Automotive Transportation II: Cars

Cars.  Automobiles that is.

With this entry, we pick up where we left off with trucks and where we started off with walking.  That is, our series of posts on changes in transportation.

 

Allegedly the first American automobile.  In the 1890s cars started to be manufactured, and as they were fairly primitive, some were also built at home.  Perhaps the first car in Wyoming was built by Laramie physician, Dr. Frinfrock.

Perhaps this one is the most obvious, and perhaps it nearly completes the circle, sort of, we began with walking.  We have another yet to go, but to most people the revolution brought about by cars is the most obvious.  Perhaps for that reason, and also for the reason that we've really touched heavily on this topic in numerous prior posts, we're not going to really dwell on it as much. There's no real reason to belabor the obvious too much.

The common myth, which we've already explored and pretty much destroyed, is that everyone rode horses until cars came about, and then everyone switched to them. As we know, there was never an era when everyone rode horses, and in the United States, bicycles were they really early rival for urban personal transportation to the horse, not the automobile.  Bikes were cheap, easy to store, and easy to maintain.  Early automobiles, by contrast, were extremely expensive and hard to maintain.  And as a rule, people weren't going all that far, in modern terms, anyhow.

Which isn't to say that automobiles didn't have a toehold by the late 19th Century.  They did.  And in a role that the early nickname for them reveals. They weren't called the "horseless carriage" for nothing. That's exactly what they were.

 

Buick, 1907.  Note the right hand drive.

Automobiles, even if not extremely widely spread, for economic reasons, did command interest pretty rapidly.  Their advantage was in fact revealed by their nickname, as was their basic design. They were horseless carriages.  Just as horsed carriages, however, were beyond the means of most, the horseless carriage was as well, although they did spread down into the middle class early on.  In terms of the amount needed to acquire one, they were amazingly expensive, which makes it surprising to see how widespread they really were.  A multiplicity of manufacturers made an appearance early on, some of which are still with us today.

1897 Oldsmobile.

As is well know, it was Henry Ford who sought to change all of that.  Before Ford, cars were virtually all hand made, even if made to a single design.  Ford applied the techniques along employed in some other industries, such as the firearms industry, and acted to mass produce a car, that car being, as everyone well knows, the Model T.  Aiming that car specifically at a mass market, it was targeted to be affordable to the men making it, and as time when on, and production efficiency increased, the price of the Model T dropped.

 

Early Model T touring car.

The Model T was truly a revolution in autos. The Tin Lizzy, introduced in 1908, was a tough, durable, but primitive automobile.  It bridged the gap from truly primitive vehicles before it, and more modern ones that would follow it, but the fact that it was readily available to so many in the American, indeed the global, market meant that for the first time many people could afford a car, and they did buy one.

 

Later model Model T, still in use in the late 1930s.

With the Model T, the introduction of cars came extremely rapidly.  Before that, cars had been the domain of the wealthy, the eccentric, or the pioneering.  After that, they came increasingly to be everywhere, occupying both a place in the carriage house and on the more humble curb.  And contrary to the common myth, Ford catered to its market, making the Tin Lizzy in a variety of models, with touring cars (open topped multiple seat vehicles) and roadsters (two seat convertibles), being amongst the options.  Multiple colors were also offered.

Like any revolutionary device, however, whether it be a mass produced car or a smart phone, imitators were soon to follow, of course.

Manufactured all the way up to 1927, the Model T became obsolete nonetheless surprisingly fast.  By 1915, Ford engine parts supplier the Dodge Brothers were operating a rival automobile company.  General Motors started operating in Flint Michigan the same year that Ford introduced the Model T.  Chrysler would form in 1925.  Louis Chevrolet opened his car plant in 1911.  The wagon make Studebaker, beat them all to the punch and had been working on automobiles since 1897, and even manufactured electric automobiles in the first decade of the automobile age.  By the 1920s there were dozens of automobile manufactures offering a mind numbing number of vehicles.

 

Legendary Jordan advertisement that launched modern advertising.

Indeed, in this era it was the automobile industry, with the Jordan Motor Car Company leading the charge, that introduced modern advertising. Advertising based on nothing other than image alone, which is exactly what that company did with its famous "Somewhere West of Laramie" advertisement, featuring the legendary enigmatic starting phrase that "Somewhere west of Laramie there's a bronchobusting, steer-roping girl who knows what I'm talking about."  Those reading the ad probably didn't know what Jordan was talking about, but they knew that they wanted one of his coupes.

While the car didn't replace the horse in many of its roles, the car had come to dominate the urban streets by the 1920s.  The age of the bicycle was over in the United States, and urban horses were very much on the way out in urban areas for conventional personal transportation.  Cars had taken over the taxi trade, and cars were now in the police patrolling role.  Cars had come in where the bike had started too, and they were offering daily, if somewhat expensive, transportation to hundreds of dangerous novice drivers.  The future appeared pretty clear, and Americans were crazy about cars.

Indeed, by the 1920s, the car was changing the very nature of the streets.  Paving wasn't new to cities by any means, and streets had been paved with cobble stones back into antiquity, but cars changed the amount of acreage that was paved.  Paving is unnecessary for animal transportation to an extent, although it serves wheeled vehicles, including wagons, of any type.  But cars very much favor paving, and the process of paving the urban landscape was well in swing by the 1920s.  While already discussed, of course, in terms of trucking, the increased number of cars also aided in the linking of towns via paved roads, something that wasn't really needed prior to the internal combustion engine.

Paving machine, about 1920.

Although Ford expanded its Model T production overseas, Europeans and other peoples were not nearly as enamored with cars as Americans.  Perhaps because their cities had been so long established for other means of transpiration, and perhaps because of their economic situation simply being different, while cars very much came into European societies by the 1920s, they didn't achieve the same overarching status that they did in the United States and Canada at the same time.  Americans were just berserk over automobiles by the 1920s, willing to spend a fair amount of their incomes to obtain one, and to maintain one. Europeans generally were not.  A real difference in modern American (and Canadian) culture, vs. European cultures, had already become clear in that regards.

 

Dusenberg touring car.

From fairly early on, cars took on a multiplicity of types.  Big Touring Cars were built for over the road trips with at least a few passengers, with some of the roads being pretty bad being considered, were a popular early type.  From the widely available Model T touring car, to expensive automobiles, these cars were larger serviceable cars.  Some European manufacturers, aiming for a different market, setting the standard for size and durability. Rolls Royce, fore example, built a touring car so durable that it was the platform for the excellent British armored cars used in World War One.  In contrast, coupes and roadsters, two seaters, were offered by most car companies even if only on a model that was otherwise built as a touring car, offering motorist a car that that had previously been occupied by the horse drawn dog cart.  In other words, an automobile really aimed at single men, or occasionally businessmen who didn't transport more than a single passenger.   Hard sided cars, with permanent roofs, began to replace touring cars by the late 1920s, in the form of sedans, which has been the standard for cars ever since.  By the 1930s, very large cars then known as "station wagons", "depot hacks", "estate cars", "suburbans" or "carryalls"  served the purpose of durable taxi, or hack, from train stations and hotels.  While some of these names are recognizable now, in terms of their descendants, none of them were, at that time, what they later became.  Indeed, a person would have to go to a vintage car show or watch an old movie in order to see one. 

Model T sedan.

 
Model T roadster.

With competition heated for automobiles in the US in the 1920s, its no surprise that innovation was rapid as well. By 1927 the durable Model T was clearly wholly obsolete, and Ford, for  the second time in its history, introduced an automobile called the "Model A".  Originally Ford used that name for a primitive vehicle built from 1903 to 1904, but starting in 1927, it came back out with its second Model A.  A really modern car, the Model A was a huge success but was only built until 1931.  Starting the in 1932, the Model B took over, with their being an engine option for the first time which not only allowed the purchaser to buy something other than a 4 cylinder engine, but to actually have that choice be a V8 engine.  The era of the modern car had really arrived. By the mid 1930s, all the car manufacturers then in business, and in spite of the Great Depression weeding a number of them out, there remained a lot, was changing models yearly, rather than sticking with a single long manufactured model.

"LongBeachFord" by Los Angeles Times photographic archive, UCLA Library. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LongBeachFord.jpg#mediaviewer/File:LongBeachFord.jpg

 

Model A.

In Europe, the production of cars had likewise increased, and the spread of automobile manufacturing had commenced in Japan as well.  Nowhere but the US was the market as advanced as in the US, but it was there.  American manufacturers themselves spread to Europe with Ford's entry into the European market being particularly notable. As in the US, there were a multiplicity of types, but as a rule European cars were simply not as widely purchased by their public.  Price was part of the reason, and this inspired Nazi Germany to actually create a program whereby a worker could set aside funds in the hopes of acquiring a cheap German car, that car being Ferdinand Porsche's Volkswagen, or 'People's Car".  None were ever delivered during the horror of the Third Reich, although the Volkswagen plant did produce a car that was Jeep sized during the war, with that car being the Kubelwagen.  The VW "Bug" of course, would revive after the war and live on, Model T like, forever.

 

The 1937 Cord, an extremely advanced luxury car of the 1930s which would not survive the Depression.

 

1937 Chrysler Airflow.

While the US automobile industry took a pounding during the Great Depression, and while some automobile makers on the margins, like Jordan, were casualties, as were brand names like LaSalle that were made by bigger makers (General Motors in that example), the American automobile industry endured the Depression surprisingly well.  In the late 1930s, when  global rearmament commenced due to the German threat in Europe, surplus North American capacity in existing operating plants meant that North America had a vehicle production capacity like non other.  The United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, became the supplier of vehicles to the Allies.  Moreover, North American capacity was so vast that it simply dwarfed Axis production.  While every army that fought in the war used vehicles, including vehicles in the "car" class, American production alone was so vast that every single Allied army as equipped to some extent with American vehicles. To take the classic "car" class American vehicle of the war (although in military terms its a 1/4 ton truck), the Jeep as an example, Jeeps were found in the armed forces of every single Allied army during the war, including the Red Army.  Indeed, the Red Army was almost entirely dependent upon American motor vehicles for transportation by the end of the war.

It can't be said that cars advanced, like trucks did, during World War Two.  By and large, the cars that came out right after World War Two were the same models that were being offered in 1941.  No new automotive technology was really developed that was applicable to cars during the war, except for the perfection of conventional four wheel drive, which showed up, in terms of cars, only in Jeep class vehicles.  Regarding those, of course, the Jeep did go into civilian production by Willys, with Willys always having been a manufacturer that specialized in rural vehicles.  It soon had competitors from overseas, interestingly enough, demonstrating the global spread of the Jeep during World War Two.

 

M38A1, which in its civilian expression was the CJ5.  The CJ series of Jeeps went into production right after World War Two and while the designators have changed to YJ and TJ, they've basically never stopped.

By the late 1940s, however, American cars did begin to evolve towards big.  Cars of the 1920s and 1930s, save for touring cars, were surprisingly small.  Cab space was often quite tight, even in cars that appear externally large.  This began to rapidly change in the late 1940s, however.

In part that might reflect an enormous improvement in roads that occurred during the 1930s.  Automobiles of the 1930s were still all suitable for rural roads. They had high clearance, compared to modern cars, and they were relatively stiffly suspended.  During the 30s, however, most highways most places had become modern, and urban paving was the norm.  This in turn reflected itself in the late 1940s with cars starting to have lower and softer suspensions, and in turn they grew larger as well.  Larger engines also began to make the appearance, particularly in Fords which had pioneered the V8 engine.  Chevrolet's remains 6 cylinders at first, but in the mid 1950s Chevrolet also introduced a V8 for its regular car line. By the late 1950s V8s had become the American norm, even though 6 cylinder vehicles were still available.  Also during the 1950s some American cars had become simply enormous.

 

1954 Chevrolet Deluxe.

They probably bordered on absurdly enormous, and they began to shrink back down in the 1960s. By that time, however, the Station Wagon had evolved into a family vehicles that was very large and designed to carry an entire family and their stuff.  Station wagons were a staple of the 1960s and early 1970s, before being eclipsed by smaller vehicles and mini-vans in the 1980s.  At the same time, the same vehicle that had evolved into the station wagon had also evolved into Carry Alls and Suburbans, large family vehicles that were built on truck frames and which really were a type of truck.  Suburbans are still with us, even though station wagons are not.

 

1950s vintage Pontiac Super Chief.

Cars of the 1970s were generally powerful vehicles reflecting an American love of the open road.  Racing inspired cars even entered the public market by the late 1960s, and were sold throughout the 1970s, in the form of "muscle cars", sports cars with a high power to weight ratio that were capable of speeds in excess of any legal limit.

Still, the 1970s ushered in a change when the price of gas, and gas shortages, made fuel economy an American concern for the first time.  As fuel economy had been a concern everywhere else in the world, this made foreign imports really viable.  The Japanese and European manufacturers, devastated by World War Two, had largely recovered and had been focusing on their domestic markets, which demanded fuel economy. Cars like the Datsun, Toyota, or Fiat were suddenly marketable in the US, and the Japanese in particular, who had focused on making really good small cars, were able to make huge inroads into the American market.  The American market was permanently changed, and the number of American manufacturers declined to a "big three".

The shock of the fuel, and following fiscal, crises took American manufacturers a very long time to adjust to, but they have.  That takes us to the current market. If the Model A was a "modern car", as I've referred to it here, cars of the last ten years, with many American cars being prime examples, are "post modern". So much safer, longer lasting, and better than anything that's come before them, they can't even really be compared to cars of the 80s or 90s.  They are much, much better, longer lasting, and safer.  Oddly, Americans are now less interested in cars as well, which reflects perhaps a new post modern view of them.  For the first time, really, Americans now view cars the same way Europeans have for a long time, just a way to get around, if they really need one.

Body by Fischer.

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Toronto Ontario Old Town Hall and York County Courthouse

Courthouses of the West: Toronto Ontario Old Town Hall and York County Cour...:

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: The Talking Wire Changes the West

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: The Talking Wire Changes the West

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Holy Rosary Catholic Church, Denver Colorado

Churches of the West: Holy Rosary Catholic Church, Denver Colorado:

Botching history on the bully pulpit

Every year there's an event called the National Prayer Breakfast.  I'll confess I don't really know much about it, other than it happens in D.C., and the President usually goes to it.  Typically, most Presidents have been careful not to say anything controversial, but President Obama has been the exception. This year he made just such a statement when he said:

Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. …So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.

Now, this statement is one of those ones that's guaranteed to spark controversy, and I suspect that the President didn't quite mean this the way it sounds, but how does it measure up historically?  And beyond that, how does what it implies measure up?  So let's look at what the statement seems to say, and what it seems to imply.  It seems to say and imply:

1.  Some people are accusing Islam of being violent (and that's a correct thing to state, i.e., some people are saying that).

2.  Christianity has had its own examples of people doing terrible things in the name of Christianity; and three of those things are:  a) misdeeds in the Crusades; b) misdeeds during the Inquisition; and c) slavery and American segregation era racism.

So how do those claims, none of which is unique to the President, stack up? And how does the counter claim, which was essentially being addressed, that Islam is violent measure up?

Let's start with one of the most misconstrued periods of history of all time included in the list above, the Crusades.  Were bad deeds done in the name of Christianity during the Crusades.  Not so much.

The Crusades in and of themselves are very much misunderstood and this is principally due to the Reformation.  Prior to the Reformation western Europeans did not have a negative view of the Crusades, and even during the early part of the Reformation some figures, such as Martin Luther, were pleading for Christian intervention in defense of Catholic lands, such as Austria, against invading Islamic armies.  It was only later, when various Protestant groups developed a revisionist history that the suggestion that the Crusades were improper came about, and this was due to a desire to point fingers at their rivals and to distinguish themselves.  Like most big revisionist histories, the revision wasn't too accurate.

The "Crusades", which weren't called that until centuries later, came about as defensive wars designed to stop Islamic invasion of Christian lands, with much of those Christian lands occupied by Eastern, not Western, Christians. The Byzantines found that they were unable to stop invading Islamic armies, which had become newly aggressive after Islamic leaders, ironically non Arabs, first acted to subjugate Islamic Arab kingdoms in the Middle East. Those Islamic kingdoms sometimes had Christian majority populations, and the two groups had managed to settle into co-existence, but under this effort to subjugate those kingdoms, that policy ended and local Christians were persecuted or even given no choice but to convert to Islam. At the same time, Islamic forces began to expand into the region and threaten Anatolia.  The Byzantines asked for help, with Rome urged be provided.  Also, the same impulses acted to provide for armed escorts for pilgrims to the Holy Land, as they were subject to attack by marauding Islamic bands.

The initial efforts were successful.  Over time, the advancing Islamic armies were rolled back, areas that were occupied by them were once again under Christian rule, and in some places, over time, invading Islamic armies were completely and permanently defeated, such as in Sicily.  Less permanently, but significantly, Christian kingdoms, sometimes presented as invading kingdoms now, were created in various areas of the Mediterranean Middle East which very often had majority Christian populations newly freed from Islamic rule.   As we all know, the effort was not long term successful as the Ottoman Turks did manage to subjugate and defeat the Ottoman Empire, Islamic armies ultimately retook what they'd lost in the Middle East, and they even invaded up into Europe.  

So what were the terrible deeds?

Well, unless you consider the wars themselves terrible, not much.  The wars were fought under the conventional rules of the day, which weren't quite as nice as the modern ones, but they also saw a great deal less bloodshed than imagined as well.  Victorious armies of this, and earlier, periods grossly exaggerated their victories and usually claimed that vast numbers of enemy combatants, and even enemy civilians, were killed, but in reality, by one calculation, the number of people killed by the Crusading armies is actually less than those killed in pitched, but modern, battles today. That is, all the dead doesn't really add up to the same for one fairly typical battle today. Indeed, overall combat casualties were pretty low for the entire series of events.  And the claims about civilian towns people, including women and children, appear to be largely just made up.

The Crusaders did misbehave when they went through Constantinople, which cannot be denied, but nobody has every claimed that was done in the name of Christianity, quite the contrary.  In that, you have an example of Christians misbehaving, but not in Christ's name.  

So, the Crusades, a defensive war in the first place, turns out not to be an example of what the President claims.  The error would be understandable, save for the fact that he's so well educated.

Before we go on, let's look at the counter example, Islamic violence, which is what brings this topic up anyhow?  Is the same true of Islam, i.e., that its violence is conventional and misunderstood, in a historical context?

Well, here too, people who cite strongly to the "religion of peace" claim have history to contend with, but then so do those who would claim that all Islam is necessarily violent.

Very early Islam, that is Islam during Mohammed's life, spread at first through what was apparently his charismatic personality but then, during his life, took to violence.  From the outside, it seems that early on, when the more peaceful aspects of the Koran were written in these regards, it was a distinctly minority religion, and probably a Gnostic heresy.  It may have been quite a bit different than what it is today.  As Mohammad gained adherents, he turned to the violent spread of the new religion, and the later more violent portions of the Koran were written.  It seems fairly clear that the version of the Koran we have today doesn't actually match the earliest one, with the very earliest one held in a library in war torn Yemen, were nobody is allowed to view it, but the evolution was probably there. What this probably reflects, therefore, is that early on Mohammad wanted to try to make sure his faith wasn't unduly persecuted by the orthodox Christian faith, or the remaining Jewish faith, and so he urged peace and co existance.  Later on, when he was spreading the faith through the sword into mostly pagan areas of the Arabian peninsula, he was willing to take on Christians and Jews as well, and so the text grew considerably more dark.  So, Islam does in fact have a violent early history, in real contrast to Christianity which was hugely oppressed and non violent in its early centuries, and also in contrast to the Christian actions in the crusades.

Early Islam, in fact, spread mostly by the sword, being ultimately stopped in western Europe at Tours, and then rolled back, in the east at Vienna.   But that doesn't mean that all Moslems are violent, nor does it mean that Islam has been trying to spread by the sword every day of every year.  Indeed, right now the criteria for launching a violent action under Islam are relatively strict and basically can't really be done, as the authorities who would be allowed to decree it just simply don't exist.  So a good argument can be made that while Islam certainly has a violent past, those who act violently for it today may be heretical or at least out of the safe confines of their faith.

Okay, back to the other points, what about the Inquisition?

The term "Inquisition" usually means the Spanish Inquisition.  There are other Inquisitions, and for the most part they are inquiries of some sort or another.  The Spanish one is cited most typically, as it too gained currency as a "bad act" during the Reformation.  There's rich irony even in that, at least in the English speaking world, as any of the contestants in England were not shy about using force and Protestant authorities would go on to be very oppressive against not only Catholics, but other Protestants.

The problem overall is that its taken out of context pretty badly and also grossly exaggerated.

In order to understand it in the first place, a person has to be aware that the existing legal structure everywhere at that time viewed the Crown as the ultimate legal authority, and also, everywhere, viewed heresy as threat to the Crown.  It wasn't until the Reformation for the most part that European monarchies would have a concept of religious tolerance, although even then they typically did not. Henry VIII, for example, was happy to have his backer Thomas Cromwell be seen to be executed as a heretic.  Nations that went from being Catholic nations to Protestant ones quite often took the exact same position, except that they adopted a different church as the state church. So, in context, the concept of heresy as a state offense was very strong for a very long time.  This had to do not just with the Faith, however, but also very much with the concept of government.  In an era when monarchies could generally not act contrary to the faith, and when they all claimed to rule consistent with it, heretical acts were regarded as treasonous.  If a person could separate form the Faith, then they could also separate from the Crown.

This lead to various monarchies trying accused heretics.  In the case of the Spanish Inquisition, the Church became concerned that the judicial authorities were too ready to find people guilty, not to lax in doing so, and that the judicial authorities were also not competent to try such offenses. Given that, they Inquisition came about to look into such offenses.  This resulted in the accused being less likely, not more, to be found guilty.  Indeed, there were protests at the time against the Inquisition on that score, i.e., being too ready to find the accused innocent.

The trials of such things were not always pretty to be sure, and here perhaps the President has a point. But that's because all trials of serious matters were subject to shocking conduct by modern standards.  The concept of some sort of coercion was the norm, and it wasn't until centuries later that this was regarded as an improper judicial technique.  Even now, apparently, we haven't really come fully around to rejecting that concept in our own minds, as our own country has recently used what we must rationally concede to be torture to gain information from terrorists.  That doesn't excuse it, but it does place it in context.

So, again with the Spanish Inquisition. . . not so much.  It was an effort to reduce improper convictions, not to spur convictions, and its actions were consistent with those universally accepted then, but not now, in trials.  Interestingly, it resulted in many fewer deaths than British witch trials that would soon follow did, although those are generally regarded as attributable to Christian beliefs by their perpetrators.  The ultimate irony may be that pointing the finger at the Spanish Inquisition came up in the context of the Reformation, at which time the English Crown was always at a close state of war with Spain, but during which England itself was in a period of engaging in massive religious repression during which it wasn't shy about using violence.  Indeed, should the President have cared to make it, the actions of various British monarchs and political figures would have been a much better example of what he was trying to cite to than the Spanish Inquisition.

Well then, what about slavery and racism?

Here, I think, the President has a better point.  Nobody is claiming that Christianity sanctions slavery or racism, but people did make those claims.  Slavery in the South was sometimes excused on that basis, in no small part because the South was an overwhelmingly Christian region with a lot of serious Christians who had to reconcile their actions somehow.  Slavery is mentioned in the New Testament quite a bit, and so the rationalization was that because it isn't outright condemned, it must be sanctioned.  Well, actually it isn't, and the Greek word of the period in which the New Testament was written makes no distinction between a "slave" and a "servant", because in that period there really wasn't one. That reflects the economic realities of the 1st Century, but it has nothing to do with the 18th and 19th Century in terms of human bondage, and it doesn't license it.  Southern Christians, however, argued the opposite.

Be that as it may ,that was a position taken by individuals, rather than by any one church.  So, for example, the very large Episcopal church in the South didn't declare acceptance of slavery tto be doctrinal by any means.  Indeed, and again ironically, here too we have to bring in the United Kingdom as for much of this period the UK, which was home to at least two of the widespread Protestant faiths in the South, was the European standard bearer for the anti slavery effort.  The English may have gotten race based slavery rolling in North America to some extent, but they also really took it on later on, and often due to religious impulses.


Raced based slavery might, however, make it a better example here, as it might actually fit the President's example of some Christians misusing their faith to do a bad thing.  Although it was a rationalization, not doctrinal, but I think that was his point.  I.e., some people did do that, just as some Moslems now excuse violent actions the same way.

I don't really know how Christianity could be used to justify racism, but again, some have bizarrely tried that as well, so perhaps that too is a better example.  In the recent violent actions in France, for example, one of the attackers was living with his girlfriend, and their violent actions killed a Moslem policeman.  No way that Islam sanctions any of that, so a person engaging in that sort of activity has had to do some huge rationalization to get there.  I think in these instances you have the example of somebody believing so strongly that their actions are justified, that they then go to the conclusion that they can do anything they want.  No religion sanctions that, but some people behave that way.

So, on this one, I think I'd grade the President with a 50, a scale which would leave him with an F.  Back to the books.  Of course, these historical failings are commonly believed ones, and so maybe I'd reluctantly given him a C.

Census data and pure unadulterated baloney.

A really popular story on NPR reports that, for the years 1978, 1996 and 2014 the following have been the most common jobs in my state, Wyoming.

1978:  Farm workers

1996:  Farmers

2014:  Truck, delivery and tractor drivers.

Baloney.

Farm workers and farmers have not constituted the most common job here at any time in our state's history.  Granted, agriculture dominated the state's economy early on, but ever since the petroleum industry came in, that industry has, and there's absolutely no way whatsoever that farm workers or farmers constituted the most common job in the state in 1978 and 1996.  I well recall 1978 and 1996 and getting to be a livestock farmer (ie. a rancher) was very difficult to get into in either of those years if you were not born into it, and livestock farmers constitute the majority of our agricultural sector.

This shows, I suspect, the baloney nature of some statistics.  Its simply incorrect.  And I imagine its also incorrect for the several other states that are listed in this fashion.

At best, it might mean that more individuals identified with those jobs than any other one identified, signally, even if few occupied it compared to all other jobs combined, but I still doubt that.

I might believe driving some sort of truck, however, was the single most common job here in 2014, given the dependance on the oilfield on trucks.

Coast Defense Study Group | Coast Artillery| Sea Coast DefenseCoast Defense Study Group Inc. | Just another WordPress site

Coast Defense Study Group | Coast Artillery| Sea Coast DefenseCoast Defense Study Group Inc. | Just another WordPress site

Interesting site dedicated to the  Coast Artillery.

The Big Speech: From Study Out The Land.

All America lies at the end of the wilderness road, and our past is not a dead past, but still lives in us. Our forefathers had civilization inside themselves, the wild outside. We live in the civilization they created, but within us the wilderness still lingers. What they dreamed, we live, and what they lived, we dream.

T. K. Whipple

Ancient town yields new clues to early life in Wyoming - News Columns | Wyofile

Ancient town yields new clues to early life in Wyoming - News Columns | Wyofile

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Mounted men and a train.

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Mounted men and a train.

Mid Week At Work: Military Pilot, Punitive Expedition, 1916

Master & Servant*

I have occasion to shop at a store, quite frequently, that's part of a large national chain.  I don't have much choice in this, because of the type of operation that it is, I would have to go it or one of its competitors.  There's no local version of it, really.

The store, which has been in my community since the mid 1930s (when it started to displace the local versions of the same thing) was recently purchased by another chain. Not the entire company, but the local stores in my region.

I've wondered if both of the outlets would survive or not.  I have no idea, but I have noticed that one of the persons who operates the cash registers is now really unhappy. So much so, that I'd avoid that person's register if I could.  That person has taken up being a little violent towards the merchandise.  I don't know for sure that this is connected with the change, but I suspect so.  I suspect, without knowing that this person's position won't survive the change.

While I don't appreciate having my merchandise abused, I do feel for people in that situation, and it strikes me how much more liable people are to that sort of thing today.  In prior eras, so many more people were self employed at the retail level, it isn't even funny. And those who worked as clerks for those storefronts were employed by somebody that they knew, for good or ill, which makes downsizing them quite a bit different than it otherwise is today.

This also points out, I think, why people in their teen years looking at careers ought to think long and hard about their future.  Not everyone wants to be self employed, but having a skill that's in demand or translatable to one that's likely to be means a lot more now than just being an employee who shows up on time and leaves at the end of the day.  A loyal employee for Amalgamated Amalgamated might still just be a nameless number to corporate headquarters when the downsizing comes.  Careers that feature licensing of one kind or an other might be more valuable by their very nature, as t he license can usually translate into work.  If that's self employable work (as opposed to being self employed), so much the better, perhaps.

Not exactly the "do what makes you happy" advice that people like to hear, but perhaps something to consider to some extent.

_________________________________________________________________________________
* At law, the relationship between employer and employee is the "master and servant relationship".

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: False Fronts in the Old West

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: False Fronts in the Old West

The Mexican Revolution

This is one of those posts that start off and then sit around as a draft for a very long time.  Looking at this, I started the post, or just the topic really, in 2012, and here it's 2015 and I'm writing on it again.

Anyhow, what motivated me to write it is the excellent photos posted this week on the theme of the Mexican Revolution on the Old Picture Of The Day blog.  Or, rather, it was the comments that caused me to revive the post.  The reason being is that people really don't grasp the Mexican Revolution at all.

 

Mexican refugee entering the United States.  In spite of the caption, his wealth is probably all on this horse.

For one thing, people seem to think that the revolution was something like the Villistas against the Federales.  Not hardly, or at least that's not the whole story by a long shot.  So, let's take a look at what really happened, as its a significant story, and the long range impacts of it still very much impact us today.

Mexico has had an entire series of revolutions, as is well known, but they are not all of the same character.  I don't intend to list each and every one, as that would be a book in and of itself, but it's important to realize that revolutions have been part of the Mexican story in a way that they have not been in regards to the United States.  We had one revolution, or arguably two if you regard the Civil War as one, but in each instance ours had the feature of having the revolutionary side not even conceive of itself as being in rebellion, and featuring a democratic government.  It would have been perfectly possible for a soldier to serve, for example, in a New York state militia during the Revolutionary War and not conceive of himself as being in rebellion against anything.  Likewise, the Civil War, while a species of rebellion, wasn't quite regarded that way by either side that fought it.

Mexico's revolutions, however, have been real revolutions.  They didn't arise with the concept of protecting a set of liberties and rights from trespass, but sought to overthrow a rule or government entirely.

The first successful revolution was against Spain, of course, and it set the pattern for a large number of them that came thereafter in that they were really revolutions by Spanish aristocracy in Mexico against, at first, Spain and then later against each other.  The Mexican people had very little stake in them.  It wasn't really until Juarez rebelled against the French and their installed Austrian Emperor that a different type of revolution, that being the people against an perceived oppressor, arrived in Mexico.  Unfortunately for Mexico, and the Unites States, by that time a very pronounced political culture of having Caudillos, strong men, was well established, and in spite of a people's rebellion, it really couldn't be broken.

Caudillos, or strong men, aren't unique to Hispanic cultures by any means, and its worth noting that they almost seem to be the global rule, rather than the exception. They're the exception to us largely because we're heirs to English culture, where strongmen have not been appreciated very much.  Indeed, perhaps the biggest single example of an English language strongman can be found in that of Oliver Cromwell.  While the Lord Protector was a force during his life, not all that long after it the English Restoration occurred and Cromwell was posthumously sentenced to death, which required his body to be exhumed and beheaded.

A culture which feels so strongly about dictators that it'd dig one up to behead him isn't going to have very many.

In contrast, the example of a strongman whose is both a dictator while simultaneously being given as an example of the will of the people is surprisingly common in many cultures.  In our view, this is always negative, but in some cultures we can still find examples of such a person being heroically viewed.  Napoleon gives perhaps the best example. We think of him as a megalomaniac, but in France, and in much of the Latin world, he's viewed as a liberal hero.  In order to do that you have to separate his actions from his declared values, to some extent, but then he actually was a liberalizing force while also being a dictator, an odd combination.  That model is one which Maximilian I of Mexico, the unwelcome French installed Austrian "emperor" of Mexico himself sought to emulate.

In Mexico's case, pretty much every  revolutionary leader prior to the rebellion against France was a Cauldillo or Caudillo wannabe from the Spanish aristocracy, with very little concern being exhibited for the average Mexican. About the only exception was Don Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla who lead a revolution from 1809 to 1811, and whom was a Catholic priest.  He lead a rebellion against Spain, which failed, and which resulted in his execution, but he clearly sought to give voice to the peasantry and the onset of his revolution is today celebrated as the Mexican independence day, even though it didn't result in it.  Subsequent rebellion against Spain was not such an egalitarian affair and following revolutions in Mexico were, for many years, simply power struggles between the landed military Spanish elite.  It was not until Indian Benito Juarez successfully rebelled against Emperor Maximilian, the Austrian nobleman that France had installed as Mexican emperor, that a leader rose up through rebellion who was a member of the peasant class.  Even then, oddly enough, Maximilian was himself a species of liberal Cauldillo, espousing the liberal views of the French Revolution even while acting as a foreign born emperor in Mexico, while Juarez would not always strictly adhere to democratic values.  In essence, Maximilian was a foreign liberal dictator, much in the mold of Napoleon, while Juarez really started off as a liberal peasant rebel.

 

 Benito Juarez, Mexico's first president of Indian ancestry.

Juarez died in 1872, and from there things descended into confusion.  As I don't intend to do a history of Mexican politics, I won't, but rather I'll simply note that one of Juarez's electoral opponents was Porfirio Diaz, who had been a member of Juarez's army.  He entered politics thereafter, but rebelled against Diaz's successor, and like seemingly all failed Mexican revolutionaries, he took refuge for a time in the United States.  Returning to Mexico he secured election to the presidency and evolved into a dictator, occupying that position for thirty years.  He was another enigmatic figure in that he was a dictator, but a type of liberal, both repressing democracy and seemingly dedicated to the advancement of liberal ideas. Business did very well under his regime in Mexico, and he differed from prior liberal Mexican dictators in that he did not oppress the Catholic Church, which liberals often did in a seeming desire to crush the institution that the Mexican populace held closely. He also neither aided nor repressed the common population, something that was an unusual middle ground.

 

Porfirio Diaz in full military costume.

A person simply cannot rule for thirty years without being an autocrat, even accidentally, and at some point a revolution would become inevitable.  But the way it came about was particularly odd.  He gave an interview in an American magazine.

 

 Porfirio Diaz in Pearson's Magazine

By the first decade of the 20th Century Mexico had seemingly settled into a comfortable business oriented dictatorship.  Diaz was firmly installed in that role, and he ruled under the thesis that the Mexican people wanted him there, which some no doubt did.  His downfall came, oddly enough, when he expressed the opinion that Mexico was a real democracy in an interview given to the American Pearson's magazine.  That was in 1908.  In that interview he stated that if the Mexican people wanted to replace him in an election, they could do it.

That an interview in an American magazine would spark a Mexican revolution is fairly amazing, but perhaps it shows how interconnected the world was, even then.  That interview brought in Francisco Madero, one of the least likely Mexican revolutionaries a person could imagine to the forefront.  Madero was an odd character, to say the least.  Highly idealistic, he was very much given over to the spiritualism movement that was gaining ground at the time, and he believed he was in direct contact with the spirit of Benito Juarez.  Taking Diaz at his word, he challenged him for election in the campaign of 1910.  The Diaz regime, in the meantime, drew itself closer to the United States, with Diaz meeting with President William Howard Taft in a meeting in which he emphasized his role in boosting Mexican business and American business in Mexico.  Ultimately Diaz had Madero arrested, but, given leave to move about the city of Monterrey, he escaped and fled to the United States, a move common for almost all Mexican revolutionaries.

Unlikely looking revolutionaries, the Maderos.  Maderos entire family became involved in his efforts to bring about democratic reform in Mexico.

This sparked the revolution.  Madero, not willing to give up, raised an Army and crossed back into Mexico.  His supporters in other regions of the country rose up.  Colorful figures like Emiliano Zapata and Francisco "Poncho" Villa appeared on the scene as Maderoistas.

 

More typically imagined in a sombrero, General Francico Villa.  The colorful, erratic, and perhaps somewhat mentally unstable Villa would attempt to retire to a ranch he acquired after his surrender to Obregon and Carranza, but he ended up being assassinated under cloudy circumstances in 1923.  His killer would live into the 1950s and declare at the end of his life that he'd rid the world of a "monster".

 Emiliano Zapata and his staff.  Zapata was an agrarian and looked the part, which we in turn tend to confuse with the look of the Mexican Revolution.  As with many leaders of the Mexican Revolution, Zapata was assassinated, although unlike Villa he still commanded an army in the field at the time of his death.

That revolution sought to install Madero as the rightful democratic president of Mexico, and it was opposed by Diaz's government and its conservative backers.  While it didn't have the expressed support of the United States, it had the implicit support of the US in that the local, highly conservative, American mission to Mexico viewed Madero as a species of dangerous radical, something akin to a socialist, and they feared both his movement and what it would mean for American business interest in Mexico.  Nonetheless, Modero's forces prevailed and Diaz surrendered in May, 1911, agreeing to go into exile.  Madero became the president of Mexico.

 

American soldiers observing the Battle of Juarez from the El Paso side of the border.

If only Madero could have been idealistic enough, and naive enough, to take on Diaz and win, he was also singularly unsuited to rule Mexico.  Having just overthrown very entrenched interests, he seemed to believe that he could take over the mechanisms of government and simply rule.  He therefore left the defeated Mexican army in place.  Diaz's army had little interest in the liberal ideas of Madero, and the result was virtually inevitable.  Moreover, Madero soon faced rebellions by his own former lieutenants, and a newly freed Mexican press exercised its voice for the first time in critizing Madero.  Soon Madero was faced with a plethora of rebellions from the right and the left, and had to rely both upon those forces which remained loyal to him, and the Mexican federal army.

In 1913 Victoriano Huerta, a Mexican Federal general whom had been successful in putting down revolts against Modero, launched one of his own with the support of remaining Diaz supporters and the support of American Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson, who distrusted Madero.  H. L. Wilson was not to be long in his role, as at that time Woodrow  Wilson was already elected to the Presidency and coming in, so his actions not only were improper, but they came at the very time in which he was going out and a more progressive administration coming in.

Henry Lane Wilson, whose views proved to be a discredit to the United States and which did damage to Mexico.

Huerta was successful in his uprising against Madero and ultimately the victors acted to have Madero killed.  Huerta was the new Mexican strongman.

 

Huerta looked every inch of the part he was to play in the Mexican Revolution.  He died of natural causes in an American jail after being arrested for plotting to involve Germany and Mexico in a war with the United States.

Almost immediately significant figures in Madero's forces, including Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata rose up in rebellion against Huerta, and in many ways the revolution we typically think of as being the Mexican Revolution, which was really its third act, got started.

 American soldiers of fortune in Mexico, serving in Villa's Division del Norte.

On this go around, revolutionary forces ultimately sort of coalesced around Venustiano Carranza, a Mexican revolutionary who was a rancher and a true radical.  Carranza never had the level of support that Madero had, and his views were to the left of Madero's.  In Carranza, the opponents of revolution in Mexico were faced with a man whom, while much weaker in support, was really much more of the man that they feared.  With the various revolutionary factions supporting him, Carranza managed to quickly defeat Huerta, who went into exile in 1914.  Ultimately, like deposed and losing Mexican forces and personalities seemed to do, he entered the United States in 1915, where he was cheeky enough to negotiate with German agents and Mexican revolutionaries in an effort to bring Mexico into a war with the United States.  Arrested, he died in an American jail of unknown causes.

 

 Revolutionary, intellectual, and radical. General Carranza.  His government fought Villa and Zapata successfully, but he'd go down in a coup lead by his own general, Obregon.

Before that could occur, however, the United States intervened, sort of, in the Mexican Revolution in the Tampico Affair.  Woodrow Wilson, justifiably horrified by the actions of Henry Lane Wilson, declared Huerta to be an illegal occupant of the office and enacted a blockade, of sorts on Mexican ports, preventing them from receiving foreign arms. Soon enough, an American sailors and Marines ended up having to land, and fight, in Vera Cruz, where their superior numbers guaranteed their success in the landing.

 

 Tower damaged by Naval gunfire in the Battle of Vera Cruz.

 

 

 Sailor searches Mexican man in Vera Cruz.

Indicative of things to come, perhaps, Huerta was defeated and fled while the United States occupied Vera Cruz, but he was no more pleased about the American presence there than a disgruntled Huerta was, who went on to plot with German agents to bring Mexico into war with the United States, as noted.  American forces withdrew in November 1914, but they'd be back, as we'll see, in a different location only shortly thereafter.  The intervention at Vera Cruz, however, did prevent the Germans from supplying a shipment of arms to Huerta, which may or may not have had an impact on the Mexican Revolution.  Ironically, the arms were actually American made as the Germans, in 1914, were not in a position to export arms to Mexico.

Carranza soon found himself fighting the two main stars of the Mexican Revolution, Pancho Villa and Emiliano  Zapata. Zapata, while he receives less attention, is by far the most interesting of the two as he had a real political vision for Mexico, that being a distributist agrarian state.   Villa was more of a peasant free agent, with less defined goals. Suffice it to say, however, both had been highly successful revolutionaries and a betting man would have bet against Carranza at that point.

However, Carranza was a radical as well, and that position allowed him to undercut support for a war weary Mexican population in the south.  This began to undercut support for the agrarian Zapata, and he began to face supply problems and accordingly set backs in the field.  Nonetheless Zapata was still in the field in 1919 when he was lured into a trap in an effort to secure supplies and assassinated.

In the north, Pancho Villa, who had been a very successful natural cavalry commander, found himself unable to adapt to the changes in battlefield tactics that were also being used in Europe.  Constantly in battle against Carranzaista commander Alvaro Obregon, who used barbed wire and trenches, his fortunes rapidly declined.

 

Alvaro Obregon, whose competence and study of military tactics lead to the defeat of Pancho Villa and his Division del Norte.  He'd ultimately become present of Mexico following his coup against Carranza.  Obregon would serve one term as president of Mexico, and was elected to a second term to follow his successor Calles, but he was assassinated prior to taking office.

But before they did, Carranza, in spite of a dislike of the United States, approached the Wilson administration about transporting troops through Texas by rail to be used against Villa.  Wilson had been horrified by H L. Wilson's actions in bringing about Madero's downfall, and he deeply desired to see an end to the fighting in Mexico.  Deciding to recognize Carranza as the legitimate ruler of the country, he granted permission for this to be done in 1915. Traveling under arms, they were used against Villa.  Villa retaliated against the United States for its entering the conflict in this fashion by raiding Columbus New Mexico on March 9, 1916.

 

The raid on Columbus has seemingly baffled American historians ever since, but the reasons for it couldn't be more apparent.  Villa was a fairly simply man, not a diplomat, and he had been attacked by Carranza's forces after they'd crossed the United States by rail.  By doing that, the US had taken a position in the war, which indeed it had whether President Wilson recognized that or not.  Indeed, Wilson had been warned by those knowledgeable not to support Carranza, who deeply disliked the US, and when it wasn't clear who was going to win the civil war.  Wilson's actions did nothing to engender love from Carranza but it did inspire Villa to retaliate against the US.

 

U.S. Army ambulances headed south as part of the Punitive Expedition.

This resulted in what's known to history as the Punitive Expedition, in which the United States briefly became a participating, again, in a Mexican Revolution. Designed only to punish, and perhaps capture, Pancho Villa, the United States ended up basically mobilizing its military infrastructure in order to send a force into Mexico, and in order to be prepared for war with Mexico, which seemed likely to break out any minute.  An expedition under the command of General John J. Pershing was in the field in Mexico for nearly a year, penetrating ever deeper into northern Mexico, but never being able to catch up with Villa. The entire time relationships with Carranza's government deteriorated, and Carranza never viewed the US. as an ally in his fight against Villa.  By the end of the expedition American forces had exchanged gunfire with Carranza's troops and it was unclear to the men in the field who the enemy was.  As a purely accidental benefit, however, the expedition caused the United States to mobilize its military establishment prior to its entry into World War One and the Army had dusted out its cobwebs, used the National Guard on the border and conducted large unit maneuvers in field conditions for the fist time since the Spanish American War.  March 9, 1916, was arguably the start of American participation in the Great War.

 

These soldiers are probably National Guardsmen. Their campaign hats are the previous type, not the M1911 campaign hat, which had just come into service and which went to Regulars first.  Nearly the entire National Guard rotated to the border on border service during this period, out of a genuine fear that a war with Mexico was right around the corner.

 New York National Guardsmen serving along the border.  These officers are (self) equipped with the new pattern of campaign hat.  Col. Wingate carries the newly adopted M1911 .45 ACP pistol, in the pattern of swivel holster adopted for cavalry. The officer on his left carries the prior pattern of revolver, probably a double action Colt .45, a pistol which came into emergency service due to the failure of the .38 during the Philippine Insurrection.

 American serviceman in Mexico, probably serving in the Quartermaster Corps. This soldier is mounted on a stock saddle, not a McClellan saddle, which was a standard saddle for packers and quartermasters, and which would shortly be given an official designation of M1917 Packers Saddle. The saddle, however, had been in use since about 1905.

After Carranza died, Obregon took over. And that death came in the way that the Mexican Revolution featured.  He was murdered in a conspiracy featuring one of his own general, Obregon.

 

Mexican civilians, potentially refugees, in U.S. Army camp in Mexico.

Obregon, in spite of his dispute with  Carranza, continued to take Mexico leftward.  He faced a rebellion in his single term as president, and then handed the reigns to Plutarco Calles, who likewise continued to head left.  Calles and Obregon were, moreover, opponents of the Catholic Church, reviving an anti clericism of the left which became massive in some regions of Mexico.  Ultimately at least one governor of a Mexican state was so far to the left as to be practically a communist, if not in name, and killings of clerics became a localized feature of Mexican rule.  Suppression of the church and churchmen occurred, including closing of seminaries and a prohibition on wearing religious clothing in public.  The Mexican revolutionary state had effectively gone to war against the church, and ultimately in 1926 another rebellion broke out.

 

Calles, unlike all of his predecessors going back to Madero, was not assassinated.  After Calles' assassination, he continued on in power and became increasingly authoritarian, and he began to flirt with fascism.  He was ultimately forced into exile in the United States in 1936 but was able to return in 1940.  Ironically, given his hostility to the church,in his old age he joined Madero as a spiritualist.

Called the Cristero War, this war is properly recognized as one of the many wars of the Mexican Revolution, with this one again featuring peasantry against the government. The revolution failed, but not before the Cristeros lost 30,000 men, the government 50,000 and 250,000 Mexicans fled to the United States. This formed the last peasant rebellion against the state, but attempted military coups would occur as late as 1938.  In the 1980s, Zapatista forces once again appeared on the scene, recalling the agrarian dreams of their founder and the Mexican army never was able to really put them down.  By that time, however, Mexico was transforming, finally, into a true democracy, which it is today.  Decades of rule by the PRI, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, dedicated to unending revolution, came to an end.

So, as we can see, the Mexican Revolution is something that, in at least the common American view, we don't quite recall accurately, which isn't to say t hat we get it all wrong.  But it was a much, much longer struggle than we imagine, and a much more modern political struggle than we generally allow.  It plays well, indeed, in the sense of an early 20th Century revolution, featuring forces of the right and the left, including the hard right and the hard left.  Even Distributism, which also made an appearance with the Greens in the Russian Revolution, appears in the Mexican Revolution, where it went down to defeat as well.

And as a North American tragedy it stands amongst the most prominent and long lasting, a tragedy which the United States is more than a little responsible for.  Our representation in Mexico during the Taft Administration proved to blinded by his own ideology and views not to see that a new day in Mexico had arrived, and indeed a new day was arriving in his own nation, and his closing act in his role was to be a participant in the overthrow of a democratic president who deserved our support.  Would that have prevented the Mexican Revolution from descending into the radical cycle of violence it did? We can't know that, but we could have tried to avoid it. And for that matter, President Woodrow Wilson's act in supporting Carranza through the extraordinary allowance of troop transmission across the US was amazingly inept.

The relationship between Mexico and the United States, never an ideal one, would descend to its depths in the decades immediately following the Mexican Revolution, and wouldn't really start to improve until Mexico declared war on the Axis during World War Two, something that we were not to sure that the Mexican government didn't feel the other way about at first.  Mexico itself, in spite of having a "revolutionary" government wouldn't be able to really address the needs of its impoverished people until it developed a true democracy, by which time a culture of conceiving of itself as poor was well entrenched.  Today, the majority of Mexicans, for the first time in Mexican history, are middle class and the economy of the country is fully modernizing.  Mexico itself is a true democracy, although violence now has resumed due to the crime wars between those seeking to have an orderly society and those seeking to export illegal drugs to the United States. Still, it is once again a new era, and a better one, for Mexico.

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Boer War Picture

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Boer War Picture

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Boer War picture two

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Boer War picture two

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Holy Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, Denver Co...

Churches of the West: Holy Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, Denver Co...:

WHEELS THAT WON THE WEST®: Types of Wood in Wagons

WHEELS THAT WON THE WEST®: Types of Wood in Wagons:

Very interesting, I wouldn't have guessed the wood was so varied, although in reading it, these various wood types make sense.

Lex Anteinternet: Standards of Dress. The police. A semi topical post

Quite a while ago, I posted this item on police uniforms:  Lex Anteinternet: Standards of Dress. The police. A semi topical post.

In that post, I trace that topic, and I touch upon the uniforms worn by sheriffs departments.

This turns out to be a currently popular human interest story around the nation, and as I just learned from some of my friends in Latin America, the story has spread overseas.  More specifically, the story of Sublette County Sheriff's Deputy Gene Bryson has received widespread distribution.  He's retiring over a disagreement with Sublette County Sheriff Stephen Haskell about uniforms.

Bryson is a 70 year old deputy.  That's way up there, and if he was a Federal law enforcement officer he would have had to retire a decade ago.  At one time at least law enforcement officers employed by the State of Wyoming also had to retire at that age, i.e., 60, but a lawsuit filed by a Game Warden some years ago resulted in that being changed by judicial fiat.  That's not really relevant to this story, however.  I'm just noting it.

What motivated Bryson to retire is that Haskell mandated a change in the Sublette County Sheriff Department's uniform and eliminated cowboy boots and cowboy hats in favor of duty boots and baseball caps.  Bryson, whose worn cowboy boots and hats his entire career, declined to go along with the change and opted to retire.

Frankly, he has a bit of a point, although Haskell has one too.

The point Haskell has is with the boots.  Cowboy boots make poor duty boots, and even though many sheriff's officers have worn them over the years, they're more appropriate as dress items for law enforcement officers and other agencies than they are as duty boots.  I wear them a fair amount (and there's a draft thread on them in the hopper that, like many draft threads here, has been there for eons), but as far as field use goes, they're only really a good item if you intend to ride a horse, or might have to. Even at that, "packers" are a better choice for a mounted service boot. Cowboy boots are slippery in wet or slick weather, they're difficult or at least unnatural to run in, and they don't provide much ankle protection to the wearer.  Duty boots, although usually law enforcement agencies choose the lightest doofiest ones going, are a better option.

Not baseball hats.

I own my fair share of baseball hats, but they're a crappy and sloppy looking uniform item.  Indeed, while they're convenient for many things, that's about all they are. They have no insulation value, they don't protect from the snow, rain and sun like a broad brimmed hat does.  And as a rule, when a uniformed officer is wearing one, he looks out of uniform.

Now, I do have my fair share of these, and some of them are pretty neat.  But I'm not arresting anyone either, and in spite of the fact that some lawyers now do, I don't wear them into the courthouse.  And if I'm in a role where I need outdoor protection from the elements, I go with a broad brimmed hat.

While on this, I'll note also that there's an interesting trend for law enforcement and fire personnel to be issued what we used to call "paratrooper pants", or more recently cargo pants.  At some point that too is more than a bit over done.

Trousers like that weren't even worn by any army anywhere up until World War Two, but the fluid nature of that war, combined with the need for some soldiers to be carry loads of items, i.e., paratroopers, lead to the adoption of cargo pants by the U.S. Army for paratroopers in the early 1940s.  In 1943 these were adopted for all soldiers in the European Theatre of Operations in the form of the M1943 combat pants, that were to be worn over the standard wool pants (any time you see a paratrooper, or other U.S. soldier in Europe with cargo pants, he almost certainly is wearing wool pants underneath them).  After the war, the M1943 pants were retained, with new designations, as field pants, replacing other patterns still in use, and during the Vietnam War the same pattern was adopted for the Tropical Combat Uniform.  When the Army adopted the Battle Dress Uniform in the early 80s, they became the standard cotton trouser for soldiers, and Marines, and have remained so ever since in varying forms. For some reason, police departments have gone to them too, even though most police patrolmen are motorized and really don't need a lot of pockets. Sheriff's offices have started using them, and even fire departments do. It's probably a bit much.

Anyhow, I will note that Haskell's actions aren't wholly without logic, regarding the caps, as most officers are vehicle patrolmen now days, and a cowboy hat is inconvenient in a vehicle. And this follows a recent tread of services, including the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, British Army and Australian Army, of issuing baseball caps for patrol caps. So, even though they lack insulation value and don't do anything other than provide a visor, I somewhat get it.  But, countering that, a fair number of law enforcement agencies, to include the Wyoming Highway Patrol, have gone the other way in recent years and noted the value of brimmed hats.  The WYHP, for example, went from wheelhouse caps, which it had worn since its inception, to "smokey bear", or M1911 style campaign hats, so they can be used even by a highly motorized agency.

Words of endurance: Roumanian Diary | 1870 to 1918

Words of endurance: Roumanian Diary | 1870 to 1918

Happy Birthday Governor B.B. Brooks! | Wyoming Postscripts

Happy Birthday Governor B.B. Brooks! | Wyoming Postscripts

Movies In History: The Grand Budapest Hotel

It may seem odd to some to see this film listed here, but it shouldn't.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is an Academy Award nominated film that was a bit of a surprise hit last year.  At least its a surprise to me, as it's the sort of unusual "small" story that we don't see get much attention anymore. The film itself almost recalls movies of the 1930s, during which it is set, more than contemporary movies.  And perhaps its a bit of a tribute to those films really.

It's masterfully done as well. Set in a fictional Eastern European country that we're lead to believe must have been part of the defunct Austro Hungarian Empire prior to its World War One collapse, the movies does a surprisingly good job of capturing the feel of those countries which had only lately entered into independence.  The Austro Hungarian Empire being multinational in nature, the mixed culture of those countries and those in its influence and orbit, such as Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and so on, is very well captured.  The film features a fair amount of the use of the German language. French shows up as well.  Last names are Slavic, German and perhaps Turkish.  The depiction of the cities is appropriately ornate.  The uniformed services shown in the film are also appropriately late Austrian in appearance. 

This film is in many ways truly odd, and very well done.  It is funny, but some of the humor is really off color and not appropriate for younger audiences. That comment would also apply to some of the things depicted in the film. But an American film pitched at a modern audience which features an Eastern European theme, set in the very early 1930s, is a real surprise, and that it did well is an even bigger surprise.

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an...

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an...:   Small rig, in mine, 1972.  A type that's change a lot. Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex An...

The past couple of years the campgrounds at the Wyoming State Fairgrounds have been really packed, in part because the decision was wisely made to allow those campgrounds to be partially used year around by oilfield workers.  It made a lot of sense, the facilities were there, but most of the year weren't used that much. Why not relieve the housing shortage in Converse County and maximize the return on the facility?

Last week the Tribune ran an article that now a lot of those campers have cleared out and others are contemplating doing so.  Oilfield workers hauling off their trailers and going home.  Another, very real, sign of the decline.

Today the Tribune reported that the Legislature proposes to take a $200M payment to the "rainy day fund" and apply it to the budget, to make up for a projected revenue shortfall.  Also a sign of the decline in drilling.

And yet, we're still at the denial stage in some quarters, although that's gone from "it's not happening" to "it'll be short".  I don't think the industry is saying that however.

Mid Week At Work: The USS New York and the USS Texas at night.

Movies In History: Black Hawk Down

I realized that I hadn't discussed this film yet, although I did mention it the other day in my item on American Sniper.

This film centers of the horrific events of a failed raid into Mogadishu Somalia during that period of time in which U.S. forces were part of the international commitment there.  It's a shocking film which is, in my view the single greatest and most accurate depiction of urban combat, and modern combat, ever made.  The title comes about because of the crash of a Black Hawk helicopter during the event and the doomed effort to rescue the crews that came about as a result, but the film depicts far more than that, detailing the raid itself.

Generally everything is accurate about the film, including the depiction of combat.  It depicts real events, and it used a couple of the actual Special Forces soldiers who were in the battle as advisers.  Its not for the faint of heart, to be sure, as what it depicts is truly horrifying, but it is masterfully done.

Old Picture of the Day: Massive Logs

Old Picture of the Day: Massive Logs: Today's picture shows an Old Timers cabin made from some pretty massive logs. I guess you build with what you have, and this guy ha...

Random Snippets. Even I know better than that. . .

I don't watch football much. Prior to being married, in my adult life I'd normally not even catch one game in an average year.  Since being married, I tend to catch the Super Bowl, as my wife likes the game.

So I saw last night's.

Now, while I don't watch football much, I have seen football, and I can recall watching quite a few games or parts of games when I was young, as my father liked football a lot.

And I well recall teams being down by one touchdown down near the end zone, in the last minute of the game, running plays as rapidly as they could without even huddling.

Which is why I was stunned even before they blew it, when the Seahawks didn't do that in the last 50 seconds of the game.  Geez, if even I know that, what were they thinking?

Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Rail Transport in the Persian Corridor

Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Rail Transport in the Persian Corridor

And a look at rail in the Persian corridor during World War Two.

Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Russian Rail Overview

Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Russian Rail Overview

Really interesting look at the Rail of the Soviet Union during World War Two.  The USSR was extremely rail dependent. Everyone was, of course, but they were to a greater extent than most, although the Germans very
much were as well.

Buffalo Soldiers in Wyoming and the West | WyoHistory.org

Buffalo Soldiers in Wyoming and the West | WyoHistory.org

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Great War Memorials

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Great War Memorials

Air Travel then and now. . .I'm not nostalgic about it, it's gotten better

 

The Missouri River, note the barges.

As noted, I fly quite a bit.  And I have a long history with air travel too. I first boarded a commercial airliner as a baby, and I can recall flying out of Casper on Western Airlines and Frontier Airlines, in jet airliners, as a boy still in grade school.  By the time I was junior high I'd flown on Western, Frontier, Air Canada, and others I can't recall.  I can well recall when you could still get a flight on a 707 from Casper to Billings Montana.

Given that, I have experience with the "glory days" of jet travel that people are nostalgic about now.

I'm not.  Air travel is a lot better now.  Shoot, it's better than it was ten years ago.

The current jets are so fast that a lot of the nostalgia that people place in old time air travel is really misplaced.  I can well recall when you received multiple drinks and food on flights.  That's because those flights were really slow.  Now, they're so much faster it isn't even funny.

This first became apparent to me on a flight some years ago to Oakland.  I'd flown to California before and was amazed when we were boarded on a "regional airliner", probably some sort of Canadair jet.  That jet zipped to the destination so fast I was stunned.  The week before last I flew to Toronto, which I've done before, on a direct connection from Denver.  Sure, it took over three hours, again on a regional jet liner, but that isn't too bad really.  This past week I flew from Tampa to Denver on an airbus that flew so high that we flew over satellites (okay, not really, but it flew high) and it was as smooth as a bus.  Very comfortable, and really nice plane. The Dreamliner is even more comfortable.

These planes are just super, and speedy.  They get you where you need to go very quickly, and if there isn't endless warmed up meals form the galley, well so be it.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Mother of God Catholic Church, Denver Colorado

Churches of the West: Mother of God Catholic Church, Denver Colorado:



This small Roman Catholic Church is just off downtown Denver. A remarkable thing about this church is it's fairly close proximity, in modern terms, with other Catholic Churches in downtown Denver, however, this one is on the border between the business and residential districts.

This church was built as a Protestant church in about 1900 and saw use by various denominations until the 1940s, when the Archdiocese of Denver purchased it.

Movies In History: American Sniper

Given that it probably seems to those who stop in here that I see every "war movie" going, it will probably come as a surprise that: 1) I don't, and 2) I wasn't particularly inclined to see this one, but I don't really know why.  It may be because I've known a couple of men, one particularly well, who had been snipers and they were profoundly unlikely to discuss it, which makes me feel just slightly odd about one who does. That isn't intended as a criticism, it's just a comment.

But I did see it last night, and because my wife wanted to, which is even more of a surprise.  She recently read Chris Kyle's book, another surprise, and like it.  I haven't read the book. Because she read the book, she wanted to see the movie.

Because I haven't read the book, I can't comment at all on how accurately the film depicts the events of the book.  And I'm also not going to comment much on the surprising amount of controversy this film is generating, and from surprising quarters.  I will say, however, that some of the criticism strikes me as very "parlor" in nature, i.e., the sort of slightly leftist commentary that comes from people whose view of conflict is very antiseptic. War is nasty, and that's just the way it.  To depict that honestly, and to write about it, isn't something that deserves criticism.  Nor does a person deserve criticism because they took an active part in it, which seems to be the basis of at least some criticism.  It's interesting, indeed, how we're now at a point where that sort of criticism is not too uncommon in some quarters, when in earlier eras that would have been regarded as rather dishonorable.

Anyhow, what I will note is that this film, which depicts a lot of urban comment, is correct in material details, which it should be.  It's pretty darned graphic, but not grossly over the top for the most part.  Equipment appears to be generally correct with perhaps a few minor errors.

It depicts urban combat in a very gritty fashion, and it reminded me to a slight extent of Black Hawk Down, which in my view is the most accurate combat movie ever filmed.  It's not Black Hawk Down, but it does a nice job with this story.

Blog Mirror: Engines of the Red Army in WW2, and Engines of the Wehrmacht

Engines of the Red Army in WW2

Interesting site featuring the owner's depictions of World War Two Red Army vehicles.

And "Engines of the Wehrmacht"


I fear that accurately listing every vehicle used by the German army would require listing every vehicle that existed in the 1910 to 1945 time frame, no matter where made.

And if you were the History Channel, you'd have to have a special category for "Secret Vehicles of the Wehrmacht", or "Alien Automobiles of the Wehrmacht".

As an aide, and its a complete aside, the author of this blog notes the correct name for the  Red Army on his site, which is the first time I've ever seen what the correct name was.  And, fwiw, I'd note that the meaning of "Wehrmacht" is commonly misunderstood, even by historians who should know better. The Wehrmacht were the German armed forces, not the Army. The German Army was (and is) the "Heer".  The Wehrmacht included all of the German armed forces; including the Heer (Army), the Luftwaffe (the air force), the Kreigsmarine (the navy) and the Waffen SS (the "armed" SS).  On that last group, the Waffen SS, the SS is an organization that's so complicated that its really difficult to actually define it other than that it was the uniformed branch of the Nazi party.  Not all SS, however, were Waffen SS.  The Waffen SS was essentially a rival armed force to the Heer, made up of volunteers (until the very end, when some were conscripted or transferred into the SS, but that was at the very end of the war), with the privso that if they were German (by culture), they had to be members of the Nazi party. That criteria would seem self evident, but there were also SS units made up of foreign Nazis, such as the Wiking (viking) division, which was made up of Norwegian volunteers, or SS units that were made up of odd cultures here and there that the Germans took into service, such as, ultimately, Cossacks serving with the Germans, in part, who were not members of the Nazi party but who were incorporated into the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) in SS formations.

That all leaves aside, of course, SS units that were basically interior Nazi elements, or the entire nasty subject of camp guards, which were also SS units. 

Senate File 108 and the addressing of the unnecessary.

While I'm sure the Legislature gets more heat than it deserves, it is occasionally really hard not to cringe at certain legislative acts.  

Indeed, it's hard not to cringe at certain legislative commentary.  This year, for example, the local paper has been really upset by a couple of bills that seek to carve out a freedom of conscience defense for people who feel that they cannot perform services at same gender weddings, in spite of that having already been proven to be an issue in other states, but there's been no commentary in the paper, as far as I'm aware (and due to business travel, I may have missed it) seeking to restrict the Game and Fish from doing what it already cannot do.  

That bill, Senate File 108, seeks to prevent Game Wardens from entering private lands without the permission of the landowners.  In other words, it seeks to restrict what already can't be done.  The draft bill states.

What motivates this is unclear, but a law enforcement officer already can't just walk onto private lands, so this bill is wholly unnecessary.   Why somebody was worked up enough about this to write a bill preventing what's already prevented is not clear to me, but by taking this step, the law actually would preclude a Game Warden from entering any private land, such as Walmart for example, or the local sporting goods store. Clearly, that isn't what was meant, but the law in seeking to address a situation that doesn't need to be addressed, by extension could be acting to create a legal oddity that's a bit absurd.

Hopefully this bill will fail.

Just because its free, doesn't mean you have to take it (but then there's no harm in doing so).

More on air travel.

 

It's always been the case that when you fly in a plane, they give you the chance to have something to drink.

They used to also give you something to eat, if only peanuts. Truly.

Of course, flights used to be really long. The air time between Casper and Denver is now 35 minutes. Really short.  When you had to take a prop aircraft, it was at least an hour.   Even Denver to Tampa is just four hours, not really all that long.

Now, on a four hour flight, offering you something to drink makes a lot of sense.  On a 35 minute flight, it really doesn't, but they do it anyhow.  And as an observer of people, I notice that a very large percentage of people take it.  I'm not really sure why, as they attendant barely has time to give you the drink, for you to drink it, and then to pick up the refuse.  Indeed, on at least one occasion I've seen the drink distribution run into the final approach, to be followed, therefore by an immediate pick up.

Surely, you don't really normally need something to drink on a flight that short.  It's really short.  But probably over half the passengers on a plane take something to drink, no matter how short, or rough, the flight is. A person barely has enough time to get their drink, drink it, and have the attendant pick it up.  And on a rough flight, and I've been on a few, more than a few people seem too dazed to notice that their drink is about to go flying on to their neighbor at any one time.

On the other hand, it's harmless too, usually, and probably a remnant of that day when air travel was slower, and you always got something to eat.  Some people look back on that fondly, but frankly I'm so impressed by the modern speed of aircraft its not even funny.  Casper to Denver in 35 minutes?  Wow. And even a trip from Denver to Tampa or Toronto just doesn't take that long anymore.  That's truly amazing.

Update: Today In Wyoming's History: January 30

Today In Wyoming's History: January 30: 2015  The Federal government announced the sale of the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Center grounds, formerly the Teapot Dome Naval Petroleum Reserve, to Standard Oil Resources Corporation. Teapot Dome, of course, is famously known in most places of the scandal that occurred during Warren G. Harding's administration.

The Window Seat

When you book a flight, you get to choose your seat, unless you book too late and end up getting simply what's left. When that occurs, you almost invariably get an aisle seat, or if the plane is big enough, a middle seat.

Which raises this question, why do people who book window seats close their windows so they don't have to look out them?

I hate flying.  I like airplanes, but I do not like riding in them.  Nonetheless, I do a fair amount, and when I do, if I can, I book a window seat.  That's because I'm fascinated by terrain and geology, and you get to see a lot of that from the air.

But this view isn't universally shared, however, and I've noticed of late a fair number of people will rapidly shut their windows so they don't have to look out them, which then means that the trip has all the joy of traveling in a can.

Oddly, the window seat is otherwise one of the most uncomfortable seats.  It's hard to get in and out of.  the aisle seat is the easiest.  If you don't want to see something, why not take that one?

Indeed, I've noticed some people can be aggressive about this.  Recently I was on a really long flight and got up to use the facilities (it was hours and hours long).  When I got back to my seat, the guy in the aisle, who was a really fussy traveler anyhow, had mostly closed my window. As I try not to be rude, I just looked out the remaining 1/5th that was available.

Anyhow, commercial air travel is a really grim experience, by and large, but getting to look out the window is neat.  If you don't like doing that, leave the window for somebody who does.