The Sunday State Leader for June 25, 1916: The prisoners of Carrizal

More news of the defeat at Carrizal, but happy news for Miss Ellen Smith.

The war in Europe was pushed completely off of the front page of this Sunday morning Cheyenne paper due to events in Mexico.

Words and work

It is an odd thing, I'd note, to learn that a person who publishes on the dangers of big government was employed by government.

I suppose there can be explanations for that, and people can change their views of course.  But, as is so often the case, people's words don't always match their histories.  Critics of government working for the government at one point. . . super patriots who didn't answer the call to serve when it was available. . . proponents of gun control who carry guns themselves.

Hm.

Welcome Home PFC Harold Schultz, USMC

All these years, PFC Schultz, who is one of the flag raisers on the iconic Rosenthall photograph and the USMC Ogg film of the raising of the second flag at Iwo Jima, was misidentified as Corpsman Jack Bradley.

Bradley did in fact participate in the first raising.

First flag raising at Iwo Jima.

The mistake is a natural one.  The events happened rapidly, under still hostile conditions, and the area looks much different from different angles.

Discovery of the error is a tribute to close photographic analysis.  When a description of how it was done is read, it's quite obvious that the error was made, although it is surprising that it took so long.

Schultz apparently knew he was in the photograph, but never said a thing.  He went on to a career in the Post Office, and like all of these men, has passed on.

The British vote to leave the European Union

 From another era, but seemingly the way a little over half the population of the United Kingdom viewed events to some exent.

Fueled at least in part by a feeling that the membership in the EU had subjected the island nation to a level of immigration from the Middle East that it could not absorb, and further stoked by long discontent with statist European EU administration that clashed with the more democratic British tradition, the British voting population voted to get out of the EU.  This was only the fourth referendum in the UK's history, one of the other four, ironically, being one in the 1970s on whether or not the UK should join.  

Opposition to leaving the European Union was the stated policy of both the Labour and the Conservative parties and so the success of the Brexit position came against the influence of Britain's oldest most established parties, showing perhaps how deep the resentment against the EU had become.  Much of the opposition platform was focused on the unknown economic impact of leaving, showing what we stated in a post yesterday is in fact, a fact; people don't focus that much on economics on these sorts of decisions, which are more about a sense of nationhood and emotion than currency.  The British basically voted to try to make sure their island nation, or nations, remained theirs rather than moving into a less certain national future.  While this seems to have come to a surprise to many, and indeed I'm surprised that Brexit won, it may reflect a rising tide of such sentiment across Europe, which now has more countries, albeit within the EU, than it did in 1990 when the Soviet Union fell. 

This has caused some speculation that Scotch seperatists might now succeed in taking Scotland out of the UK so it can get back into the EU, and even if Northern Ireland might now reunite with Ireland.  I doubt that very much and think the speculation about nationalistic Ulster particularly misplaced.  Indeed, by far the more likely, if still not likely, national implications is that forces wanting to take Germany, France or Ireland out of the EU will now have some success with their movements.  Again, I don't think that likely to occur, but then I didn't think this was likely either.

You really can't fault an independent nation for wanting to go on its own. So wise or not, a raise of the beer glass to the UK and best wishes to it.

On the implication, nobody knows what they will be other than some short term financial ups and downs which may come to nothing.  More likely is that the UK will simply quietly exist over the next several years and resume independent relations with a somewhat spiteful European Union thereafter. That will likely cause a downturn in the European economy in the short term but a rise in it in the long term as it will free the UK from some of the EU's less rational economic policies. And this might cause the EU to reconsider some of its approach to how it does things which have been heavily bureaucratic and not very democratic.

One immediate impact has been political fallout, and as part of  that Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron, who successfully shepherded the nation through the recent referendum in Scotland about whether that nation would stay or leave the United Kingdom, resigned, or rather indicated that he will be stepping down.  Cameron has been quite unpopular recently and not all of his "conservative" position have really been that and to some extent his unpopularity may have been a partial source of the Brexit vote.  He'll be leaving in October, and indicated in his departing speech:  "A negotiation with the European Union will need to begin under a new prime minister and I think it's right that this new prime minister takes the decision about when to trigger Article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU".  He was gracious in his departure and understandably is leaving this for the next administration to handle.  It'll be interesting to see how in fact it is handled, as the Brexit vote did not succeed by a huge margin and Parliament is not technically bound to follow it, although it seems like it will.

In regard to politicians, perhaps the oddest commentary came from Donald Trump, who is oddly enough in Scotland right now.  Most American politicians would be wise enough to shut up on events of this type, but some have seen the hard right political movements in  Europe, and this is sort of (and sort of not) in that category, as part of the same general societal movement that brought Trump into the position of GOP nominee. Trump congratulated the  Brexit vote and then noted that if the pound fell it would be good for one of his golf courses in Scotland.

Friday Farming: Women's Land Army, California

The Cheyenne Leader for June 24, 1916: News of Carrizal hits the press.

The U.S. Army set back at Carrizal hit the press in full force by June 24.  On the same day the press reported that the Germans had one another victory at Verdun, while stopping the "Slavs", when in fact the Russian offensive had terminated the German's hopes at Verdun.

Railhead: Fantasy worlds and rail transportation. . . limiting conveyance by rail

Fantasy worlds and rail transportation. . . limiting conveyance by rail.

Of our various blogs, this one has been, by far, the least likely to see a commentary post.  Indeed, this appears to be the very first one.  But as this one involves rail transportation, I'm going to post it here.

Readers of the blog where I typically post commentary, Lex Anteinternet, know that I've posted a lot of comments on the hard times in the petroleum and coal industries, particularly in Wyoming.  As part of those, I've categorically rejected the popular thesis in Wyoming that the Federal government is engaged in a "war" on the energy industry, or that there's some gigantic conspiracy to do the energy industries in.  In this post, however, I will comment on a type of "not in my backyard" effort that's really shortsighted, and which give credence to those who feel ignored and oppressed in this area.

Recently there was a big derailment in Mosier, Oregon. That occurrence has lead to an effort, centered in the Pacific Northwest but focused nationally, to ban the transportation of petroleum oil by rail.

Sometimes, things go wrong.  Derailed train, Minnesota, 1986.

That's just flat out absurd.

I guess its obvious that I'm a railroad fan, why else, after all, would a person have a blog dedicated to railroad features, so perhaps I'm partisan.  But campaigns of this type strike me as very ill informed in some ways. The concept seems to be that, because all of the cars are on a single train, a train purposes a unique danger that other  means of transportation do not.  That's simply not correct.  The other means are truck and pipeline.  The hundreds of trucks that replace a single train pose a danger as well, and arguably a much greater one as the risk would have be assessed for each single truck, not just one as if it were a train.  Pipelines are probably safer, although pipeline spills do occur, and the are basically permanent. Rail lines have other uses for other types of trains.

I suspect that much of this movement doesn't even directly relate to safety, but rather is part of an environmental movement on the Pacific Coast that has been pretty successful in shutting down the loading of coal by sea.  Given the current economics of coal, I'm not nearly as convinced, however, that this has been that detrimental to coal.  It's the low price and declining use that has been.  But I suspect there's a poorly thought out concept that if the shipping of oil by rail is stopped, people quit using it.

Not hardly.

This view, I'd note, is supported by some comments from a Pacific Coast environmental activists, who is quoted as saying in a newspaper as follows:

On the evening of June 6, more than a hundred climate activists met at the First Unitarian Church in downtown Portland to discuss their response to the oil train derailment in the Columbia River Gorge three days earlier, said 350PDX director Adriana Voss-Andreae. 

“The call for a temporary moratorium on oil trains is a call for a shred of decency for the Mosier community, but it does nothing to meet the magnitude of the problem,” she said. “If the government won’t stop the bomb trains, then we must do so ourselves. There will be a mass direct action in the coming two weeks. We encourage all to join.”

Climate activists claiming its a "bomb train"?  Well, I'm skeptical. Either they simply oppose the shipping of all fossil fuels by any means, or their activism is unfocused.

Well, whatever a person might think about climate change, pretending that preventing shipping by rail is going to have some impact on the use of fossil fuels is just fooling yourself.  And, ironically, trains are by far the most efficient, and hence the most "green", of any means of transportation we have.  Putting the same oil on the road in trucks is at least as dangerous and a lot dirtier.  And that's probably what would happen if the oil wasn't shipped by rail.

Not everything is about the money. . .

in fact a lot of things aren't.

Maybe most of them aren't.

Which is why I'm sick to death of reading "How Brexit may effect your portfolio".

Yes, a lot of the British are voting to leave the EC. And yes it'll have some effect (probably a lot less dramatic than claimed) if they do on their economy, on Europe's economy, and on our economy.

And they know that.

But so what?

That's not what the vote is about, and the analysts who seem to think it is are out to lunch.

Questions of sovereignty have little to do with economics.  Ireland would have been better off staying in the UK right after World War One. Yugoslavia made better economic sense than Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia.  Czechoslovakia was certainly a better economic unit than the two countries it ended up being.

And Switzerland, in terms of its economy, ought to join the EC.  Canada, if its thinking only of money, should become part of the US.

But that's now how people think, nor do we want them to think that way.  It's sad that so many do think that way. 

Whether the UK should get out, or stay in, the EC, isn't a question solely based on pounds and euros.

The point at which American democracy childishly died by sitting down and pouting on the floor.

U.S. House Democrats, a minority in the House, have decided to sit on the floor until they get their way on voting for several gun control bills that would, if voted upon, fail.

A persons view on this story, admittedly, tends to vary based on their view on the topic of gun control.  Opponents of gun control view this as a silly thing.  Some proponents view it as a heroic one.

Well, I submit, it's childish and disturbing no matter what your view is.

Now, I'll further state that if I ran the House of Representatives I'd let votes proceed.  But then I'd let there be a vote on every bill without them going through committee, and without their being wrapped up in other bills.  There is in fact a legislative body that does basically that, and its the oldest deliberative body in the world, the House of Commons in the English Parliament.  

The Parliament lets every bill be voted on.  Introduce them, and they get voted on. And that's the way it should be.  The U.S. Congress has, instead, developed this Byzantine process where bills have to go through committees, etc., before they can get anywhere.  That's anti-democratic by its very nature, and I'm opposed to it.  But it is the system that's been used in Congress for eons, and the Democrats and the Republicans have used it without complaint for a very long time.

Essentially, therefore, what the minority Democrats are complaining about is that they aren't getting their way.  They're trying to dictate what the majority party does.  That's not the way the system works.  No party out of party can legitimately sit down in protest and implicitly say "the majority won't let the minority have an exception to the rules".  

And they know that.

What they also know and hope is that this makes this issue, which is a popular one in urban areas, but a very unpopular one in rural areas (the Democrats in the House are effectively slitting the throats of the Wyoming Democratic Party which was beginning to show signs of life again), an issue in the fall.  Democrats like to claim that the GOP blocks "common sense gun control" due to  the "gun lobby", which translates as GOP voters not liking gun control and using the NRA to support its view (it'd be interesting to see how Democrats would react to being accused of blocking "common sense protection for the unborn" by serving the "death lobby", probably not well).

And what they also ought to know is that by taking this approach, and tying it to memories of the Civil Rights movement, they're going to see it used again, against them, on things that are legitimately closer in spirit to the Civil Rights movement.  While Pelosi and crew sit there they ought to realize, when they return to power, and sooner or later they will, they're going to hear "Madam Speaker, if you won't bring my bill to the floor to protect the living at all ages, while I'll just sit down right here . . . "

But, whatever a person's view, this symbolizes the ongoing demise of democracy in this country.

Not that it suddenly arrived.  Both parties are to blame and this has been going on ever since the GOP decided to attempt to remove President Clinton for having an affair with an aid. That was reprehensible on his part, but it had nothing to do with legitimate politics and frankly it didn't impact the country in any fashion.   Following that both parties have increasingly criminalized bad economic choices and bad political choices, which is appalling.  This election cycle we're seeing a primary process in which the Democratic Party has put in an entire class of delegates that the party gets to choose in case the people do the wrong thing, and a system which confuses party membership with voting rights has helped nominate a Republican candidate that has very little chance of winning.

Many have speculated this year on whether a third party might have a chance at gaining the presidency this year.  I doubt it, but one certainly has a better chance than in prior years.  Would that one would have a chance getting into Congress on the platform of acting like adults, not penalizing economic and business decisions, and actually performing those acts required of it in the Constitution. 

But that's not going to happen.

The Casper Weekly Press for June 23, 1916

Some of the news of June 23, 1916, is freakishly familiar a century later.

The Big Speech: G. K. Chesterton on the rich, the poor and anarchy.

You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchist.
G.K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 Villa leading his forces prior to his 1915 defeat at Celaya

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 Hugh Scott

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

Alvaro Obregon

 

 

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

 

 

10th Cavalry in Mexico, May 10, 1916.

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 New York National Guardsmen in Texas, 1916.

Mobilized New York National Guardsman.

National Guard Camp, Camp Ordway Virginia, 1916.

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

 

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

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

 US troops being repatriated at El Paso.

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

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

All caught up?

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

And Coal Gassification bites the dust in Carbon County.

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

 

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

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

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

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

Mid Week at Work: Jose de Sousa Magano

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

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

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

Lots of stuff going on in June, 1916.

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

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

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

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

Cuts in government budgets, Wyoming's economic woes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 US troops being repatriated at El Paso.

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