The Land Ethic

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.

The Land Ethic, A Sand County Almanac.  Aldo Leopold

The American Raid on Porvenir, Texas

On this day in 1918 Texas Ranger Company B raided the village of Porvenir, Texas, a Hispanic Texas town, and killed the male inhabitants therein.  They were accompanied by elements of the 8th Cavalry which may not have participated in the massacre, at least according to contemporary investigations, and which assisted the survivors thereafter, attempting to keep them from harm and sending for  Priest from a local village.

Fifteen Hispanic men lost their lives in the massacre.

The details of the tragedy remain sketchy today, save for the killing of the Mexican civilians.  When the news first broke in mid February, it was claimed by the Rangers and some non Mexicans of the town that property from the Brite's Ranch Raid had been found in the town and that the villagers had opened upon the Rangers.  This is almost certainly not true.  Later investigations seemed to indicate that it was an act of pure race based violence on the Mexican inhabitants of the town.  Most of the early information indicated a complete lack of participation by the Army, although a small detail of soldiers was in fact sent with the Rangers. They claimed to have waited outside the town and not to have known what was occurring within it.   As noted, contemporary accounts do indicate that some villagers took refuge with the cavalrymen and that protection was afforded to them.

This was one of the instances in which the border war along the Mexican border seems to us today to have a foot in the 19th Century, even while having one in the 20th.  Atrocity in war would be something the world would see a lot more of in the 20th Century, so perhaps we should not.  But an ethnic massacre within our own borders of this type does indeed seem very peculiar today, as well as being highly tragic.

The incident did lead to investigation when the news broke.  The investigation recommended trial for all of the Rangers and exonerated the Army, but a grand jury did not indite any of the Rangers.  Texas, however, disbanded Company B.  Following this a wider investigation by Texas condemned the Rangers for a history of extrajudicial killings.  The Rangers were thereafter reformed into a more professional force and this era of the Rangers came to an end.

In spite of the 1918 exoneration of the Army, a 2015 archeological survey turned up shell casings from period Army weapons.  At least one of the investigating archeologist reached the conclusion that Army involvement in the tragedy had in fact occurred.

And so January 1918 would see two tragedies that read now like something out of the Frontier West occurred at same time the global tragedy was playing itself out in Europe.

The town does not exist today.  The victims of the raid were buried by their relatives in a nearby town, across the border, in Mexico.

Poster Saturday: Why Boys Go Home. Wadsworth Gas Attack and The Rio Grande Rattler. January 19, 1918.

Todays' poster isn't a poster, but a newspaper illustration. Specifically, an illustration from a military newspaper of the era.

Greater Food Production (1918)

106th Ammunition Train, Lt. Col. Paul O. Franson, commanding, Camp Wheeler, Ga., Jan. 25th, 1918

American Red Cross Drivers. Milan, Italy. January 24, 1918

She Wore A Yellow Ribbon.

A version of this song was still sung, as a Jody Call, in 1982 when I was in basic training:



It's believed that it dates back to the English Civil War, making it a very old soldier's song indeed.  It was quite popular during the Frontier Era, and apparently it was still popular enough that somebody felt like recording it as American troops began to enter combat in the Great War, recorded on this day in 1918.  It was recorded again, not surprisingly, during World War Two.



It went on to lend its name to a well known John Ford film featuring John Wayne and the usual cast of characters, set in the Frontier West.



As noted, it was still around in 1982 when I was in Army basic training, and at some point apparently crossed over to the Marine Corps as well, probably because its easily adaptable to use as a Jody Call.  At least the version I learned in basic training was a little off color, and I'd guess up until recently, the Marine Corps version likely was as well.



The English Civil War to the modern era, that's staying power.

I wonder if its still around? The theme is timeless, but the sentiment is not PC in the modern world, even if it is, in the natural one.

Mid Week At Work: "Putting the 1918 GE to work!"

Keeping with our 1918 theme here, in 2018, not a person that's working, but a thing.  A G.E. Electric Fan.  Indeed, speaking of work, a very nicely restored fan.

We don't think much about things like this, but such a common item as this really gives us a glimpse into life at the time we'd otherwise miss.

So, watch.  . . and listen.

Mid Week at Work Blog Mirror: January 14, 2014 Pearls Before Swine

Out of Business observation.

I wish I could post the actual cartoon, but copyrights. . .

Anyhow, this is a very real phenomenon.  I happened to post this on reddit and received a few comments, including one from a person who works in retail who noted that he expediences people actually coming into the store in which he works to try stuff out so they then can order it on line knowledgeably.

Rude.

January 23. It's National Pie Day

And thank goodness. For some reason, I'm so tired this morning, that this is about all I've been able to muster up enough energy to do.  Post a pie photo.

I like pie too.  Indeed, if I'd been prepared, I'd have made a Dutch Oven Apple Pie, one of my specialties, which I should do in any event for my upcoming Dutch Oven post (hmmm. . . maybe it should be a separate page here?)

Anyway, it's Pie Day.

Well, maybe I'll have a beer instead.  After all, National Pie Day was started by Charlie Papazian, nuclear engineer and famous home brewer, who declared his own birthday to be National Pie Day. 

And why not?

Camp Kearney, California. January 23, 1918

Roads to the Great War: America's Decision to Send an Expeditionary Force ...

Roads to the Great War: America's Decision to Send an Expeditionary Force ...: "America to the Front" A Contemporary Cartoon from Punch By Michael McCarthy Even  after Congress had approved the War...

1916: Guns On The Border

1916: Guns On The Border: A century ago, Mexican bandits were a clear and present danger to the citizens of the United States, and the 'Punitive Expedition' proved to be an important test of arms.

Law; an ordinance of reason for the common good

Law; an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community.

Thomas Aquinas

Conscripting the Foreign Nationals: Blog Mirror, Mexico, Es Cultura; January 21, 1918: The Enlistment of Mexicans in the United States Army

 Registering for the draft.  1917.

An interesting article from the Mexican site, Mexico, Es Cultura, on the conscription of of Mexican nationals into the U.S. Army during World War One.

January 21, 1918: The Enlistment of Mexicans in the United States Army

For the government of the United States, all Mexicans who had lived in its territory, and even though they had left, were obliged to report for compulsory military service, so that the military command of that country sent questionnaires to former residents to report the arguments by which they could not be enlisted.

In the event that they ignored this requirement, the United States could deny their entry to its territory or even take them to a court-martial. The Engineer Alejandro R. Cota, who had been a legal resident in New York, denounced on January 21, 1918 in El Democrata that he had been enlisted against his will, because he had not renounced to the Mexican nationality.

Before this outrage, the newspaper demanded to the diplomatic authorities of our country a better defense of our countrymen and even more within the national territory.

A few notes about the article.

Usually the English section of this site is well done, but in this case the author was a bit confused.  What Mr. Cota was writing about was not the "enlistment" of Mexican nationals into the U.S. Army, but rather their conscription. That was indeed an enlistment "against his will", but not an enlistment in the way we normally use the word.

 Secretary Newton draws the first number, 1917.

Well, what about this?  

In fact, the United States has always held all permanent legal residents of the country liable for conscription and it does in fact conscript foreign nationals, when it conscripts.  It's always done this.  I knew that, so I wouldn't have regarded it as an "outrage", as the authors of Mexico, Es Cultura, apparently do, but I do get their point.

 Cartoon from the July, 1917 issue of the American Socialist magazine The Masses, which opposed the war and opposed conscription.  While drawing religious parallels in the The Masses is more than a little odd, here illustrator George Bellows did just that with a depiction of Christ in prison stripes.  While for the most part, Americans supported conscription, there were quarters of the country, including some rural quarters, that were massively, even violently, opposed to conscription during World War One.  The Federal government, for its part, was very heavy handed in suppressing opposition to conscription.

What I find surprising in the article is that the US apparently took steps to assess the military liability of those holding permanent resident status who had left the country and returned to their homelands, or at least to Mexico.  I'm unaware of the country doing that in later wars, but perhaps it did. What seems to be the case is that those who were not willing to serve lost their resident status, which also makes some sense.

Every country does this differently.  I'd be surprised (but I'm not certain) if the UK, for example, attempted to conscript foreign residents in the UK during World War One. As it was, British conscription was controversial enough and it never rally got around conscripting the Irish even though Parliament had passed a law to that end.  Conscription was massively unpopular during the Great War in Canada so I doubt it would have tried that either.

During World War Two the British only conscripted those who were in the country, so a British national living overseas could avoid British conscription, with some exception.  For the most part, however, they joined the forces where they were or even went to the effort to return to the UK for the war.  Be that as it may, some British movie actors sat the war out in the United States.  British conscription actually continued on after the war, under the same terms, until 1963.*

Indeed, most European nations re-instituted conscription following World War Two, but oddly at least a few recognized service in another NATO nation as fulfilling their own military service requirement.  A big exception is the non NATO, non EU, non UN nation of Switzerland which retains universal male conscription and which still holds that all Swiss, everywhere, are liable to it. As the sons of Swiss citizens are regarded as Swiss by the country irrespective of where they were born, this can and sometimes does have surprising results for vacationing young people who didn't think they were Swiss.

The US, I think, has always held that all of its legal residents and all of its citizens are liable to conscription, so being overseas would have no impact on a person's liability to service.  Interestingly, on this day in which Mr. Cota issued his compliant, we also find ourselves looking at a story that relates to that, in a way, from some fifty years later.

__________________________________________________________________________________

*Prince Harry, it might be noted, has recently called for a return to National Service: 

BRITAIN’S Prince Harry has thanked the army for keeping him out of trouble and has called for national service to be brought back.

In an interview published in the Sunday Times, the 30-year-old prince also revealed that he’s content being single and reflected on how the army gave him a chance to “escape the limelight.”

From News.com.au.

Should Pardons Have Been Granted?

 

I've posted a bit on Burn's and Novik's documentary on the Vietnam War.  During the documentary a couple of people where interviewed who had fled to Canada during the war.  One renounced his citizenship later on, to his regret.

I also recently reported on laws and the Federal government ignoring them, which is sort of related to this, although not purely.

As most people know, there were a series of pardons, not all at the same time, that are connected with this.  It didn't happen all at one time, as people sometimes recall. President Ford first offered conditional amnesty to draft evaders.  Then, on this day, forty years ago, President Carter pardoned those who evaded the draft.  Those who deserted the armed forces, however, and those who were convicted of acts of violence while protesting, were not pardoned for those offenses.

This all followed, of course, President Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon.  Yes, I know that these things are in no way whatsoever related.  Except, I suppose, in terms of the era in which they occurred.

I've been very surprised, quite frankly, about how much this still impacts me, oddly enough.  I was 14 years old when Carter pardoned the draft evaders. As a kid I didn't think he should.

I still don't.

For that matter, I don't think Nixon should have been pardoned either.

Let's take these up separately.  As Nixon's pardon happened first, let's take it up first.

Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace on August 9, 1974.  While he resigned in disgrace, as a result of the fallout of the coverup of Watergate, his resignation did spare the country an impeachment trail, which was at least in part his motivation. At least that was noble on his part, as that trial would have been destructive in the extreme, even more so than the trial of William Clinton which has been destructive enough.

 A confident looking Gerald Ford.  His Presidency was afflicted by problems not of his own making.

He was subsequently pardoned on September 8, 1974 by Gerald Ford.  President Ford believed that this would help bring about healing in the nation after the turmoil that the entire Watergate episode brought.  Maybe it did.

The text of that pardon reads as follows:

By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation

Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.

Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.

As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.

It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.

GERALD R. FORD

But it also allowed a President who had acted very badly  in office to get away with his crimes.  Indeed, the criminal extent of his activities may be broader than commonly remembered, as the documentary noted above explored.  We recall, of course, his cover up of the Watergate break in.  What is not nearly as well remembered, however, is that Nixon was also seemingly in contact with elements outside of official channels during the ongoing negotiations over the Vietnam War during his 1968 campaign and his activities may well have been treasonous.  He was called out privately, and obliquely, on these activities by Lyndon Johnson but he was never called to account on them.  Had he been subject to a Federal Grand Jury following his resignation he may well have been.

A better thing to do would have been to leave the possibility, and maybe the fact, of prosecution hanging over his head.  No man is above the law, we're told.  Nixon wasn't, and he paid for his crimes through his resignation, but judicial process was thwarted. The pardoning was a mistake.  By letting Nixon off the hook there's been an implicit understanding that a President really doesn't need to overly worry about being called to account for illegal actions.  Indeed, had Nixon been made to pay for his crimes through criminal prosecution it would have served not only as a lesson that no man is above the law but, moreover, that even Presidents in office can be called into account.  Since Nixon's resignation we've seen Iran-Contra, undeclared wars, and the of course we have the turmoil going on now, all of which might have been deterred had Nixon served as an example of what can happen.

So Ford blundered in pardoning him.

And so too, in my view, was the pardoning of the draft evaders by Jimmy Carter on this day in 1977 an error.

Prior to this event there had been another action by Ford leading up to it.  On September 16, 1974, President Gerald Ford, in a way sort of following up on closing the books on Watergate, started to close them on the Vietnam War, by issuing a conditional amnesty for draft evaders. The amnesty order, or text, provided:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, and in the interest of the internal management of the Government, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. There is hereby established in the Executive Office of the President a board of 9 members, which shall be known as the Presidential Clemency Board. The members of the Board shall be appointed by the President, who shall also designate its Chairman.
SEC. 2. The Board, under such regulations as it may prescribe, shall examine the cases of persons who apply for Executive clemency prior to January 31, 1975, and who (i) have been convicted of violating Section 12 or 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. § 462), or of any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to that section, for acts committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973, inclusive, or (ii) have received punitive or undesirable discharges as a consequence of violations of Article 85, 86 or 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. §§ 885, 886, 887) that occurred between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973, inclusive, or are serving sentences of confinement for such violations. The Board will only consider the cases of Military Selective Service Act violators who were convicted of unlawfully failing (i) to register or register on time, (ii) to keep the local board informed of their current address, (iii) to report for or submit to preinduction or induction examination, (iv) to report for or submit to induction itself, or (v) to report for or submit to, or complete service under Section 6 (j) of such Act. However, the Board will not consider the cases of individuals who are precluded from re-entering the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (22) or other law.

SEC. 3. The Board shall report to the President its findings and recommendations as to whether Executive clemency should be granted or denied in any case. If clemency is recommended, the Board shall also recommend the form that such clemency should take, including clemency conditioned upon a period of alternative service in the national interest. In the case of an individual discharged from the armed forces with a punitive or undesirable discharge, the Board may recommend to the President that a clemency discharge be substituted for a punitive or undesirable discharge. Determination of any period of alternate service shall be in accord with the Proclamation announcing a program for the return of Vietnam era draft evaders and military deserters.
SEC. 4. The Board shall give priority consideration to those applicants who are presently confined and have been convicted only of an offense set forth in section 2 of this order, and who have no outstanding criminal charges.

SEC. 5. Each member of the Board, except any member who then receives other compensation from the United States, may receive compensation for each day he or she is engaged upon the work of the Board at not to exceed the daily rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for persons and positions in GS-18, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 3109), and may also receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons in the government service employed intermittently.

SEC. 6. Necessary expenses of the Board may be paid from the Unanticipated Personnel Needs Fund of the President or from such other funds as may be available.

SEC. 7. Necessary administrative services and support may be provided the Board by the General Services Administration on a reimbursable basis.

SEC. 8. All departments and agencies in the Executive branch are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Board in its work, and to furnish the Board all appropriate information and assistance, to the extent permitted by law.

SEC. 9. The Board shall submit its final recommendations to the President not later than December 31, 1976, at which time it shall cease to exist.
GERALD R. FORD
The White House,
September 16, 1974.

The fact that Ford did this so hard on the heels of his pardon of Nixon was not coincidental, in my view.  He was shutting the doors on the entire Vietnam War era.  They'd slam shut for good when Saigon fell with the US refusing to offer aid to the Republic of Vietnam in April of the following year.

While its not really clear from the text, what Ford's order did was to grant amnesty to evaders who hadn't fled the country and hadn't engaged in acts of violence against the US as long as they did two years of public service.   In context, it split the competing desire to put the war behind the country but also not to dishonor those who reported for duty as the law required.  While I'm not thrilled about that either I think that Ford's action do bear up under the test of time here.

Ford's conditional amnesty did a couple of significant things.  It essentially recognized a deep felt opposition to the war as legitimate, but also recognized that national service was likewise legitimate. The two year service obligation was accordingly inserted to recognize that, allowing those who had evaded the draft peaceably to come up from under the weight of the crime, but also acknowledging that a debt of service was owed in an equal length to that for conscripted soldiers who served.  It also refused to acknowledge violence against the United States or to forgive those who fled the country.

On that last item, whether intentional or not, it credited the long American history of protesting a governmental action but being willing to take your lumps.  Going back at least as far as the Mexican War there had been those who refused to acknowledge a governmental action in war but had been willing to go to jail for it, Thoreau being a prime example.  Martin Luther King had followed that tradition  during the Civil Rights Movement resulting in the famous book Letters From A Birmingham Jail.  The gist of it was that if you protest you have to be willing to accept the implications of the protest.  Men who fled to Canada didn't do that.

 Jimmy Carter, a legitimately decent person but not a very good President in all sorts of ways.

Ford of course lost his bid for reelection and Jimmy Carter came in.  On this day in 1977 granted an unconditional pardon to draft evaders. This was his first day in office. As sweeping as that was, the pardon did not apply to deserters and there's never been a pardon that did.  Still, Carter's actions were excessively broad in my opinion.  His short text read:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, do hereby grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to: (1) all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder; and (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irrespective of the date of conviction, of any offense committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them full political, civil and other rights.

This pardon does not apply to the following who are specifically excluded therefrom:

(1) All persons convicted of or who may have committed any offense in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, involving force or violence; and

(2) All persons convicted of or who may have committed any offense in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, in connection with duties or responsibilities arising out of employment as agents, officers or employees of the Military Selective Service system.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and first.
JIMMY CARTER  

The pardon undercut Ford's understanding that there was such a thing as legitimate dissent, but that there was such a thing as illegitimate action in legitimate dissent.  By accepting that people who fled the results of their actions could simply evade them, and by excusing everyone from any kind of service, Carter made a mockery of the service to a degree, of those who complied with the law.  In the end, people who simply didn't go, for whatever reason, were off the hook.

The impact of this, we'd note, has been somewhat permanent.  The rift the draft caused has never fully healed and the concept that those who left were simply let off the hook continues to make those who reported for duty look, to a degree, like schmucks.  The action basically elevated evaders to a certain species of hero, which if they fully evaded without the threat of judicial process, they really weren't, although that threat did exist at the time it must be noted.  And the idea that Canada is a liberal refuge has persisted, which has impacted Canadian politics, in my view, in a way that hasn't done Canada any favors.

Carter was an awful President and his poor decisions commenced right from day one. He is a compassionate man, however.  In this instance, that did not serve him well while in office.

What is it about January 20?

It seems to be a day generally marked by odd occurrences.

Today In Wyoming's History: January 20:

Shutting down and not shutting down.

The Federal government is shut down.

But it isn't.

I think it should really shut down.

And I don't think that because I'm one of those "we don't need the Federal Government" or even one of those "get the Federal Government out of my state (but leave the highway funds, please)" people. 

No, I think that as, when Congress does this, it keeps the full ludicrous extent of is failure a bit camouflaged by keeping on running "essential services" so you don't really notice.

Your mail will still come, the nation will still be protected, courts will still be open, and so on. 

And Congress will still get paid, as if there was any doubt.

So you likely won't notice that much.

Well, if reality set in, with that reality being the nation is deficit spending in the extreme every year, and these flaps are over peanuts in the budget, or in this case not about the budget at all, the public would notice and that would require something to be done.

So when I mean close the government, I mean close it.  The janitor at the Congress ought to turn off the lights, lock the door and walk out.  Congress can meet at Starbucks, or wherever it goes.  Ships should pull into the nearest port and all the Sailors go on leave.  Soldiers should pack up and head to the airport to wait for their family to send them airline tickets. . . to Canadian airports as the FAA should turn out the lights and lock the towers.

Something would happen, and fast.

But what about the Dreamers, you ask?  Isn't this all a noble effort to save them?

Well, maybe, but its not the right way to go about addressing the Congress caused crises when a much prior administration determined not to enforce the immigration laws in the interior, turning evading the law into a border game. Get across the border in any fashion, and you were home free.

Prior to that, immigration laws were enforced in the interior, which lowered the incentive to illegally immigrate considerably.  Essentially the US sent a message that encouraged illegal immigration, as long as you didn't give up in trying to cross the border, and as long as you didn't get arrested for a crime once you were here.  So lots of people came in illegally.  And lots of them had little kids with them. And deporting those children who grew up here would be cruel.

Which is why a Republican, not a Democrat but a Republican, has suggested simply counting those people towards one years immigration quota. 

Yes, that would drastically reduce new entrants for that year, but it would also clean this up in a fair manner.

But no, we're not going to do that.

Instead we're going to do whatever it is we're doing, and that doesn't mean closing the government, budget or no, where you might actually notice that it occurred.

Well that's unwelcome news

Federal Government Shutdown Notice

Due to the shutdown of the Federal Government, we are unable to use any of our social media channels. National Archives facilities are closed and activities are canceled with some exceptions. See Archives.gov for details.

From the Federal Government's Archives blog.

Boo hiss!  Not at the Archives, this is not their fault, but rather at a Congress that can't seem to get its act together, ever, on a budget and politicians that use what ought to be a boring routine practice resulting in a functioning sane balanced budget nearly every year for political squabbles and perceived advantage.

I mean come on.

Churches of the West: Traditionalist Anabaptist In Wyoming?

Churches of the West: Traditionalist Anabaptist In Wyoming?:

Starting at some point about six or so years ago, which means its actually probably more like ten years ago as things that occurred about that time seem more recent to me than they really are, I started running into some type of traditionalist Anabaptist from time to time here in Wyoming.

The first ones I ran into were at the rest stop outside of Waltman.  There was a travel trailer there with a flat tire that was being repaired and the people with it were outside of the trailer.  In my naivete, as I didn't expect to run into Anabaptist here, I thought at first "oh. . . reenactors", as the women were all wearing what appeared to me to be very traditional 19th Century style dresses with sun bonnets and the men were wearing straw broad brimmed hats, blue shirts, and jeans; and sporting that type of beard which lacks a mustache.  Very quickly I realized, however, that they weren't reenactors, they were some sort of community of Anabaptist adherents or perhaps a family of Anabaptists traditionalist.

Now, for those for whom this term is a mystery, what I'm referring to is Christians who are members of a traditionalist Anabaptist denomination, such as the Amish, traditionalist Mennonites, or Hutterites.  The most famous of these groups is, of course, the Amish, but there are some Mennoites in Colorado and Nebraska and there are Huttertites in Montana and the prairie provinces of Canada.

This is the Greeley Mennonite Church in Greeley Colorado.  The church was originally a Lutheran church but I don't know when it the Prairie Gothic church was built.

Now, while these groups are all Anabaptist, they are not all the same, and I don't want to suggest that they are.  That is not my intent at all.  And while it is my understanding that all Amish are traditionalist in the sense I'm using it (which would likely be grating on their nerves and be regarded as singularly unfair by them), and I think that this is also the case for Hutterites, it is not true for Mennonites.  Indeed, there are Mennonite congregations that are not distinct in dress and which are not otherwise traditionalist such as limiting the use of technology over time.   I'm frankly unclear on which denomination the group I've been seeing belongs to, and that's what I'm curious about.

I've noted above the first instance in which I encountered them.  The second time was, oddly enough, in Sam's Club. There were a group of women who met the description set out above, except I see that their head covering is a simple covering, not a sun bonnet, buying huge lots of flour and other baking goods.  Since then I've run into them here and there, most recently at the past two gun shows here in town.

On the first of those occasions two men and a boy were present selling old farm equipment.  A woman was present selling baked goods, and seemed to be married to one of the men.  The men were all dressed as described save for wearing cowboy boots, which causes me to lean towards Hutterites.  This past weekend they were back but it was two different women and a different man, and they were all selling baked goods. The man was wearing heavy work boots.

The presence of traditionalist Anabaptists in Wyoming would be a new thing and I'm curious.  Does anyone know who they might be, what group they're actually in, and where their community or communities are located?