Saturday, January 7, 2023

Thursday, January 7, 1943. State of the Union.


Franklin Roosevelt delivered his second State of the Union address to a wartime United States.  In it, he stated:

January 07, 1943

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Seventy-eighth Congress:

This Seventy-eighth Congress assembles in one of the great moments in the history of the Nation. The past year was perhaps the most crucial for modern civilization; the coming year will be filled with violent conflicts- yet with high promise of better things.

We must appraise the events of 1942 according to their relative importance; we must exercise a sense of proportion.

First in importance in the American scene has been the inspiring proof of the great qualities of our fighting men. They have demonstrated these qualities in adversity as well as in victory. As long as our flag flies over this Capitol, Americans will honor the soldiers, sailors, and marines who fought our first battles of this war against overwhelming odds the heroes, living and dead, of Wake and Bataan and Guadalcanal, of the Java Sea and Midway and the North Atlantic convoys. Their unconquerable spirit will live forever.

By far the largest and most important developments in the whole world-wide strategic picture of 1942 were the events of the long fronts in Russia: first, the implacable defense of Stalingrad; and, second, the offensives by the Russian armies at various points that started in the latter part of November and which still roll on with great force and effectiveness.

The other major events of the year were: the series of Japanese advances in the Philippines, the East Indies, Malaya, and Burma; the stopping of that Japanese advance in the mid-Pacific, the South Pacific, and the Indian Oceans; the successful defense of the Near East by the British counterattack through Egypt and Libya; the American-British occupation of North Africa. Of continuing importance in the year 1942 were the unending and bitterly contested battles of the convoy routes, and the gradual passing of air superiority from the Axis to the United Nations.

The Axis powers knew that they must win the war in 1942 -or eventually lose everything. I do not need to tell you that our enemies did not win the war in 1942.

In the Pacific area, our most important victory in 1942 was the air and naval battle off Midway Island. That action is historically important because it secured for our use communication lines stretching thousands of miles in every direction. In placing this emphasis on the Battle of Midway, I am not unmindful of other successful actions in the Pacific, in the air and on land and afloat —especially those on the Coral Sea and New Guinea and in the Solomon Islands. But these actions were essentially defensive. They were part of the delaying strategy that characterized this phase of the war.

During this period we inflicted steady losses upon the enemy -great losses of Japanese planes and naval vessels, transports and cargo ships. As early as one year ago, we set as a primary task in the war of the Pacific a day-by-day and week-by-week and month-by-month destruction of more Japanese war materials than Japanese industry could replace. Most certainly, that task has been and is being performed by our fighting ships and planes. And a large part of this task has been accomplished by the gallant crews of our American submarines who strike on the other side of the Pacific at Japanese ships—right up at the very mouth of the harbor of Yokohama.

We know that as each day goes by, Japanese strength in ships and planes is going down and down, and American strength in ships and planes is going up and up. And so I sometimes feel that the eventual outcome can now be put on a mathematical basis. That will become evident to the Japanese people themselves when we strike at their own home islands, and bomb them constantly from the air.

And in the attacks against Japan, we shall be joined with the heroic people of China—that great people whose ideals of peace are so closely akin to our own. Even today we are flying as much lend-lease material into China as ever traversed the Burma Road, flying it over mountains 17,000 feet high, flying blind through sleet and snow. We shall overcome all the formidable obstacles, and get the battle equipment into China to shatter the power of our common enemy. From this war, China will realize the security, the prosperity and the dignity, which Japan has sought so ruthlessly to destroy.

The period of our defensive attrition in the Pacific is drawing to a close. Now our aim is to force the Japanese to fight. Last year, we stopped them. This year, we intend to advance.

Turning now to the European theater of war, during this past year it was clear that our first task was to lessen the concentrated pressure on the Russian front by compelling Germany to divert part of her manpower and equipment to another theater of war. After months of secret planning and preparation in the utmost detail, an enormous amphibious expedition was embarked for French North Africa from the United States and the United Kingdom in literally hundreds of ships. It reached its objectives with very small losses, and has already produced an important effect upon the whole situation of the war. It has opened to attack what Mr. Churchill well described as "the under-belly of the Axis," and it has removed the always dangerous threat of an Axis attack through West Africa against the South Atlantic Ocean and the continent of South America itself.

The well-timed and splendidly executed offensive from Egypt by the British Eighth Army was a part of the same major strategy of the United Nations.

Great rains and appalling mud and very limited communications have delayed the final battles of Tunisia. The Axis is reinforcing its strong positions. But I am confident that though the fighting will be tough, when the final Allied assault is made, the last vestige of Axis power will be driven from the whole of the south shores of the Mediterranean.

Any review of the year 1942 must emphasize the magnitude and the diversity of the military activities in which this Nation has become engaged. As I speak to you, approximately one and a half million of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and fliers are in service outside of our continental limits, all through the world. Our merchant seamen, in addition, are carrying supplies to them and to our allies over every sea lane.

Few Americans realize the amazing growth of our air strength, though I am sure our enemy does. Day in and day out our forces are bombing the enemy and meeting him in combat on many different fronts in every part of the world. And for those who question the quality of our aircraft and the ability of our fliers, I point to the fact that, in Africa, we are shooting down two enemy planes to every one we lose, and in the Pacific and the Southwest Pacific we are shooting them down four to one.

We pay great tribute—the tribute of the United States of America— to the fighting men of Russia and China and Britain and the various members of the British Commonwealth- the millions of men who through the years of this war have fought our common enemies, and have denied to them the world conquest which they sought.

We pay tribute to the soldiers and fliers and seamen of others of the United Nations whose countries have been overrun by Axis hordes.

As a result of the Allied occupation of North Africa, powerful units of the French Army and Navy are going into action. They are in action with the United Nations forces. We welcome them as allies and as friends. They join with those Frenchmen who, since the dark days of June, 1940, have been fighting valiantly for the liberation of their stricken country.

We pay tribute to the fighting leaders of our allies, to Winston Churchill, to Joseph Stalin, and to the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. Yes, there is a very great unanimity between the leaders of the United Nations. This unity is effective in planning and carrying out the major strategy of this war and in building up and in maintaining the lines of supplies.

I cannot prophesy. I cannot tell you when or where the United Nations are going to strike next in Europe. But we are going to strike- and strike hard. I cannot tell you whether we are going to hit them in Norway, or through the Low Countries, or in France, or through Sardinia or Sicily, or through the Balkans, or through Poland- or at several points simultaneously. But I can tell you that no matter where and when we strike by land, we and the British and the Russians will hit them from the air heavily and relentlessly. Day in and day out we shall heap tons upon tons of high explosives on their war factories and utilities and seaports.

Hitler and Mussolini will understand now the enormity of their miscalculations—that the Nazis would always have the advantage of superior air power as they did when they bombed Warsaw, and Rotterdam, and London and Coventry. That superiority has gone—forever.

Yes, the Nazis and the Fascists have asked for it—and they are going to get it.

Our forward progress in this war has depended upon our progress on the production front.

There has been criticism of the management and conduct of our war production. Much of this self-criticism has had a healthy effect. It has spurred us on. It has reflected a normal American impatience to get on with the job. We are the kind of people who are never quite satisfied with anything short of miracles.

But there has been some criticism based on guesswork and even on malicious falsification of fact. Such criticism creates doubts and creates fears, and weakens our total effort.

I do not wish to suggest that we should be completely satisfied with our production progress today, or next month, or ever. But I can report to you with genuine pride on what has been accomplished in 1942.

A year ago we set certain production goals for 1942 and for 1943. Some people, including some experts, thought that we had pulled some big figures out of a hat just to frighten the Axis. But we had confidence in the ability of our people to establish new records. And that confidence has been justified.

Of course, we realized that some production objectives would have to be changed- some of them adjusted upward, and others downward; some items would be taken out of the program altogether, and others added. This was inevitable as we gained battle experience, and as technological improvements were made.

Our 1942 airplane production and tank production fell short, numerically—stress the word numerically of the goals set a year ago. Nevertheless, we have plenty of reason to be proud of our record for 1942. We produced 48,000 military planes—more than the airplane production of Germany, Italy, and Japan put together. Last month, in December, we produced 5,500 military planes and the rate is rapidly rising. Furthermore, we must remember that as each month passes by, the averages of our types weigh more, take more man-hours to make, and have more striking power.

In tank production, we revised our schedule- and for good and sufficient reasons. As a result of hard experience in battle, we have diverted a portion of our tank-producing capacity to a stepped-up production of new, deadly field weapons, especially self-propelled artillery.

Here are some other production figures:

In 1942, we produced 56,000 combat vehicles, such as tanks and self-propelled artillery.

In 1942, we produced 670,000 machine guns, six times greater than our production in 1941 and three times greater than our total production during the year and a half of our participation in the first World War.

We produced 21,000 anti-tank guns, six times greater than our 1941 production.

We produced ten and a quarter billion rounds of small-arms ammunition, five times greater than our 1941 production and three times greater than our total production in the first World War.

We produced 181 million rounds of artillery ammunition, twelve times greater than our 1941 production and ten times greater than our total production in the first World War.

I think the arsenal of democracy is making good.

These facts and figures that I have given will give no great aid and comfort to the enemy. On the contrary, I can imagine that they will give him considerable discomfort. I suspect that Hitler and Tojo will find it difficult to explain to the German and Japanese people just why it is that "decadent, inefficient democracy" can produce such phenomenal quantities of weapons and munitions- and fighting men.

We have given the lie to certain misconceptions—which is an extremely polite word- especially the one which holds that the various blocs or groups within a free country cannot forego their political and economic differences in time of crisis and work together toward a common goal.

While we have been achieving this miracle of production, during the past year our armed forces have grown from a little over 2,000,000 to 7,000,000. In other words, we have withdrawn from the labor force and the farms some 5,000,000 of our younger workers. And in spite of this, our farmers have contributed their share to the common effort by producing the greatest quantity of food ever made available during a single year in all our history.

I wonder is there any person among us so simple as to believe that all this could have been done without creating some dislocations in our normal national life, some inconveniences, and even some hardships?

Who can have hoped to have done this without burdensome Government regulations which are a nuisance to everyone- including those who have the thankless task of administering them?

We all know that there have been mistakes- mistakes due to the inevitable process of trial and error inherent in doing big things for the first time. We all know that there have been too many complicated forms and questionnaires. I know about that. I have had to fill some of them out myself.

But we are determined to see to it that our supplies of food and other essential civilian goods are distributed on a fair and just basis—to rich and poor, management and labor, farmer and city dweller alike. We are determined to keep the cost of living at a stable level. All this has required much information. These forms and questionnaires represent an honest and sincere attempt by honest and sincere officials to obtain this information.

We have learned by the mistakes that we have made.

Our experience will enable us during the coming year to improve the necessary mechanisms of wartime economic controls, and to simplify administrative procedures. But we do not intend to leave things so lax that loopholes will be left for cheaters, for chiselers, or for the manipulators of the black market.

Of course, there have been disturbances and inconveniences -and even hardships. And there will be many, many more before we finally win. Yes, 1943 will not be an easy year for us on the home front. We shall feel in many ways in our daily lives the sharp pinch of total war.

Fortunately, there are only a few Americans who place appetite above patriotism. The overwhelming majority realize that the food we send abroad is for essential military purposes, for our own and Allied fighting forces, and for necessary help in areas that we occupy.

We Americans intend to do this great job together. In our common labors we must build and fortify the very foundation of national unity- confidence in one another.

It is often amusing, and it is sometimes politically profitable, to picture the City of Washington as a madhouse, with the Congress and the Administration disrupted with confusion and indecision and general incompetence.

However—what matters most in war is results. And the one pertinent fact is that after only a few years of preparation and only one year of warfare, we are able to engage, spiritually as well as physically, in the total waging of a total war.

Washington may be a madhouse- but only in the sense that it is the Capital City of a Nation which is fighting mad. And I think that Berlin and Rome and Tokyo, which had such contempt for the obsolete methods of democracy, would now gladly use all they could get of that same brand of madness.

And we must not forget that our achievements in production have been relatively no greater than those of the Russians and the British and the Chinese who have developed their own war industries under the incredible difficulties of battle conditions. They have had to continue work through bombings and blackouts. And they have never quit.

We Americans are in good, brave company in this war, and we are playing our own, honorable part in the vast common effort.

As spokesmen for the United States Government, you and I take off our hats to those responsible for our American production—to the owners, managers, and supervisors, to the draftsmen and the engineers, and to the workers- men and women—in factories and arsenals and shipyards and mines and mills and forests—and railroads and on highways.

We take off our hats to the farmers who have faced an unprecedented task of feeding not only a great Nation but a great part of the world.

We take off our hats to all the loyal, anonymous, untiring men and women who have worked in private employment and in Government and who have endured rationing and other stringencies with good humor and good will.

Yes, we take off our hats to all Americans who have contributed so magnificently to our common cause.

I have sought to emphasize a sense of proportion in this review of the events of the war and the needs of the war.

We should never forget the things we are fighting for. But, at this critical period of the war, we should confine ourselves to the larger objectives and not get bogged down in argument over methods and details.

We, and all the United Nations, want a decent peace and a durable peace. In the years between the end of the first World War and the beginning of the second World War, we were not living under a decent or a durable peace.

I have reason to know that our boys at the front are concerned with two broad aims beyond the winning of the war; and their thinking and their opinion coincide with what most Americans here back home are mulling over. They know, and we know, that it would be inconceivable—it would, indeed, be sacrilegious —if this Nation and the world did not attain some real, lasting good out of all these efforts and sufferings and bloodshed and death.

The men in our armed forces want a lasting peace, and, equally, they want permanent employment for themselves, their families, and their neighbors when they are mustered out at the end of the war.

Two years ago I spoke in my Annual Message of four freedoms. The blessings of two of them- freedom of speech and freedom of religion—are an essential part of the very life of this Nation; and we hope that these blessings will be granted to all men everywhere.

'The people at home, and the people at the front, are wondering a little about the third freedom—freedom from want. To them it means that when they are mustered out, when war production is converted to the economy of peace, they will have the right to expect full employment—full employment for themselves and for all able-bodied men and women in America who want to work.

They expect the opportunity to work, to run their farms, their stores, to earn decent wages. They are eager to face the risks inherent in our system of free enterprise.

They do not want a postwar America which suffers from undernourishment or slums- or the dole. They want no get-rich-quick era of bogus "prosperity" which will end for them in selling apples on a street corner, as happened after the bursting of the boom in 1929.

When you talk with our young men and our young women, you will find they want to work for themselves and for their families; they consider that they have the right to work; and they know that after the last war their fathers did not gain that right.

When you talk with our young men and women, you will find that with the opportunity for employment they want assurance against the evils of all major economic hazards- assurance that will extend from the cradle to the grave. And this great Government can and must provide this assurance.

I have been told that this is no time to speak of a better America after the war. I am told it is a grave error on my part.

I dissent.

And if the security of the individual citizen, or the family, should become a subject of national debate, the country knows where I stand.

I say this now to this Seventy-eighth Congress, because it is wholly possible that freedom from want—the right of employment, the right of assurance against life's hazards—will loom very large as a task of America during the coming two years.

I trust it will not be regarded as an issue—but rather as a task for all of us to study sympathetically, to work out with a constant regard for the attainment of the objective, with fairness to all and with injustice to none.

In this war of survival we must keep before our minds not only the evil things we fight against but the good things we are fighting for. We fight to retain a great past- and we fight to gain a greater future.

Let us remember, too, that economic safety for the America of the future is threatened unless a greater economic stability comes to the rest of the world. We cannot make America an island in either a military or an economic sense. Hitlerism, like any other form of crime or disease, can grow from the evil seeds of economic as well as military feudalism.

Victory in this war is the first and greatest goal before us. Victory in the peace is the next. That means striving toward the enlargement of the security of man here and throughout the world —and, finally, striving for the fourth freedom- freedom from fear.

It is of little account for any of us to talk of essential human needs, of attaining security, if we run the risk of another World War in ten or twenty or fifty years. That is just plain common sense. Wars grow in size, in death and destruction, and in the inevitability of engulfing all Nations, in inverse ratio to the shrinking size of the world as a result of the conquest of the air. I shudder to think of what will happen to humanity, including ourselves, if this war ends in an inconclusive peace, and another war breaks out when the babies of today have grown to fighting age.

Every normal American prays that neither he nor his sons nor his grandsons will be compelled to go through this horror again.

Undoubtedly a few Americans, even now, think that this Nation can end this war comfortably and then climb back into an American hole and pull the hole in after them.

But we have learned that we can never dig a hole so deep that it would be safe against predatory animals. We have also learned that if we do not pull the fangs of the predatory animals of this world, they will multiply and grow in strength- and they will be at our throats again once more in a short generation.

Most Americans realize more clearly than ever before that modern war equipment in the hands of aggressor Nations can bring danger overnight to our own national existence or to that of any other Nation—or island—or continent.

It is clear to us that if Germany and Italy and Japan- or any one of them- remain armed at the end of this war, or are permitted to rearm, they will again, and inevitably, embark upon an ambitious career of world conquest. They must be disarmed and kept disarmed, and they must abandon the philosophy, and the teaching of that philosophy, which has brought so much suffering to the world.

After the first World War we tried to achieve a formula for permanent peace, based on a magnificent idealism. We failed. But, by our failure, we have learned that we cannot maintain peace at this stage of human development by good intentions alone.

Today the United Nations are the mightiest military coalition in all history. They represent an overwhelming majority of the population of the world. Bound together in solemn agreement that they themselves will not commit acts of aggression or conquest against any of their neighbors, the United Nations can and must remain united for the maintenance of peace by preventing any attempt to rearm in Germany, in Japan, in Italy, or in any other Nation which seeks to violate the Tenth Commandment -"Thou shalt not covet."

There are cynics, there are skeptics who say it cannot be done. The American people and all the freedom-loving peoples of this earth are now demanding that it must be done. And the will of these people shall prevail.

The very philosophy of the Axis powers is based on a profound contempt for the human race. If, in the formation of our future policy, we were guided by the same cynical contempt, then we should be surrendering to the philosophy of our enemies, and our victory would turn to defeat.

The issue of this war is the basic issue between those who believe in mankind and those who do not—the ancient issue between those who put their faith in the people and those who put their faith in dictators and tyrants. There have always been those who did not believe in the people, who attempted to block their forward movement across history, to force them back to servility and suffering and silence.

The people have now gathered their strength. They are moving forward in their might and power—and no force, no combination of forces, no trickery, deceit, or violence, can stop them now. They see before them the hope of the world- a decent, secure, peaceful life for men everywhere.

I do not prophesy when this war will end.

But I do believe that this year of 1943 will give to the United Nations a very substantial advance along the roads that lead to Berlin and Rome and Tokyo.

I tell you it is within the realm of possibility that this Seventy-eight Congress may have the historic privilege of helping greatly to save the world from future fear.

Therefore, let us all have confidence, let us redouble our efforts.

A tremendous, costly, long-enduring task in peace as well as in war is still ahead of us.

But, as we face that continuing task, we may know that the state of this Nation is good—the heart of this Nation is sound -the spirit of this Nation is strong—the faith of this Nation is eternal.

The travel restrictions noted the other day went into effect, as did the fuel oil rationing provisions.

The Red Army continued its advance in the Caucasus, reaching a position within 75 miles of Rostov on the Don.  Free French troops reached Murzuk in southern Libya.

Eccentric electrical field inventor Nikola Tesla died in New York City at age 86.

Sarah Sundin noted that on her blog, and also noted the following

Today in World War II History—January 7, 1943: African-American opera singer Marian Anderson performs in Constitution Hall after having been denied permission to sing there in 1939.

The famous singer was depicted on a thread here just the other day. 

Speaking of the far right and politics,

 . . . as we were just doing, Cynthia Lummis just survived a motion to censure her, although a censure does nothing in actual cause and effect terms, from the Wyoming GOP Central Committee.  The motion, by Illionoisan Jeanette Ward, failed 57-89 vote, but it's remarkable that a person who has flopped around like Kevin McCarthy on Trump, and who was recently in the good graces of the far right, would face that many unhappy votes.


She's now going down the same road, ironically enough, that Liz Cheney just trod, and in more than one way. This was due to her recent vote on the Respect for Marriage Act, which provided statutory protections for interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, the latter of which upsets many in the Conservative community, and which certainly upsets the far right.  Ironically, in taking this position, she's's following in the wake of Liz Cheney, who got to this position some time ago.  Lummis has shown a real tendency to tack to the political winds, and that is likely what we're seeing here.  It does put her at odds, however, with the dominant far right position of the GOP Central Committee and state orgnaization.

Speaker of the House Vote Watch.


January 4, 2023 

13:08 MST.

Five rounds of voting, 20 GOP votes against McCarthy.  He obtained 201 votes.  He's still behind Democrat Hakim Jeffries, who came in with 212 votes.  One Republican is voting "present".

15:15 MST

Six rounds, same results.

January 5, 2023

11:44 MST

McCarthy has lost a seventh time.

13:21 MST

McCarthy has now lost an eighth time.

18:30 MST

And now McCarthy has lost ten rounds of voting, exceeding the nine rounds it took in 1923.  Nobody has taken more than nine rounds since that time, which means that we're back to 1859 when 44 rounds were taken, or depending upon how you look at it, 1839 when 11 rounds did the trick, although whether 11 rounds will work here is another matter entirely.

McCarthy has been making concessions to the far right on top of it, which effectively means he's selling his authority in order to attempt to get the job.  If he gets it, he'll be the weakest Speaker of the House in history.

18:45

And now it is eleven.

This is now the longest contest in 164 years.  The most recent tally was:

212 for Rep. Hakeem Jeffries

200 for Rep. Kevin McCarthy

12 Rep. Byron Donalds

7 for Rep. Kevin Hern

1 Donald Trump

1 present vote.

They will reconvene at noon on Friday, as McCarthy seeks a deal. The problem is that any deal he enters into now is likely to so compromise his position, he may regret taking it.

Indeed, at this time, it might be worthwhile for McCarthy to withdraw his name and see what happens. The far right doesn't have enough votes to nominate somebody else, and if somebody else was actually chosen, they'd be likely to be a temporary compromise.

What this does do is to demonstrate what an absolute mess the Republican Party has become.  When Trump was nominated, we warned that there was a real chance that he'd destroy the GOP.  He may very well have done so.  It is so fractured, it can't do something that's been routine for a party for a century, and we are now looking back well into the 19th Century for precedents.

January 6, 2022

12:42

McCarthy picked up 14 votes, including the one Congressman who had been voting "present".  Up until now, 21 votes were cast against McCarthy in the last several rounds.

It still isn't enough, however.  He is now at 213, to Jeffries 212.  If I'm correct, McCarthy needs to pick up five more votes.

16:31

After thirteen rounds of voting, it's 214 to 212 in McCarthy's favor.  He's closing in, but still lacks enough votes to put him over the top.

Congress was set to reconvene at 10:00 p.m.

21:16

And McCarthy takes 216, and is therefore still short.  Matt Gaetz voted present, which kept McCarthy from winning.

January 7, 2023

The 15th time proved to be the charm.  McCarthy secured enough votes to become Speaker of the House last night at midnight.

He is, however, now completely beholden to his opponents, who extracted such significant concessions from them that he may well prove to be completely ineffective.  Should he stray from the agenda of the far right, he'll be immediately challenged, and the process must begin again, under the rules he condescended to, in order to secure the job.

Prior Related Threads:

McCarthy getting what he deserves.




House of the Rising Sun Deconstructed. Anything seem a little odd?

Most of us know the song, House of the Rising Sun.  Probably most people who think of it, when they do, think of the version by Eric Burdon and the Animals.

It's a great song.

Anything ever seem a little off about it, however?

The song is about a house of prostitution, which most people familiar with the song are aware of.  As Burdon sings it, the lyrics are:

There is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy

And God, I know I'm one


My mother was a tailor

She sewed my new blue jeans

My father was a gamblin' man

Down in New Orleans


Now the only thing a gambler needs

Is a suitcase and a trunk

And the only time he's satisfied

Is when he's all drunk

 

Oh mother, tell your children

Not to do what I have done

Spend your lives in sin and misery

In the House of the Rising Sun


Well, I got one foot on the platform

The other foot on the train

I'm goin' back to New Orleans

To wear that ball and chain

 

Well, there is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy

And God, I know I'm one

Now, it is a great song.  And I like this version of it, which was released in 1964.

The interesting thing, however, is that song from a male point of view, which it is, it's sort of way ahead of its time.  Not that it isn't relevant, it's just a point of view that I can't think of any other song from the mid to late 20th Century expressing that view.  Basically, the protagonist is confessing that he's a sex addict and addicted to frequenting the prostitutes of The House Of The Rising Sun.

The song wasn't written by Eric Burdon, or any of his band. They were covering a song, which many are unaware of, that had already had a successful recording run when sung by Woodie Guthrie and Hudey Ledbetter (Leadbelly).  Indeed, I thought Leadbelly had written the wrong, but I was in error on that.

The Guthrie version, from 1941, has the following lyrics:

There is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy

And God I know I'm one


My mother was a tailor

She sewed my new bluejeans

My father was a gamblin' man

Down in New Orleans


Now the only thing a gambler needs

Is a suitcase and trunk

And the only time he's satisfied

Is when he's on a drunk


Oh mother tell your children

Not to do what I have done

Spend your lives in sin and misery

In the House Of The Rising Sun


Well, I got one foot on the platform

The other foot on the train

I'm goin' back to New Orleans

To wear that ball and chain


Well, there is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy

And God I know I'm one

Identical.  What about Leadbelly?  Well, he recorded it twice, first in 1944, which had these lyrics:

There is a house in New Orleans

You call the Rising Sun

It's been the ruin of many a poor soul

And me, oh God, I'm one

 

If I'd listened to what mama said

I'd be at home today

Being so young and foolish, poor girl

I let a gambler lead me astray

 

My mother she's a tailor

Sews those new blue jeans

My sweetheart, he's a drunkard, Lord God

He drinks down in New Orleans

 

He fills his glasses to the brim

Passes them around

The only pleasure that he gets out of life

Is a hoboin' from town to town

 

The only thing a drunkard needs

Is a suitcase and a trunk

The only time that he's half satisfied

Is when he's on a drunk

 

Go and tell my baby sister

Never do like I have done

Shun that house down in New Orleans

That they call that Rising Sun.

 

It's one foot on the platform,

One foot on the train.

I'm going back down to New Orleans

To wear my ball and my chain

 

My life is almost over

My race is almost run

Going back down to New Orleans

To that house of the Rising Sun

Oh, now wait a moment, that's a lot different.  In this version, which is earlier, the protagonist, while sung through Leadbelly's male voice, is a girl entrapped in prostitution.  Frankly, the song makes a lot more sense all the way around.

Leadbelly's 1947 version of The House of the Rising Sun.

In the second recording, which is the one people normally here, Leadbelly had followed Guthrie's lead, and the protagonist was male.

The first one presents a really grim warning. The girl who is the subject of the song has obviously left the house, and now is returning? Why? Well, contrary to the way prostitution is portrayed in film, her reputation would have been completely ruined and by this point that probably would have been her only option to try to make enough money to stay alive.  Not only that, she's noting that she's expecting an early death.  

More on that in a moment.

Leadbelly, it should be noted, didn't get around to recording until very near the end of his life.  He died in 1949, and was first recorded in 1933.  He was born in 1888 and was preforming professionally by 1903.  Indeed, at first he preformed in Shreveport audiences in St. Paul's Bottoms, its red-light district, with his career interrupted by stints in jail, which are referenced in some of his most famous songs.  He was in fact discovered, and truly was a great musical talent, by Alan Lomax while serving a prison stint.

Leadbelly preformed so early that some have speculated to what degree he was an indeterminable influence on the blues.  He definitely was, but he also was unique in that he played a twelve-string guitar, very unusual for bluesmen, and his songs were always in the blues format but in sometimes in a near blues, ten bar, format.  Indeed, some of those were converted to eight bar blues formats by later recording artists, probably basically by accident.

Anyhow, Leadbelly's songs often had a really old origin.  This seems to be one. And the fact that the first version he recorded was sung from a female point of view is telling. Taht's probably how he learned it.

How early is that version?

Well, the song first makes its appearance by reference in 1905. By that time, it was being sung by miners in Appalachia, which means that one of the references doesn't quite fit unless the song had really travelled in the South.  I.e., a song about somebody in New Orleans is out of regional context.  The first printed version of the lyrics appear in 1925, with this:

There is a house in New Orleans, 

it's called the Rising Sun

It's been the ruin of many poor girl

Great God, and I for one.

Just like Leadbelly had it.

The first recorded version came in 1933, later than I would have supposed, but still pretty early in the recording industry.  It was by Applachain artist Clarence "Tom" Ashley and Gwen Foster.  Ashley claimed to have learned it from his grandfather, which pushes the song back to the mid 19th Century. Ashley's version has a male protagonist:

There is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

Where many poor boys to destruction has gone

And me, oh God, are one.

Note, this one has a blunter warning than any others with a male protagonist. The male vocalist hasn't gone to "ruin", but to "destruction".

Hmmmm. . . . so was it a male or female song?

My guess is that it was originally a female one, but because of its compelling popularity, it's been switched back and forth from its near onset.

So, was there a House of the Rising Sun that induced poor girls into lives, and probably shortened ones, of prostitution?

Nobody really knows for sure, but applying Yeoman's Eighth Law of History, as we should, would suggest it's likely. That law, as you'll recall, stated the following:

Yeoman's Eighth Law of History:  Myths, unless purely fanciful, almost always have a basis in reality.

In cultures that write things down, the concept that myths, which were primarily related by word of mouth, have any basis in reality seems to come as a shock. But they normally do. 

It is the spoken word that is the default means of transmitting information, including history, in human beings.  The written word is a learned behavior, indeed one that must not only be learned but nurtured in order to take root.   Even now, a lot of people will take and retain information better orally than in a written form.

But oral transmission is always subject to decay with the teller, and the tricks the mind uses to retain the story warp it a bit by default. But that doesn't mean that the stories were never true in any fashion.

All the time we find that historians and archeologist are surprised to learn that something thought to be a myth has some basis in reality.  Probably most do. Troy turns out to have been a real city (and the war was probably over the teenage wife of a teenage king, I'll bet), the Navajo and Apache turn out to be from the far north originally and so their memories of their being great white bears and great white birds are spot on.  Myths, even very old ones, if carefully discerned usually have some basis in fact.

While that eight law mostly referred to old myths, it applies to more recent ones as well, as the basic principle is the same. The song clearly came out of Louisiana, and it traveled the South pretty extensively while persistently retaining its references to a House of the Rising Sun.  There likely was such a place in Louisiana, or at the chances that there was are pretty good.

Indeed, a whole series of theories hold that it was on Conti Street in the French Quarter or on Ursulines Street or on St. Louis Street.  In 2016 however, the New Orleans Times Picayune ran an article about an advertisement they'd found in which a hotelier was advertising the Mechanics Hotel, just outside of town, and with obviously pretty good rooming accommodations, which was noted to have formerly been "the old establishment of the Rising Sun".

Hmmm. . . .

The owners of the Mechanics Hotel wanted his potential guests to note that the hotel had a variety of rooms and offered a variety of services and accommodations, none of which included prostitution.  The prior role of the Rising Sun wasn't mentioned, just that the Mechanics Hotel was where it formerly was, or rather that it was being rebranded.  Perhaps it was also being repurposed. If so, that advertisement would have served two purposes, one being "don't stay away if you would have avoided the old Rising Sun", and the second being "don't come around if you are expecting the old services of the Rising Sun".

That advertisement, by the way, ran in 1828, which would mean that the song would have to have dated back to at least that approximate time.

So, what's the moral of the song?  It clearly has one.

The basic warning is against living a life of depravity, that's clear enough.  More than that, it was a direct warning about living a life of sexual depravity.  Further, it warns the audience that the vocalist can't get out of it, now that the protagonist is in it, even though it would see, that the protagonist has tried.  In the male variant sung by Guthrie, and in the female variant sung by Leadbelly, the protagonist informs the audience that the subject is at a railroad station with one foot on the platform, and one on the train, and is going back to New Orleans "to wear that ball and train".  That tells us that the male protagonist is going back to New Orleans where he intends, seemingly against his will, to resume visiting the House of the Rising Sun.  In the female protagonist version, she's going back to be a prostitute.

The female version is even grimmer.  In that version, not only does the lyrics indicate that the subject is a slave to the situation, she's a different sort.  Her slavery, in essence, is implied to be economic.  Her reputation is ruined and she can't do anything else at this point.  Moreover, she knows that she's going to die young, either at the hands of one of her clients, or more likely through disease.

Which takes us to this.  That in fact was then and is now the thing that kills prostitutes early.  It's odd how in Western movies like Lonesome Dove or Open Range this is ignored.  Prostitutes were nearly guaranteed to get a venereal disease at the time, and it was probably going to kill them. Regular clients were likely to get a "social disease" as well, and the number of men who came down with one even where they were not regular customers, but who had made a visit a few, or perhaps even one, times were likely to as well.


Indeed, it wasn't really until after World War Two that it was the case that VD could really be effectively treated. . Nearly all of the treatments before then were ineffective to varying degrees.  But that's not the last of it.  Girls who fell into prostitution didn't simply think it an economic option, but were often victims of what was termed "white slavery".  Kidnapped and drugged, or kept against their will in some fashion, sometimes by force, sometimes by addition.  This is also still the case.  

It's worth noting, in addition, that modern pornography has its origin in prostitution and indeed the word stems from it.  "Graphy" indicates depiction, and pornea is Greek for of or pertaining to prostitutes.  Very early pornography, going back to the first really easy to use cameras, came from photographing prostitutes to expand on their marketability.  I.e., the working girls were basically captives of their procurer, and those people expanded their profits, not the girls profits, by photographing and selling their images, which had the added impact of being a species of advertising.  This aspect of pornography was very heavy in the industry up until the mid 20th Century, when some of the subjects limited themselves to selling their own images in some fashion, but it's apparently returned in spades since the Internet, with many, apparently, of the images around now being once again of young girls trapped most likely by drug addiction.

The whole thing is pretty bad, suffice it to say.

Okay, we went down sort of a rabbit hole here, and for an odd reason. The trip to House of the Rising Sun started off as it refers to the mother of the subject sewing his blue jeans. We'll explain that in the other thread, but we would note that the song has one final aspect.  It's a warning about the decay of a family. 

Today is Christmas on the Julian Calendar.

So, as a result, it's the day which the Orthodox who follow the Julian calendar, which is not all of them, celebrate Christmas.

Emblem of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

In Ukraine, where the majority of Christians are in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which obtained autocephalous status on December 15, 2018, Metropolitan Epiphany, its head will lead a service in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery for the first time since 1685.  In that following year, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church fell under Moscow's authority. The Metropolitanate of Kyiv actually became an ordinary diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1722 

This year, however, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church gave its members the option of celebrating Christmas on December 25, which became a widely discussed topic in Ukraine itself, where celebration of a civil Christmas on December 25 had already become widespread. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, an Easter Rite Catholic Church which is the largest Eastern Rite church in the world, apparently already did.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church's having obtained autocephalous status has been an odd backdrop to the war.  The Russian Orthodox Church is the largest Eastern Orthodox Church in the world, and it has been one of the primary opponents to reunion with Rome.  The relationship between the various Orthodox Churches is complicated on a legal basis, but generally the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is regarded as being the  primus inter pares between the various autocephalous church's heads, although sometimes the Pope is also referred to in that fashion.  He is regarded, generally, as having the power to accord autocephalous status, which at least from the outside is problematic as it would seem to suggest that he has a sort of superior authority which the Eastern Orthodox otherwise reject as to the Pope, even though they recognized early in their history.  Anyhow, the granting of autocephalous status by the Ecumenical Patriarch was fiercely resisted by Moscow, and it has lead to a round of schisms.  Moscow continues to deny that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is autocephalous, and one of the claims of Russians in the war is that they are defending Orthodoxy.

As for the United States, about 1,200,000 Americans are reported as being in an Eastern Orthodox Church.  At least in Wyoming, most of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are Greek Orthodox, although they often have Russian Orthodox members and may be served by Priests who are from another branch of Orthodoxy.  Gillette has an Antiochean Orthodox Church, which represents a congregation which converted from Protestant fundamentalism following an intense study of the early church.

Blog Mirror: Canada's two year foreign home owner ban.

 







Canada has banned foreigners from buying homes in the country for a two-year period, in order to ease a housing crunch.

Good for them.

For too long, the countries of the Northern Hemisphere have pretended as thought they live on an ever expanding continent.

They do not.

Friday, January 6, 2023

Neaderthals and their advanced brains.

A science headline on a paper just out yesterday:

Homo sapiens and Neanderthals share high cerebral cortex integration into adulthood

From a synopsis by the authors of the study:

A surprising result

The results of our analyses surprised us. Tracking change over deep time across dozens of primate species, we found humans had particularly high levels of brain integration, especially between the parietal and frontal lobes.

But we also found we're not unique. Integration between these lobes was similarly high in Neanderthals too.

I know it sounds flippant, but I'm not surprised.  I would have expected our brains, and Neanderthal brains, to be just about the same.  And that's because I also believed this:

There's another important implication. It's increasingly clear that Neanderthals, long characterized as brutish dullards, were adaptable, capable and sophisticated people.

I, of course, maintain that Neanderthals weren't a different species at all, but simply a subspecies of our species.

Wednesday, January 6, 1943. No pleasure driving.

The Office of Price Administration banned pleasure driving in seventeen Eastern U.S. states, with the ban to commence at noon the following Thursday.

It also limited the amount of fuel oil that could be used by schools, churches, stores, theaters and other non-residential establishments.

German Admiral Erich Raeder tendered his resignation after a difficult meeting with Hitler over the Battle of the Barents Sea, which Raeder had not informed Hitler about.  Hitler actually learned about the battle in the foreign press.

Raeder was promoted on January 30 and put in a ceremonial post, but effectively his service was over.  He was captured by the Red Army towards the end of the war, which is surprising given that he was not serving and theoretically could have attempted to evade them.  He was sentenced to life in prison at Nuremberg, which surprised him, as he expected to be sentenced to death.  He was released in 1955 due to ill health and died in 1960.

Nisei serving in the U.S. Army began to accompany U.S. and Australian troops in New Guinea.

The Red Army continued to advance in the Caucasus, U.S. Troops were pushed off of the summit of Jeb el Azzaq in Tunisia, and the Free French took Oum-el-Arnaeb.

Marian Anderson sang at the dedication of a mural for the Department of the Interior.  Present were vocalists from the U.S. Navy, and JrROTC cadets who participated.







Saturday, January 6, 1923. The US Departs.

The U.S. Senate voted to withdraw American troops from occupation duty in Germany, rather than participate in a French occupation of the Rhineland.  1,200 troops remained in Germany at the time.

Western Farmers and Ranchers and the GOP? Why the loyalty? Part 1.

Dust Bowl farmers, from an era when the GOP would have done pretty much nothing.

TRIBUTE TO HARRIET HAGEMAN

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is fitting that Harriet Hageman will be inducted into the 2011 Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Harriet is known across Wyoming and across our Nation as a stalwart promoter and defender of agriculture. With this honor, she is following in the footsteps of her father Jim Hageman, who was previously inducted in the Agriculture Hall of fame in 2002.

Harriet comes from a long history of agricultural producers. Her great grandfather homesteaded in Wyoming in 1879 and her parents bought their first ranch near Fort Laramie in 1961.  Harriet grew up on the family’s cattle ranches in the Fort Laramie area. Rather than pursuing a career in agriculture, she earned a law degree from the University of Wyoming. Yet she did not stray from the agriculture industry. Much of her legal practice has been focused on protecting agriculture’s land, water, and natural resources. She uses her Ag background coupled with her fine mind to effectively argue on behalf of Wyoming’s ranchers and farmers in courtrooms at all levels of the judiciary.

A few of her many accomplishments should be noted. Harriet was the lead attorney for the State of Wyoming in protecting its share of the North Platte River. She fought the USDA to protect Wyoming’s access to national forest lands. She successfully defended Wyoming’s Open Range Law before the Wyoming Supreme Court. Her clients include ranchers, farmers, irrigation districts and grazing permitees. Harriet represents them with a passion that can only come from love of agriculture.

I have had the honor of working with Harriet Hageman and have benefitted from her wisdom. I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating

 Harriet on this well-deserved honor. 

John Barasso in the Congressional Record, August 2, 2011.1 


CHUCK TODD:  You know, you actually vote less with Joe Biden than Kyrsten Sinema does. You're comfortable being a Democrat in Montana. Why is that?

SEN. JON TESTER:  Look, I'm also a farmer. And I can tell you that we would not have the farm today if it was not for the Democratic politics of FDR. And my grandfather and grandmother talked to us about that, my folks talked to me about that. And I will tell you that I am forever grateful for that, because I'm blessed to be a farmer, I love agriculture, and I wouldn't be one without the Democrats.

Meet the Press, December 11, 2022.

I wouldn't be a rancher but for the Democrats.  No Wyoming rancher born in Wyoming would be.

Harriet Hageman, born on a ranch outside of Ft. Laramie, Wyoming, wouldn't have been born on a ranch but for the Democrats.  If Herbert Hoover had won the election of 1932, she'd have been born in a city somewhere else, if she'd been born at all (and likely would not have, given the way twist of fates work).  She sure wouldn't have been born on a ranch/farm.

The Democrats saved agriculture in the 1930s in the West, Midwest and North.  They didn't do it any favors in the South, however.

My wife's grandfather, a World War Two Marine, and born on a ranch, remembered that and voted for the Democrats for the rest of his life.

So why do so many in agriculture vote Republican, even though Republican policies would have destroyed family agriculture in the 1930s and still stand to destroy family agriculture in the US today?

Well, a lot of reasons. But it'd be handy if people quit babbling the myths about it.

Indeed, when a person like Hageman states "I'm a fourth generation rancher", or things that effect, it ought to be in the form of an apology followed by "and yet I'm a Republican. . . "

Let's take a look at the reality of the matter.

Farm Policy from colonization up until the close of the Frontier.

Puritans on their way to church.  Something that's often omitted in depictions of the Puritans is how corporate early English colonization was.  English Colonists may have had individual economic and personal goals, and no doubt did in order to set off on such a risky endeavor, but they were often also sponsored by backers who had distince economic goals and expectations.  They remained heavily dependent upon the United Kingdom in that fashion. They also did not, at first, exist as individualist, but part of a community that featured very strict rules.

Up until January 1, 1863, farmers didn't acquire "virgin lands" by the pure sweat of their brow, as the myth would have everyone seemingly believe.

Let's start with a basic premise.

When the Spanish founded St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565, and the English Jamestown in 1622, there were already people here.

I don't think that's a shocker for anyone, but in recent years, the political right has taken this as a bit of a threat for some reason.  It's simply the truth.  Natives occupied the land.

The concept of the settlers, very loosely, was that the natives didn't have as good of a claim to the land as Europeans did, as essentially their agricultural exploitation, if existent at all, was not as developed as that of the Europeans.  In English colonies, it led to the concept of Aboriginal Title, which recognized that Indian nations did in fact have certain sovereign rights, including title, to land, but that it was inferior to that of the Crown, which was a more developed, civilized, sovereign.  The Crown could and did extinguish aboriginal title.2

After American Independence, this concept endured. The United States, not the states, but the United States Government, held title of lands.  States could hold title, but their title was co-equal with aboriginal title, not superior.  Generally, however up until 1862, the United States extinguished most, but not all, aboriginal title prior to a territory becoming a state, and upon statehood ceded the unoccupied public lands to the states. This gave rise to the wackadoodle concept in recent years that the Federal government retains an obligation to do that and must "turn over" Federal lands to the states, a position which should return the adherents of those asserting it to Kindergarten to start all over again in their educations.

After the Mexican War the United States found itself with a double land title problem. For one thing, it wasn't at all certain how to deal with the titles of New Mexicans and Californios who had title from Mexico or Spain.  That had to be recognized, of course, but the government was troubled by it in part because in defeating Mexico it hadn't acquired all of the Mexican administration along with that.

The other problem, in its view, is that it acquired a big swath of territory that nobody except wild aboriginals and nearly as wild courier du bois wanted to reside in.

The Homestead Act of 1862 was the answer.

It's no mistake that the Homestead Act was a Civil War measure.  In addition to the other problems the US now had a big population of rootless people it wasn't sure what to do with, and this provided a relief valved.  And the Southern States being out of the government temporarily opened up the door for the (then) progressive Republicans to really emphasize their use of the American System, which as a semi managed economy with lots of Federal intervention.  The Democrats, much like the current GOP, opposed government intervention in the economy.

So the GOP backed a new concept in which the US would directly give the public domain to homestead entrants if they put in at least five years of labor.  This too really struck at the South, as the pattern in the South had come to favor large landed interests which destroyed a farm through cotton production agriculture, and then bought new land further west and started again.

Note the essence of this here.  Prior to 1863, a farmer seeking land, or a would be farmer, had to buy it from somebody, or the Federal government, or the state.  Yes, people moved west and cleared land, but they didn't just get it for nothing.

After 1862 they could, by putting in the labor.

That system massively favored small, and poor, farmers, and disfavored large monied interests.  You could still buy the public domain, but entities doing that were in direct competition with those getting it for their labor.  It weighted things in favor of the small operator.

Which gave us, for example, the Johnson County War.

We don't think of the Johnson County War as an economic class struggle, and indeed it makes a person sound like a Marxist if you do, but it was.  Perhaps in Chestertonian terms, it was a contest between production agricultural and agrarians, which would be closer to the mark.  We've discussed the Johnson County War before, and will simply loop that dicussion in:

Sidebar: The Johnson County War








Water law was the domain of states or territories exclusively, and evolved in the mining districts of California, which accepted that claiming water in one place and moving it to another was a necessary right.  This type of water law, much different from that existing in the well watered East, spread to the West, and a "first in time, first in right" concept of water law evolved.  This was to be a significant factor in Western homesteading. Additionally, the Federal government allowed open use of unappropriated public lands for grazing.  States and Territories, accepting this system, sought to organize the public grazing by district, and soon an entire legal system evolved which accepted the homesteading of a small acreage, usually for the control of water, and the use of vast surrounding public areas, perhaps collectively, but under the administration of some grazing body, some of which, particularly in Wyoming, were legally recognized.  In the case of Wyoming, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association controlled the public grazing, and had quasi legal status in that livestock detectives, who policed the system, were recognized at law as stock detectives.


But nothing made additional small homesteading illegal.  And the penalty for failing to cooperate in the grazing districts mostly amounted to being shunned, or having no entry into annual roundups.  This continued to encourage some to file small homesteads.  Homesteading was actually extremely expensive, and it was difficult for many to do much more than that.  Ironically, small homesteading was aided by the large ranchers practice of paying good hands partially in livestock, giving them the ability to start up where they otherwise would not have been.  It was the dream of many a top hand, even if it had not been when they first took up employment as a cowboy, to get a large enough, albeit small, herd together and start out on their own.  Indeed, if they hoped to marry, and most men did, they had little other choice, the only other option being to get out of ranch work entirely, as the pay for a cowhand was simply not great enough to allow for very many married men to engage in it.

By the 1880s this was beginning to cause a conflict between the well established ranchers, who tended to be large, and the newer ones, who tended to be small.  The large stockmen were distressed by the carving up of what they regarded as their range, with some justification, and sought to combat it by legal means.  One such method was the exclusion of smaller stockmen from the large regional roundups, which were done collectively at that time, and which were fairly controlled events.  Exclusion for a roundup could be very problematic for a small stockman grazing on the public domain, as they all were, and this forced them into smaller unofficial roundups. Soon this created the idea that they were engaging in theft.  To make matters even more problematic, Wyoming and other areas attempted to combat this through "Maverick" laws, which allowed any unbranded, un-cow attended, calf to be branded with the brand of its discoverer.  This law, it was thought, would allow large stockmen to claim the strays found on their ranges, which they assumed, because of their larger herds, to be most likely to be theirs (a not unreasonable assumption), but in fact the law actually encouraged theft, as it allowed anybody with a brand to brand a calf, unattended or not, as long as nobody was watching.  Soon a situation developed in which large stockmen were convinced that smaller stockmen were acting illegally or semi illegally, and that certain areas of the state were controlled by thieves or near thieves, while the small stockmen rightly regarded their livelihoods as being under siege. Soon, they'd be under defacto  siege.

This forms the backdrop of the Johnson County War.  Yes, it represent ed an effort by the landed and large to preserve what they had against the small entrant.   But their belief that they were acting within the near confines of the law, if not solidly within it, was not wholly irrational.  They convinced themselves that their opponents were all thieves, but their belief that they were protecting a recognized legal system, or nearly protecting it, had some basis in fact.  This is not to excuse their efforts, but from their prospective, the break up by recognized grazing districts by small entrants was not only an obvious threat to its existence (and indeed it would come to and end), but an act protecting what they had conceived of as a legal right.  Their opponents, for that matter, were largely acting within the confines of the law as well, and naturally saw the attack as motivated by greed.



The invasion, as we've seen, was a total failure in terms of execution.  It succeeded in taking the lives of two men, with some loss of life on its part as well, but it did nothing to address the perceived problem  it was intended to address.  The invaders were much more successful in avoiding the legal implications of their acts, through brilliant legal maneuvering on the part of their lawyers, but the act of attempting the invasion brought so much attention to their actions that they effectively lost the war by loosing the public relations aspect of it.  For the most part, the men involved in it were able to continue on in their occupations without any ill effect on those careers, a fairly amazing fact under the circumstances, and, outside of Gov. Barber, whose political career was destroyed, even the political impacts of the invasion were only temporary.  Willis Vandevanter was even able to go on to serve on the United States Supreme Court, in spite of the unpopularity of this clinets in the defense of the matter.  Violence continued on for some time, however, with some killings, again engaged in with unknown sponsors, occurring. However, not only a change in public opinion occurred, but soon a change in perceived enemies occurred, and a new range war would erupt against a new enemy, that one being sheep.  The range itself would continue to be broken up unabated until the Taylor Grazing Act was passed early in Franklin Roosevelt's administration, which saved the range from further homesteading, and which ultimately lead to a reconsolidation of much of the range land.

That got ahead or our story a bit, but consider this.

The homestead act brought the small operators in. The big operators kept coming in. When small operators were the beneficiaries of a Federal land program.  When the inevitable contest between the two came, the Federal government sided with the small operators through the intervention of the U.S. Army.

Now let's consider the role of the Army.

All this land was available in the first place as, after the Mexican War, the Federal Government had provided the Army to "deal with" the Indians. Dealing with them meant removing them onto Reservations.  Prior to the Mexican War, Native Americans were mostly "dealt with" by the states or even simply by individuals, which made the Indian Wars prior to the Mexican War ghastly bloody affairs, something amplified by the fact that the invention of the Rifle Musket (not the musket, or a rifle, but the Rifle Musket) gave industrialized Americans a real weapons advantage over the Natives for the very first time.

Now, in complete fairness, the Army didn't enter the West like a German SS Division, and the Army spent a lot of time just trying to keep the age-old warfare between European Americans and the Natives from going on.  But it was a massive Federal intervention with the result of removing the Natives from their lands even if the reality of what occurred wasn't seen that way, fully, or by everyone, at the time.

The net result is that agriculture in the west was the beneficiary of a massive, liberal-progerssives set of agriculture policies that favored poorer agriculturalist, if not necessary poor agriculturalist.

Put another way, it wasn't the rugged pioneer finding unoccupied virgin soil in the west and creating a farm or ranch out of the pure sweat of their brows and dirt on their fingers.  That was involved, but they were given the thing they needed the most, the land, for nothing but that work, and their presence was backed up by the Federal Government, including in an armed fashion if necessary.

The close of the frontier until the 1920s.

The US has always had some sort of farm policy and a lot of it is monetary in nature, and I'm not qualified to really expand on that.   What I can say there I basically already have.

In 1890 Frederick Jackson Turner, the director of the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the frontier was closed.  This was one year after the 1889 Oklahoma Land Rush which had opened up a vast amount of Indian lands to settlement again on the basis that they weren't in productive use, as European Americans saw it.  In 1890, they all were, according to the Census Bureau.

At that point, the Homestead Act should have been repealed, having succeeded in its goal, but its in the nature of Federal programs that they always live on well after they should die.  Guaranteed Student Loans provide a current example.  So nothing changed

Then came World War One.

World War One sparked a global agricultural crisis.

Little noted, by and large, the world's economy had globalized to an extent which was only recently reestablished (and probably surpassed, maybe).  The Great War destroyed that, and part of what it destroyed was global agriculture.  The massive Russian and Ukrainian wheat supply was removed from the market as part of that, and this in turn started a massive American homesteading rush, with people who had little knowledge of farming flooding the prairie's to be dry land farmers, something which boosters insisted couldn't fail.  At first, in fact, it didn't.  The crisis carried on through the war, along with a massively boosted demand for agricultural commodities of all kids.  The 1910s saw the largest number of homesteads filed of any decade, and 1919 saw the last year in which farmers had economic parity with urban dwellers.

And then it collapsed.

The Farm Crisis of the 1920s and the Great Depression


For farmers, the Depression really started in 1920, not 1929.  Farms were failing, and yet homesteading, at a smaller post Great War rate, continued.

Then came 1929. 

Still suffering from a post-war economic crisis, 1929 brought a flood of new homesteaders as desperate town and city dwellers left their homes, having lost their jobs, and sought to try to homestead, not knowing what they were doing.  This was destroying the farm and ranch lands of the West.  Finally, with Franklin Roosevelt's administration having come in, the Federal Government stepped in to save the situation by repealing the Homestead Acts and passing the Taylor Grazing Act.

The Taylor Grazing Act protected the existing farms and ranches against new homestead entrants, meaning that they could keep grazing that part of the Federal domain which they were, in exchange for a reasonable preferential lease. That's the system we've had ever since, and its what keeps real ranchers in business to this day, although here too times have caught up with the system and at least some farming states, like Iowa, have passed laws preventing absentee corporate ownership of farms. Wyoming should do the same, but wedded to a blind concept of property rights that doesn't meet the reality of our history or the situation, it hasn't and likely won't. 

The Roosevelt farm policy went far beyond that.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act dealt directly with prices, although it was ruled unconstitutional at the tail end of the Depression in 1936.  Programs that resulted in some crops being "plowed under" took products off the market that were depressing prices, and price supports for landowners were put in place, which helped farmers in the West and North, but which were devastating to sharecroppers, who didn't own their own land, in the South.

And now today.

The net result of this, once again, is that the Republicans, by now the conservative party, were doing nothing for agriculture and would have let the occupants of the land go under. The Democrats, now the liberal party, saved them.

Since that time, it's been largely the same story, except not that much help has been needed.  The Defense Wool Subsidy was passed in 1954, for defense wool needs, under the Eisenhower Administration, so there was an example of a Republican program that helped farmers, although it was designed to really do so, and it was eliminated in 1993 while Clinton was in office, so a Democrat operated to hurt sheep ranchers.  This gets into the complicated story of subsidies, which are not as extensive as people imagine, and which have been part of a Federal "cheap food" policy that came in after World War Two and which is frankly a little spooky when looked at.  Overall, the policy is unpopular with free marketers, who tend to be Republicans, but it's been kept in place with it sometimes being noted that the overall post-war history of "cheap food" is an historical anomaly.  Anyhow, it gets a bit more complicated at this point.

Which takes us to this.

Looking at the history of it, Progressives and Liberals have kept ranchers and farmers on the land.  When Harriet Hageman notes she's a fourth generation Wyomingite from an agricultural background, she's implying that she's a direct beneficiary of a massive government program that 1) removed the original occupants of the land to open it up to agriculture; 2) opened it up to the poorer agriculturalist and kept its hand on the scale to benefit them; and 3) operated to save them in times of economic distress.

Given that, it's been the Democrats that have really helped that sector since 1914, when they became the liberal party, and Republicans before that, when they were.

But that doesn't comport with the myth people have sold themselves very well.

There are lots of reasons not to be a Democrat.  I'm not arguing that economic self-interest should dictate how a person votes, nor am I stating that the history of a party should control present votes.

But what I am stating is the current Agricultural loyalty to the GOP is misplaced based on its history.  When a person states that they're fourth generation in agriculture, they're stating that they've benefitted from the Democratic Party, and really not so much from the Republicans.  A lot of Republican loyalty is therefore based on something else, including a multi generational grudge against policies that saved them.

What else might be at work?

Footnotes

1.  I don't know the circumstances of the Hageman's purchasing a ranch in 1961, but the date is interesting, as it would put this within a decade of the last era in which average ranchers in Wyoming could still buy land.  This is almost impossible now, something that the current holders of family ranches often completely fail to appreciate.

It's also interesting in that Hageman, who is married but who retains her maiden name, doesn't work on the family farm/ranch, as Sen. Barrasso's accolade noted.  She's followed the path of many younger sons, which of course she is not, in agriculture of entering into a profession as there really was no place else to go.  This has been less true of women, who often marry into another agricultural family.

Hageman started off following an agricultural career, going to Casper College on a meat judging scholarship, something often oddly omitted in the biographies of her that I've seen, although it is occasionally noted.

1879 is a truly early Wyoming homestead entry.

2.  In spite of all the criticism that various European colonist have received, it's worth noting that French and Spanish colonization was quite a bit different than English colonization.

French colonization particularly was.  It was done on the cheap, for one thing, and almost all of the French colonist came from Normandy alone, bringing Norman culture, which was much more independent than English culture, with them.  French colonist, like Spanish colonist, were also devoutly Roman Catholic, and it was emphasized in their faith that the natives were co-equal to them as human beings, endowed with the same rights before God.  For this reason, French colonist mixed much more readily with the Natives than the English did.

This is true of the Spanish as well, who began to take Native brides (and mistresses) almost immediately upon contact.  Spanish colonization is more complicated than the French example, however, as it was not done on the cheap and was part of a massive economic effort.

Thursday, January 5, 2023

Friday, January 5, 1973. Airport Screening makes its US debut.

Mandatory screening of airline passengers went into effect in the United States.

Salt Lake City Airport.

The Canadian Parliament unanimously condemned the 1972 "Christmas" bombing of North Vietnam by the United States.  This infuriated President Nixon, who was otherwise busy with an Executive Order designed to reorganize the Federal Government and cut the number of White House staff, 4,000, in half.

Mali and Niger broke diplomatic relations with Israel and the Netherlands recognized German Democratic Republic, i.e., East Germany.

The Republic of Ireland amended its constitution removing the "special position" of the Catholic Church, making reference to other religions present in Ireland, and reducing the voting age from 21 to 18.  The special position had been resisted by the Catholic Church at the onset of its inclusion but included due to the insistence and influence of Éamon de Valera.

Joe Biden was sworn in as Senator from Delaware at a chapel at the Wilmington, Delaware hospital where one of his sons was hospitalized following a December 18 accident that killed Biden's first wife and his daughter.

Aerosmith released its first album, which was called Aerosmith.  On the same day, Bruce Springsteen released his famous debut studio album, Greetings from Ashbury Park, N.J.  Both albums showed an evolution away from the Rock & Roll of the 1960s.

Tuesday, January 5, 1943 First use of the VT Fuse.

The first use of the revolutionary VT fuse in combat occurred when the USS Helena shot down a Japanese dive bomber with a projectile equipped with the fuse.

1953 variant of the VT "proximity" fuse.


Designed for surface-to-air and ground to ground use, the VT used radar to detonate when close to the target. The Navy's use came first, as it was feared that the fuse would fall into enemy hands if used in ground combat.  Amazingly, use by ground forces of the joint British-American fuse would not come until late 1944 when it was deployed during the Battle of the Bulge.  There was some reluctance to use it even then, but its revolutionary features were never discovered by the Germans or Japanese.

The fuse is widely used today.

Gen. Kenneth Walker led a heavy bomber raid on Rabaul to hit Japanese shipping, the presence of which the US was aware of due to decoding of Japanese radio transmissions.  Eight Japanese merchant ships and two destroyers were hit during the raid by B-17s and B-24s.  Gen. Walker's aircraft, in which he was riding as an observer, was brought down by Japanese antiaircraft fire, and he was killed.

Gen. Walker.

Walker was 44 years old at the time of his death.  Born in New Mexico, he grew up in Denver, Colorado in a home maintained by his mother, as his father left the family.  He attended a variety of schools in Denver.  He entered the Army during World War One and was commissioned as an airman in 1918.

The Department of Agriculture ordered that 30% of all butter production be reserved for the Armed Forces.

George Washington Carver, prominent American scientist and African American, died at approximately age 78.


The Red Army continued to advance in the Caucasus.  British paratroopers and commandos took the high ground near Mateur, Tunisia.  Free French forces advanced in southern Libya.

Friday, January 5, 1923 Frances overflies the Ruhr.

French air force roundel.

France sent aircraft over the Ruhr in preparation for entering it.

Czechoslovak Finance Minister Alois Rašín was shot by an anarchist.

A white mob destroyed Rosewood, Florida.  We reported on the start of these events a few days ago.

In Sofia, Bulgaria, an explosion of surplus artillery shells sold to a junk dealer by the Interallied Disarmament Commission killed twelve.