National Guard News - Command Sgt. Maj. Conley convenes book group to discuss Army National Guard history

National Guard News - Command Sgt. Maj. Conley convenes book group to discuss Army National Guard history

Holscher's Hub: The Blizzard of 13.

Holscher's Hub: The Blizzard of 13.:  U.S. Federal Courthouse, April 8, 2013.  April 9, 2013.  April 9, 2013.  Just before I blew the fuze on the windshield wipe...

Answer . . . or else . . . darn it.

Forgot to send mine in, but will do so post haste!

The curtain coming down on the Stalinist Theme Park of North Korea.

On June 25, 1950 the army of North Korea rolled south and invaded the Republic of Korean (South Korea, or the ROK).  The North Korean Army, equipped and trained by the Soviet Union, looked as if it was about to make short work of the South Korean Army.

 South Korean Army band, and military policeman, 1987.

This was not because the North Korean army was so good, as would soon be seen, but rather because the South Korean Army was so very bad.  Trained in only a very rudimentary fashion by the US after World War Two, the South Korean Army suffered from the fact that its conscripts were of an overwhelmingly primitive rural background and that the U.S. didn't regard Korea, a former colonial province of Japan, as being particularly important in any fashion.  To compound it, after the Second World War, the United States came to the conclusion that all future wars would be nuclear wars, and therefore it didn't really need to train its own Army that much.  That reflected itself back on what little we did to arm and train South Korea's army.  The ROK army still had horse cavalry in 1950, and some South Korean soldiers lacked shoes of any kind. 

The Korean War would be the wake up call.

 ROK M48s, 1987.

Stunned by Nationalist China, an Allied power during World War Two, falling to the communist in 1949, the US suddenly regarded the Korean Peninsula as a dagger pointed at Japan, which the US cared about very much.  So, contrary to all expectation, when the North Koreans rolled south the US suddenly went in.  Fortunately for the US, the negligent neglect of the military would not prove to be fatal, in no small part because the US had a massive reservoir of men who trained and fought in World War Two, which had only been over for five years.  The Regular Army was full of men who had trained to fight the Germans and the Japanese who were mixed in with men who had entered the service post war and hardly been trained at all.  National Guard units were likewise packed with men who had seen service in the Second World War.  The US was able to get by, and get to Korea.  Making a stand on the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur, serving as the US administrator of Japan, conceived of an end run using Marines at Inchon that resulted in a collapse of the North Korean army.  North Korea was saved from defeat only because the Red Chinese came to their aid when the advancing American, UN, and ROK forces came to close to Manchuria. That act, however, significantly came not because the Peoples Republic of China loved the Communist regime in North Korea, but rather because the PRC couldn't imagine having American troops on its immediate border.

The South Korean Army that performed so badly in 1950 was first rate by the 1960s, and was one of the most effective anti communist armies to fight in the Vietnam War.  That army remains one of the best in Asia today.  It's a modern, effective, army.

South Korean M48 tanks, approximately 20 miles or so south of the DMZ, in 1987.

South Korean infantry in 6x6 truck, 1987.

The North Korean army, however, is not.  It was a poor army in 1950 through 1954, when it took on the anemic South Korean army and nearly beat it in 1950, only to face being rolled up and defeated that same year by a U.S. Army that hadn't reequipped since World War Two, and which had largely stopped training to fight a conventional ground war..  Only the Red Chinese, with an army that had been fighting, in one fashion or another, back into the 1920s, and with a massive manpower reserve, kept North Korea in existence.  Frankly, had the US not neglected its own military from 1945 to 1950, and kept an army trained to its 1945 standards, and equipped in way reflecting the lessons of ground combat from 1939 to 1945, the Chinese also would have suffered defeat.  The Chinese were mostly able to rely on sheer mass, more than anything else.  That work in 1950 to 1954, but in learning the lessons of this war, and applying them to the possibility of a war with the Soviet Union in Europe, the US developed the technology and strategies to cope with fighting a numerically superior foe. By the 1990s, it was pretty clear that the yields of that strategy were so vast, that the American army was incapable of being defeated in a war against a conventional enemy, no matter who that enemy might be.  Nuclear war, and guerrilla wars, however, remain different in consideration.

South Korean M38A1 with recoiless rifle, 1987.

The Peoples Republic of China has taken this to heart, but by all appearances, the North Koreans have not.  In spite of fielding a few impressive large weapons platforms, they're at best a 1970s vintage Soviet style army in terms of equipment, and a 1920s style Soviet army in terms of the manpower base making up the army.  Should the North Korean army actually tangle the with the modern South Korean army, the results would be disastrous for the north.  In spite of that, however, the appearances are begging to suggest that they really don't know that.

South Korean army compound, 1987.

Prior to the fall of the USSR, the North Koreans had been able to rely upon the Soviets and the Red Chinese to back them up, both economically and militarily.  In other words, the economic impact of a completely failed system was relatively minimal, given the subsidization of the other two major Communist countries; and there was little risk of the North having to really pay militarily for any blunders it might make.  Economically, however, that day is long gone.  With the collapse of the USSR, North Korea is having to more or less pay its own way in the world.  It still gets some  help, but only some, from the PRC, which was never completely comfortable with North Korea in the first place, as it seemed a little too close to the USSR in some ways. Economically, the Chinese aren't helping the north much, in spite of the fact that an economically depressed North Korea is creating a Korean illegal immigrant problem in Manchuria, as desperate North Koreans cross the Yalu into China.

And the China of 2013 isn't the China of 1953.  Communism fell in the USSR, where it got its start, in 1990.  In China, it morphed.  This may be hugely significant for how this story might play out.

China of 1953 was a Maoist state, not quite Stalinist, but no better and varying only, really, in that it was lead by a different brutal Communist dictator.  In some ways, the People's Re public of China remained more communist, longer, than the USSR, but like the unnaturally Communist Slavic empire to its north, the unnatural Communist state to its south no longer is really a Communist state.  It's not a nice regime either.  It's a dictatorship of a type, but not really a Communist one.  It more closely resembles the clerical dictatorships (dictatorships of clerks, i.e., professional bureaucrats) that broke out in some European states mid 20th Century.  And China is open for business.  Indeed, China is dictating business.  It's not really capitalist, but it isn't Communist either.

 Tank retriever of HHB, 3d Bn, 49th FA, Wyoming Army National Guard, 1987.

The dictatorship in China will fall, ultimately, but for the time being its politburo is a ruthlessly pragmatic, expansionist, entity. And it doesn't benefit from a nuclear armed Stalinist state being next door.  It doesn't benefit from the U.S. having a military presence on the Korean Peninsula either.  And it sure wouldn't benefit from the resumption of the Korean War.

It would, however, benefit from a reunited Korea, as long at that Korea was friendly to it, and open to business for it.  It likely doesn't care what kind of government that Korea has either.

 

Bus garage, Seoul, 1987.

South Korea, for that matter, would still like to reunite with the north, although that view is passing as a generation of South Koreans raised in peace and prosperity looses connections with their cousins to the north.  For those who would reunite Korea, that era is passing, and the best time to accomplish it is now.  Otherwise, the disparity in economics and, more significantly, culture may have grown too great for a younger generation of South Koreans to really look upon reunification with much enthusiasm.

 

 Seoul, 1987.

Finally, truth be known, the US would probably be happy to leave South Korea, if it could.  Indeed, we came close to doing so once before, during the Carter Administration, but Congressional reaction kept it from happening, probably wisely. Since that time, in fact, we've had to act on more than one occasion to make it plain that we would come to South Korea's defense, if the North attacked.

Only Japan really has a strong interest in keeping the United States on the Korean Peninsula.  Neither the Chinese or the Koreans like the Japanese, and the US presence there is comforting for Japan, which is pretty nervous about recent developments on the Asian mainland as it is.

 Howitzer battery, U.S. Army, South Korea, 1987.

8in Howitzers of the 3d Bn, 49th FA, Wyoming Army National Guard, in South Korea, 1987.

8in howitzers of the 3d Bn, 49th FA, in a cabbage field, South Korea, 1987.

That's all why I suspect that not only are the North Korean threats childish bluster, or more accurately a childish tantrum, but that this may work out in short order.

We'll see, but my suspicion is that China will act to replace the Korean leadership shortly.  That could happen in any number of ways, but if I were the "Dear Leader" I'd be nervous about accepting any invitations to visit Beijing in the near future.  At any rate, it'd be an easy matter for the PRC to send Kim Jong-un into retirement, followed by a the rise of a friendly military dictatorship. That dictatorship would likely be prearranged to be very brief, with the leaders looking forward to retirement at some plushy villa in southern China.  Prior to that, they'd be the heroes by opening the border and indicating that the days of Korean division were over, and that the ROK could come in and take over.  That my sound farfetched, but we saw it with Germany, in which the Communist East Germany folded itself into the Federal Republic of Germany.  Soon after such a reunification, we'd likely go home, our presence no longer needed or desired.

From that, China would get a neighbor that wasn't run by a nuclear armed baby, and it'd get a neighbor with a robust free market economy.  South Korea would reunify with the north prior to developments making that undesirable, and the United States could end a lengthy expensive overseas commitment that serves only a singular goal, rather than a global strategic goal.  China would also get us off the Asian mainland, which it'd likely like to have done.  It would amount to sort of the Finlandization of Korea, but I suspect that everyone, except Japan, would be happy to have that occur.

Your humble blogger, in South Korea, in 1987.

Railhead: Arminto Wyoming

Railhead: Arminto Wyoming: This is what is left of the sidetrack at Arminto Wyoming, and of a hotel along the rail one, which was located where the grove of trees stands.

I've just linked in two threads from my companion blog, Railhead, dedicated to railroad topics, which depict some things long gone by. This is one of them. This thread depicts Arminto Wyoming.

Arminto is a very small town in Natrona County Wyoming. So small in fact that I once had the odd experience of talking to a FedEx tractor trailer driver who stopped when he saw my me and my brother in law herding cattle north of Arminto. He was trying to deliver something to Arminto, and had driven right through it, not knowing what it was. People driving through this area today probably have next to no idea that this very tiny town is a town, or that it was ever economically significant.

But it in fact once was.

Arminto was the busiest sheep shipping railhead in the world in the first half of the 20th Century. More sheep were sent to market through Arminto than any other place on the globe.

I suppose the partial lesson in that is that economic endeavors that seem so significant at one point can certainly evaporate. Arminto's economic significance certainly has. Sheep no longer are shipped from its railhead. The railhead itself lacks pens. There is no longer hotel, which there once was. The small busy little bar burned down in the 1980s. The Sheepherders Fair, a really well attended local sheep based rodeo was moved to Powder River, and last year the last Sheepherders Fair was held. Ironically, sheep prices are up.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Updated Entry:

The post on Railhead has brought a number of interesting replies, including one viewer, Ray Galutia, who very generously provided his own photos. As these are so interesting, and historically valuable, I'm reposting the entire Railhead entry here, and posting Ray's additional photographs here.

This is what is left of the sidetrack at Arminto Wyoming, and of a hotel along the rail line, which was located where the grove of trees stands.

While now it would almost be impossible to tell, this location once shipped more sheep per year than any other spot on earth.  It was the epicenter of the local sheep industry, and the busiest sheep shipping point on earth.  It remained a significant sheep town well into the second half of the 20th Century, but  the railhead fell into disuse when trucking took over in livestock transportation, and ultimately the collapse of the sheep industry following the repeal of the Defense Wool Incentive in the 1980s completed the town's decline.  The famous local bar burned down in this period, and today the town is a mere shadow of its former self.

More on the history of this location can be found on the entry on this topic at Lex Anteinternet.

______________________________________________________________________________

Ray Galutia very generously provided us with photos depicting Arminto in the  1940s from his personal collection  I'm going to link these photos, which are historically valuable, in here, and also over at Lex Anteinternet, in those instances in which the topics aren't on railroads.  There will be more of those interesting linked in photos posted there.

I'm also going to repost this entry as a new current one, given that it's been updated to such an extent.

Diesel train taking siding for a steam engine at Arminto, 1947-1949.

The location of this photograph, from 1947-1949, is actually quite close to the ones posted immediately above, except it's from a different angle looking back on the town.

 Additional photographs uploaded only here:

Parents of Mr. Galutia.

Depot and Harpers Store.

Harper's Store.

Mr. Galutia and his father on the playground of the Arminto school, which no longer stands.

Snow plow in a much more active era for Arminto.

Pumping water to a train.

Mr. Galutia and his mother.

 

 Mr. Galutia and his father on Arminto water tower.

And from Mr. Galutia's 2009 trip back to Arminto.

 Building sets where Harper's Store was located.

 Water tower and treatment plant foundation.

 Foundation of the Big Horn Hotel.

 "

My car sets approximately   where one of the section houses sat ....and the clump of tree has two  old foundations and on the hill behind the trees is where the water tower sat ....my folks section house sat directly across the tracks from the trees

 Water tower foundation.

Holding tank location.

Trout fishing on the North Platte

My father was a great fisherman.

 My father and I, at a fish hatchery, in about 1966 or 1967.

And by "great," I mean great in every sense.  He was very good at fishing.  He was patient teaching fishing (a hard thing to do).  And he loved fishing.  The one and only time I ever recall him writing to a politician followed an oil spill in the North Platte, when he felt that the Governor we had at the time was failing to do enough to have the company that caused the spill be held responsible for the situation.

My father liked to hunt as well, but fishing was a greater passion for him.  I like to fish, but hunting is much more of a passion with me.  As I grew older there were plenty of instances in which I rode along with him in the fall, so that I could hunt while he fished, and then later there were some instances in which he rode with me so that he could fish, while I hunted.  This is not to say that we didn't do both, but the strong nature of the mutually shared interests was slightly reversed in our personalities.

I fished pretty regularly up until I went to college. At that time, living in Laramie, I fished much less as Laramie, at 7,200 feet in elevation, is not great fishing country.  I fished a bit in the Laramie River, but never with much success. And I fished a bit with a friend of mine in the Snowy Range, which was much better, even if the season was pretty short, given the high altitude.  Waterfowling was better around Laramie, although it's not ideal with that.  Of course, quite a few people go big game hunting in the area.

When I came back from Laramie, after going there in two blocks, once for my undergraduate degree from the University of Wyoming, and once for my JD I started fishing in the mountains once again.  I didn't resume fishing the river, like my father had done, however, in this immediate area.  I'm not sure why, but it's probably because I mostly fly fish.  All this is by way of introduction to note that I went fishing on Good Friday with my daughter out in one of the locations that my father had frequented.

I'm pleased to note that the fishing was pretty good. We were bait (worm) fishing, and she caught a very nice Rainbow Trout.  I caught a lesser Rainbow, and added to the Rainbow that she had caught ice fishing last month, we had three very nice fish for our Good Friday dinner.  They were excellent.  So, I have no complaints about the conditions of that part of the river over the intervening 25 or so years that I'd fished there.

I also will not claim, as posts of this type are so often inclined to do, that the area had been somehow ruined in the quarter century by the infusion of a lot of extra people.  Frankly, I had expected to have a hard time finding a spot to fish, given that it was a day that a lot of people have off (one of the very few non civil holidays that is frequently observed as a day off).  There weren't that many people fishing from the side of the river at all.  Only one party was in the immediate vicinity, and that would have been normal at any time that I've fished it.

What did catch me way off guard, however, was the incredible volume of drift boats.

Drift boats either didn't exist, or they didn't exist locally to much of an extent, when I last frequented the river.  Indeed, "fishing guides" didn't exist either.  Now they do in profusion.  For that matter, "catch and release" didn't exist as a local concept either.  Up on the mountain streams, where I normally go, they don't exist to me, as I don't run into hardly anyone, so all that was an introduction into the evolution of modern fishing.  For lack of a better word, and without meaning to insult, I might note that its sort of the yuppiefication of fishing, or perhaps the gentrification of fishing.  

When I learned to fish as a boy, fishing wasn't a "sport" as people sort of imagine it now.  Indeed, neither hunting or fishing were, or frankly at their essence now, are "sports."  They're activities of a much deeper nature than that.  When a person hunts or fishes, they're really engaging in a type of work that's the most basic and natural for humans, of which there are  a bare few.  That's probably what drives the impulse in people to do them, and for those who do not, there remains, in spite of what they might want to tell themselves, the same basic instinct, for which they find some, probably inadequate, substitute. 

Because of that, in this locality, at that time, there was something much more primeval, and perhaps much more genuine, about fishing.  People were happy to catch a nice fish, but we ate them.  Indeed, people let fish go, but they were generally small fish that were too small to eat. The entire catch and release thing that some people engage in now didn't exist, and to me it still seems very strange.

The idea of a guide for fishing also seems very strange to me.  Fishing would be something that people would know how to do, and not need a guild for.  While we were fishing the other day, the kids and I observed as a party of fishermen with a guide went by, with the guide offering casting advice.  They noted that a fish jumped up right behind them, unobserved by them all, while they were being so guided, which they found amusing.  I do not begrudge the guilds their occupation at all, it just seems odd to me.

My rude primitiveness is probably reflected in my gear at that.  I haven't bought any new fishing gear for myself in at least 30 years.  My father had a lot of nice fishing stuff, but not massively expensive stuff, and I'm still using it.  What we would have regarded as "nice" would probably horrify some now.  Indeed, I went through a store a few months back to look at rods and was stunned by the price. Granted, these were in a store featuring Orvis rods, but still, I was amazed.  A person can, however, get much cheaper ones that are still quality.

And they are very nice too, I might add.  I have bought rods and reels for my kids, and they're great compared to the old stuff I've been using.  I was using a fiberglass rod that was first rate when my father bought it, probably 30 or more years ago, but it's not anywhere near as nice as the carbon rod I bought my son for a quite reasonable price.  I may need to go out and upgrade.  Indeed, I'll apparently have to, as I found over the weekend that I couldn't find my spinning rod.  I think I may have actually broken it last year, but at any rate, I have no idea where it is, if I still have it.  The reel was pretty busted up and the rod pretty darned old, so this is really no great loss.  I'll be looking at buying an Ugly Stick, which is what my son's nice rod is, which I used on Good Friday and really liked.

Anyhow, my point is not to complain about the evolution in fishing, or about the guides. Actually, I'm glad that the river is now seen as an important resource of that type, and I'm happy that there are people who can make a living from fishing.  And I have no doubt that much of the new gear is pretty darned good, and that my old rods and reels are antiquated and now in need of some updating.  The disappearance of my spinning rod (or actually rods) is probably a blessing.  But I am a bit concerned about the gentrification of something that's so basic in origin.  At some point, that's bad.  

Fly fishing in particular seems to have acquired a certain snottiness in some quarters.  I have no idea how that occurred.  This wasn't the case, at least locally, when I was younger, and frankly I don't recall it being the case in general until after the move A River Runs Through It.  That film is a great film, but it seemed to ironically inspire a certain class of fishing elitist.  I note that its a true irony, as the fly fishing culture depicted in the film was simply the rural culture of the entire West well into the 20th Century, and frankly in a lot of it right up to now.  The film, after all, depicts two brothers from modest means for whom fly fishing (the only kind of fishing depicted in the film) is a major activity.  Lots of people from around here, of all backgrounds, experience the very same thing.  But following the film there came to be a certain high end fly fishing "sport" view that is a bit snobby about other types of fishing.  There's even at least one local lodge that offers fly fishing tours for out of state fishermen.

That sort of Balkanization and elevation of the elite, in an endeavor such at this, is a bit disturbing.  The older generation of fishermen, myself included, did every kind of fishing.  I have always preferred fly fishing, but that's because I like mountain streams.  My father was a great fly fisherman, but he was a great fisherman in general.  We also used spinning reels with bait (worms) and lures.  One of my uncles, another great fisherman, always had boats and it was a great treat to go out on the lakes with him in the summer and troll.  In other words, fishing, like food, is for everyone.  Or at least it should be.

Today In Wyoming's History: April 1

Today In Wyoming's History: April 1: 1918  It was reported that  by this day, for a period dating back to December 1, 1917, Wyoming's revenue's from oil royalties had increased 74%, an impact, no doubt, of World War One.

Riding in, in Yellowstone, in 1933.

305228_615777081770983_2135914111_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 709 × 397 pixels)

The Yellowstone River begins outside of the park to the southeast where the North Fork of the Yellowstone and the South Fork of the Yellowstone meet. The North Fork is the larger of the two and begins on the slopes of Younts Peak in the Absaroka Mountains southeast of the park. This man sits on this slope in September of 1933.

 From the Yellowstone National Park Facebook page.

Territorial Farriers in the Royal Artillery, World War One

269362_301724679957138_385232645_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 960 × 613 pixels)

Critical support troops during the First World War, I wonder how many of these farriers occupied this vocation in civilian life as well?

And, I wonder where they were 20 years later, say in 1938?

Related Threads:

Working With Animals.

Working With Animals.

Wyoming One Room Schoolhouse

418757_409836985730289_732751795_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 960 × 707 pixels)

A matter of prospective

Observation by Army officer Thaddeus H. Stanton, about the Powder River Basin, in April 7, 1876, as published in The New York Tribune:

The country lying east of the Bighorn Mountains, along the Rosebud, Tongue and Powder Rivers, is extremely uninviting.  It is generally a badlands country, with high buttes of indurate clay and sandstone, attaining almost the magnitude of mountains.  But in this entire region there are no auriferous strata, and no rock harder than that above described.  I feel compelled to make this statement in opposition to the statements of many maps of that country which are being scattered throughout the land, upon which gold  is represented as among the minerals to be found in the Panther and Wolf Mountains (the highest badlands buttes above described), and where there is not only i no gold, but where the country has not a single gold-bearing strata or feature.  The Bighorn range of mountains, one of the finest on the continent, doubtless is rich in precious metals and this region is large enough to give room for a large mining population.  The Black Hills country does not compare with it in extent, and probably not in the amount of concealed treasure.  But between the Black Hills and the Bighorn Mountains there is no gold, and no gold-bearing country. Neither is there any land that would bear the hardiest grain or vegetable.  There is no timber worthy of the name; and water is scarce and of bad quality usually, and grass is poor and thing.  Altogether, nearly the entire region lying south and east of the Yellowstone River, from the Bighorn range to the Black Hills, is utterly worthless.

Major Stanton's opinion seems a bit harsh.

Sequestration and the courts

From this morning's Denver Post:

U.S. District Court in Denver won't hold hearings and trials in criminal cases on Fridays between April 26 and Sept. 30 this year because of furloughs made necessary by sequestration budget cuts.

My goodness, what an odd development.

Sequestration was supposed to be the hammer that was to keep Congress from ending in a budgetary impasse, but it didn't work.  Lots of pre deadline Executive Branch commentary, which frankly was overdone, failed to move very many people and the public reacted with a big yawn.  So far, much of the commentary has been on nobody really noticing, but here's something that some people will notice to be sure.  It's odd to even think of a weekday closed to criminal proceedings.  I'm a bit skeptical that they'll be actually able to hold to that, given the probably resulting delays, but this is definitely a noticeable item.

Wyoming State Capitol, 1910

544658_483773361669984_1194538645_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 960 × 786 pixels)

Wyoming Stock Growers Association, April 7, 1914

548911_435039849876669_1635810147_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 960 × 413 pixels)

Excellent photo of stockmen in their dress clothes.

The decline of franternal organizations

Masonic Temple in Casper, Wyoming.  This pre World War One building remains one of the most substantial in downtown Casper.

Recently there was some discussion on a history focused list I'm on, sparked by the Company of Military Historians flyer I recently posted.  The CMH used to be an organization which you had to be invited into, in order to join, and that sort of exclusivity doesn't sit well with everyone.  This is no longer true of the CMH, which now has open enrollment, but the discussion went from that to the topic of fraternal organizations.

I'm not sure if the CMH could properly be considered a fraternal organization, but it was one that not everyone could walk into, which was part of the attraction of it, and I suppose part of the detraction.  In its case, it sought to make sure that people had a recognized interest in history, so it isn't quite the same as a lot of the other fraternal organizations that a person might normally think of.  And there were quite a few of them at that.

Up until perhaps the 1960s, belonging to some sort of fraternal club was a huge deal for men.  Indeed this was so much the case that it was made fun of in some popular media.  The Honeymooners, for example, featured a lodge that the two main male characters belonged to, called the "Raccoons.". The cartoon Flintstones, which was simply a cartoon variant of The Honeymooners, even did.  Lampooning a fraternal organization was a stock joke in those days.

The Masons, the Elks, the Rotary Club, the Lions, the Moose, the Odd Fellows, and the Eagles all had lodges here.  Some of these organizations are very old, some not so old, but they all were popular enough that they all had their own buildings.  Some of them were powers in their own right.

The Elks Club in Casper.  This club appears to still be going strong.  BOPE stands for, I believe Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks.  Just behind it, to the right, is the old building for the Knights of Columbus.  There KofC still exists in Casper, but that building, which was once used by them and which had a club bar within it no longer is used by the Knights.

Many men, I suspect, belonged to more than one such organization at the time, and of course a few still do, but not like they once did.  I couldn't truthfully claim that all established men in a town belonged to at least one club, but it might be a safe bet that most men in business, and many who were not, belonged to at least one.  Some, as noted, were real powers unto themselves.  I've been told, for example, that the Masons were so powerful at one time that not belonging was a hindrance to a man in business. This was particularly a problem for Catholics, which are not allowed by their faith to join secret societies, which the Masons qualify as being.

The Masons, in fact, were so significant of organization that the inclusion of Masons in the dedication of public buildings was the norm prior to World War Two.   People would probably be shocked by that today, but it was routine at the time.  For example, the Federal Courthouse in Casper Wyoming was dedicated in a ceremony in which the Masons were included.  The Colorado Capitol also was.  Masonic Lodges, i.e., buildings themselves, exist in almost every town in Wyoming, and in many cases they are amongst the towns most substantial structures, showing that the lodges had the desire and financial ability to have them constructed. The Masonic Lodge in Casper, for example, is depicted above, and is one of the town's most substantial structures.  Even much smaller towns such as Riverton, however, had pretty substantially constructed Masonic lodges.

The Odd Fellows Building in Casper.  IOOF stands for the International Order of Odd Fellows, I think. The building marks the dates 1894 to 1950, so presumably the Odd Fellows had been in Casper since 1894 at the time this building was built.  I have never met a member of this organization, and I do not believe they meet here any longer.  I don't know if they still exist, for that matter.

In addition to these fraternal organizations, near fraternal organizations existed in the form of blue collar trade associations.  This would probably surprise modern residents of Wyoming today, but even I can recall some of these organizations existing when I was younger.  At least one labor union in  Casper retains a building, although I don't know much about it, but clubs like the Building & Trades Club are gone. The BT Club, by the time I was in high school, had degenerated into a rough bar, but in its earlier form it had been a club for men in the construction industry.  The clubs functioned under a special exemption to the state's liquor laws, after the repeal of Prohibition, which allowed them to stay open after hours, which initially reflected their fraternal nature, but which ultimately came to be a way around closing time.

The decline in fraternal club membership has been so pronounced that there's been real changes in some of these organizations, and others have just disappeared.  Many of the old lodges and clubs hang on to this day, but in much diminished forms and with aging memberships, while others have managed to hang on.  As noted above, the Elks Club seems to be doing fine.  The Rotary Club is one that I'm not terribly familiar with, but I've known a lot of people who have been Rotarians, so presumably it too is doing fine.  Some seem to have changed their focus a bit.  I know quite a few Knights of Columbus, for example, but the organization seems to have lost some of reason d'etre with the local decline of the Masons, and in the process it has refocused itself towards other goals and therefore seems to be doing fine.  It no longer has a club with a bar like it once did, but that wouldn't seem consistent with its present character.

Knights of Columbus relief poster from World War One.

Using the Masons as example again, the lodge buildings themselves (called temples) provide evidence of the change.  The Masonic Lodge in Casper does exist, and it might be quite busy, but the temple itself is quite near my office and there seems to be very little activity that occurs there.  It might be perfectly unfair to attempt to draw a conclusion from that, but it's pretty quiet looking anyhow.  The Masonic temple in Riverton is an older stone building downtown and is now offices.  I've been in it years ago to take a deposition, as a lawyer at that time rented one of the floors.  The Shriners, a branch of the Masons, still keep on keeping on, but I frankly do not know a good deal about them.  Their presence in the annual Central Wyoming Fair and Rodeo Parade has not diminished over the years, so presumably they're doing well.

The Knights of Columbus, with a changed focus to some degree, also no longer occupy their building in Casper. That building was located across the street from the old St. Anthony's School and convent, and on the same block as the Elks.  It appeared to be a much newer structure however, so I'm not sure how old it really is.  My guess is that the building dated from the 1950s, however.  At any rate, according to people I know very well, it once hosted some rollicking St. Patrick's Day parties and, I am told, it was once a place where members could go on a Friday evening for fellowship and a few drinks.  The Knights still exist, and still offer fellowship to their members, but the days of a club are over and indeed probably not really consistent with the present nature of the entity.

So why the change?  It's probably not a real mystery, but it is a real change.  When the organizations were all very strong, there was no television, no radio, and certainly no Internet.  In the evenings, when men returned home from work, and we are to a very large degree speaking of men, there were things to do, some of which were in the category of drudgery, but more often than not the evening brought dinner and then that was it.  That left men with free time, but free time that was afforded with fewer distractions than modern life offers, or perhaps even inflicts.  So, basically, a lot of men had the choice of staying in their homes or apartments in the evening or, going somewhere and hanging out with like minded friends.  By the same token, any number of local institutions and activities likewise benefited from this situation, although harnessed to less altruistic purposes. For example, a small club exists outside of Casper that was called The Roundup Club, a sort of agricultural lodge, that was a type of fraternal organization but, in contrast the same social instincts in the remote Natrona County town of Powder River were filled for decades by The Tumble Inn, a bar and restaurant which, for locals, was darned near like a lodge.

It'd be easy to ignore this change and dismiss it as simply a byproduct of the times, but it isn't without its impact.  Almost every fraternal organization has a dedicated public purpose.  Some of the organizations remain fiercely dedicated to their particular charitable focus.  I couldn't begin to list which each may be, but some of the more famous examples are the  Shriner's dedication to burn hospitals.  Locally, the Rotary Club maintains the Casper Mountain Braille Trail, a long existing way of connecting the blind with nature.  Many such other examples exist.  In almost all of them, should membership decline to a critical point, the charitable purpose of the club would likewise almost certainly be impaired. 

The other negative aspect of their decline, however, is that it probably simply isn't a good thing for people to be hanging around the house by themselves too much.  When that occurs, people's contact with the world begins to be limited to themselves or the very like minded.  For that reason, the Internet, frequently cited as a means of broadening knowledge, probably doesn't.  A feature of almost all of the fraternal organizations listed above is that they tended to bring together those of some diversity.  It wouldn't be true that they were absolutely representative of the diversity of their communities.  After all, early very early on some were discriminatory in nature.  Even now, however, it wouldn't be the case that every person could join any one.  A Catholic, for example, would still be self excluded from the Masons and you have to be a Catholic, of course, to be in the Knights of Columbus.  But it is the case that a lawyer is likely to be seated next to a tradesman at the Elks.  With the decline in this sort of activity, the diversity of society is cheated a bit, and people begin to take counsel more and more of their own views and fears.

Today In Wyoming's History: Sidebar: The Irish in Wyoming

Today In Wyoming's History: Sidebar: The Irish in Wyoming: Just recently we posted our "green" edition of this blog with our St. Patrick's Day entry .  Given that, this is a good time ...

The Post World War One Homesteads

Recently, on our companion site Holscher's Hub, I posted two photo threads about Post World War One homesteads.  Those posts are here and here.

 

People commonly think of homesteading in the 19th Century context, often having a really romantic concept of it.  What few realize is that the peak year for homesteading in the United States was 1919.

That's right, 1919.

Homesteading itself carried on until the Taylor Grazing Act ended it in 1934 in the lower 48 states.  It carried on in Alaska for longer than that, under the Federal law, and still exists under Alaska's state law, although its really a different type of homesteading than existed in the lower 48.  There were some exceptions, which I'm unclear on, that opened lands back up after World War Two, on sort of a GI Bill for the agriculturally minded type of concept, but the enthusiasm for it was apparently limited.  In Canada I think that homesteading may have continued on into the 1950s.

But it was World War One that caused the last big boom in U.S. homesteading, and it was they year immediately following the war, which was also the last year that farmers had economic parity with urban U.S. populations, that saw the greatest amount of homesteading.  And it was a homesteading boom, in some ways, that was uniquely 20th Century in character.

Truth be known, homesteading was never really viewed the way that we have viewed it in the post homesteading era.  Our modern romantic view of it is unique to the post World War Two industrial era in some ways. There's always been a strain of romanticism attached to it, to be sure, because it fit in with the Frontier character of the country that existed in the 18th and 19th Centuries. And it also tended to define, as we've forgotten in modern times, a real difference between Americans and Europeans.  American farmers, which meant most of the population, could own land and do well by it.  European farmers, which meant most of the population, often did not.  Europe became an urban center earlier than the US in part for that reason, as the landless could have a better chance of owning something of their own off the farms, and getting  a farm of your own was extremely difficult, if not impossible, in most European nations if you were not born with ownership of one.  Indeed, the desire for land fueled immigration to the United States, Canada, Mexico, and various other areas that Europeans colonized, far more than any other source.  We may imagine that immigration was mostly the tired, hungry, and downtrodden, and of course it was. But land hungry made up a big percentage of immigrants as well.

19th Century homesteading, even at the time, was seen as sort of a transitory affair, and you can find a lot of contemporary articles about farmers being the vanguards of civilization. This is particularly true of stock raising homesteaders, i.e., ranchers, who were seen as a pioneering, but temporary, force, except by themselves.  Theodore Roosevelt, himself a rancher, commented in one of his late 19th Century articles about how herds of stock inevitably gave way to the plow, comparing ranchers to Indians, which meant that even he saw his ranching activities as doomed by history.  If so, he misjudged the progress of the plow.  Even as late as the early 20th Century, however, people seriously believed that "rain follows the plow."  It doesn't.

20th Century homesteading was something else, however.  The homesteading boom  of the teens was fueled by the globalization of the grain market, and a unique but temporary boost in the market and a unique, but temporary, increase in the amount of annual rainfall.   All of these combined created the conditions which allowed for a spike in homesteading, followed by an inevitable collapse in the agricultural sector.

The unique and temporary boost in the market was caused by warfare.  The second decade of the 20th Century was one of the most violent of the 20th or the 19th Centuries, and even the horror of World War One did not occur in a vacuum.  European wars started in the teens with a series of Balkan Wars; wars limited to the Balkans and Turkey, but which presaged the international conditions which would expand past that region and into Europe in general. The Mexican Revolution broke out south of the border in 1910, and was really rolling by 1911.  But it was World War One that really strained the global agricultural system to the limit.

In the abstract, how a war could do that is sometimes difficult to understand, in our modern, overabundant, era.  But the reasons are fairly plain.  The war put millions of men into the field, in harsh conditions (the war was accompanied by unusually harsh weather in Europe) where their caloric requirements were high.  Additionally, and now much more difficult to appreciate, the war also put millions of horses into the military service with a high caloric requirement as well.  For the men, their needs were met with meat and grains, and for the horses, grains and fodder.  The requirements were vast.  And this was compounded by the fact that animal production also provided the leather and wool upon which the armies also depended.

Not only, however, were the requirements vast, but the labor to do the work was now serving in various armies. Not only did the war require a lot of agricultural production, but it required the men who were doing it, in large part, to serve in the armies.  This caused a shortage of farmers, just as there was a great need for them. And not only was there a shortage of farmers, but of farm animals as well, as agriculture remained mostly horse driven.

 War time poster encouraging the saving of wheat, based on a famous contemporary photograph of women serving as the power for an implement, in the absence of draft animals, in France.

Farm labor shortages were partially made up by pressing women into service as farmers, everywhere.  There's a very common myth that women entered the workplace during World War Two, but it simply isn't true, or even close to true (we'll address this in an upcoming post).  Women entered the factory and fields in massive numbers during World War One.  Their role in food production became a national campaign in most Allied nations, where there were official efforts to put them into the field.

American Women's Land Army poster.

U.S. poster encouraging men below the age the Army was then seeking to serve on farms.  In short order, the Army would be taking me down to 18 years of age.

The American appeal was more rustic than the Canadian one, which made a martial appeal to young men to serve on the farms, relating that service to military service.

Resources became so tight that, even though rationing was never required on a national level in the United States (at least one state rationed, however) there was also an official campaign to encourage food conservation, and even conservation of some particular foods, so that more was available to feed the troops.

Canadian wartime poster encouraging consumers to switch to other foods to save food for the armies.

The war also had the impact of physically taking millions of acres of land directly out of production.  Not everything can be produced everywhere, which is fairly obvious.  Grains remain the staple of life in modern times just as much as they did in ancient, and this is particularly true in the case of grains. Grain can be grown, and is grown, in many regions, but large scale export grain crops are not. Grain production has greatly increased since World War One, but something that may not be readily apparent is that grain growing regions have expanded as well.

During the First World War era, grains were widely grown in Europe, North America, Argentina and Russia.  Much of the European production, however, was part of a regional market.  Italy, for example, has always been a grain growing region, but we tend not to think of it as a grain exporting region (although it actually is to some extent).  Of these regions, only two remained unspoiled by the war that being Argentina and North America.  Russia, one of the worlds most significant grain producing regions (well, the Ukraine actually) was taken completely out of the picture by the disaster of the war, which was followed immediately by the Russian Civil War.

This is also true of livestock production.  Horses, a critical item for every army, were so much in demand that Europe was basically stripped of them, nearly causing the extinction of one breed, the Irish Draught.  The United Kingdom, a major horse user, had always replied on imports for military horses and had worried about the supply pre-war, and now found itself fighting with an ally that had the same concern.  The large horse producing regions of the planet, North America, Australia and, at that time, Argentina remained relatively unscathed.  This was true for beef cattle production as well.  It was less true of wool production, which was a critical fiber in the war, and the United Kingdom itself was a significant producer.

 Wartime Canadian poster appealing to economic opportunism and patriotism.

While all of this was a human disaster, it was an agricultural opportunity of unprecedented scale.  A vast demand for agricultural products was created, and in certain regions, the means to exploit it existed.  And not only did the means exist, in the United States the government was encouraging it.  The US government encouraged homesteading, particularly for grain production, as if the boom would never end. And, as the Homestead Act remained in effect, and as the weather was unusually wet and therefore farming easier than usual, a land rush was soon on.

And the boom was experienced in other areas of the agricultural sector as well.  Horse ranching went into a massive boom in the West, starting just as soon as British and French remount agents started scouring the US and Canada for horses; a need which could never be fully met, in spite of a global effort.  Soon, with the Columbus, New Mexico, raid of Pancho Villa, the U.S. Army was in that market as well, pushing off French and British agents in the US so that it could acquire the horses and mules it required for a much larger Army that was nearly completely horse powered.

 

Remount shipping point.

Thousands of Americans who had previously had no direct connection with agriculture entered the rush, so lucrative was the grain trade at first, and so little, it seemed, had to actually be done in it.  In Kansas new towns sprung up full of such entry level farmers, many of whom didn't actually live on their farms, but in the towns, a practice that is common in some regions, but in this instance reflected an urban centric way of thinking.  Soon, these thousands were joined by discharged or soon to be discharged servicemen, many thousands of whom did have practical farming experience and agricultural roots, but who had the surplus cash to start up a farm, or small ranch, for the first time.  In Wyoming, hundreds of tiny homesteads, at most 640 acres in size, were filed, which with the favorable weather and market conditions, were actually viable in spite of their tiny size.

The boom couldn't last.  It trailed into the 1920s, but by then the prices began to fall. Soon after, the rain began to stop falling. An agricultural depression hit the US far earlier than the general Great Depression did.  By the 1930s the situation was desperate, and not only had the economy turned against farmers, but the weather had as well. Finally, in the early 1930s, the government repealed the Homestead acts, and new entries stopped.  Many of the teens homestead had already been abandoned by that time, once prosperous hopeful small units, but out place both economically and, as it turned out, climatically.

 Related Posts:

When Resources were Tight.

Disappearing Homesteads.

Dugout.

The Old Homesteads.