The Punitive Expedition by mid June, 1916. Where are we at in this story?

We started posting regularly about the Punitive Expedition of 1916 with the anniversary of Pancho Villa's raid on Columbus New Mexico, which of course resulted in the expedition being launched.  Indeed we started our coverage of the raid with what amounted to an hour by hour account of the March 9, 1916 attack, and we've tried (but sometimes missed) to cover the event that happened since then, a century ago, in sort of a "real time fashion".  For some of these events, we've included daily newspaper front pages, hoping to present to our readers how this would have appeared to people at home on a daily basis, while still covering the larger events of the expedition, and the day, as well.  Hopefully its been entertaining and instructive. 

 

But we also fear that this daily approach may cause a little bit of a loss of a sense of where, in overall terms of history, things are actually at right now.  After all, we don't live in 1916, so we don't have the sense of daily presence about 1916 that we do, presumably, about our own day and times.  And because events do not appear every day, there's some risk that our story is getting a bit lost.  So where are we in this tale?  Perhaps a recap is in order.

And in presenting that recap, perhaps I should add a little that I omitted, or at least didn't cover in great detail, about the background to the expedition that I didn't before.  Columbus New Mexico is typically treated as a shocking event as Mexican revolutionary forces crossed into the United States and attacked an American town.  What's missed is that this violence started before that, and Columbus wasn't the first raid

The Mexican Revolution that broke out in 1910 had featured an American presence in some fashion since its onset.  Indeed, Madero, in bringing the revolution about, crossed over from the US back into Mexico. So that the US would end up unwilling involved in the Mexican Revolution was inevitable.  Madero actually issued his Plan of San Luis Potosí from San Antonio, Texas, not Mexico, showing the early role the state was to unwillingly play.  That very year, as a result of the revolution in Mexico, the US stationed additional troops along the border to protect American lives and property.

The war first spread across the border June 1911 when Mexican federal forces defeated rebels at Tijuana, which they had earlier captured, and drove them across the border to  San Ysidro, California where they surrendered to the Americans.  The rebels themselves may have had some members who had been living in California, and they were not Madero's men but rather members of a radical left wing anarchist group, showing how diverse the Mexican Revolution was from the very start.

Americans were attacked for the first time that prior April when Maderistas engaged Mexican federal forces at Agua Prieta.  During the engagement the Mexican army crossed the border and attacked American troops in Douglas Arizona, who intervened in the action with the result that Aqua Prieta was left in rebel hands.  That same month, however, American forces in El Paso exchanged fire with rebels under Madero and Villa who were fighting for control of the Mexican city of Juarez.  Madero prevailed in his war with the Mexican government that year and became president, but the violence would not end, as we've already seen.  Madero would seen rebellion from his former allies, and from the former Mexican federal army, by 1912.  Revolution returned to Mexico that year.

1913 would see no attacks across the border by Mexican forces, but it did see Mexican federal troops cross to surrender after they were defeated at Nogales by troops lead by General Obregón.  The following year, 1914, brought US intervention at Vera Cruz, which we've otherwise covered, but which shows the extent to which the relationship between Mexico and the United States had deteriorated.  Indeed, diplomatic relations had been severed.

 

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

In October of that year Mexican rebels fired into the U.S. Army camp at Naco Arizona while fighting Federal troops in Naco Sonora.  American cavalrymen, however, did not return fire in spite of some being wounded as a result of the rebel fire.

In 1915 relations between the US and Mexico got a little bumpier with the eccentric Plan de San Diego (Texas) was discovered in which some Mexican faction, which is unclear, expressed an intent to recapture land lost to the US during the Mexican War.  The origin of the plan, and who was responsible for it, remains unclear, but it called for an uprising in February 1915 to be followed, should it succeed, by the execution of all non Mexican white males in the newly "liberated" territory. As Quixotic as it was, its followers did engage in some raids in July 1915, several months after they were supposed to have occurred.  The raids, which commenced on July 11, 1915, targeted Mexican Americans, ironically, and went through September of that year until they were addressed.  Property destruction, and at least one assassination, were features of this effort, which was lead by a Mexican American but which depended upon Mexican support for material and about half the men used in the campaign.  About 300 Mexican Americans died in the struggle, some in reprisal raids by white Texans.  The odd small uprising ended when the Wilson administration recognized Carranza who then operated to terminate Mexican support for the campaign, which at least raises some questions.

Unrelated to this, that same year, Villistas engaged US forces in Nogales in a light action that represented a spill over over the siege in Nogales Sonora.  Fighting later that year resulted in the disastrous decision by Wilson to allow transit of Constitutionalist troops by rail over Texas, which we already addressed, and which we believe is directly responsible for the Columbus raid a few months later.

Prior to that, however, in January 1916 Villa drew the horrified attention of Americans when his forces executed eighteen Americans who were removed from a train at Santa Isabel, Chihuahua.  The horrific action was made without any excuse that's rational and naturally defined many people's views of Villa at that time.  The raid on Columbus followed that March, which is where we of course picked up the story. 

 Villa leading his forces prior to his 1915 defeat at Celaya

 

In that story, we've been dealing with the Punitive Expedition itself, but we missed a couple of subsequent raids that occurred in spite of the large force of Americans pursuing Villa in northern Mexico.  But first we'll get to events in the story that actually preceded those. 

 

On April 1  the 10th Cavalry fought The Battle of Agua Caliente.

 Agua Caliente in better times.  The name of the town means "Hot Water".

The 10th Cavalry encountered 150 Villistas under General Beltran at the town of Agua Caliente.  The ensuing battle resulted in a true cavalry charge of Mexican positions.  Mexican forces broke under the charge which resulted in no losses to the Americans.

The unit thereafter pursued retreating Villistas for the next several days. As the unit advanced it ran short of provisions due to being so isolated.  The unit became partially provisioned with the assistance of Constitutionalist officers and through the efforts of their commanding officer, who wrote a personal check to a mining company in exchange for $1,100.00, which was used to purchase provisions.  Amazingly, only one day prior to the battle  The 10th Cavalry become isolated by a blizzard

 

On  April 8 troops under R. L. Howze nearly got into an engagement with Mexican Federal troops.   Two days later, however, they clashed with Villistas, April 10, 1916. near La Joya de Herrera and dispersed them, killing their commander, a Captain Silva.
  
On April 12-13 the U.S. Army found that it was now confronting Constitutionalist forces, i.e. the recognized government of Mexico, in the  The Battle of Parral.  With this, which had been coming on for awhile, the expedition entered a new and very dangerous phase. 

 Corporal Richard Tannous, 13th Cavalry, wounded at Parral.

U.S. cavalry under Major Frank Tompkins, who had been at Columbus the day it was raided and who had first lead U.S. troops across the border, entered Parral and was met with hostility right from the onset.  Warned by an officer of Carranzas that his Constitutionalist troops fire on American forces, Tompkins immediately started to withdraw them  During the withdraw, with hostile Mexican demonstrators jeering the U.S. forces, Mexican troops fired on the American forces and a battle ensued.  While Mexican forces started the battle, it was lopsided with the Mexicans suffering about sixty deaths to an American two.  Tompkins withdrew his troops from the town under fire and sought to take them to Santa Cruz de Villegas, a fortified town better suited for a defense.  There Tompkins sent dispatch riders for reinforcements which soon arrived in the form of more cavalrymen of the all black 10th Cavalry Regiment. 

Tompkins' troops reentered Parral two days later. This marked the high water mark of the Punitive Expedition.  At this point, the Punitive Expedition reached its deepest point in Mexico.  This is both impressive, as it happened so rapidly, and a bit deflating, as after only one month of operations the mission to pursue Villa had effectively been halted and converted into one that was now sort of an indistinct policing occupation, which hoped for more aggressive Constitutionalist policing of the border. 

LoC caption:  "Removing Sgt. Benjamin McGhee of the 13th Cavalry who was badly wounded at Parral, Mexico."

 

On April 30 senior US Army General Hugh Scott and Constitutionalist general Obregon meet in El Paso, Texas to try to work out a framework for what was going on.

 

 Hugh Scott

Gen Hugh Scott, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, and General Alvaro Obregon, Minister of War of the Mexican Government, met in El Paso to discuss problems that had arisen due to the American intervention in Mexico.  The meetings continued to May 2 and resulted in an understanding between the two governments providing that the United States would slowly withdraw from Mexico and the Mexican government would undertake measures to prevent future raids into the United States.  The understanding was then submitted to the governments of the respective parties to see if they would agree to it.  They didn't.

Alvaro Obregon

 

 

On May 5 Villistas crossed the border again, amazingly, this time at Glenn Springs and Boquillas Texas.  A Villista force of over 200 men were held up by a much smaller party of US troops of the 14th Infantry and the raid, which was mostly designed to acquire supplies, turned to property destruction.  The US lost three soldiers and once civilian killed in the raids and captured a Villista officer.  The Villistas, for their part, took with them two civilian captives who were freed several days later after pursuing US cavalry negotiated for their release, and with the release being accomplished when the Villistas simply fled.

 

 

10th Cavalry in Mexico, May 10, 1916.

On May 14 a small engagement took place at San at San Miguelito Ranch, which we've already covered, and which featured an American officer who would go on to fame.

 Cavalryman George S. Patton, in 1918 with a Renault tank, two years following his introduction into armed fame in Mexico.

 

Mexico had its heroes too.  General Obregon, later president of Mexico, with Carranza to his left, receiving a medal in Celaya in connection, in some fashion, with the effort to combat Pancho Villa.

Constitutionalist, i.e., the ruling government, resistance to the American incursion began to significantly stiffen thereafter and the situation became increasingly tense.   This lead, as we recently noted, to the passage of the National Defense Act of 1916.  The act, coming in the context of the crisis with Mexico, laid the groundwork for the expansion of the Armed Forces, call up of the National Guard, and the creation of the Reserve Officers Training Corps.  Part of this reflected the fears of entering the war in Europe, which looked increasingly likely, but much of it also addressed the fear that a war with Mexico might be coming.

 

Preparedness Day Parade, held on Flag Day, June 14, 1916. One day before Mexican rebels would strike across the border again.

 

Chances of that occurring greatly increased on June 15 when the presence of a large American force in Mexico again proved inadequate to stop raids across the American border.  On that day Mexican forces, of some kind, attack San Ygnacio, Texas.  In spite, of perhaps because of, the Punitive Expedition, about 100 men of undetermined Mexican loyalties, perhaps Constitutionalist or perhaps Seditionist, attacked the town which was defended successfully by the 14th Cavalry.  Casualties were generally light on both sides during the battle, although four Americans and six Mexicans were killed.  The raid served to heighten already high tensions and the mobilization of the National Guard, dealt here extensively recently, immediately followed.

 New York National Guardsmen in Texas, 1916.

Mobilized New York National Guardsman.

National Guard Camp, Camp Ordway Virginia, 1916.

But, before the Guard could have any impact on the border, another major, and embarrassing, engagement would happen in Mexico, the Battle of Carrizal. 

 

Following the Battle of Parral, American forces did not advance further into Mexico but scouted out from locations that they were encamped in.  On June 20 the 10th Cavalry went out on such an expedition from Colonia Dublan and received reports of a Mexican Constitutionalist force in the vicinity.  They proceeded to encounter the force at Carrizal. The Mexican forces was deployed to block their further advance to the west and informed the American unit of the same, which in turn informed the Mexican force that it was to proceed through the town.  The Mexican force agreed to let a portion of the American one advance, ultimately, but fired upon it once it entered the town.

A battle ultimately ensued which resulted in the loss of ten enlisted men and two officers.  Unit cohesion was lost in the battle on both sides and the cavalry did not advance past the town. Several enlisted men were taken prisoner by Mexican forces but were repatriated at El Paso Texas ten days later.  Mexican losses were heavier, including the loss of their commanding officer in the unit.  Nonetheless, the battle may be taken as an indicator as to how the US expedition had bogged down into a type of stalemate whose character was changing.

 US troops being repatriated at El Paso.

The engagement was the costliest action that the US engaged in during the Punitive Expedition and it was correctly judged to be a defeat at the time.  The battle came at a point in time in which the US and Mexico were teetering on the brink of war and Pershing was sufficiently angered by it so that he sought permission to advance on Chihuahua City.  President Wilson denied him that permission which likely adverted full scale war breaking out.

The battle proved to be the breaking point for Mexico and the United States, but not in the way that newspapers featured here would have predicted.  With war now clearly looming, both Wilson and Carranza stepped away from it.  By July 5 the forces that were propelling the two nations to war had backed off and the crisis, while still there, was largely passed.   The occupation, for that is what it now was, in turn took on a disturbingly familiar American character.  The mission to capture or kill Villa had failed, although his forces were irreparably damaged and he would in turn fail in his goals.   The civil war in Mexico continued on nonetheless.  The United States had no clear way out of the country it had entered, even though it wished to find one.  The U.S. Army had proven brilliantly effective at moving under adverse conditions but US success didn't mean that US interests still couldn't be touched.

All caught up?

The Douglas Budget for June 22, 1916. Company F Ready for War

And Coal Gassification bites the dust in Carbon County.

A memorial to the men who lost their lives in the Number One Mine at Hanna, Wyoming. The 1903 and 1908 Mine No. 1 explosions claimed 169 and 59 lives respectively, with the majority of the 59 killed in the 1908 disaster being men who were killed in an explosion that occurred after the first 1908 explosion.  The bodies of 201 men from the 1903 and 1908 disaster remain buried in the underground mine.  From earlier coal mining days in Carbon County.

 

Not that this is really news, DKRW's project to build a plant in Carbon County had been in trouble for quite some time.  The economics of it, however, just weren't working out.

That coal can be a starting point for the processing of gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel, is hardly news of any kind.  It's been well known for a long time. As is often pointed out in the discussion of this topic, the Germans relied extensively on synthetic, i.e., coal based, fuels during World War Two.  And they aren't the only ones to have relied upon it at one point or another either.  South Africa, in its later embargoed period, and Rhodesia (from South Africa) relied upon synthetic fuel well after the Germans had.  But that should say something about the economics of it.  The Germans relied upon it as they had to.  Outside of Romania and southern Russia, they had no other petroleum fuel sources and couldn't import anything.  Likewise, South Africa and Rhodesia, by the 1970s, were in the same situation.  In other words, economically, converting coal into motor fuel has tended to only make sense if petroleum was basically unavailable.  It has always been cheaper to simply start with petroleum oil, which of course is well on its way to being gasoline, diesel fuel, or jet fuel.  Indeed, in rare instances, such as in Indonesia, some of the stuff is so far advanced towards being fuel oil it doesn't need to be refined at all.

DKRW's problem in Wyoming was that in order for the Carbon County effort to make sense, petroleum had to be sufficiently high, while coal was sufficiently low, that they could undertake the effort and make money at it. Well, coal's pretty cheap, but the price of oil has just been too darned low. So the plans have been shelved.

It should be noted, however, that the coal isn't going anywhere and this might conceivably be the future of coal in the state, at some point.

Mid Week at Work: Jose de Sousa Magano

Caption from Library of Congress:  Jose de Sousa Magano, 35 Aetna St., Fall River, Mass. Born in Fall River, June 2, 1901. Left for the Azores at 8 years of age because family moved back. Cannot read or write in his own language or in English. Never been to school. Returned to Fall River in May 1916. Applied for employment certificate June 17, 1916. Refused on account of not being able to read or write. Will have to attend school until he is 16 years of age. Presented baptism certificate from Santo Christo Church, Fall River, as evidence of his age. Sister had to talk for him. Could not understand or speak English. See 4192. Location: Fall River, Massachusetts / L.W. Hine.

And another one I missed. Passage of the National Defense Act of 1916

And, again, another one I missed, the passage of the National Defense Act of 1916.  The act, coming in the context of the crisis with Mexico, laid the groundwork for the expansion of the Armed Forces, call up of the National Guard, and the creation of the Reserve Officers Training Corps.

Lots of stuff going on in June, 1916.

An event I missed. Mexican forces, of some kind, attack San Ygnacio, Texas on June 15, 1916

I managed to miss this, but this is the even that lead to the National Guard being called up almost immediately thereafter.

In spite, of perhaps because of, the Punitive Expedition, about 100 men of undetermined Mexican loyalties, perhaps Constitutionalist or perhaps Seditionist, attacked the town which was defended successfully by the 14th Cavalry.  Casualties were generally light on both sides during the battle, although four Americans and six Mexicans were killed.

The raid served to heighten already high tensions, which would be further inflamed by the events at Carrizal a few days later.

Cuts in government budgets, Wyoming's economic woes.

Governor Mead today announced that the state will cut its budget by $248,000,000.  The Department of Health's share of that is $90,000,000, which will result in the loss of 677 private sector jobs.  Mead cited the legislator's failure to enact Medicaid expansion as a factor in that loss.  The University of Wyoming will lose $35,000,000 by way of cuts, community colleges $20,000,000 and the Department of Corrections $17,000,000.

I understand the desperate financial situation, but I've noted that I think the cuts in education is ill advised.  Still, this is pretty good evidence of how strained the state's economy is right now.

More evidence, as if any was needed, was provided by the City of Casper the day before, which announced that it was cutting its budget by 37%, which will be accomplished partially by early retirements but which will not feature any layoffs.

The Gathering Storm: The Wyoming Tribune for June 21, 1916

The almost certain war with Mexico loomed large.  Locally, the problem was that the Wyoming National Guard was under strength and couldn't be mobilized until recruiting solved the problem.  Interestingly, this edition reported that the European Allies were seeking to keep a war from breaking out, which certainly would have been in their interest, and that they suspected Germany wanted war to erupt, which was in fact true.

The Judge Mentzer mentioned in this article was either the Cheyenne lawyer or his father who was a National Gaurdsmen and who died of a stroke or severe heart attack some years later during a long ride during a Guard Annual Training.

The Punitive Expedition: The Battle of Carrizal. June 21, 1916

Following the Battle of Parral, American forces did not advance further into Mexico but scouted out from locations that they were encamped in.  On June 20 the 10th Cavalry went out on such an expedition from Colonia Dublan and received reports of a Mexican Constitutionalist force in the vicinity.  They proceeded to encounter the force at Carrizal. The Mexican forces was deployed to block their further advance to the west and informed the American unit of the same, which in turn informed the Mexican force that it was to proceed through the town.  The Mexican force agreed to let a portion of the American one advance, ultimately, but fired upon it once it entered the town.

A battle ultimately ensued which resulted in the loss of ten enlisted men and two officers.  Unit cohesion was lost in the battle on both sides and the cavalry did not advance past the town. Several enlisted men were taken prisoner by Mexican forces but were repatriated at El Paso Texas ten days later.  Mexican losses were heavier, including the loss of their commanding officer in the unit.  Nonetheless, the battle may be taken as an indicator as to how the US expedition had bogged down into a type of stalemate whose character was changing.

 US troops being repatriated at El Paso.

The engagement was the costliest action that the US engaged in during the Punitive Expedition and it was correctly judged to be a defeat at the time.  The battle came at a point in time in which the US and Mexico were teetering on the brink of war and Pershing was sufficiently angered by it so that he sought permission to advance on Chihuahua City.  President Wilson denied him that permission which likely adverted full scale war breaking out.

Blog Mirror: Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and adoptive mom Orlando…

Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and adoptive mom

Orlando…

June 18, 2016 | leann28

It has obviously been several days since we heard of the tragedy in Orlando. I don’t even know where to begin with my thoughts about this horrible tragedy. And I don’t want my friends and family to think that my silence for this long means that I have not been thinking about it or that I am not saddened or angry by it. It simply means that I have been thinking about it and trying to figure out exactly what to say or do about it.

The Punitive Expedtion: Mgr. Lavelle Reviewing the 69th, New York, June 21,1916

Monsignor Lavelle reviews the New York National Guard's "Fighting" 69th Infantry Regiment.  The unit, which had Civil War fame, would go on to World War One fame.  It is particularly associated with Irish immigrants and shares Garryowen, the Irish tune, with the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment.

Blog Mirror: Painted Bricks: The Clyfford Still Museum, Denver Colorado

Painted Bricks: The Clyfford Still Museum, Denver Colorado:

Most of the signs up here are of older painted brick signs, of course. There are exceptions, and this is one, but this is particularly an exception as I'm going to comment.

Commentary from me isn't unusual, but usually it's on our Lex Anteinternet blog and not here.  But I cannot resist.

This is a very large sign skillfully rendering a photo of Clyfford Still into a sign. The big streaks on the end of the sign is a late example of Still's allegedly artistic work, better regarded as junk.

Still was a 20th Century artist who, starting off in the 1920s, had a public art career. Early on he actually painted figures but, starting in the 1930s, his work began to somewhat resemble that of other period modern artists and following that it was reduced to colored blotches such as we see Still, smoking a cigarette, contemplating here.  It's ironic that, in order to represent Still to the public, the museum hasto use a photograph, rather than one of his crappy pointless blotched up canvasses.

On the side of the photo the following is set out:

The canvas was his ally.
The paint and trowel were
his weapons. And the
art world was his enemy.

Apparently art itself, at least in an intelligible fashion capable of conveying some meaning to 99.9999% of humanity, was also his enemy as the result of the use of his weapons was the slaying of intelligibility.  It's complete junk.

But then, a lot of "modern" art is.

Well, in that war the guerilla of public indifference is probably the victor, as the big result of stuff like this is the separation of humanity from its artists.  So, if any meaning was intended to be conveyed, it's conveyed to a pretty self contained little crowd.

The Casper Record for June 20, 1916. War with Mexico inevitable

Compared to many other newspapers, the Casper Record always had a calm appearance. Nonetheless, on this day, Casper Record readers learned that we were almost certainly on the brink of war with Mexico.

More Monday At The Bar. U.S. Supreme Court: The Bill of Rights still doesn't apply to Indians on the Reservation.

One of the most shocking features of US Constitutional law is that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply, at all, to Indians on the Reservation.  It fully applies off the reservation, but not on.

This is so shocking that people will often refuse to believe it.  Even skilled legal practitioners will scoff at the thought.

Well, this past week the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion with no dissents, confirmed that this remains the law, overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Bryant.

I understand the basis of this line of legal thought, but frankly, I think it's appalling and that this old doctrine is long obsolete.  I can think of solid legal arguments for changing it that do not do violence to the Constitution, and which would certainly be less novel than Obergefell.

So, in the name of protecting tribal sovereignty, a laudable goal, the population that's been within the geography of the nation the longest, remains the one with the fewest rights, on the land where they are sovereign.  That's just wrong.  I realize that the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the ability to do what they will with the sovereign entities of the Tribes, and I realize that a less than stout Indian Bill of Rights is supposed to do something for Indians on their own lands, but in 2016, depriving Indians of their full rights on tribal lands is wrong, even if that means somewhat diminishing the sweeping authority that the tribes themselves have, as sovereign entities, within the reservations.

Additional Monday at the Bar. Lex Anteinternet: The ghost of the Crow Treaty of 1868 appears in a Wyoming Court (and soon in the Wyoming Supreme Court)

As we earlier reported on this item:

Lex Anteinternet: The ghost of the Crow Treaty of 1868 appears in a ...:    Crow Indians, 1908. These men may have been living at the time the Ft. Laramie Treaty came into being. The Casper Star Tribune rep...

the Crow game warden convicted in a Wyoming court of poaching just over the Wyoming border was, as noted, convicted.  Based on the reporting of the trial, the 1868 treaty wasn't asserted much, rather mistake of geography seems to have been. However, we need to keep in mind that reporting on legal matters is usually not completely accurate.

Suggesting that it was not, in fact, fully accurate we learn today in the Casper Start Tribune that the warden is appealing his conviction and asserting his rights under the 1868 Treaty as a basis for it. The article is somewhat confusing, however, in that it states he's appealing it to Wyoming's 4th Judicial District, which can't be accurate as that's the trial level court.  He'd have to appeal it to the Wyoming Supreme Court.  His lawyer indicates that they'll take it all the way up to the United States Supreme Court if they can and must, although getting a case up there isn't easy as it isn't by right.  Additionally, based upon last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bryant I wouldn't be terribly optimistic about that  effort as the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty clearly telegraphing that while it may have abandoned the traditional reading of the law in various things, in this area, Indian law, it apparently has not.

 

The courthouse for Wyoming's 4th Judicial District in Sheridan Wyoming.

The Big Picture: Holscher's Hub: New York Yankees v. Colorado Rockies, Coors Field....

Holscher's Hub: New York Yankees v. Colorado Rockies, Coors Field....

Cuts in higher education? Is this a good time? And a comment on UW football

 

 S.H. Knight Geology Building, 1986

Earlier this week Wyomingites were reading about new UW President Laurie Nichols declaring a "financial crisis" in existence that will allow her to act with greater freedmon in making the $41,000,000 in cuts that she has to make due to budget shortfalls, brougth about by the decline in energy revenues.  This followed the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees declaring an emergency to be in existence.

And an emergency it surely is.

And its an emergency for the University of Wyoming because the funding isn't there, but that  is, in part, a man made emergency.

It makes me sound  like a follower of John Maynard Keynes, which I am not, but this is a very poor time for the state to be cutting our colleges and university in terms of funding. The worst possible time, in fact.  Young men and women who were working in the energy sector will not be enrolling in college and university in droves, hoping that education will give them a second chance.  And for many of them it will.  Law school gave me a second chance when the energy industry collapsed in the early 1980s.  And I'm not the only one who was in that situation, and law wasn't the only route taken.  But the educational opportunities were there.

Class room in the S. H. Knight Building, 1986. 

This state makes a lot of noise about "learning" from our past mistakes. But we don't.  We don't diversify our economy. We don't seem to learn that limiting education means exporting our young population.  And we don't grasp that trying to grab the Federal domain, which we attempted in an earlier Sagebrush Rebellion that we're trying again, comes back to haunt us.  

Cutting education now is a terrible idea.  If we are really going to diversify our local economy, the generation entering college now is the generation that's going to do it.  This guts their chances, and ours by extension.

Before I leave U.W., I'll additionally comment, although I probably shouldn't, on the pablum in today's paper about UW football.

There's a column in the paper today just gushing about how "we" all love "our" football team.  It's just flowing with gushing admiration and praise about how this institution pulls the state together.

Well, bull.

I've lived in Wyoming my entire life and I haven't ever seen a UW football game.  Never.  I attended UW twice, starting off in 1983 and finishing up in 1990, and not once did I go to a game while I lived there.  When I lived there I mostly noted the home games by the influx of alumni and football attendees flooding Laramie, which after all isn't that big.

And I'm not a lone in that.  Yes, while I attended UW students went to the games, but I don't recall there being a fanatic devotion to the team while I was there.  Indeed, the basketball team seemed to have a bigger following, perhaps because it was really good in that time period.

Now, I'm fine with people having a fanatic level of devotion to UW football, but how is it that that the same week I'm reading about education, which is the real, and only, purpose of a university, being cut, while still reading about a program, football, that's entirely surplus to that purpose?  Something is amiss in that.

 

UW women's rugby. . . there are other sports other than football at UW.

Wyoming Tribune for June 19, 1916. The Guard Mobilized

Cheyenne residents were waking up this morning with news of the Punitive Expedition back on the front page.

We haven't run the 1916 local newspapers for awhile, but it's pretty clear that things were really heating up in regards to Mexico.  World War One had tended to push our expedition south off the front page for awhile, but it was back on in strength today.

While the Punitive Expedition was back on in strength, the huge battles occurring in the East were also making front page news.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Helen's Episcopal Church, Crowheart Community, Wyoming

Churches of the West: St. Helen's Episcopal Church, Crowheart Community, Wyoming

This church is located in Crowheart, Wyoming and, according to the sign out in front, it serves two denominations. It is, as the photos show, a small rural church.

The Crisis on the Border in 1916: The National Guard Mobilized

 New York National Guardsmen in Texas, 1916.

The National Guard is mobilized due to the ongoing crisis on the Mexican border caused by the Villista raid of Columbus New Mexico.  This included, of course, the somewhat short handed Wyoming National  Guard.

Mobilized New York National Guardsman.

Not all of the National Guard was Federalized at one time.  The entire National Guard had been Federalized prior to the entry of the United States in World War One, but the mobilization came in stages, with various units taking tours of duty along the Mexican border while the crisis with Mexico endured. The mobilization came to be a critical aspect of the United State's preparations for World War One, although accidentally, as it effectively meant that a huge proportion of the American defense establishment was mobilized and effectively training prior to the American entry into the war.

National Guard Camp, Camp Ordway Virginia, 1916.

Corporate farming. Why?

Nebraska prohibits corporate farming in its constitution:

XII-8.

Corporation acquiring an interest in real estate used for farming or ranching or engaging in farming or ranching; restrictions; Secretary of State, Attorney General; duties; Legislature; powers.

That Article XII of the Constitution of the State of Nebraska be amended by adding a new section numbered 8 and subsections as numbered, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Constitution.

Sec. 8(1) No corporation or syndicate shall acquire, or otherwise obtain an interest, whether legal, beneficial, or otherwise, in any title to real estate used for farming or ranching in this state, or engage in farming or ranching.

Corporation shall mean any corporation organized under the laws of any state of the United States or any country or any partnership of which such corporation is a partner.

Farming or ranching shall mean (i) the cultivation of land for the production of agricultural crops, fruit, or other horticultural products, or (ii) the ownership, keeping or feeding of animals for the production of livestock or livestock products.

Syndicate shall mean any limited partnership organized under the laws of any state of the United States or any country, other than limited partnerships in which the partners are members of a family, or a trust created for the benefit of a member of that family, related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred according to the rules of civil law, or their spouses, at least one of whom is a person residing on or actively engaged in the day to day labor and management of the farm or ranch, and none of whom are nonresident aliens. This shall not include general partnerships.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(A) A family farm or ranch corporation. Family farm or ranch corporation shall mean a corporation engaged in farming or ranching or the ownership of agricultural land, in which the majority of the voting stock is held by members of a family, or a trust created for the benefit of a member of that family, related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred according to the rules of civil law, or their spouses, at least one of whom is a person residing on or actively engaged in the day to day labor and management of the farm or ranch and none of whose stockholders are non-resident aliens and none of whose stockholders are corporations or partnerships, unless all of the stockholders or partners of such entities are persons related within the fourth degree of kindred to the majority of stockholders in the family farm corporation.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(B) Non-profit corporations.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(C) Nebraska Indian tribal corporations.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(D) Agricultural land, which, as of the effective date of this Act, is being farmed or ranched, or which is owned or leased, or in which there is a legal or beneficial interest in title directly or indirectly owned, acquired, or obtained by a corporation or syndicate, so long as such land or other interest in title shall be held in continuous ownership or under continuous lease by the same such corporation or syndicate, and including such additional ownership or leasehold as is reasonably necessary to meet the requirements of pollution control regulations. For the purposes of this exemption, land purchased on a contract signed as of the effective date of this amendment, shall be considered as owned on the effective date of this amendment.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(E) A farm or ranch operated for research or experimental purposes, if any commercial sales from such farm or ranch are only incidental to the research or experimental objectives of the corporation or syndicate.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(F) Agricultural land operated by a corporation for the purpose of raising poultry.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(G) Land leased by alfalfa processors for the production of alfalfa.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(H) Agricultural land operated for the purpose of growing seed, nursery plants, or sod.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(I) Mineral rights on agricultural land.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(J) Agricultural land acquired or leased by a corporation or syndicate for immediate or potential use for nonfarming or nonranching purposes. A corporation or syndicate may hold such agricultural land in such acreage as may be necessary to its nonfarm or nonranch business operation, but pending the development of such agricultural land for nonfarm or nonranch purposes, not to exceed a period of five years, such land may not be used for farming or ranching except under lease to a family farm or ranch corporation or a non-syndicate and non-corporate farm or ranch.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(K) Agricultural lands or livestock acquired by a corporation or syndicate by process of law in the collection of debts, or by any procedures for the enforcement of a lien, encumbrance, or claim thereon, whether created by mortgage or otherwise. Any lands so acquired shall be disposed of within a period of five years and shall not be used for farming or ranching prior to being disposed of, except under a lease to a family farm or ranch corporation or a non-syndicate and non-corporate farm or ranch.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(L) A bona fide encumbrance taken for purposes of security.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(M) Custom spraying, fertilizing, or harvesting.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(N) Livestock futures contracts, livestock purchased for slaughter, or livestock purchased and resold within two weeks.

If a family farm corporation, which has qualified under all the requirements of a family farm or ranch corporation, ceases to meet the defined criteria, it shall have fifty years, if the ownership of the majority of the stock of such corporation continues to be held by persons related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred or their spouses, and their landholdings are not increased, to either re-qualify as a family farm corporation or dissolve and return to personal ownership.

The Secretary of State shall monitor corporate and syndicate agricultural land purchases and corporate and syndicate farming and ranching operations, and notify the Attorney General of any possible violations. If the Attorney General has reason to believe that a corporation or syndicate is violating this amendment, he or she shall commence an action in district court to enjoin any pending illegal land purchase, or livestock operation, or to force divestiture of land held in violation of this amendment. The court shall order any land held in violation of this amendment to be divested within two years. If land so ordered by the court has not been divested within two years, the court shall declare the land escheated to the State of Nebraska.

If the Secretary of State or Attorney General fails to perform his or her duties as directed by this amendment, Nebraska citizens and entities shall have standing in district court to seek enforcement.

The Nebraska Legislature may enact, by general law, further restrictions prohibiting certain agricultural operations that the legislature deems contrary to the intent of this section.

North Dakota prohibits corporate farming by statute: 

10-06.1-02. Farming or ranching by corporations and limited liability companies prohibited.

All corporations and limited liability companies, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, are prohibited from owning or leasing land used for farming or ranching and from engaging in the business of farming or ranching. A corporation or a limited liability company may be a partner in a partnership that is in the business of farming or ranching only if that corporation or limited liability company complies with this chapter.

10-06.1-3. Retention of mineral interests prohibited.

For land and minerals acquired after July 1, 1985, any corporation or limited liability company that acquires mineral interests through foreclosure or in lieu of foreclosure which were not specifically valued at the time the security interest in the minerals was acquired, and which prohibited from owning or leasing land used in farming or ranching, is prohibited from retaining mineral interests in land used for farming or ranching when the corporation or limited liability company divests itself of the land, and the mineral interests must be passed with the surface estate of the land when the corporation or limited liability company divests itself of the land under this chapter.

South Dakota also prohibits its statutorily:

47-9A-1.   Agriculture prohibited as corporate or limited liability company purpose. The Legislature of the State of South Dakota recognizes the importance of the family farm to the economic and moral stability of the state, and the Legislature recognizes that the existence of the family farm is threatened by conglomerates in farming. Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state, and shall be the provision of this chapter, that, notwithstanding the provisions of § 47-1A-301, no foreign or domestic corporation, except as provided herein, shall be formed or licensed under the South Dakota Business Corporation Act for the purpose of owning, leasing, holding or otherwise controlling agricultural land to be used in the business of agriculture.

It is further declared that no foreign or domestic limited liability company, except as provided herein, shall be formed or licensed under the South Dakota Limited Liability Company Act for the purpose of owning, leasing, holding or otherwise controlling agricultural land to be used in the business of agriculture.

So does Kansas:

17-5904. Restrictions; exceptions; penalties. (a) No corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership, other than a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, limited liability agricultural company, family farm limited liability agricultural company, limited agricultural partnership, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust shall, either directly or indirectly, own, acquire or otherwise obtain or lease any agricultural land in this state. The restrictions provided in this section do not apply to the following:

(1) A bona fide encumbrance taken for purposes of security.

(2) Agricultural land when acquired as a gift, either by grant or devise, by a bona fide educational, religious or charitable nonprofit corporation.

(3)  Agricultural land acquired by a corporation or a limited liability company in such acreage as is necessary for the operation of a nonfarming business. Such land may not be used for farming except under lease to one or more natural persons, a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust. The corporation shall not engage, either directly or indirectly, in the farming operation and shall not receive any financial benefit, other than rent, from the farming operation.

(4)  Agricultural land acquired by a corporation or a limited liability company by process of law in the collection of debts, or pursuant to a contract for deed executed prior to the effective date of this act, or by any procedure for the enforcement of a lien or claim thereon, whether created by mortgage or otherwise, if such corporation divests itself of any such agricultural land within 10 years after such process of law, contract or procedure, except that provisions of K.S.A. 9-1102, and amendments thereto, shall apply to any bank which acquires agricultural land.

(5) A municipal corporation.

(6)  Agricultural land which is acquired by a trust company or bank in a fiduciary capacity or as a trustee for a nonprofit corporation.

(7)  Agricultural land owned or leased or held under a lease purchase agreement as described in K.S.A. 12-1741, and amendments thereto, by a corporation, corporate partnership, limited corporate partnership or trust on the effective date of this act if: (A) Any such entity owned or leased such agricultural land prior to July 1, 1965, provided such entity shall not own or lease any greater acreage of agricultural land than it owned or leased prior to the effective date of this act unless it is in compliance with the provisions of this act; (B) any such entity was in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal by this act, provided such entity shall not own or lease any greater acreage of agricultural land than it owned or leased prior to the effective date of this act unless it is in compliance with the provisions of this act, and absence of evidence in the records of the county where such land is located of a judicial determination that such entity violated the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal shall constitute proof that the provisions of this act do not apply to such agricultural land, and that such entity was in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal; or (C) any such entity was not in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal by this act, but is in compliance with the provisions of this act by July 1, 1991.

(8)  Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company for use as a feedlot, a poultry confinement facility or rabbit confinement facility.

(9) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation for the purpose of the production of timber, forest products, nursery products or sod.

(10) Agricultural land used for bona fide educational research or scientific or experimental farming.

(11)  Agricultural land used for the commercial production and conditioning of seed for sale or resale as seed or for the growing of alfalfa by an alfalfa processing entity if such land is located within 30 miles of such entity's plant site.

(12) Agricultural land owned or leased by a corporate partnership or limited corporate partnership in which the partners associated therein are either natural persons, family farm corporations, authorized farm corporations, limited liability agricultural companies, family trusts, authorized trusts or testamentary trusts.

(13) Any corporation, either domestic or foreign, or any limited liability company, organized for coal mining purposes which engages in farming on any tract of land owned by it which has been strip mined for coal.

(14) Agricultural land owned or leased by a limited partnership prior to the effective date of this act.

(15)  Except as provided by K.S.A. 17-5908, as it existed before the effective date of this act, and K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 17-5909, agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company for use as a swine production facility in any county which, before the effective date of this act, has voted favorably pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5908, as it existed before the effective date of this act, either by county resolution or by the electorate.

(16)  Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership for use as a swine production facility in any county where the voters, after the effective date of this act, have voted pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5908, and amendments thereto, to allow establishment of swine production facilities within the county.

(17) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership for use as a dairy production facility in any county which has voted favorably pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5907, and amendments thereto, either by county resolution or by the electorate.

(18) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company used in a hydroponics setting.

(b)  Production contracts entered into by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership and a person engaged in farming for the production of agricultural products shall not be construed to mean the ownership, acquisition, obtainment or lease, either directly or indirectly, of any agricultural land in this state.

(c) Any corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership, other than a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, limited liability agricultural company, family farm limited liability agricultural company, limited agricultural partnership, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust, violating the provisions of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 and shall divest itself of any land acquired in violation of this section within one year after judgment is entered in the action. The district courts of this state may prevent and restrain violations of this section through the issuance of an injunction. The attorney general or district or county attorney shall institute suits on behalf of the state to enforce the provisions of this section.

(d)  Civil penalties sued for and recovered by the attorney general shall be paid into the state general fund. Civil penalties sued for and recovered by the county attorney or district attorney shall be paid into the general fund of the county where the proceedings were instigated.

Food for thought for Wyoming?

Mixed energy news

Kiewit  layed off forty-five workers earlier this week at its Wyoming Buckskin Mine.  More bad news for coal.

The state's actually looking at filing suit on the moratorium on leases for coal on Federal land, a suit which won't bring any jobs to the table, coals struggles right now are economic, not regulatory, but showing how the whole issue raises distracting issues at the local level, that in turn end up in political campaigns.

On the flip-side, however, one of the local drilling companies is now advertising for hands, quite a change over recent trends  Perhaps reflecting a bet on the stabilization of oil at the current price?

Twitterification

How is that we have become so unfortunate that every politician  now "tweets"?

My, what a change in a century. From an era when political oratory was so advanced that people would listen to it for hours, to one in which every politician now feeds snippets via Twitter.  A sad development indeed.

Boy Scouts Incorporated under Federal Statute, June 15, 1916

Boy Scout poster during World War One encouraging participatin in the Third Liberty Loan.

The Boy Scouts of America were incorporated on this date under a Federal statutory provision.  This is very unusual, as most corporations are legal creatures of state law, not Federal law.

The Boy Scouts of America were part of a huge international movement started by Lord Baden Powell, a British Army officer who had once been the British Army's chief cavalryman.  Distressed by the lack of outdoor skills in British soldiers during the Boer War, he created the scouts tin encourage manly virtues in youth.  A girls variant soon followed.  The early movement emphasized "scouting", i.e., bush craft, as well as many virtues and Christian morals.

Preparedness Day Parade, June 14, 1916.

With "he kept us out of war" getting to be an increasingly unlikely statement for his second term, President Wilson lead a Preparedness Day Parade, held on Flag Day, June 14, 1916.

The Naysayers Busy Bodies. People who feel they have to stop other people doing something harmless, or even fun, or know what you ought to do where you have no moral obligation to do anything.

Oh just stop.

You know who you are.  That person is doing that thing, something you probably don't do, and they're having fun doing it.  It isn't immoral, it isn't dangerous, it just bugs you.

Well, sir or madam, you have a problem and should knock it off.

Over the last several years I've been confronted with Naysayers and Busy Bodies. Indeed, I think I've written on one of these encounters before, but I'm not quite sure where that entry is, so I'm repeating the topic and adding to it.  In part because I am, quite frankly, irritated.

Now, first I have to note something.

I own some land.

That doesn't make me a massive land owners. By some, I mean a little.  I don't often note this, but one of these small parcels was recently noted here in the context of a garden that's on it.  And I own a little more than that. Not so much that I could make a living off of it or anything.

Now, I don't publicize this much on purpose. Say anything, and unless a person already knows you well, in which case they already know that you own some land, they make assumptions that are wildly inaccurate.  A person can be dirt poor and be a landowner, for example, but people will not assume that.

Now, one of these small plots of land is quite near an area which is itself now quite near the city.  When my family acquired it, this was not true.  So that means that we're likely the people with the oldest continual title to the land in the area, or nearly so.  As we also don't feel compelled to put up a house on something simply because we have it, so over time its become one of the few undeveloped parcels where it is.  This means, apparently, that people observe it. I'm fine with that, to a degree.  But I'm amazed by how people react to things in regards to that.

For example, there used to be a couple of teenage girls who lived about a mile away who had horses.  They'd ride them around the area and, as this lot is on the river, they'd ride down to the river on their horses.  I knew that somebody did that, as I could see their shod prints, but I like horses and riding and so it never bothered me.  

Apparently it bothered a neighbor, however, as the girls went riding by one day.  Knowing that they'd never asked permission to come on, they rode on by, but not before a neighbor came out and chewed them out as the horses deposited horse flop in the road.

Now, I find it exceedingly difficult to care about that, but the neighbor in question was so offended by horse flop in the road that after she chewed the teenager out she came over to inform me of just her doing that, and that they rode on my place.  I told her that was okay with me.  The girls then rode back by, on their way home, and entered the place, probably having witnessed the lady speaking to me and feeling they'd been caught.  They confessed their trespass.  I simply gave them permission to come on.

I guess I appreciate that my neighbor (now passed on) watched my place so carefully, but why the offense over the horses?

At the same location, about a decade ago, I stopped by on the way home from duck hunting, with my then young son, to see if there might be some ducks in the river.  I did get a passing shot.  Another extremely reclusive neighbor (I saw him for the first time today) called the sheriffs out as I'd shot.  They came on, thinking I must have been a trespasser, and they were sheepish when they found out that I owned the place.  Shooting is legal in the county and the neighbor had no business calling the sheriffs out on me on my own place, even if he didn't know who I was.  Today, if the sheriffs showed up that way, I'd read them the riot act. At the time I was pretty polite about it.

Well, just this past week my son was out on the place and fired a couple of shots from a pistol. The neighbor came out and yelled at him.  He hung around, probably recalling a decade ago, in case the sheriffs came out, but they didn't come.

It turns out they were called, which I now know, as I was burning dead timber, very carefully, when the neighbor came out and called over the fence to ask if I had a fire going. Well, of course I did, and I appreciate the concern over fire, but then asked about the pistol shots.  After learning they were ours, he went on about how you couldn't shoot there etc., he'd called the sheriff, until I did something I rarely do, which is to say "I'm a lawyer and I know you can shoot here". The grimace on his face told the story, he knew that he'd blown it.  I was polite about it.  He, and his wife, then went on a long conversation detailing other complaints of a minor variety he had in the area with other people.  The ultimate irony was that he was wearing a National Rifle Association hat.

Well, I don't appreciate being told that I can't do something that I know I can.  One real advantage of being a lawyer is knowing the rules.  I also don't appreciate the enforcement of a self declared set of rules by a guy who is, from my prospective, a new comer even if he's been there for years.  I further don't appreciate instructions on this score from somebody who isn't even from this country.  If he doesn't like life in the county, he can move to the city, or better yet back to his native country.

Well, on another piece of land that I have there are a set of building associated with it. They aren't on ours, but they're close.  I know on that land a person called up the owner to complain about the cows getting in, some of which are mind.  The buildings are indeed very old, but hey, they're not some remote persons and the cows are part of our livelihood.  Geez, man, give us a break, we're not tearing the old buildings down or anything.

Again, I know that this is whining, but I'm amazed by the degree to which people choose to police the harmless conduct of others.  The fellow who gets upset about our shooting has a yard that looks terrible in comparison to the prior owners.  We're not stopping him from doing anything, why is he trying to stop us.  People have a right to ride horses in rural areas here, why harass teenagers who are doing that?  And were the horses going down to the river that big of deal?  And why are you watching the old buildings on a place you don't own?

Golf returns to the Olympics for the first time since 1904

Silver medal winner in Olympic Golf, U.S. Golfer Chandler Egan.

Golf is returning as a sport to the Olympics.  It hasn't been one since 1904.

I don't care for golf. That doesn't mean that I don't know how to play it.  I find myself curiously like the Matthew Quigley character in Quigley Down Under, who in the final scene (spoiler alert) guns down the evil opponent with the opponents own Colt Navy revolver, which that character has provided to him, in a duel, and then states "I said I never had much use for one. . . not that I didn't know how to use one."  I know how to play golf, I just don't like playing it.

It's not like I hate the sport either, I just find it sort of dull.  I suspect that in its original version this wasn't so.  The origin of golf is murky, but nobody doubts that the modern game had is origin in Scotland.  Oddly, the first mention of it is when King James II banned it as a distraction to practicing archery.  King James IV lifted the ban.  He was a golfer.

I suspect that the origins of the game probably had something to do with bored Scottish sheepherders, and maybe Scotch Whiskey.  But that's just my theory.  In the modern era it became associated for a time with wealth, and then later with a sort of WASPish culture, but that was probably always somewhat unfair.  To the extent that reputation was warranted it probably stemmed from social conditions in which only the fairly well off had leisure, and golf takes quite a bit of time to master and play.

Woman's champion golfer, Katherine Harley, 1908.

Still, it had that reputation sufficiently by the 1920s that the occupation of female golfer was used for one of the well to do, Jordan Baker, in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.  Of note, Tom Buchanan, the old money figure in the novel who doesn't really do anything, is defined by his college sporting activity of football and his present sport, polo, which sort of shows their position at that time.  But whether or not (and I think not) all golfers were well to do, it certainly also became as port widely played by professionals and businessmen at one time.

President Taft and his golfing pals.

Around here, when I was growing up, it seemed like golf was pretty popular generally.  At that time Casper had three golf courses and my mother played golf.  She was very good at it, and had one a trophy when she first moved here from a championship that involved people working in the oil and gas industry.  My father never played it, but it seemed like quite a few of the men that he knew did.  Golf was certainly played by a wide variety of people and by that time it didn't cost a great deal to do it, unless, like all sports, you wanted it to cost a great deal.  

I never developed an affinity for it, however, in spite of my mother's efforts to teach it to me. As a kid I spent one whole summer learning it and golfing fairly regularly.  I still know quite a few holds on the golf course by heart.  But it never took.  After that one summer I gave it up (I must have been in junior high at the time) and never looked back.

When I was first practicing law, however, my lack of golfing status was almost unusual.  Lots of lawyers played golf and the association with lawyers and golf, which doesn't come from Wyoming (where a golfer is just as likely to be an oilfield roughneck) is so strong that in some places not being a golfing lawyer is a surprise to outsiders. Recently, for example, I went to Florida on depositions and the area I was in, Naples, is apparently well known for its golf courses.  I didn't know that.  At the depositions the court reporter asked if we (me, and the opposing lawyer) golfed.  "No", came our reply and I noted that the same area is apparently noted for tarpon fishing, and I do fish.  No matter, the court report expressed surprise and went on to list the many undoubtedly fine golf courses in the area.

As an other example, some years ago I had a case with an older lawyer from Cheyenne, and every time we were anywhere in the case he asked if I golfed.  "No" came the reply, and each time he replied "oh, you should take it up" and a listing of the local courses.  

Well, I'm not going to take it up I think, unless I get lucky enough to retire and have some of my good friends also retire and they take up golf, something that appears unlikely to ever occur.  I'd rather fish and hunt, or do other outdoor activities.  Golf doesn't interest me that much.  I sometimes joke that a golf course is a waste of a good hay field, but in all honest I"m glad golf courses are t here, as when they disappear, they tend to turn into housing developments.  And there are now four courses here in town, although the one, on edge of the river, on the edge of town, has so many geese I also sometimes joke that it should be opened up for goose hunting in the Fall.

Golf seems to have fallen a bit on hard times recently as a sport in the US, and at least by my observation that is reflected in the professions.  Younger lawyers I know don't golf.  When I first was practicing law in our firm, all but one of the lawyers golfed (or all but two, if I include myself).  Now, only one does.  Nobody younger than me, and I'm not young, golfs. The county bar association used to put on an annual match, but it's given it up and hasn't held it now for years.  I think all of this is associated with a decline in leisure time in the US, and frankly that isn't good.  Leisure it self has been defined by a wide variety of philosophers as the basis of civilization, with that thought being so wide that it has been stated by both Eastern and Western philosophers.  But in recent decades, at least in the US, time for anything but work has tended to evaporate for a  large number of people.

Well, back to golf in the Olympics.  I'm glad its returning, and I'm quite surprised, really, that it ever left.  Its an individual sport that a lot of people in a lot of places play. Good decision, Olympics, to restore it.

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Federal Building, Anchorage Alaska

Courthouses of the West: Federal Building, Anchorage Alaska:

This is the Federal Building in Anchorage Alaska, which was built in 1941.  The Art Deco style building is very substantial, and the building is one of several in Anchorage which show the extent of development in the city in the 1930s and 1940s.  It was, and is, a very modern building for the port city, which might surprise those who wouldn't have expected this type of architecture and development for Anchorage in this, pre oil development, era.

The courtroom was, and is, a prominent feature of the building.

Rushing to favorite conclusions and arguments: Terrorist strike in Florida

It's interesting, and a bit sad, that after any one particular type of act masses of people, from political commentators, to news article "comment" posters, rush to arguments they like to make as if they are really relevant to the issue at hand.

We're in a long term, mostly urban, domestic guerilla war being waged by a mostly foreign enemy but one that does have fighters on our own soil.  We haven't, as a society, ever dealt with a war of this type really.  The last Western nation to do so was France, in Algeria when it fought the FLN in Algeria, including Algiers, and in France itself.  In a war of this type, individuals and groups of individuals can and will strike on an almost entirely random basis.  But strike they will.

Some of these terrorists are weak minded and unhinged. Not all are. But some certainly are. And of those, some will act fully independently in a way that we cannot not only not predict, but, added to that, in ways that aren't even predictable to those whose campaigns these people adopt.

It can't be fully said that these people would not act in this fashion but for the guerilla war.  But that can at least partially be said.  And again, not all are weak minded. For the weak minded and mentally ill, the war gives them something to focus on and define themselves by.  Not every radical during the Russian Revolution had thought out Socialism.  Plenty of the German street fighters for the Nazis prior to 1932 who joined the SA hadn't delved into Nazism deeply.  There's no reason to believe that Muslim terrorists, foreign or domestic, have really struggled with their consciences and determined to act out of deep conviction.  Probably plenty of them were angry or confused young men, and women, prior to defining their anger by jihad.

Still, we should not discount that some have done just that. Islam does have dark passages that do indeed call for violence against the infidel and tens of thousands of young Muslims, some converts, have answered the black flag of ISIL. And ISIL is calling for its adherents to strike here.

Under these circumstances the instant argument on gun control that immediately comes up is really misplaced.  Firearms technology, in real terms, has changed very little since the 192s really and automatically cycling weapons have been available since just after 1900.  Handgun technology was perfected around 1911 and hasn't really changed at all since that time.  What has changed is that we're at war with a domestic enemy on our own soils.  And what has also changed is that we have a large number of mostly young men whom we've sidelined in our new computer driven technological world, with that world being one in which all morals are treated as simply being personal choices. We dealt with this in depth in our thread (once one of the most read here) Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities.  And we also dealt with the very topic we're now addressing in this thread in our also once highly read Playing Games with Names and Burying Heads in the Sand. Mischaracterizing violence and ignoring its nature at the same time.

It isn't as if, however, pundits, politicians, and commentators of all types are going to come here and read this and be convinced of anything, however.  But mark my words, sadly, all the debate on this topic is darned near pointless.  Restriction and police action did nothing whatsoever to stop the FLN's campaign for Algerian independence.  Only Algerian independence did, although a counter terrorism campaign featuring terrorism itself darned near achieved the opposite result, before the French public became disgusted with it (I'm not suggesting here we adopt such tactics).  Control of various types did not prevent this same thing from happening in Brussels and Paris.  What will stop it is the defeat of ISIL, which is actually occurring. But that's a long term effort.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Related Threads:

Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities.

Playing Games with Names and Burying Heads in the Sand. Mischaracterizing violence and ignoring its nature at the same time.

Movies in History: Barry Lyndon

I saw this film many years ago, in pieces (that is, I saw it on television, in chunks, which is never a good way to view anything).  I recalled liking it at the time, and only recently have I been able to view it again.

This film is a 1975 film by Stanly Kubrick which is a surprising effort by Kubrick to film William Makepeace Thakeray's novel The Luck of Barry Lyndon.  Thackeray's works satired English society of his own time, the 19th Century. The novel, like the film, was set in the late 18th Century and early 19th Century, and it is loosely based on an actual person.

The film follows the life of Redmond Barry, who we understand to be a member of the Irish gentry of that period.  Not ever explained, but fairly obvious from the context for a person familiar with Irish history, is that Barry is a member of a minor Irish noble family, hence he's actually an Anglo Irish protestant.  While the film does not explain that, an understanding of that serves to make some sense out of the plot which might otherwise be a bit mysterious in some ways.

Barry's story commences with the death of his father in a duel, which effectively places the family into a species of poverty, and goes early on to a doomed romance between Barry and a cousin, who rejects him in favor of an English army office. The film takes place during the Seven Years War, which figure prominently in the plot line.  This launches Barry on a series of unlikely, but very well presented and, in the context of the film, and indeed of the times, seemingly plausible adventures and occurrences.  Barry is followed through service with the English, and then Prussian, armies and on into his marriage to an English noblewoman.  All along, the viewer is left wondering if he likes Barry or not, which would be consistent, apparently, with Thackeray's novel, in which a clueless Barry narrates his own story.

We, of course, review movies not so much for their plots (although we certainly consider that) but also for their service or disservice to history.  And Barry Lyndon gets high marks in those regards.  The acting in the film is curiously flat by many of the actors, but that actually serves the character of Barry Lyndon, as he is called after he marries Lady Lyndon, and Lady Lyndon, quite well.  This is one of two films by Ryan O'Neal, the other being Paper Moon, which was released two years earlier.  O'Neal's portrayal in Paper Moon is so different in character that the flat portrayal in Barry Lyndon must seem to be a directors choice, which does indeed serve the film well, given that much of it is a character study of European gentry and nobility of this period.  Frankly, the gentry and nobility do not come across particularly well.

Material details are very well done.  Clothing styles change appropriately over time.  The details of noble English households are very well portrayed, including the peculiar relationship that sometimes existed between Anglican clerics and those households.  The moral decline that was going on in this era amongst the well to do is a major subject of of the film and subtly and excellently portrayed.   Indeed, moral decline is a frequent subtle topic of Kubrick films, with Kubrick having been a devout Catholic.  The strange nature of European armies and their rank and files is excellently portrayed as well.  The details of the very strange custom of dueling are accurately portrayed.

About the only real criticism that can be offered here is that it's pretty obvious that Ryan O'Neal didn't know how to ride a horse, and those scenes in which he rides are painful to watch for somebody with knowledge on riding. Otherwise, the film is excellent.

Sunday Morning Scence: Churches of the West: St. Edward's Catholic Church, Wind River Reservation

Churches of the West: St. Edward's Catholic Church, Wind River Reservation.


These are photographs of St. Edward's Catholic Church, north of Riverton, Wyoming and near Kinnear. This church was moved to this location in 1977. It had originally been located in Pavillion, some miles away, and was built in 1924.