "success in a career" really became a big deal. Now it absolutely dominates, and beyond that a "successful economy" is a huge deal. A successful economy is supposed to mean an ever growing economy.
What this means is that we now expect our children to go through college (and they nearly have to, I'm not saying otherwise), pick a "career", and do whatever it takes to succeed in that career. If that career is a "high powered" career, so much the better. This is supposed to mean that you'll move wherever the job takes you, go from town to town and city to city, and like it. You'll be compensated by one measure only, that being money. The more money the better. As this type of career means you will have no roots, or even connections, in where ever you are temporarily working, you'll are free to buy a parcel of property and a house that the local infrastructure cannot support long term, and which is actually destructive to any rural base the local community has, or once had. No connections with family, church, or community are expected to be predominant, or even exist. All relationships, even those between man and woman, are merely temporary and expedient, all designed to support your "career".
Indeed, the entire economy is now supposed to support this goal. We are told that the continued importation of immigrant labor is "necessary in order to support growing our economy", even at a time when we have an effective unemployment rate of 14%. We are told that the development of land is necessary to support the housing industry, a "key sector of our economy". We are told that the exportation of jobs that were once solid middle class jobs here, to foreign nations, is necessary in order that we can "grow the economy" by replacing production jobs with consumption jobs, with "low priced" consumption" itself necessary to this economy, as in the end, people don't really need all that much and can otherwise get along with a lot less.
This is largely the antithesis of the general culture before 1940, somewhat. There was, to be sure, always a lot of movement in the American society, but what seems to be the case is that people basically aimed for stability in economics in order to support their families, which were central to their lives. We've exchanged that for a system that is obviously self restricting at some point. For real lives in a real community that we're really connected with, we've substituted lives based on principally on the acquisition of money. Deep down, however, most of us know that this isn't satisfying, which is amply evidenced by the desire to try to satisfy that gaping hole by getting more, and more. We still yearn for the life our economy left behind. But that won't work, as what most, or many, of us really want, is that "quiet life". Indeed, in film portrays, we interestingly sometimes still portray things that way, but not always, of course.
In actuality, Dick Winters did find a farm, but not until after the Korean War, some years later. Between World War Two and his farm purchase, he was in business and in the Army, a second time, during the Korean War. When he entered farming, he also started a successful business selling animal feed.
The Ambrose book on his unit somewhat overemphasizes his post war business career, underplaying his later farming life.
I note that as I think Winters desire and the portrayal of his desires gives us an interesting insight into the bipolar nature of the American psyche. On one hand, a lot of people desire a quiet, rural, life. ON the other, we're constantly bombarded with the message that our goal in life should be "success" in a "career". It's an interesting dichotomy.
This has always been the case, but earlier on, before World War Two, the big "success in a career" stories were really exceptions to the American rule. While we aren't living in that era, and while it was very imperfect, what seems to largely have been the case is that the primary concern for most men and women were family related concerns. Most men and women married, and most of them worked towards a quiet family life. You don't really find a large number of "success in a career" type stories. Even businessmen of the pre 1940 era often had fairly low key lives, and were basically middle class. If a person was in the middle of the middle class, the were regarded as quite successful. Family, church, community, and the local life was typically a big deal for them.
Somehow, and increasingly the case, after World War Two "success in a career" really became a big deal. Now it absolutely dominates, and beyond that a "successful economy" is a huge deal. A successful economy is supposed to mean an ever growing economy.
What this means is that we now expect our children to go through college (and they nearly have to, I'm not saying otherwise), pick a "career", and do whatever it takes to succeed in that career. If that career is a "high powered" career, so much the better. This is supposed to mean that you'll move wherever the job takes you, go from town to town and city to city, and like it. You'll be compensated by one measure only, that being money. The more money the better. As this type of career means you will have no roots, or even connections, in where ever you are temporarily working, you'll are free to buy a parcel of property and a house that the local infrastructure cannot support long term, and which is actually destructive to any rural base the local community has, or once had. No connections with family, church, or community are expected to be predominant, or even exist. All relationships, even those between man and woman, are merely temporary and expedient, all designed to support your "career".
Indeed, the entire economy is now supposed to support this goal. We are told that the continued importation of immigrant labor is "necessary in order to support growing our economy", even at a time when we have an effective unemployment rate of 14%. We are told that the development of land is necessary to support the housing industry, a "key sector of our economy". We are told that the exportation of jobs that were once solid middle class jobs here, to foreign nations, is necessary in order that we can "grow the economy" by replacing production jobs with consumption jobs, with "low priced" consumption" itself necessary to this economy, as in the end, people don't really need all that much and can otherwise get along with a lot less.
This is largely the antithesis of the general culture before 1940, somewhat. There was, to be sure, always a lot of movement in the American society, but what seems to be the case is that people basically aimed for stability in economics in order to support their families, which were central to their lives. We've exchanged that for a system that is obviously self restricting at some point. For real lives in a real community that we're really connected with, we've substituted lives based on principally on the acquisition of money. Deep down, however, most of us know that this isn't satisfying, which is amply evidenced by the desire to try to satisfy that gaping hole by getting more, and more. We still yearn for the life our economy left behind. But that won't work, as what most, or many, of us really want, is that "quiet life". Indeed, in film portrays, we interestingly sometimes still portray things that way, but not always, of course.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
A difference in cultures
I haven't been following the Amanda Knox trial at all, but I'd note that on this morning's news, appellate arguments, or some sort of appellate proceeding, resumed upon the Court's return from its August holiday.
The court shut down for a month.
An entire month.
This isn't uncommon in southern European cultures. The country shuts down for a month. Americans make much of their Protestant Work Ethic, but in the final analysis, I"m not sure that gets us too much other than being overworked. I can't imagine, fwiw, the entire country taking a month off, but I wish I could imagine it.
Of course, knowing me, I wouldn't take the time off anyhow, actually.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Tomatoland
An interesting NPR interview of an author on the tasteless industrial tomato.
He also details labor abuses.
It is pretty disturbing, and if it doesn't convince you to grow your own, you're probably unusually resistant to disturbing news.
One things, though, is that the interview, while not on immigrant labor and farming, makes it pretty clear that the system depends on using, and abusing, immigrant farm workers. A partial solution to this sort of thing, although one nobody ever seems willing to consider, is ending the practice of importing agricultural labor. We didn't do that until World War Two, when we had to. Before that, we did it ourselves, with our own population.
We have plenty of Americans to do the job, and having seen many absolutely rotten jobs Americans will do, the thesis that you "can't get Americans" to do this job is a fraud on the public. What you can't do is to get them to work for substandard wages, in substandard conditions. And they shouldn't have to do that either.
Paying Americans humane wages to do a job in humane conditions would put a lot of Americans to work in an outdoor job and connect them with agriculture and the real world. It would raise the cost of food, but perhaps its unrealistically low priced to start with to some extent, on some items. Of course, we'd have to actually guard our borders from the import of food produced poorly by those paying the poor, poor wages, but so be it.
He also details labor abuses.
It is pretty disturbing, and if it doesn't convince you to grow your own, you're probably unusually resistant to disturbing news.
One things, though, is that the interview, while not on immigrant labor and farming, makes it pretty clear that the system depends on using, and abusing, immigrant farm workers. A partial solution to this sort of thing, although one nobody ever seems willing to consider, is ending the practice of importing agricultural labor. We didn't do that until World War Two, when we had to. Before that, we did it ourselves, with our own population.
We have plenty of Americans to do the job, and having seen many absolutely rotten jobs Americans will do, the thesis that you "can't get Americans" to do this job is a fraud on the public. What you can't do is to get them to work for substandard wages, in substandard conditions. And they shouldn't have to do that either.
Paying Americans humane wages to do a job in humane conditions would put a lot of Americans to work in an outdoor job and connect them with agriculture and the real world. It would raise the cost of food, but perhaps its unrealistically low priced to start with to some extent, on some items. Of course, we'd have to actually guard our borders from the import of food produced poorly by those paying the poor, poor wages, but so be it.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Tuesday, August 22, 1911. Secrets
The Official Secrets Act 1911 was given royal assent.
The deposed former Shah of Persia was defeated at Savadkuh.
Last edition:
Monday, August 21, 1911. Arizona and New Mexico permitted to become states.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Monday, August 21, 1911. Arizona and New Mexico permitted to become states.
Taft signed the joint resolution offering statehood to Arizona and New Mexico.
Both territories would be admitted in early 1912.
The National Guard was in training, and Ft. D. A. Russell was getting more cavalry.
Vincenzo Peruggia stole the Mona Lisa in order to return it to Italy. The theft actually made the painting famous.
Theodore Roosevelt announced that he would not run for President in 1912.
Emiliano Zapata and Francisco I. Madero conferred in Yautepec.
Ontario Premier Sir James Whitney announced that he opposed the reciprocity bill with the United States because he believed that it would lead to annexation by the US.
Last edition:
Sunday, August 20, 1911. Marriage of Emiliano Zapata and Josefa Espejo Sánchez.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Sunday, August 20, 1911. Marriage of Emiliano Zapata and Josefa Espejo Sánchez.
Massive pro Madero protests occurred in Mexico City.
Emiliano Zapata married Josefa "La Generala" Espejo Sánchez in a Catholic ceremony.
While it is sometimes noted that Zapata was a Catholic and self identified that way, he had a weakness for women and fathered sixteen known children by nine different women, of whom only two were by his wife, neither of whom survived into adulthood. Many of his illegitimate children were born after his marriage, suggesting that the union didn't produce any long lasting fidelity.
Pancho Villa, who never had any pretense of conventional relationship, had up to twenty children by six or seven women.
The New York Times sent the first round-the-world cable message. The message took 16+1⁄2 minutes to circle the globe.
Pilot Lincoln Beachey broke the world altitude record piloting his aircraft to a height of 11,642 feet.
Deadly tornadoes hit North Dakota.
Last edition:
Saturday, August 19, 1911. And now the House on Arizona and New Mexico.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Saturday, August 19, 1911. And now the House on Arizona and New Mexico.
And the House approved the resolution admitting Arizona and New Mexico. The resolution was conditional on Arizona withdrawing its statutory provision for recall of judges.
Anti Jewish riots broke out in Tredegar, Wales. The riots would spread over a series of day throughout Wales.
Last edition:
Friday, August 18, 1911. Trying again on Arizona and New Mexico.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Friday, August 18, 1911. Trying again on Arizona and New Mexico.
The Senate adopted a resolution to admit Arizona and New Mexico, again.
Royal assent was given to the veto bill, liberalizing Parliament.
The Lions Club was incorporated by William Perry Woods in Indiana.
Zapata and Madero met in in Yecapixtla, Morelos.
Related threads:
Tuesday, August 15, 1911. No to Arizona (and New Mexico) statehood.
Last edition:
Thursday, August 17, 1911. Taft commits an error.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Thursday, August 17, 1911. Taft commits an error.
President Taft vetoed the Wool Tariff Reform Bill which would have cut the duty on imported wool in half, thus reducing the cost of clothing to American consumers. The tariff had been hiked to the maximum allowable rate under the McKinley Administration, during which most tariffs were set at the 50% level. The spike in prices this caused resulted in the Republicans losing control of Congress.
Hmmm. . . seems like that might be a lesson.
Taft's action was regarded as a huge mistake but he took it as the government was attempting to figure out the impact of reducing the wool tariff.
Wool remained the primary clothing material at the time. Most people wore wool everyday.
This would become an issue in the 1912 GOP Presidential nomination.
Last edition:
Wednesday, August 16, 1911. Drawing African borders.
Labels: 1910s, 1911, Africa, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, French Empire, German Empire, Ghana, panoramic, Togo, Washington (Spokane)
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Wednesday, August 16, 1911. Drawing African borders.
France accepted the terms of the Convention of Niamey setting the borders between French West Africa and German Kamerun (now Cameroon) and Togoland (later divided into Togo and eastern Ghana).
The agreement determined what are now the boundaries between Burkina Faso and Ghana and Togo, as well as between Togo and Benin and between Cameroon and Chad.
Construction of Monroe Street Bridge, Spokane, Wash., Aug. 3, 1911, Copyright deposit August 16, 1911.
Last edition:
Monday, August 14, 1911. Emiliano Zapata demands that Federal troops be withdrawn from Morelos.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Tuesday, August 15, 1911. No to Arizona (and New Mexico) statehood.
President Taft vetoed the bill admitting Arizona and New Mexico into the Union.
The veto was aimed at Arizona's judicial recall provision, and New Mexico was simply a victim of being included in the same bill.
Last edition:
Monday, August 14, 1911. Emiliano Zapata demands that Federal troops be withdrawn from Morelos.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Monday, August 14, 1911. Emiliano Zapata demands that Federal troops be withdrawn from Morelos.
Emiliano Zapata demanded that Federal troops be withdrawn from Morelos.
Last edition:
Saturday, August 12, 1911. African American Emigration to the Prairie Provinces.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Saturday, August 12, 1911. African American Emigration to the Prairie Provinces.
For a period of one year from and after the date hereof, the landing in Canada shall be, and the same is prohibited, of any immigrants belonging to the Negro race, which race is deemed unsuitable to the climate and requirements of Canada.
Canadian Order in Council approved by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier on this date. The Order, which was never enforced, and would be repealed in October was in response to an influx of African Americans moving to the Prairie Provinces from Oklahoma.
A look at their full story:
Black Immigration Into The Prairies
Hawaiian Duke Kahanamoku broke three world swimming records in his first meet, in Honolulu.
He'd go on to swim in the 1912 Olympics and would serve as a Military Policeman during World War Two. He died at age 77 in 1968.
Genovevo de la O, a Zapata ally, struck one of Huerta's columns.
Last edition:
Thursday, August 10, 1911. Beaten by the Bishops and the Rats.
Labels: 1910s, 1911, Catholic, Democracy, Mexico, Parliamentary democracy, Protestant, religion, United Kingdom
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Prejudice
Church in New Mexico, early 1940s.
I've been thinking of trying to find a way to post this topic for awhile, but I hadn't gotten around to it, and I also hadn't quite figured out a way to post it effectively.
The topic is prejudice, but not racial prejudice. Religious bias may be a better way to phrase it.
Americans today are so used to the concept that the country was founded on religious liberty that they don't really question it. There remains religious prejudice in this, and every, country to be sure, but the way it was ingrained in society was once much greater than it is now.
To be more specific, I recently saw a topic concerning Roman Catholics and university attendance. The specific topic was the GI Bill. In the topic, a second hand citation to Catholics attending university in the time period was mentioned. More specifically, it was mentioned that prior to World War Two very few Catholics attended university. One of the people responding to that post found that assertion to be just ridiculous, but there were first hand recollections cited to support it (including mine).
I think that actually is correct, and it taps into the general theme of the website here. We look back at our country and figure, except for certain big historical facts that are generally known, that we share much in common with those who came before us. This is simply not always true. And this is one of the ways in which it was not true.
It has been frequently debated whether or not the country was founded on religious principals, and while it can be well supported that the country was not a theocracy in any fashion, it generally had some unity of religious thought, very loosely, early on. To call it a Christian republic might be too strong, but to call it a republic founded largely by Protestant Christians would not be. Generally, up until the 1840s, most Americans belonged to only one of several Protestant denominations. This made sense, of course, as most Americans descended from one of only several ethnic groups, and very early in the our history (our colonial history) immigration had been restricted to exclude members of other faiths, generally. Or more specifically, immigration had excluded Catholics.
This wasn't the case after we severed our allegiance to the United Kingdom, but still, it wasn't really up until the Irish Potato Famine got rolling, and the revolutions of the 1840s in Europe occurred, that this began to change. At that time, a lot of Irish immigrants began to come into the country and, at the same time, a lot of Germans from the Catholic regions of Germany began to do the same. An identifiable Catholic population existed in the US for the first time, excluding of course Acadians and Louisianans, who had been in it for a very long time, but in isolated pockets. Mexican Americans too, fit this latter description.
Prejudice ran strong against these new immigrants, particularly against the Irish immigrants who were inclined to congregate in cities. Prejudice against German Catholics also existed, but the German immigrants were much more inclined to strike out for German farming enclaves where English speaking Americans were less likely to encounter them. In regards to Irish immigrants, however, prejudice was so strong that they were typically defined as a "race", much like African Americans were and are.
Things began to change for Irish Americans during the Mexican War. During the war they were strongly represented (as were German Americans) in the Army, and that helped ease feelings against them. Still, lingering prejudice against Irish Americans well into the 20th Century. And immigration by Italian Americans, which came around the turn of the 19th Century, once again brought in what was regarded as a strongly alien, Catholic, population.
These populations, to a large degree, were much more isolated and communal in the American population until after World War Two. This varied by region, to be sure, but to a surprising degree these Catholic ethic communities remained segregated wherever they lived in a substantial urban area. And everywhere they were strongly associated, and self associated, with their church. Ecumenism was much less valued as well, so identification by Faith meant a great deal. This still occurs, but prior to World War Two to identify as a member of any one Faith, and most people did, meant a fairly strong allegiance to it.
These Catholic populations, the evidence seems to support to me, were also almost exclusively working class. In most urban areas Roman Catholics worked in laboring endeavors. In rural areas of the West, they were often ranchers. I can't really say much about rural areas elsewhere. There were always Catholics in the professions, such as law and medicine, but their clients were more concerned about Faith than they would be now. This is also true, fwiw, for African Americans, who had black doctors and black lawyers surprisingly early on, but those black lawyers and doctors had black clients.
In this era working class men had a much easier time making a living for a family than they do now. Laboring jobs were never easy, but they did often pay a living wage, if they were for skilled labor. A much smaller percentage of Americans attended college or university in general. Generally, Catholics did not attend. Some did, but not anywhere the percentage that now does.
World War Two seems to have changed all of that. It was likely changing anyway. Well before World War Two the nation had seen its first Roman Catholic Supreme Court justice (a Southern Confederate veteran). A Roman Catholic had attempted an unsuccessful, but serious, run for the Presidency prior to the war. General Terry de le Mesa Allen, a Roman Catholic, and Gen. Keyes, also a Catholic, had long running Army careers by the time World War Two broke out and they'd commanded large number of men. For that matter, Gen. McClellan of Civil War fame was a Catholic. But the war seemed to break an already breaking log jam, and after the war identification by class or religion was no longer a statistical factor in college attendance. By the 60s, Ivy League colleges that had effectively been Protestant schools were abandoning chapel requirements, thereby opening them up to members of non Protestant faiths.
In mentioning all of this, I'm not seeking to start a debate. But it is interesting to note. Religious tolerance has always been a feature of American life, but how religion has been a factor in culture and even employment has been largely forgotten.
Thursday, August 10, 1911. Beaten by the Bishops and the Rats.
The House of Lords passed the Parliament Act of 1911 allowing the House of Commons to limit the House of Lords' power. The vote was 131 to 114 with 300 eligible peers declining to vote. 88 Liberal peers were jointed by 29 Tories and 13 of the 15 Anglican Bishops causing Conservative MP George Wyndham to later remark; "We were beaten by the bishops and the rats."
There are still Lords Spiritual in Parliament although it has received criticism in recent years. The Anglican Church itself had greater adherence in 1911 than it does today, but even by that time the rank and file of the British population were associated with it loosely. Today, the largest group to attend church weekly is the UK are Catholics.
The interim Mexican government cancelled state elections that had been scheduled for August 13.
Cancelling elections, which we have a chance of seeing coming up here, is never a good sign.
Last edition:
Wednesday, August 9, 1911. Huerta enters Morelos.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Wednesday, August 9, 1911. Huerta enters Morelos.
Mexican Federal troops under General Victoriano Huerta crossed into Morelos to force the disarming of Zapata. Using somewhat of a harrying tactic, his advance had the opposite effect.
Hendersonville, North Carolina, August 9, 1911.
Last edition:
Tuesday, August 8, 1911. Changes in numbers and ages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)