The Big Top

Today will be Brett Kavanaugh's first day as a sitting justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Robert Bork in 2005.  Bork's nomination by Ronald Reagan, and its defeat at the hands of Joe Biden, gave us the modern Supreme Court era.  Bork was a University of Chicago educated lawyer who quit a law practice to the shock of his partners to become a law professor and then went on to become U.S. Solicitor and a Federal Court Judge.  At the time of his leaving private practice his close friends noted that he stated he didn't want to leave a legacy of "depositions, briefs and money".  He would leave a real legacy, but it was no doubt not the one in some ways that he hoped to leave.

I had predicted that the Kavanaugh nomination would be a circus.  I just didn't realize the extent to which my prediction would prove true.

It's been absolutely crazy. Even shameful.

We still don't really know what happened on that night back in the early 1980s at a high school party or that evening at an alleged college party.   We are never going to know, probably.  It's actually perfectly possible that every single person involved is telling the truth.  If the show surrounding the nomination provided any service to the nation in a larger societal sense, it might be in exposing the moral decline that had set in by the late 1970s and early 1980s from which we are now thankfully rapidly retreating, even if we fear on actually re-adopting the standards that a full retreat would require.  I can believe that Dr. Ford went to a high school drinking party in an innocent naive fashion three decades ago and was the victim of a violent groping assault that scared her, and I can believe that boys at that party through that they had the license to do that and it would just be good fun (I'm less willing to believe that their motivation was actual rape).  I can also believe that at a college party at Yale Mrs. Ramirez, after having drunk too much, was the victim of an indecent exposure by a male student and that likewise that student didn't think it assault but license.  I can also believe that Kavanaugh was a male participant in all of that.

At the same time, however, I can also believe that the long passage of time and the vagaries of memory could have messed with the accuracy of all of those recollections.  Peoples memories fail and become altered.  Either a lot of memory failure is operating here in this case, or somebody is lying.  We're not going to ever know what the situation is.

That is, I suppose the nature of recalling, but the bigger problem here is that it is now perfectly clear, if it wasn't before, that the political left has reached such a state of contempt for large sections of the voting public that it will go to nearly any extreme to prevent the electorate from voting on certain issues.  The left feels more comfortable with a type of judicial dictatorship than it does with democracy. That is, at the end of the day, which much of this is about.  The left fears that a conservative tilt to the Supreme Court will mean that the court will review decisions in which it also feels that there is little Constitutional support for the holdings and reverse them, sending the questions back to the states, where it fears it will loose.  Posed in terms of "right", it's a contest between whether a judicially constructed thin construction of rights should trump the rights of the electorate. That's a dangerous place to be as it could just as easily flip.  The left should perhaps stop and consider what it would mean if really conservative justices accepting a theory of natural law took the same approach as liberal judges have in the past and imposed a new set of rights and duties based on that analysis.

Much of this simply didn't seem to come up.  There wasn't a heated debate on "strict construction" as opposed to "living documents" or the like, which would have been instructive.  The arguments just devolved to theater, with those opposed to Kavanaugh largely acting as if he was a fascist there to seize rights rather than perhaps a jurist who might operate in combine to return questions to the states.

That's bad enough, but we've been seeing things like that every since Robert Bork's nomination went down in a debate that at least did discuss real issues and theories.  His mistake, of course, was in honestly answering the questions posed to him.  Now nobody makes that mistake, which is part of the reason we have the circus we do. We can thank Joe Biden, who lead the charge against Bork, for that.

But beyond that what is also now apparent is that there are certain elements on the left who feel that any effort is justified to prevent a conservative justice from being seated.  That effort is quixotic but scary.  That group doesn't feel that lying to keep a judge off the bench is wrong, but rather laudable.

I'm not saying that either Ford or Ramirez fit that mold.  But I am saying that those who fit into that camp are pretty happy to use and emphasize memories that they have that may or may not be faulty.  Both Ford and Ramirez did not wish to come forward but were forced by the times, or in Ford's case by unwanted disclosure in a questionable manner, to do just that.

This is a new development.  When Bork was taken down so many years ago, it was pretty openly due to his views, which actually were novel at the time, following a long Supreme Court departure from originalism.  Agree with the views held by Biden or Bork, at least it was views that were in contest.  Following that we had the entire saga surrounding Justice Thomas an Anita Hill, which is still one in which we don't know what happened a person's views tend to follow their political beliefs, but this takes the entire drama one step higher and indeed further than what seemed to be a new accommodation which was similar to the old one which was outside of pure political advantage (a factor that was always there in spite of what people claim), qualified justices would be approved.  Now it's pretty clear that qualified conservative justices will be uniformly contested on any grounds, real, suspected, or constructed, and we can presume the same will be the case for liberal justices as well.

This next act of the circus seems to have come about largely due to Trump's election, which the left has an absolutely over the top reaction to.  Readers here will recall that I was never a Trump fan and was surprised by his nomination and his election.  But the "resistance" attitude to a legitimately elected President is scary.  Not that even this is wholly new, in spite of what people claim.  That sort of view seems to have dated back to Barrack Obama's first election at which point a certain percentage of the political right took an absolutely over the top view of his election, and maintained all sorts of absurd claims regarding it.  As a result of this, we're now into the tenth year of an escalating and ever more extreme resistance to the occupier of the White House in a fashion which we have not seen since the Civil War.  It's a bleak situation to be sure.

And therefore it's probably naturally that its finally spilled full scale over to the Federal judiciary.  One can only hope that at some point this sort of behavior stops, but there's no end in sight anywhere.  All of which takes us back to Kavanaugh.

Now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed can we say he should have been?  Based on what we know, I would have voted to confirm.  I don't think he was the ideal choice, and I do think his views on executive privilege are really troubling.  Those alone would have caused me to question passing him, but they're not sufficiently dominating that I think a person can legitimately get to a no.

Added to that, and no doubt plain from my earlier writings I"m really tired of Ivy League appointees to the Supreme Court and that would have influenced me a little.  I refuse to believe that the only ones who are qualified to occupy the highest courts are those who came out of Harvard, Yale, etc. That can't be true, and that view is serving to further convert the Supreme Court into a Platonic Council of Elders, which is not what the Supreme Court should be.  It also serves to elevate the law schools of those sch

And the claims of moral turpitude?  Well, what with the Me Too movement blooming into full flower and then being taken over, i.e., having gone from legitimate exposures of sexual misconduct to lewd conduct or even the suggestion of lewd conduct, we've entered an era when any figure, usually a male, can seemingly have his career wrecked by a mere allegation.  Did Senator Al Franken deserve his downfall for acting like a lout?  Should people whose careers are well advanced see them go down by allegation alone.

At least in Kavanaugh's case, it would appear that the answer would be no, but there were those who seriously argued for that and who are very much offended.  Indeed, Kavanaugh's words in his resumed confirmation hearing when he made an observation about "what comes around goes around" were taken boldly out of context by those who, if they'd read them, should have known that they were misrepresenting what he said.

So where should all of this lead us?

Well, for one thing perhaps there needs to be some sort of consensus that times change and people do as well.  Bringing up crimes that can be proven are one thing, but perhaps a societal statute of limitations needs to exist on allegations of old past misconduct that are truly old.  That is, perhaps people shouldn't be deemed to be presently condemned for allegations or past misbehavior from decades ago if there's no suggestion, and here there wasn't, that such conduct pressed forward to the current day.  Nobody ever maintained such a thing here, and all the argument was on what happened decades ago.

Likewise, perhaps its okay to acknowledge, as some are in fact doing, that the standards of the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s that applied to the young were debased.  If we do, we have to look at where that took us and what it means for us today, and we don't seem to want to do that.  But if we're going to condemn people for acting in a manner that was actually celebrated at the time in film (and yesterday's example of Animal House is hardly the only one that could be given), maybe we better see where that same movement took us and where we're acting on it today.  We always consider our present standards to be prefect, but they rarely are, and linear time is always impacted by what came before it.

Finally, while everyone has been saying it, at some point the dysfunction in the nation's politics has got to cease.  There is seemingly no end in sight, and the Democrats are focused on the election next month with the hope that they'll take the Senate and maybe the House and then the resistance will be able to set in.  In other words, there seems to be no hope for a return to any sort of normalcy for the rest of this Presidential term, which unfortunately means that much of the nation will continue to be unwilling circus viewers while those enjoying it, and there are many, on the right and the left continue the show.

Monday at the Bar: International Law Class, Columbia University. October 2, 1918. Observations on dress, then and now.

This interesting photograph depicts an "International Law Class" at Columbia on October 2, 1918.

It's an interesting photograph.

First let's note that the caption doesn't tell us that this is actually a law school class, just an International Law Class.  The two might not be the same.  Nonetheless this is interesting for a reason that will be made plain below.

On the anniversary of this photo being taken it was posted on Reddit's 100 Years Ago Subreddit.  Many people noted how well dressed the students were in this photograph, some lamenting that they don't dress like that today.  Indeed, when did students cease dressing in this fashion?  I.e. at what point did students quit dressing in suits?  It was very common at the time.

One commentator, apparently a teacher or professor of some sort, noted this:

Interesting how many of the hair styles are similar to what I see in my classes today. Lots of hard parts and fades going on.

Is that right?  I don't follow such things.

Another person noted what I just did, that being:

Look at all the students in suits, however. I've never seen that ever.

That brought this response:

 did you go to law or business school? it’s still incredibly common there.

Oh bull.

A couple of people followed up on that, but frankly dressing like this isn't common, in so far as I'm aware, at any level of study among students today except, perhaps, at some prep schools where ties and jackets are still required. That would be about it.

But that wasn't always the case.  At one time it was so common that we'd expect a photo of university students to feature coats and ties.  When did that change?  Prior to World War Two?

Indeed, I think that proof that its quite uncommon today is amply demonstrated by the following post from Princeton Career Services:

What to Wear: "Professional" vs. "Business Casual"

With a new job or internship on the horizon (or even as you attend Meetups and networking events) it's important to put some thought into what you wear. Some may already have a closet of work-appropriate garments, ready for day-to-day use. Others may need to start from scratch, or close to it. If you're in need of some professional attire, check out our TigerThreads program. Here’s how to get started with office-ready essentials.

Understanding Professional Standards

From office to office, style expectations vary, although certain industries always demand a professional look. Think finance or law, for example, where suits and ties are a day-in, day-out requirement. In some ways, this makes things simpler. Professional attire almost always means:

• Suits (with tie) for men, paired with a solid-colored dress shirt
• Suits, pants suits or dresses with jacket for women
• Neutral colors and conservative footwear for all
• Clean grooming, ironed clothes and attention paid to the details

Mastering Business Casual

On the other side of the spectrum is business casual. First things first, this is not casual in the way you may expect — even if we sometimes wish it was. In other words, jeans and sneakers do not generally apply. The key is to maintain a professional presence, even if you’re not in a suit or tie. Remember, you represent your organization, so you want to make an effort, no matter what day of the week.

• From day one: Dress more formally, and observe your peers, which can help you decode your office. That said, even if dress is more casual, it may show ambition to dress it up a bit.
• For her: From tailored pants to dresses (not more than an inch or two above the knee), women have options. Aim to keep footwear relatively conservative.
• For him: Dress pants, a collared shirt and a belt are standard. Blazers, tailored sweaters and leather shoes work as well.
• For everyone: Avoid jeans until you’re certain when they are acceptable…which can range from Fridays-only to never. This is not an area in which to be a trailblazer. Trendier clothes may be ok, within reason, but take cues from others.

Over the years, “business casual” has shifted in a more casual direction, which can make things a bit confusing, especially when you’re first starting out. By keeping an eye on your peers, however, you’ll get the swing of it in no time.

Would Princeton students have required this advice in 1918?  1968?  1978?

Apparently they do now.

Even at that, however, what Princeton notes isn't really that true anymore.  Princeton is wise to urge students to "Think finance or law, for example" but they're wrong that "suits and ties are a day-in, day out requirement" everywhere.

They aren't where I am.

Now, they may be elsewhere, but I've noticed that in recent years the standard on this has slipped in Denver.  Denver is the big city around here and at one time, indeed, I'd find that lawyers and businessmen were very well dressed as a rule.  Now, when I go to depositions in Denver, I'm usually the only lawyer wearing a tie.  I still do, but it's not the norm.  It is for court appearances of course (it's the rule) and for other formal legal settings, but as daily office wear?  Well, not so much anymore.

Indeed, I recently had a Denver lawyer who is a friend of mine stop in the office.  I was wearing full legal regalia at the time and the first thing he said to me was "You even wear a tie in the office?".  I don't a lot of days, but I'm one of the few lawyers left that I know who does at least 50% of the time.  Indeed, it probably makes me look like a stone age lawyer to some.

I was dressed that way, on that day, as I did have a proceeding to attend.

But on an average day in our office, of the male lawyers only tone wears coat and tie every day, and he's really an exception to the rule.  I'm the only one who otherwise frequently wears them.  A couple absolutely never do.  I notice that the female lawyers dress better on a daily basis then the men do, and that lawyers who have a lot of business and estate work where they might expect unannounced pop ins generally dress better than lawyers who are litigators, who truth be known spend hours locked in their offices (it isn't daily court work like imagined).

Quite a change, and a change even over a relatively short period of time.

Another comment was this one:

Why it's all white men. Can you imagine that sort of society? I do like the suits, though. Let's bring back suits for students.

That didn't really strike me until the person noted it, but then I look at a lot of old photographs for this blog so that's probably why it didn't stick out to me right away.  But that comment is right.  All male and all white males.  You wouldn't see that today.

But bring back suits for students?  Nah. That's not going to happen. Indeed, with the current evolution of dress, will suits even survive for the next couple of decades?

Countdown on the Great War. October 8, 1918: Sgt. Alvin York and the Battle of Hill 223. The Second Battle of Cambrai. A Scout Gets Through. The Desert Mounted Corps Takes Beirut. The Spanish Flu Closes Everything.

1.  On this day in 1918 Sgt. Alvin York preformed the deeds that would make him a household name in the United States and the most famous American veteran of WWI other than, perhaps, Gen. Pershing.

York was a from the Tennessee hill country and one of eleven children of a very poor family.  With virtually no education at all, he had been supporting his family for some time because of his father's early death.  A devout Evangelical Christian, York was a reformed drinker and fighter who had grown up in a family that depended upon hunting to put food on the table.  He was an extremely skilled woodsman and marksman at the time he reluctantly entered the Army due to conscription. He was also seeking conscientious objector status at that time, but reconsidered his position due to the urging of his military superiors.  He proved to be a good soldier and was assigned to the 82nd Division, seeing combat first in the St. Mihel Offensive.

On October 8 his battalion was assigned to capture Hill 223 north of  Chatel-Chéhéry, France.  During the battle Corporal York took on machinegun positions while the remainder of his party guarded captured prisoners.  York took those positions on first with his rifle, a M1917 Enfield, and then ended up killing six charging Germans with his M1911 pistol after his rifle was empty.  Ultimately a large party of Germans surrendered to York and York and seven other enlisted men marched to the rear with 132 German prisoners.  During the battle York killed 25 Germans.  His Medal of Honor citation reads:

After his platoon suffered heavy casualties and 3 other noncommissioned officers had become casualties, Cpl. York assumed command. Fearlessly leading seven men, he charged with great daring a machine gun nest which was pouring deadly and incessant fire upon his platoon. In this heroic feat the machine gun nest was taken, together with 4 officers and 128 men and several guns.

York would go on to be promoted to the rank of Sergeant before the war was over and he became the most decorated American soldier of World War One.  He was commissioned in the Signal Corps during World War Two and obtained the rank of Major, but his health had declined severely and he was used in a moral boosting role.  In spite of ill health he would remain in the Tennessee National Guard until 1951, retiring at the rank of Colonel.  He was famously the subject of a movie in which Gary Cooper portrayed him.

As noted, York was undoubtedly the most famous enlisted man of World War One, and he was truly heroic.  It's worth noting however that his accomplishments weren't entirely unique and there were several other instances of single American servicemen taking large numbers of prisoners under heroic circumstances, one of which we read about here just the other day.  In some ways the difference with York was that he was of very humble origin and not a career soldier, where as the actions by soldiers like Michael B. Ellis, whom we read about the other day, were accomplishments of men from the Regular Army.  These stories have a common aspect to them, however, in that they were undertaken by men who had extraordinary combat skill nearly singlehandedly, which was admirable but which also tends to show that the American Army was so green at the time that it proved to be necessary for extremely heroic men to undertake actions that were nearly suicidal in order to address the combat situation with which they were faced, rather than relying on coordinated unit actions.  In York's case, a lifetime in the woods had prepared him for battle in a unique way.

2.  On the same day that York's action earned the Medal of Honor, the same could be said of James Dozier.

Dozier started his military career in the South Carolina National Guard and had served on the Mexican boarder with that unit.  When it was called into service for World War One he was commissioned an officer and was a 1st Lieutenant on this day when he took over his company when its commander was wounded, even though he also was.  He commanded the unit over the next several hours, personally rushing one machinegun pit with the aid of a lieutenant.  The men under his command took 470 prisoners.

He stayed in the South Carolina National Guard becoming its AG in the 1920s and retired in 1959 as a Lieutenant General.

3.  On this day in 1918 British Empire forces launched a massive assault on the Germans near Cambrai.  In two days they captured the towns but the over matched Germans nonetheless slowed the advance to the point where it needed to be halted.

That says something about the tenacity of the Germans even at this late stage of the war.  The Germans had 180,000 men committed to the defense in this battle. The British Empire forces numbered 630,000. The British assault was a success, but the Germans none the less managed to require the British advance to halt.

Canadian troops on the Cambrai road, 1918.

4.  Pvt. Abraham Krotoshinsky made his way through enemy lines to inform the American Army of the situation concerning the "Lost Battalion".  He would lead troops back to the besieged soldiers.

Pvt. Krotoshinsky was a Polish Jew who had emigrated to the United States in 1912 to avoid service in the Imperial Russian Army. Following World War One he emigrated to Palestine but failed as a farmer and returned to the United States.  Like Michael Ellis, discussed the other day, he was rescued from unemployment by President Coolige who ordered that he be provided with a job in the United States Postal Service.

5.  The Desert Mounted Corps entered Beirut where they took 600 Ottoman troops without resistance.

6.  Laramie and Casper closed public meeting places of all types:

The Motion Picture Rating System introduced, October 7, 1968.

On this day in 1968, Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, announced that the movie industry was introducing a new rating code and rejecting the Hays Production Code.

The move was momentous and frankly has not been a success, even though the American public has become highly acclimated to it.   At the time, Valenti claimed that the movie industry would no longer approve or disapprove the content of a film, but would "now see our primary task as giving advance cautionary warnings to parents so that parents could make the decision about the movie going of young children".  In reality, it was a vehicle for the industry to bypass the restrictions of the Hays Code and introduce more permissive material.

The original ratings were G, M (mature), R and X. R required a parent to attend with a person under sixteen years of age, and X prohibited entry by those under age 16.  Given this, even the original restrictions contemplated allowing entrance to minors to the most restricted films.

The Hays Production Code of 1934 had been a voluntary code that the movie industry had imposed upon itself to prevent further regulation due to outcry of the moral content of early films, some of which were outright pornographic even when aimed at a general audience and even when camouflaged with supposedly religious themes with even such moviemakers as Cecil B. DeMille taking that approach.  The code had imposed eleven items that were outright prohibited in films, including nudity and associated sexual portrayals, but also banned such items as profanity, disrespect to the clergy, childbirth and willful offense to any religion or race.  It also included twenty-five items that filmmakers were required to be careful about in their depictions.

Actual adherence to the code had been breaking down by the 1950s, and the introduction of a new set of standards was likely inevitable.  Critics have noted, however, that the content of films changed extraordinarily rapidly after filmmakers were allowed to openly ignore the earlier restrictions on movie making and essentially make any film, as long as a warning of its content was attached to it.  Movie theater adherence to policing the code has been problematic and the original set of ratings has been changed at least twice in an effort to give them at least some teeth, largely unsuccessfully.

Countdown on the Great War: October 7, 1918.

1.  The Regency Council of Poland, a temporary council appointed by the Central Powers in support of their claim to create an independent Polish monarchy post war, declared Poland independent of Germany.  Handwriting on the wall?

2.  The Red Army captured Samara, a city on the Volga that in modern times has had a significant role in the Soviet then the Russian space program.

3.  Brigadier General Edward Sigerfoos became the only American general to be killed in action during World War One, although his promotion by a Congress unaware of his death was actually on October 10.  He had just assumed command of a brigade in the 28th Division an hour prior when he was mortally wounded on September 29.

4.  The same day Gen. Doyan of the Marine Corps, stationed to a training role in the United Stated, died of the Spanish Flu.

5. The flu was hitting the front pages of the Wyoming papers:

It was reported in Cheyenne that 285 cases of the Spanish Flu had been reported in Wyoming.

And in Casper "health authorities" were considering closing the schools.

Animal House. Then and Now.

I keep thinking about it.

The movie, that is.

I hate the movie.

But most regard it as some sort of odd classic.

I saw Animal House in its original theater run.  According to IMDB it was released in 1978, so I must have seen it in 78 or 79.  I recall that it was on a Saturday and I didn't have any intent on going to see a movie, but two friends of mind came over to the house and announced they were going to the movies and asked if I wanted to go along.  I'd almost always ask what a person was going to see, but oddly I don't think I did, and when I did ask, I'd never heard of the film and had no idea what it was about.

Now,  my friends thought it was funny but I didn't. I still don't.  I was bothered by its contents which portrayed a bunch of loutish behavior as really funny.

Among the behavior portrayed in the film, which is set in the 1960s*, is a lot of really crud behavior towards women, all of which is portrayed in the "boys will be boys" fashion.  And one of those things is a side plot involving a young member of the fraternity who makes a date with a girl that turns out to be underage, with that girl getting drunk at a party.  The male protagonist does not molest her, but the clear theme of it is that he could and but for her age that would be the goal, and by molest I'm being polite.  He returns her to her house in a shopping cart, with her clothes so disheveled it will be impossible for her parents not to assume the worst.

Animal House had a big impact on the juvenile culture of the time.  The movie portrays a toga party, i.e., a party where the members of the frat house wear togas, and that soon became very common among young college age people, particularly members of fraternities.  One of my friends who saw that movie with me that Saturday afternoon joined a fraternity a couple of years later and I can recall it having toga parties.  No, I didn't go, I just recall hearing about them.  Attendees were members of the fraternity and those young women invited from sororities.  They all wore togas.  That one was memorable, in attendees recollections, as one of the female attendees became heavily inebriated and togas being what they are, or aren't I guess, kept experiencing her boobs falling out of her toga to the viewing pleasure, or something of the male attendees.

So, why do I bring this up?

Well, because the entire Kavanaugh hearing thing keeps bringing this to mind as what I'm hearing on the news sounds so much like the behavior portrayed in that hideous film which was in fact adopted as admirable or amusing by the generation, or rather mostly the male members of that generation, as fun okay hi-jinks.  It's harder yet not to recall that the movie is actually "National Lampoon's Animal House" which associated it, properly, with the publication the "National Lampoon", which was more properly known as the Harvard Lampoon, as it was, and perhaps still is, a Harvard student publication.

The Harvard Lampoon is famous for its crude humor.  Unfortunately, because those who write for the Lampoon are to comedy writing what writers for Law Reviews are to judicial clerkship's, they've been massively influential in Hollywood, particularly in television writing.  If you ever wonder why almost every sitcom seems to have been written by the same writers, its because a high percentage of them come out of the Lampoon.  Moreover, because of their very narrow education, they're noted for being unable to understand any other kind of humor.  Closed sets, are closed, and admit in very little light.

Anyhow, I note all of this now as there it sits, Animal House, a film that still shines in the public memory like the polished horse apple it is.  And all while we're debating what occurred and why to young women in the 80s, and while those in the media and entertainment industry join a "Me Too" movement.

Now, I don't know what happened back then to the people involved in the public spotlight. But I do wonder how people can wonder why these sorts of things happened when they were celebrated as comedy not all that long ago.  They aren't funny now, but then they weren't funny then either.  But we let it happen then, and pretending we're outraged now sort of misses a deeper point, unfortunately.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*The  movie is set, sort of, in the early 1960s, although that's only vaguely clear.  Exactly why it's set about twenty or so years prior to it being released isn't clear, other than that the "college atmosphere" seemed to be somewhat more properly defined, perhaps, in the pre Vietnam  War era, with the Vietnam War era being a very recent memory at that time.  College in the Vietnam War era wouldn't have seemed all that funny and a group of alcohol abusing male louts taking advantage of drunk teenage girls not as amusing or laudable.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church, Casper Wyoming

Churches of the West: St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church, Casper Wyoming







This large Roman Catholic Church is located one block from St. Mark's Episcopal Church, the First Presbyterian Church, and the St. Anthony's Convent otherwise pictured on this blog. Built in the late teens and completed in 1920, funds to construct the church were raised from the parishioners. The church rectory is next to it, and can be seen in the bottom photograph. To the far right, only partially visible in this photograph, is the Shepherd's Staff, the church offices.

This church served as the only Roman Catholic church in Casper Wyoming up until 1953, when Our Lady of Fatima was opened. The church also currently serves the St. Francis Mission in Midwest Wyoming.

St. Anthony's was recently updated (Spring 2014) to include a Ten Commandments monument.

My parents were married in this church in 1958 and I was baptized here.



The church has, within the entryway, a memorial to its parishioner's killed during World War Two.

I've noticed that this particular entry had tended to remain in the top three of the most observed entries on this blog, not that there's a lot of traffic on this blog. My theory is that people are hitting it
looking for the Parish website. That being the case, you can find the parish website by hitting this link here.


Epilogue:

St. Anthony's recently received a new set of steps. The old cement was decaying after a century of use.  So, as a result, the front of the church now has a slightly different appearance.

Updated:  December 7, 2014.

Best Posts of the Week of September 30, 2018

The best posts of the week of September 30, 2018

A look at a typical early 20th Century American life. Michael B. Ellis.

Unexpected paths

The 100 Days Offensive, Meuse Argonne Second Phase: October 4 through October 28, 1918.

Mid Week At Work | Catholic Answers' Fr. Hugh Barbour on Labor

100 Days Offensive: Meuse Argonne, the drama of the "Lost Battalion". October 2-8, 1918.

 

A look at a typical early 20th Century American life. Michael B. Ellis.

Ellis is an Irish last name, and Michael B. Ellis is certainly a very Irish name.  We can presume that his St. Louis parents were of Irish extraction and perhaps were Irish. They were undoubtedly Catholic.

He was born on October 28, 1894.  His mother died while he was still an infant.  His father was so poor that he couldn't provide for his motherless son.  He was accordingly adopted by another Catholic family, the Moczdlowskis, who were Polish. That's how it was done at that time in that demographic.  Catholic families took in and adopted orphans and poor children.  Irish children became French children.  German children became Italian children.  And in this case, an Irish child became Polish.

He went to St. Laurence O'Toole school in East St. Louis until he was twelve years old, at which time he went to work in his adoptive father's printing shop.  At age sixteen, of February 8, 1912, he joined the Army and became an infantryman, signing up for three years.

He served on the Mexican border prior to World War One.  When his hitch was up, he took an Honorable Discharge.  Six months later he reenlisted.  As an experienced soldier he went to France with the 1st Division and received the Silver Star.  He rose to corporal in April and sergeant in March.

On October 5, 1918, as we saw the other day, he singlehandedly took out eleven German machine gun positions and captured a large number of German soldiers.  For this action, he was awarded with the Medal of Honor, his citation reading:

During the entire day's engagement Sergeant Ellis operated far in advance of the first wave of his company, voluntarily undertaking most dangerous missions and single-handedly attacking and reducing machinegun nests. Flanking one emplacement, he killed two of the enemy with rifle fire and captured 17 others. Later he single-handedly advanced under heavy fire and captured 27 prisoners, including two officers and six machineguns, which had been holding up the advance of the company. The captured officers indicated the locations of four other machineguns, and he in turn captured these, together with their crews, at all times showing marked heroism and fearlessness.

His advance in the service continued and he was promoted to First Sergeant.  He left the Army after this second hitch was up and the war over.

Following the war, in the economic downturn, he couldn't find work.  President Coolidge learned of this and arranged for him to have a position in the Post Office of his native St. Louis.  In 1921 he met a Polish girl who had been a childhood playmate and they married in 1923, at which time he would have been 29 years old.

He died in 1937 of pneumonia and was buried at Arlington.  He was 43 years old.

A sad life? 

Probably not as much as it might seem.  More likely, a fairly typical one for the era, but one of a heroic man in more than one way.

Unexpected paths

Yesterday was the Oil Bowl, the big football game between the two local high schools.

I hadn't been thinking much about this going into it, but in doing the updates here I ran across this October 3 item on our compaion Today In Wyoming's History blog:

October 3

2014  I was remiss in timely noting it, but October 3 saw the 50th anniversary of the Oil Bowl. This Oil Bowl.(it's not the only one nationwide) is the cross town football match between rivals Natrona County High School and Kelly Walsh High School, both of which are undergoing massive renovation at the present time.

In this context, it's a very odd thing to realize that the last time I saw an Oil Bowl is while I was a student at NCHS, which would have been the 16th Oil Bowl.  I would have been a student there when the 17th Oil Bowl was held as well, but I didn't see that one.

 Photo from 16th Oil Bowl.

Well, so what you might ask.

Well, just this.  The player whose photograph I took on that night so long ago was a friend of mine.  Not a close friend, but one of those friends who is in a circle of friends that intersects your own circle of friends.

He stayed here in town.  He went down to UW like I did although I never saw him there and ultimately came back to Casper where he worked as a printer.  I'd run into him every now and then.

Some time in the Spring I ran into him and he was looking awful. I'm not sure why.  And then he died in his sleep, at age 55, back in June.

There's no real point, or maybe there is, to this post.  Life rushes on and catches up, never really developing the way we expect it will.

Countdown on the Great War: October 6, 1918. The British advance, the Ottomans withdraw, the Germans ask to quit, Naval disaster, and the Flu spreads.

Miss Anna Maria McMullen who died on this day in France.  She was from Allenstown Pennsylvania.

1. The British 25th Division took Beaurevoir, France.

2.  Ottoman forces engage in a strategic withdrawal from Lebanon.

3.  The HMS Otranto collided with the HMS Kashmir off of Ireland resulting in the loss of 431 lives.

4.  The news of the day as received in Wyoming:

Countdown on the Great War: October 5, 1918.

1.  Vranje, Serbia, liberated from the Austrian control by French and Serbian forces.

2.  Australians capture Monbrehain.

3. Germans scuttle U-boats stationed in Belgium.

4.  Cpt. Eddie Grant killed in action.

5.  Sgt. Michaal B. Ellis undertakes actions that result in his being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

74, W.D., 1919.
Citation: During the entire day’s engagement he operated far in advance of the first wave of his company, voluntarily undertaking most dangerous missions and single-handedly attacking and reducing machinegun nests. Flanking one emplacement, he killed 2 of the enemy with rifle fire and captured 17 others. Later he single-handedly advanced under heavy fire and captured 27 prisoners, including 2 officers and 6 machineguns, which had been holding up the advance of the company. The captured officers indicated the locations of 4 other machineguns, and he in turn captured these, together with their crews, at all times showing marked heroism and fearlessness.

TR at Billings, Montana [1918]

The Spanish Flu Claims Its First Casper Victim and The Danger of Even Home Guard Service Is Made Plain: October 5, 1918.

As the war raged in Europe, while peace feelers started to be sent out, the Spanish Flu claimed its first victim in Casper.

And Home Guard service proved lethal for Pvt. O. B. Duncan, who fell from a train and was run over it by it. Why Pvt. Duncan was riding on the train isn't clear, but at least as late as World War Two the Home Guard did guard the rail yards for a time in Casper, so presumably something similar was occurring.

Oddly, Thermopolis was a setting for both tragedies.

The Start of The Troubles. October 5, 1968

Or at least it is by some accounts.  A precise start to the violence of the 1960s and 1970s that characterized Northern Ireland in the minds of many, indeed even characterized, unfairly, Ireland itself in this period, is hard to define.

Ireland had never accommodated itself to English rule at any point, but dating back to the Middle Ages various English kingdoms and then the Kingdom of England itself had claimed sovereignty over parts or all of Ireland.  For many decades, even centuries, the claim was fairly tenuous as a rule, but starting with the Norman conquest of England in 1066 it became inevitable that the conquering spirit of the barely Francoized Norsemen would lead them on to Ireland.  That path had already been partially laid by the Saxons already and the Normans were on a global path of expansion that would lead them on to install themselves over Sicily.  In that context, Ireland couldn't be avoided.

The Normans landed in Ireland as early as 1169, or perhaps we should say as late as that, given that this was a century after their conquest of England.  This was followed by landings in 1170 and 1171, which ultimately lead to the English King Henry landing that year in an effort to establish his own Anglo Norman sovereignty but also to put a lid on Norman freebooters.  He came and went but came back and in 1175 was self declared the overlord of Ireland, a position that was intended to put himself in loose control of the various Irish kingdoms but to leave them Irish.  This soon failed and in 1177 he declared his son John Lackland the Lord of Ireland and simply co-opted the ongoing Norman invasion.  This would bring to an end the era of independent Irish kingdoms.  The fact that there were, of course, multiple Irish kingdoms doomed the Irish in and of itself, but frankly Norman military capabilities were so advanced at the time that there was really no hope for Irish resistance.

This isn't intended to be a history of Ireland, so we'll simply leap forward and note that the United Kingdom ruled Ireland, over Irish objection, until 1922.  The Irish rebelled from time to time, particularly after the English crown separated the Church from Rome and then took it into Protestantism.  This became particularly pronounced after Cromwell became the English Lord Protector and English law became increasingly hostile to Catholicism.  The Irish became impoverished serfs in their own land and constantly sought to free themselves from England.  By the 19th Century, as the English began to reform their views, slowly at first, and then rapidly later on, things were perhaps so fixed in attitude that efforts towards Home Rule were insufficient to keep a significant minority of Irish from seeking an armed separation from the United Kingdom which came in the form of the Anglo Irish War.

The dates for the Anglo Irish War itself are debated, but a person can realistically date it to the Easter Rebellion of 1916.  The rebellion was a failure and indeed rejected by the Irish, but the English overreaction to it was sufficiently harsh that a follow up, more thought out, guerrilla, and indeed terroristic, war that started in 1919 had somewhat broader support.

Still, the mixed views on England were strong enough that the compromise reached with the United Kingdom not only left Ireland as a dominion of the United Kingdom, a status that at the time meant that the United Kingdom retained foreign policy decisions to some degree over a separated Ireland, but it also allowed Northern Ireland to opt out of the Irish Free State, a position bitterly opposed by Irish Republicans and which lead to the Irish Civil War.  Northern Ireland had been a problem in the context of Irish independence for many years as its population was majority Scots and Presbyterian.  Predictably, Northern Ireland voted to opt out of the Irish Free State.

This lead to the Irish Civil War, as noted, and following that lead to a bizarre situation in which the Irish Republic basically did not recognize Ulster as legitimately separate from it but, at the same time, really did nothing about it.  Ethnic Irish in Ulster stewed about the situation but by and large accommodated themselves to it.

In 1960s a non violent civil rights movement seeking to improve the position of minority Catholics in Ulster commenced.  It was not well received in all quarters.  Irish nationalist reacted with protests nad parades in 1966 and actually dynamited an English monument in that year in spite of being quite weak. This was responded to by the formation of Ulster unionist movements that saw the republican challenge as being stronger than it really was.  An organization formed calling itself the Ulster Volunteer Force, recalling similar paramilitary forces from the pre World War One Ulster and soon Ulster unionist terrorist attacked the homes of Catholic residents.

This lead to civil rights protests that occurred into 1968.  These were met with Unionist violence.  

On this day in 1968, once such event occurred.  The Northern Irish government banned an anticipated civil rights protest but it occurred anyhow.  The government sent the Royal Irish Constabulary to confront the marchers and the RUC policemen met them with violence.  The entire thing was filmed and shown on television, sparking Catholic disgust and outrage.  Two days of rioting ensued pitting Irish nationalist against the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Thirty years of violence and the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army would follow.

Countdown on the Great War: October 4, 1918

1.  President Wilson receives the diplomatic note composed by the newly installed Chancellor Prince Maximilian of Baden proposing peace based upon Wilson's Fourteen Points.

2.  The 100 Days Offensive, Meuse Argonne Second Phase: October 4 through October 28, 1918.

U.S. Marines, part of the U.S. 2nd Division, advancing during the Meuse Argonne Campaign.

 3.  The British occupy Tyre.

4.  The T. A. Gillespie munitions plant in New Jersey exploded killing approximately 100 people and injuring about the same number.

5.  Philadelphia closed its saloons, effective 7:00 p.m., due to the Spanish Flu.

The 100 Days Offensive, Meuse Argonne Second Phase: October 4 through October 28, 1918.

U.S. Marines, part of the U.S. 2nd Division, advancing during the Meuse Argonne Campaign.

We just read about the "Lost Battalion" yesterday. Could we really be on to a new phase?

Yes, while that drama was playing out, and would continue to, the American offensive would enter its next phase.

The second phase of the offensive began on this day.  All of the original divisions assigned the primary assault role in the first phase of the offensive were rotated out in favor of fresh divisions, the result being that the 91st, 79, 37, and 35th of the U.S. V Corps were replaced by the 32nd, 3d, and 1st Divisions.  These were not, of course, the only American divisions committed to the attack by any means, but rather the primary assault divisions.

The 1st Division, which we've read about here earlier, breached the German lines with a advance a little shorter of two miles (that being a big advance in the context of the conditions).  This gave rise in part to the Lost Battalion episode we've already read about, although as already noted the events that gave rise to that episode commenced on October 2. 

This phase of the assault was very bloody from an American prospect and it featured high American casualties.  The effort resulted in a breach of the local section of the Hindenburg line during the Battle of Montfaucon on October 14 through 17, resulting in the clearing of the Argonne Forest and an advance of ten miles. The French Army advanced even further, clearing 20 miles.

The second phase is well remembered by students of the American contribution to World War One.  The American Army was bloodied but showed itself of sustaining loss and advancing against stout German opposition. Having said that, there are real reasons to doubt that the American manner of fighting would have continued on had the Germans not ultimately collapsed in early November.  The loss rates sustained by the American Army were appalling and due, in no small part, to the troops being green and therefore willing to sustain them in a manner which the various European combatants no longer were.

Roads to the Great War: 100 Years Ago: Surrounded! Day One for the Lost Ba...

Roads to the Great War: 100 Years Ago: Surrounded! Day One for the Lost Ba...: Thursday 3 October 1918 Daybreak came, and we learned one of our men on outpost duty had bagged a prisoner. He was a surprised German w...

Countdown on the Great War: October 3, 1918

1.  Prince Max of Baden, head of the German government, sends his first note to Woodrow Wilson seeking peace.  It stated:

Berlin, October 3, 1918.
The German government requests that the President of the United States of America take the initiative in bringing about peace, that he inform all the belligerent states of this request, and that he invite them to send plenipotentiaries for purposes of beginning negotiations. The German government accepts as the basis for peace negotiations the program stated by the President of the United States in his speech to Congress of January 8, 1918, and in his subsequent pronouncements, particularly in his speech of September 27.
In order to avoid further bloodshed, the German government requests the immediate conclusion of an armistice on land, at sea, and in the air.
Signed: Max, Prince of Baden, Chancellor 

Price Faisal, the field head of the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire and later unfortunate King of Iraq.

2.  The Arab Revolt enters Damascus.

3.  The "Pursuit to Haritan" rapid advance in the Middle East commences.

4.  The U.S. Army's 2nd and 36th Divisions commence the Battle of Blanc Mount Ridge in the Champagne region of France which would lead to its clearing.

5.  King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria abdicates his thrown.

Wool Shortages, the Germans retreat, the Flu is Everywhere and a Casper policeman runs amuck. The news of October 3, 1918.

Among the other grim news that Cheyenne readers of this paper learned is that wool was in such short supply, clothes were going to no longer be offered to civilians in it.

That, quite frankly, is nearly unimaginable for the time.  Most people, at least outside of the hot regions and the hot months, wore some wool everyday.

Readers of Laramie's Boomerang learned that Americans had advanced in the Argonne and the Spanish Flu had advanced into 36 states.

Or maybe it was 43 states.  It claimed, Cheyenne readers learned, a university student at Colorado State University.

One of the Casper papers had a more optimistic report on the flu.  It was wrong.

And in the other Casper paper, readers learned that a Casper policeman had gone berserk while drunk.

The Peruvian Military Coup of October 3, 1968

On this day in 1968 the Army, lead by Gen. Juan Velasco Alvarado, overthrew the civilian government of President Belaunde.  The coup was accomplished without bloodshed and the deposed president was flown into exile in Argentina.

The coup was inspired by a scandal in the national oil industry which lead to fears that the civilian government would fall to a Communist revolution.  Resistance to it was very brief, after which the Army enacted a left wing government that itself acted in a semi socialist manner.  Land reform was a major feature of its efforts.  Overall, its economic policies were, however, a failure and its rule, very authoritarian.

Velasco was overthrown in a subsequent military coup in 1975 and died of natural causes in 1977.

Frenando Belaunde Terry, whom he deposed, returned from exile and was reelected President of Peru in 1980.

American Balloon and German Airplane Down Shoot October 3, 1918 near Mon...

Roads to the Great War: 100 Years Ago: One of the Great Wars Most Iconic ...

Roads to the Great War: 100 Years Ago: One of the Great Wars Most Iconic ...: The bridge in the photo above still stands across the St. Quentin Canal, just south of the village of Riqueval where the canal emerges...

Mid Week At Work | Catholic Answers' Fr. Hugh Barbour on Labor

Fr. Hugh Barbour, the Chaplain for Catholic Answers, was on their Catholic Answers radio show on Labor Day for their daily question and answer session.  In doing that, he gave a fascinating discussion on Labor from a very informed, and very traditional, Catholic prospective.  The link to that discussion is here:

Work | Catholic Answers

I don't expect the few folks who stop in here to go to the podcast and listen to it.  That would be asking a bit much.  But if you have the time, it's worth listening too.  Fr. Barbour approaches the topic from the context of Papal Encyclicals on the topic, including Rarum Novarum and a second encyclical which I'd not previously heard of that was issued some forty years later on the same topic, and in recollection of the anniversary of the first.

This discussion is almost guaranteed to offend or upset in some sense, but it's worth listening to anyhow.  It's high critical of Capitalism and Socialism.  Indeed, it's so critical of Capitalism that I can imagine Capitalist absolutely cringing while listening to it.  It touched upon Distributism, but obliquely and by name only once.  It's highly sympathetic to Agrarianism but, and no doubt upsetting to many, it's extremely sympathetic and even romantic about the Medieval Feudal economy.

The gist of Barbour's talk is that the conversion of the economy into the modern economy, first an industrial economy and then a post industrial economy, dehumanized labor by separating the laborer from his tasks and rendering him nothing more than a means of making money for Capitalist.  There's a lot to his points there, even if frankly his concept of a more ideal Medieval economy is excessively romanticized and perhaps even in error, as the feudal economy did not actually extend to all of Medieval Europe and had its own horrible excesses.

I suspect hearing Barbour, who is completely orthodox in his views, will be a huge shock for Americans including the numerous conservative American Catholics who seem to believe that Capitalism is 100% A Okay in its modern form.  I've often found it interesting that Christians in the United States seem to fall into a quasi Socialist camp if they're liberal or a highly Capitalist camp if they're conservative even though, like many other things, there's no reason whatsoever that a person couldn't have economic views that didn't fit into lock step with a political view of some wing of a political party.  Barbour laments the lack of a Catholic Party in the United States, which is clearly a pipe dream and something that wouldn't be a good idea on top of it, but there are European political parties that recognize what I've noted above and have a middle ground or Distributist economic view, although none of them have been powerful enough in recent decades to make up the majority in any one European parliament.

Anyhow, interesting and calculated to upset nearly anyone who listens to it.

The Tlatelolco Massacre: October 2, 1968

On this day in 1968 the Mexican government assaulted a gathering of 10,000 university and high school students assembled in the Plaza de las Tres Culturas. The peaceful gathering was part of a series of Mexican protests aimed at the PRI government that had commenced during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics.

The government reacted by deploying the military and the police.  Efforts to arrest some of those attending turned violent in a yet unknown manner and between 300 to 400 people were killed.

Today In Wyoming's History: October 2

Today In Wyoming's History: October 2:

1919     President Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke that left him partially paralyzed.  He had only recently been in Cheyenne.

The Army is in its final push toward a decision on the iconic ‘pinks and greens’ uniform

Hmmm. . . back to this:

The Army is in its final push toward a decision on the iconic ‘pinks and greens’ uniform: The Army is working on a new dress uniform. A final decision is days away.

Iconic?

Well, sort of.

The "pink and green" uniform was an officer's uniform only, back in the 1920s through 1950s when it was last a dress uniform of the U.S. Army.  Enlisted personnel wore a single color olive uniform that was supposed to double as a combat uniform.  It lost the latter role just prior to World War Two but carried on as the dress uniform for enlisted men throughout the war and on through the Korean War, before it was phased out post Korean War for the "green pickle suit", which in turn was phased out for a blue dress uniform.

Not to criticize. The pink and green uniform is sharp looking and looks better, in my view, than the blue dress uniform.  So, I'd be in favor of this change.

If it is made, it should be noted, the U.S. Army will be in second position to the Canadian Army, which reintroduced the same uniform, in the same fashion, for its special forces troops awhile back.  The Canadian Army, being based on the British Army, is more comfortable with individual dress uniforms for individual units, and brought it back with jump boots in recollection of the joint US/Canadian 1st Special Service Force, which had been American equipped.

Will the U.S. take this uniform route? Well, we'll soon see.

Interesting, isn't it, how the best looking dress uniforms are now deemed to be the ones we wore in the 1940s during the biggest war we ever fought. The 1940s. . .bloody but sharply dressed?