Tuesday, September 11, 2018

The American Serviceman During World War One: They were older than you think.

Or at least some of them were.

Dan Daly being awarded a French decoration during World War One.  Daly was born in 1873 and had entered the Marine Corps during the Spanish American War in 1899, at which time he was 26 years old.  He won his first Medal of Honor during the Boxer Rebellion.  He would have been 45 years old at the time he won his second Medal of Honor during World War One.  He'd serve on until age 56 and then retire, dying at age 63 in 1937.  In some ways, Daly is emblematic of the NCO core of the time.

It's really common to read the statement about all soldiers being "young" during World War One, and certainly there were a lot of young soldiers who fought in the Great War.  But they may not have been as uniformly young as a person might assume.

Let's start with a few facts about the armed forces of the United States during the second decade of the 20th Century.


The service offered retirement, however, to an enlisted man at the time who had served for 30 years. The period and system was similar for officers.  Retirement after 30 years was at 75% of base pay, not a bad retirement for men, and they were all men, who were used to their existing level of pay.

To understand the impact of this, you next have to consider that the enlistment age for military service had been higher than it is today until just before World War One.  In 1875 Congress had acted to pass the following provisions regarding military enlistment in the Army:
Sec. 1116. Recruits enlisting in the Army must be effective and able-bodied men, and between the ages of sixteen and thirty-five years, at the time of their enlistment. This limitation as to age shall not apply to soldiers re-enlisting.
Sec. 1117. No person under the age of twenty-one years shall be enlisted or mustered into the military service of the United States without the written consent of his parents or guardians: Provided, That such minor has such parents or guardians entitled to his custody and control.
Sec. 1118. No minor under the age of sixteen years … shall be enlisted or mustered into the military service.
So enlistment was allowed down to age sixteen, but only with parents permission.  And enlistment was allowed up to age thirty five.

In 1899, in the wake of the Spanish American War, Congress changed Sec 1116 however to provide that you had to be eighteen years to enlist, and that still required parental approval.  It wasn't until 1916 that Congress changed the statutes so that parental approval was no longer required for those eighteen years of age.

If this seems odd, it frankly fit the concepts of adulthood at the time, and it oddly squares with the current psychological concepts of when somebody is fully adult.  At the time, and we've addressed this elsewhere, most men lived at home until married and even though many men left home for work prior to twenty years of age, many did not and lived at home. Barring enlistment under your own volition until age twenty-one made sense, just as originally allowing enlistment down to age sixteen under some circumstances did as well.

Put in context, therefore, most soldiers who had served long enough to retire were in their early 50s.  They had to retire at age 64, which was the maximum age a serving soldier could be at the time.

This was changed during World War Two to expressly try to weed out older men, particularly officers, who were regarded as no longer sufficiently mentally flexible for modern warfare. But that was to come later.  During World War One the 20 year retirement period for early retirement was in the future.  Barring injury, career soldiers had to serve 30 years in order to retire or make it to 40 years to retire on full pay.

That meant, therefore, that for soldiers who had enough time in to retire in the year we've been looking at, 1918, had entered the Army in 1888.

But another way, that means career soldiers who were eligible to retire had entered the Army prior to the Battle of Wounded Knee, which is generally regarded as the last significant battle of the Indian Wars (it's not the last battle).

Artillerymen of Wounded Knee, 1890.

By way of some examples, John Pershing, commander of the AEF, had entered the Army after attending West Point in 1886.  Douglas MacArthur, who was considerably younger, had entered the Army in 1903.

Captain John J. Pershing in 1902.  At this point he had already been in the Army for eighteen years.

Now, as we've already discussed, the size of the Army prior to World War One was tiny, so this only applies to a small number of the men who served in the service in the Great War (although we must also consider the Navy and the Marines in this as well.  But it is significant.

U.S. officers in Cuba during the Spanish American War, including Dr. Leonard Wood, in a combat command, second from right (Theodore Roosevelt far right).  Wood would later be the military governor of Cuba and was widely regarded as the logical commander for the AEF.  His association with Roosevelt certainly operated against that.  Wood had entered the Army as a contract surgeon in 1886, which was the norm for military surgeon's at the time, and had won the Medal of Honor for carrying dispatches 100 miles in the campaign against Geronimo.

If we look at the National Guard the situation gets much murkier.  There was no retirement for National Guardsmen at all until just prior to World War Two and, therefore, there was little reason to stay in the National Guard for thirty years, although many did.  And Guard units were much looser in adherence to age limits, so they not infrequently allowed enlistment of underage soldiers all the way up until just before World War Two. So that changes our consideration quite a bit, as the National Guard was a significant part of the Army during the war.

Hugh Scott, who was Army Chief of Staff at the start of World War One and who had to retire upon reaching age 64.  He was born in 1850 and had entered the Army in June 1876, meaning that he had actually entered the Army just before the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

So were draftees.  Conscription brought huge numbers of men into the service during the Great War, although only to the Army.  The other services did not draw conscripts.  The original conscription ages were from age 21 to 31. This was changed later to age 18 to 45.  Voluntary enlistment ages comported in expanding upwards.

Now, these points can be overdone.  Most men who joined the Army as enlisted men did not stay in it, serving a single enlistment.  They may have been older, on average, than men who enlisted after the enlistment age became 18, but just like those men now, they usually didn't make a career of it.  But at the same time, the Army was smaller then and the up or out system that exists now, did not exist then except, to a limited extent, for officers.

And most men who came into the U.S. Army, Navy and Marine Corps during World War One did so solely for the duration of the war. They had no intent to remain in the service at all.  And those who came in via the draft, and that was the large majority, were scaled towards the lower age, intentionally, rather than the higher age.  So most U.S. servicemen during World War One were undoubtedly in their twenties.

Still, that's significant. . . and not only for WWI but for later U.S. wars as well.  Contrary to widely held belief, the U.S. military isn't usually made up of "kids".  Teenage combatants have certainly existed, but they are not and never have been the rule.

For what its worth, the Army has in recent years nearly returned to the WWI, and WWII, upper age limits for enlistment and in some ways we see the age story of a century ago repeating.  The upper age limit for the Army is now 42, two years younger than what the Army asked for, which was age 44.  That's fairly amazing, but it shows that the average condition of people in their 40s is often better than it was in prior decades when chronic injuries took their toll.  Indeed, while we have pointed out that people really aren't living longer than they used to, as is so often claimed, they are often quite a bit healthier than they used to be due to medical advances and other factors.

I'm sure that would have been an illegal order. . .


but at least one order quite similar to that was in fact issued by the American high command during the war, although it wasn't quite what this notes, but it was quite near it.

And trouble was breaking out in the German ranks. . . .

The English Clerical Speakers, September 11, 1918.


Anglican bishop Charles Gore (1853-1932) who came to the United States on September 11, 1918, for a speaking tour with Arthur Thomas Guttery (1862-1920, the Bishop of Oxford.

Arthur Thomas Guttery (1862-1920), President of the Primitive Methodist Conference who came to the United States on September 11, 1918, for a speaking tour with Charles Gore (1853-1932), the Bishop of Oxford. 


Two English clerics were in the US on a speaking tour and their photos probably says much about them in direct and subtle ways.

Scenes from the Stockade Tower at Camp Camp Sevier, S.C. September 11, 1918.




Blog Mirror: MILITARY WATCHES OF THE WORLD: A-11, THE WATCH THAT WON THE WAR

Blog Mirror: American Mil-Spec: A GG-W-113 Pilot Watch Buyers Guide


American Mil-Spec: A GG-W-113 Pilot Watch Buyers Guide

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Monday, September 9, 1918. The news in Casper. Old Indian Fighter back in town. . . Debs goes on trial. . . French cavalry on the move. . . State Guard assembles in town. . .Corn crop low. . . and Ruth hits a triple to give the Sox the World Series


A lot was going on in this paper.  Battles new and old, and on the baseball diamond.

Issuing Red Cross sweaters at Fort Oglethrope, GA to men of the 6th U.S. Infantry. September 9, 1918.


This photo really says something about how short on resources the US really was. The Army had an official pattern sweater. . . but it was relying on charity here to equip the men for the oncoming cold months.

"The Boche spotted this truck A few minutes after this truck, which had ventured out for salvage, had appeared on the roads near Blanzy the Boche followed it with shells all the way back to Fismettes. The "funk-holes" are occupied by our soldiers, a few of whom have come out to ascertain the cause of this latest commotion. 77th Division, Blanzy, Sept. 9, 1918."



Note the legs of horses in the distance.

The old transportation and the new.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Churches of the West: Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Salt Lake City, Utah. 



This is Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Salt Lake City. This Greek Orthodox Cathedral was built in 1923, and is located in downtown Salt Lake.

The Cathedral is one of two Greek Orthodox churches in Salt Lake, both of which are part of the Metropolis of Denver. Salt Lake has at least three other Orthodox churches, however, including a Russian Orthodox Church and a Antiochian Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox Church in Salt Lake City also has a school.

Of interest, two of the three Greek Orthodox Churches in nearby Wyoming, which are also part of the Metropolis of Denver, are named Holy Family,including the church in Casper.


Saturday, September 8, 2018

The Best Post of the Week of September 2, 2018

The best post of the week of September 2, 2018.

Lex Anteinternet: Labor Day, 1918. The local news

Labor Day 2018. A Contemplation

Monday at the Bar on a Tuesday. Kavanaugh Hearings Commence. Let the bad analysis begin.

The Trappings of Office. Do you affect them?

And we end up winning the Vietnam War after all.

Labor and the conglomeration of everything.


Poster Saturday: Exhibition of the Work of German Prisoners of War held in Switzerland as Internees.



This is a poster by the legendary, at least in Germany, German illustrator Ludwig Hohlwein.  This poster is translated a variety of ways on the net, which I think is likely due to the fact that its written in German script which is hard for even most English speakers of German to read and that people haven't made much of an effort to slog through it.  Indeed, I've found no complete translation of the poster and some that I have seen are flat out wrong.

I'm pretty sure that what the correct translation would be is as follows:

From 22 May to 19 June, 1918
Orchestra House
To go to the benefit of Bavarian Prisoners of War
Exhibition of the Work of German Prisoners of War held in Switzerland as Internees.

The poster of course shows a bored looking German soldier.

This is one of only a few Central Power posters I've put up to date, frankly for the reason that I don't want to to seem that I'm an Imperial German Wehraboo, even though my frequent criticism of German strategy in 1918 should make that pretty plain anyhow.  Of course, I'm not above criticizing the decisions of other strategist in the war from the other sides in my arm chair strategist role, but none the less.

It's temping to call the illustrator here, Ludwig Hohlwein, the German Norman Rockwell but that wouldn't be accurate except in the sense that he was a huge presence in German illustration for all of the first half of the 20th Century.  Unlike Rockwell, and perhaps  more like Leydecker, he did a massive amount of commercial illustration.  However, unlike Leydecker, it was commercial illustration and poster art that really defined Hohlwein.

Hohlwein was older than Rockwell or Leydecker, having been born in 1874, and his first commercial illustrations appeared in the 1890s.  He was bizarrely fully formed in his style from the very onset of his work.  He was self taught by had had an architecture background which showed in his work.  Prior to and during World War One he was in high demand for advertising art in Germany but he did cross over to work of the type above.

Following World War One he began to illustrate outside of Germany including works for advertisements in France and the United States, where he picked up a couple of cigarette companies as clients.  At the same time, however, he becomes problematic to a degree as he also did work on at least one occasion for the Stahlhelm, and following Hitler's rise to power he did works of Nazi propaganda.  He joined the Nazi Party very soon after Hitler's rise to power and achieved the height of his personal commercial success in that period.  He was briefly banned from doing works following World War Two due to his association with the Nazis but was released from that restriction and returned to commercial illustration, which he did until his death in 1949.

Hohlweiin was such a major force in illustration that people who are aware of him tend to either outright ignore his Nazi works or to apologize for him noting that none of them were anti semetic.  The apologies don't hit, however, in that he was an early Nazi and his style lended itself to the glorification of the Nazi ideal, which was itself anti semetic and evil in other ways. That association doesn't seem to have hindered his return to work after the ban on his art was lifted, but then all of German society was itself likewise tainted at the time.

Entrance to United States Government War Exhibition, September 8, 1918, one quarter of a million people in attendance


Blog Mirror: Worn and Wound: MILITARY WATCHES OF THE WORLD: GREAT BRITAIN PART 1—THE BOER WAR THROUGH THE SECOND WORLD WAR

MILITARY WATCHES OF THE WORLD: GREAT BRITAIN PART 1—THE BOER WAR THROUGH THE SECOND WORLD WAR


Because you still need to know.

Friday, September 7, 2018

Lex Anteinternet: Monday at the Bar on a Tuesday. Kavanaugh Hearing; STATEMENT of PAUL T. MOXLEY, CHAIR STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Concerning the NOMINATION of THE HONORABLE BRETT M. KAVANAUGH to be ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE SEPTEMBER 7, 2018

A few days ago I posted this:
Lex Anteinternet: Monday at the Bar on a Tuesday. Kavanaugh Hearing...: Hearing on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh commence today. . . which means, in all likelihood, a week of Democratic grandstanding, ...
So far this has been every bit the circus I thought it would be, with the starring role of Corey Booker as clown being particularly notable.  Indeed, the voice of Democratic reason turned out to be Diane Feinstein, who apologized to nominee Kavanaugh for the circus, for which she was booed during the hearing.

Well, here's something for today from the ABA, not exactly a right wing organiztion:
More here:

Friday Farming: Electric lights and self starter. The 1918 Moline Model D Tractor



Starting engines is dangerous without an electric starter.

And lights let you work at night.

Both a couple of useful features.

A little historical prospective, fwiw. At this point in his presidency Donal Trump is no longer the "most unpopular".

I'm not saying that should mean anything.  I think he's in really serious trouble.  But here are the details:

How unpopular is Donald Trump?

He has, on this chart, a 53.6% disapproval rating.  That's actually not that abnormal. By this time in their presidency's, most Presidents have more people disapproving of their performance than approving (which probably says something about as a people).

Compared to past Presidents, Trump isn't doing as horrible as some at this point in his presidency.  Consider:

George W. Bush:  60.9% disapproval

George H. W. Bush, 74.1% disapproval.

Richard Nixon:  54.8% disapproval.

Lyndon B. Johnson:  66% disapproval.

John F. Kennedy:  67.8% disapproval.

Dwight Eisenhower:  62.7% disapproval.

That would suggest that Trump is doing better in public opinion that the news might suggest, in spite of everything going on.  These are all figures from mid point in Presidential terms, except in the case of LBJ's for obvious reasons.  Consider that this didn't hinder the ultimate reelection of some of the names mentioned above.

So who was doing really well in these figures at the same point? Well, Obama, Truman, Clinton, Ford and Carter, all of whom were pulling about even in likes and dislikes.

Of interest to me, some of the Presidents I'd regard as quite successful, such as at least Eisenhower, were pulling down poor figures at this point.  I'd regard Truman as a successful President as well, and he was actually doing better than any of the other figures considered.  Ford wasn't a good President in my view nor was Carter, but in terms of public opinion,. they were doing okay.

Nixon, whose final troubles are now becoming frighteningly reminiscent of current times, is always tainted by those final troubles, but he did secure reelection to a second term.  The figures here would have been from 1970 at which time he was half way through his first term and Democrats who had gotten us into Vietnam were raging against the war and the American public was discontent with it.  We woudln't get out until 73, but that was in fact in Nixon's second term.  Probably dissatisfaction was due to his handling of the war which was problematic.


Beer becomes a casualty of the Great War and Villa resurgent. September 7, 1918.


Prohibition, which was rising prior to World War One, gained massive momentum during the war for a variety of stated reasons and a series or more significant unspoken psychological ones.

On September 6, 1918, it received a big boost in the form of an emergency agricultural bill that had been amended to include a ban on brewing on December 1, 1918.  There was a certain logic to the ban, in that resources were really tight and the brewing of beer consumed agricultural products that could go elsewhere. But that only provided part of the reason for banning brewing.  The more significant one was that the American public had been persuaded by the war to take the country dry, in part due to concerns that soldiers in hastily assembled Army camps would booze it up in nearby, formerly quiet, towns and in part by fears that soldiers far from home would be corrupted by drink outside the eyes of their families, both in the US, and away in wine laden France.

That can be seen in particular by the paper above, which not only noted the passage of the bill, but the mustering of dry forces that would seek to carry on Prohibition post war. . .a move that was successful. . . and not.

Meanwhile, the war in France itself was going well, but Villa was resurgent in Chihuahua.


Francis W. Moeschen, Red Cross Nurse. Casualty to the Spanish Flu, September 7, 1918.


Recalling Mac & Cheese.

The A Hundred Years Ago blog posted an item about cooking macaroni.

Hundred-year-old Directions for Cooking Macaroni

It's interesting how something like this can really bring back certain memories. It's also interesting how something that's such a routine part of our daily life tends to be associated by us with the recent, in a way.

Macaroni was a staple of my childhood life.  But not the horrid stuff you get out of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese box. Ack.

Now, as I've mentioned here before, my mother was a terrible cook.  But I guess Mac & Cheese is hard to mess up, unless of course you include the boxed Kraft stuff, which is really disgusting.  Anyhow, as a kid everyone ate Mac & Cheese but the funny thing is that I don't recall the boxed stuff even existing.  Maybe it did but she didn't fix it.

In recalling something like this, particularly for people who are Catholics such as myself, its tempting to associate Mac &  Cheese with Lent or, if you are old enough, Fridays in general.  For folks who don't know, Catholics and the Orthodox abstain from meat on the Fridays of Lent.  The Orthodox fasting regulations, and those of the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, are actually much more extensive than that, and I'd have to look them up to recall what they are.  Prior to some date in the 1960s American Catholics had to abstain from meat on every Friday of the year except for certain feast days.

Anyhow, while that's a popular thing to say, that wasn't the case in our house.  My mom was simply a poor cook but Mac & Cheese is really easy and she made it frequently as a side dish.  It was never ever the main dish, ever.  In Lent, if we had it, it was the side dish to fish.

Anyhow, we had Mac & Cheese as a side dish pretty frequently and I always liked it, and I still do (but not that icky Kraft stuff).

My mother made Mac & Cheese using Velveeta, which isn't even really cheese but a "processed cheese food", whatever that this.  Now, I can't stand Velveeta and it doesn't seem to be used as much now, but it was the only cheese, other than cream cheese, she bought.  I would never make Mac & Cheese with Velveeta now, but it was as super common cheese in almost everyone's household when I was a kid.  Every mother had Velveeta.  If we had cheese sandwiches, they were made from Velveeta.

Anyhow, I can readily recall my mother's Mac & Cheese and how much I liked it, particularity when she put it in a casserole dish and baked it, which was frequently.  But for the post on A Hundred Years Ago, however, I would not have recalled that.  The oddity of this is that my mother fell quite ill when I was 13 years old or so and my father took over the cooking after that, so in recalling this, it's also the case that I'm recalling now something that I haven't had, by her hands, for 42 years. Quite awhile.

After my father took over cooking Mac & Cheese basically went away.  He had learned how to cook from his mother and was a very good cook.  The cessation of my mother cooking was a revelation as the quality of the food improved so much.  Velveeta also went away in favor of real cheese.  That may sound minor, but my mother even used Velveeta for things like tacos, which is not good.

Anyhow, after growing up I'd make Mac & Cheese for myself, but with real cheese, and I really like it.  I'll still do that for lunch on occasion.  But never that Kraft box stuff, which is disgusting.

My wife and kids feel differently about the gross Kraft pre packaged item, and they'll make it.  I just can't stand it and can't figure why anyone would ever eat it, but then I've also been surprised by the fact that this very pedestrian food has somehow achieved celebrity status.  To my surprise you can now find Mac & Cheese in lots of restaurants, particularly of the brew pub or ale house variety.  As I like that sort of fare, it's been a surprise to me.  And some of it has even gotten pretty fancy.  I'll never order it from a menu myself, as it seems like something I could do just as well as anybody else, but I've seen it ordered a pile of times and I'll admit, it looks pretty good.

Probably because of its American staple nature, Mac & Cheese has sort of a 1950s June and Ward Cleaver feel to it, which is how I think a lot of Americans view it.  An interesting thing about the item on A Hundred Years ago is that it shows that this has been around a lot longer than that, and that it's actually changed somewhat.  For example, I thought that all Macaroni was elbow macaroni, but that's not true at all.  There used to be a time, it turns out, when it was a series of rods you had to break.

What would probably be a bigger surprise to most people is that its been an American staple for over two centuries.  The line about Macaroni, while satirical and somewhat referring to something else, that appears in the Revolutionary War era song Yankee Doodle, was in fact a familiar reference.  Macaroni & Cheese was a common dish in the Americas at the time.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hV-yHbbrKRA" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Which is interesting for a variety of reasons.  Not only is this not something that became common in the boxed food era, or even a recently as a century ago. . . it's been around on the American dinner table for a long time.

Our fate, whatever it is, is to be overcome by enduring it.

Quidquid eritsuperanda omnis fortuna ferendo est.

Virgil.  The Aeneid.

Blog Mirror: 60 Clicks; A Brief Guide to the Iconic Watches of The Vietnam War

Why?  Well because you need to know, that's why.

A Brief Guide to the Iconic Watches of The Vietnam War

For what is worth, here on the second day we've linked in a watch thread, most soldiers were never issued watches.  Never.

Not in World War Two, not in Vietnam, and not now.

They're issued on a need basis alone. For guys who need to time things precisely. And at least in my experience, if you have a watch with a second hand, and most people do, the services expects you to use your own.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

Blog Mirror: 60 Clicks: A Brief Guide to the Iconic Military Watches of World War II

Because watches are cool, and field watches are the coolest of them all:

A Brief Guide to the Iconic Military Watches of World War II


Wyoming Labor Journal, September 6, 1918.


Another item we're running this week in observation of Labor Day, this past Monday, and of course in keeping with our recent 1918 theme, the Wyoming Labor Journal.

This is the issue of September 6, 1918 and followed the recent Labor Day observance in 1918.  While various unions that exist in Wyoming do publish trade journals today, as far as I'm aware there is no longer a general labor newspaper such as this.

Labor was in an odd position in the Great War as it was continually somewhat at odds with the administration while also supporting the war effort.  From the patriotic front page of the paper, you wouldn't necessary know that from the Journal.

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Labor and the conglomeration of everything.

Grocer, 1944. This guy wouldn't be working for himself, in this occupation, anymore.

One show that does capture a little of the high school experience many of us had is “Freaks and Geeks,” to which I’ve devoted a few evenings lately. One character is a guidance counselor who’s a little over-invested in his students’ lives. He’s always around, questioning the kids’ decisions and reminding them that the choices they make in high school will echo down the hallways of the rest of their lives.
This is a pretty common theme, and one that today’s students are likely to hear as classes kick off this week in the state. Even Linus from “Peanuts” gets in on the action. He tells Charlie Brown: “I think that the purpose of going to school is to get good grades so then you can go on to high school, and the purpose is to study hard so you can get good grades so you can go to college, and the purpose of going to college is so you can get good grades so you can go on to graduate school, and the purpose of that is to work hard and get good grades so we can get a job and be successful so that we can get married and have kids, so we can send them to grammar school to get good grades, so they can go to high school to get good grades so they can go to college and work hard…”
Mandy Burton from her article in the Casper Star Tribune, quoting from the late Charles Schultz's cartoon, Peanuts.

Pretty observant article, but not true so much anymore.  Today, Schultz's characters would have to say:
“I think that the purpose of going to school is to get good grades so then you can go on to high school, and the purpose is to study hard so you can get good grades so you can go to college, and the purpose of going to college is so you can get good grades so you can go on to graduate school, and the purpose of that is to work hard and get good grades so we can get a job and be successful move to a city you are not from and have no connections to so that we can get married and have kids, divorce and abandon them, so we can send them to grammar school to get good grades, so they can go to high school to get good grades so they can go to college and work hard and move on to where they have no connections…”
Grim view, I know. But a realistic one in the modern American economy.

I've posted a lot on this blog about the disappearance of various small businesses.  I haven't posted as much on those that have persevered so far, as its always easier to ignore that, although I do have one in the hopper on bars.

As part of what we're observing here this week in regards to Labor Day and the American celebration of labor, we might want to take a look at the conglomeration of absolutely everything.  Indeed, to my way of thinking, it's one of the worst things that's happened to the United States, and indeed the world, in the past century.

Americans are fond of thinking that they live in a free market, but they really do not.  A free market, in a pure sense, is a market in which every individual competes on a level playing field.  But that sort of market, to be truly free, would exist in the absence of corporate entities.  Ours clearly does not.  Indeed, it emphasizes them.

Now, the reason that matters is that corporations, in a state of nature so to speak, would be partnerships, which are assemblies of individuals who are still individuals.  Partnerships, if they are conventional partnerships, exist in a much different legal environment than corporations do.  Corporations may be assemblies of people, and of course are as people are behind all entities and things at the end of the day, but corporations are creatures of the state, created by the recognition of whichever state entity they are formed subject to, and recognized at law as a "person".*

That last thing is a profound legal concept.  Walmart, General Motors, or British Petroleum, for example, are all people in the eyes of the law. You know that they aren't, but at law they are. That means that under the law nearly everywhere they are legally liable as people for their torts, as compared to conventional partnerships in which every partner can be held individually liable for the acts of the partnership.  If that was the law in regards to shareholders and the liability of corporations, there's no way that they'd have grown so large and so predominant.

Additionally, in the United States, thanks to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court, corporations have the same right of speech that individuals do. That's an almost shocking proposition, but it's the law.  It's hard to believe, for example, that every shareholder of Amalgamated Amalgamated holds the same view as the board of directors, but that board can decide what the corporation thinks and how it spends its money on getting its message across.   That's the corporations speech, even if Mrs. Anon Jones in Passedonby, Florida, who is a shareholder, disagrees.

Corporations have been around for a long, long time and there's legitimate reasons to be sure for big and small ones.  The oldest one is debated as to that status.  Some claim the Dutch East India Company, which disappeared in 1799, was the first one, but that status is certainly challenged.


Logo of the Dutch East India Company.

Some claim that status for the Hudson's Bay Company, which has the advantage over the Dutch East India Company in that it is still around with popular stores in Canada now commonly nicknamed "The Bay".

The flag of the Hudson's Bay Company.

While the Hudson's Bay Company hasn't folded in, like the Dutch East India Company, it isn't what it once was, sadly. None the less the company that could and should claim that it made it to the what would be come the American Pacific Coast well in advance of Lewis and Clark was formed on May 2, 1670, a long while back.**

Both of those corporations are sorts of exceptions to the early rule, which is interesting in that they were both retail and manufacturing, with HBC being particularly that way.  The manufacturing aspect of them is what caused the need for their corporate status to exist.  A giant financial enterprise on that scale simply couldn't exist as a partnership, and we won't pretend otherwise.  Corporations are not only the backbone to the Corporate Capitalist system we actually have, but a necessary element of it. The question explored here is a bit different than that.

Before we move on, determining the oldest corporation in the United States would be a little more difficult, although I'm sure it could be done.  There are some really old ones to be sure, with some old businesses that were not incorporated (at least originally) dating back to the 17th Century.  The oldest corporation, oddly enough, appears to be a perfume company, still in existence, but it's hard to tell that for sure.

What something like this tends to show us is that corporations really arrived on the scene for really large commercial trading operations in the 1600s and have been with us ever since.  And over time, they've come to predominate in all sorts of ways more and more.

It's easy to pretend this is a really modern trend, and it is if we take a long view of modern. But it didn't occur within just the last couple of decades.  Certainly big manufacturing came in with the Industrial Revolution.  Big retail came in shortly after that.  Department stores, which are the immediate predecessors of all big box retail, date back to the early 19th Century.  Macy's, which is in every American burg of mid size and up, was founded as a dry goods store in 1858, two years prior to the Civil War.  A whole host of companies that some would recognize now and some would not, followed.  All of them no doubt incorporated early on.

Indeed, at some point some of the older department stores yielded to the newer ones like Target.  Anyway you look at it, the most emblematic of the modern American giganto stores is Walmart, which is absolutely everywhere.

Its with Walmart that it gets tempting, although it would probably be a bit deceptive, to start to claim everything changed.  Before Walmart, for example, there was K Mart, and certainly at one time K Mart seemed like a big deal. But Walmart was exceptionally aggressive in moving into every single market and every single niche that seemed to exist.  At least at our local K Mart (which I haven't been in since the kids were small) you can now buy groceries, for example, but that's only because Walmart did it first.

Walmart has a business model which basically sets to sell everything on earth for the lowest possible price.  It does that by a variety of means, but one of the means is that, once it grew large enough, it pressured manufacturers to lower their costs.  The manufacturers had no choice and in order to do that they've had to do what any manufacturer in a global market has had to do under price pressure, manufacture overseas and with the cheapest parts that the consumers can tolerate using.

As this has happened its been devastating to local retail.

Walmart's backers like to pretend that its "low low prices" benefit everyone but that's very far from true.  What low low prices have done is meant that certain entire sectors of the local economy have closed.  It used to be the case that things like radios, televisions, stoves, and appliances, as well as clothing and the like, were typically bought by local vendors.  I'm in my mid 50s and I can well recall all of that being the case.  Maybe you'd also look at Penney's, Sears or K Mart, but chances are that the local prices weren't far off and were competitive.  Not any more.

And that has meant, by extension, that occupations that people once held in small retail have died.  A person would have to be willing to endure a lot of economic risks to open up a small dry goods store, or an appliance store, or a jewelry store today.  Indeed, a person would have to be willing to endure a whole lot of risk to open a conventional grocery store.

Now, not all of that can be blamed on Walmart, but on the overall trend.  Through the corporate vehicle, size and mass have spread into everything.

Take the popular television advertisement we see in which we're informed that "He want to Jared's" symbolizes undying love.  It might, but Jared's is owned by Sterling Jewelers, a company that was founded in 1910 and which is now owned by Signet Jewelers Ltd, a British company. The parent company has stores all over the globe and just purchased an internet based jewelry company.

 https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiir61pBMWnAJ9DmdqiHXXojQ3KLw5AbGu0GvCF8SYSR4Ww1KWY-lASEzJcP5q_EFFht_rZBebhCpR3O6fLJef10RT1I0lcPqF0F3iBLWewumoeOQ-We8nzeWM7sJBB9rhMUmLzKBMJcH8/s640/2013-03-12+15.02.08.jpg
 Sidewalk clock of a former jewelry store.  The store closed when the owner retired.  It was a family business that had been in that family for at least two generations.  I'm not saying that big national chains killed it or anything, but if I were entering the business today I'd surely consider my national and international competition before I did so.

Now, I'm  not saying that either of those business entities is bad in some fashion, but let's be fair. Jewelry stores used to almost exclusively the domain of families, which made a decent middle class, and independent, living on them.

 

So were grocery stores, although that's long ceased to be the case.  All groceries used to be local but just over a century ago Piggly Wiggly moved into with a different business model and now almost everyone buys their regular groceries from a grocery store that's a huge chain.


Now in fairness to those chains, and fairness is due, a strong grocery union means that the jobs at grocery stores actually are generally good middle class jobs with benefits and retirement.  But they aren't small locally owned as a rule anymore.  Oh, sure, you can find a locally owned store, but it will likely be a specialty store.  And perhaps that's both the model and the exception to the rule.  And as noted, in recent years grocery stores, which at least were generally single purpose in mind, have had to compete with Walmart and the like, which now include groceries in them, thereby removing the connection with the local and the course more and more.


And there's hardly anything that hasn't succumbed to this model, or which isn't in danger of of falling to it.  There are still local book stores and record stores, but they struggle against national chains, or increasingly, the Internet.***  There are still local automotive garages, but think of the easy service end of that chain, such as lubrication, and once again you have the chains.****

 
And even industries which don't have a giant big box store to compete with face the problem of conglomeration.  Even in the legal field, which is generally a model of modern guild practice, we now see larger and larger firms in big cities planting roots in the mid sized ones, and giant ones based in huge cities moving into the big cities.  The trend is obvious.

You can, if you look hard enough, and live in a town big enough, find local businesses.  But if you stop to consider what the big box stores are offering and then compare that to the town in which you live, you'll get a clue as to what you'll find in the first instance. And then as you drive down the street and look at the national chains its all the more apparent.

Now, I'm not saying that everything local is gone. Indeed, just a couple of months ago, while working on one of our trucks, I was reminded of how many local industrial mechanics shops still remain and indeed, in order to rebuilt the batter connectors for our 1997 Dodge D1500 we had to go to those local shops as the big national chain batter shop here that had just opened a large new store didn't have what we needed. The small one catering to garages did however, along with a lot of helpful advice that proved critical to the enterprise.

But more and more this is an exception to the rule.

The question is, of course, whether or not this is bad.

And it is.

The problem with this gigantic conglomeration of everything is multi fold, but at least in part what it has done is to take middle class occupations and shoved the former owners of them down into lower wage brackets.  Local grocery stores that supported a family of owners, for example, are gone, and that family has had to do something else, probably a couple something else's, in order to support themselves.  Or at least, they are supporting themselves directly through what they own.

Likewise, families that would have owned any number of local enterprises to support themselves now must work for other enterprises quite often. Sure, there are multiple exceptions, and of course a lot of chains are actually franchises, which is another matter entirely.  But there can be no doubt that a young couple that might wish to open an appliance store and support a young family has to really question their decision.

Beyond that, there's a certain center of mass, or gravitational pull, aspect to this.  I've noticed this in the legal field for a long time.

The practice of law used to feature a lot of very broadly practicing lawyers, many of them absolutely excellent, located throughout a state.  I've detailed it before already, but the practice of law began to shift in the 1970s when the Baby Boomers came into it as they shifted the business model to emphasize making money over everything else.*****Coincident with this, large firms began to increasingly expand into multiple states. The money aspect of this drew off a number of graduates of local law schools to the bigger markets, but the majority of graduates of state schools still went on to practice in their states, very often in the communities they were from.  This is no longer true.

Now, the gravitational pull had caused a cycle in which bigger and bigger firms sought to penetrate smaller and smaller markets, to the detriment of the local practitioner.  This created a crisis in employment for those just graduating law schools which in turn helped bring about the disaster of the Uniform Bar Exam, which allowed "transportability".  That transportability became a vehicle to accelerate the penetration by big firms, but ironically big regional firms have become the victims of giant national firms that seek to do the same thing.  The local lawyer has increasingly gone from a general practitioner skilled at everything to a specialized one occupying the markets that are suited for only the local.  But the practice hasn't improved at all.  Indeed, it's gotten increasingly unbearable for the practitioners and the overall quality certainly isn't any better.

The irony of all of this is that it doesn't have to be.  The concept of incorporation was never really meant to lead to the conglomeration of everything, and in prior eras when conglomeration grew too extensive, at least in the United States the law, in the form of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, stepped in to address it. Now things are far, far, more extensive than they ever were.  But only because we allow it.

During the recent primary election the GOP candidates all came around to how local business could and can be helped.  I doubt that anyone is really going to do anything, but here's an area that certainly could be done.  Large scale manufacturing is certainly a different animal, but retail and the service industries have become conglomerated simply because we chose to allow it to occur, or even encouraged it.  We ought to ask, at least a bit, if in doing that "for" our communities, we instead "doing" something to them, and it wasn't a pleasant thing to do.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*Indeed, one of the really bizarre ironies of Capitalism v. Socialism is that modern Capitalism, which is really Corporate Capitalism, strong favors the big, but not as much as real Socialism, which doesn't work and which is pretty much extinct, which favors the biggest.  Socialist don't think of it that way, but real Socialism favors the creation of a giant monopoly in which a giant Corporation, if you will, the state, owns and controls everything with the people as the theoretical shareholders, if you will (but in reality, the government is and doesn't care much about its patrons, the people).

**It's odd to me that real backers of Capitalism so rarely cite the example of the Hudson's Bay Company which is the one real example we have a giant corporation serving its interests by basically ruling the northern half of a continent and successfully enforcing the peace while enriching its more or less subjects.  It's a Capitalists success story of epic proportions really.

***Indeed, Internet retailers are posed to be the next step in this, wiping out even big entities in favor of remote cyber ones.  It is, of course, happening.

****Garages themselves, however, hold on.  Perhaps their work is too individualistic to fail.

*****It was at that point that the "billable hour", much discussed in legal circles, came in and began to dominate. 

Lex Anteinternet: Monday at the Bar on a Tuesday. Kavanaugh Hearing...

Yesterday I posted this:
Lex Anteinternet: Monday at the Bar on a Tuesday. Kavanaugh Hearing...: Hearing on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh commence today. . . which means, in all likelihood, a week of Democratic grandstanding, ...
And not to be disappointed, day one turned out to be just as big of circus as I thought it might be.  Even bigger really.

Which is not to say that there are not real reasons to seriously ponder the Kavanaugh nomination.  His views on executive privilege, for example, really do deserve close attention from both Republicans and Democrats. And the Administrations withholding of thousands of pages of documents pertaining to him is more than a little questionable.

But most of the cry will be egocentric in nature and amount to the odd claim that he's a threat to democracy as he would suggest that the Constitution doesn't favor Liberal enshrined rights and actually does protect those rights, but pretty much only those rights, it actually mentions, whether you are keen on those rights or not. Everything else, he''ll suggest, the people need to make their mind up on their own, through their legislatures.

So, once again, from the Liberal prospective here, at the end of the day, the biggest threat to democracy is the people.  You really shouldn't let them decide things for themselves.

Because you want to hear it live:
SCOUTUSBlog

 Live blog of confirmation hearing (Day Two)
We are live-blogging the second day of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senators will go through their first round of questioning for the nominee.

"Sincerely yours, Woodrow Wilson 21,000 officers and men, Camp Sherman, Chillicothe, Ohio, Brig. Gen. Mathew C. Smith, commanding". September 5, 1918.



The U.S. was big on these odd staged photographs during World War One.  This is one of the odder ones.

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

And we end up winning the Vietnam War after all.

Oh sure. . . they may have taken Saigon in 75. . . .



But the culture ends up winning after all.

Hah.

The Trappings of Office. Do you affect them?


Reddit has an interesting subreddit called r/Lawyers.  It's a closed Reddit so only members can participate or even read it. All lawyers, therefore.

Recently a thread was posted there on "expensive items" that lawyers use in the course of their work, or adorn themselves with, etc.  It was very interesting.

Now, I'll note first of all that I would hardly regard a Reddit thread as a scientific survey or anything approaching one.  And there's no way to know whether the replies reflect the norm or not.  But what I will note is that my observation is that over the past quarter century, lawyers dress a lot less formally, at least around here, than they used to, and that preception is common for other places as well.

Now, I've posted on this topic before, but this isn't quite the same thing.  The thread included any expensive item for which a more routine example might suffice. Brief cases, watches, shoes, etc., you name it.  And if the replies are correct, quite a few lawyers in various places still wear expensive items daily or frequently, and own other things that meet these definitions.

Indeed, it made me downright self conscious.

Now, part of the reason that I'm posting this is that I just notice the other day myself a lawyer I know well who dresses down every day wearing a really nice modern Omega watch.  Omegas aren't cheap by any means and they have a near cult like following with some. They are, legitimately, a really good Swiss watch.  Everything else he was wearing was clean, etc., but the Omega is an exceptional item.

Now, I don't know the story behind that watch, but it occurred to me that I know a lot of lawyers and indeed non lawyers who dress casually everyday but who have a really expensive good watch.  The Rolex is of course the premier example of this, but it's not the only example.  And I've really wondered about that to some degree.

Not that I don't admire nice watches (although I think Rolex watches are gigantic and I don't particularly like the way they look.  I do like Omegas however, which are not nearly as gigantic.

Now, my father had an Omega, but then he'd bought it overseas during the Korean War.  By happenstance I've noticed that a lot of Korean War era servicemen had Omegas. They all bought them at PXs and BXs.  My father had a Zeiss camera as well that he also bought at a BX and he told me that these items were much cheaper at an overseas BX.  Indeed, they must have been as even when I was a National Guardsmen in the 1980s PXs remained associated with the concept that whatever they sold was nearly free which, at least by my semi casual observation at that time, was no longer true.

Be that as it may, since the 1950s these items have just skyrocketed in price and a modern Omega (which is the watch that James Bond wears in the newer films, I'd note) are really expensive. Far more expensive than I'd ever consider buying.  And Rolex's are off the charts. They aren't the only ones by any means.

Which made me think about the watches I wear (yes I have several).  None of them are off the map expensive by any means.  I like them, and some of them are pretty nice, but nobody would think "wow, he's wearing a Wenger field watch. . ."  No I don't think so.

But them I'm also pretty hard on watches.

Anyhow, this isn't about watches but on stuff, and what I found is that there are certain lawyers who maintain that not only do they affect such things as Rolex's, but they think doing so is mandatory.  Indeed, what I found is that the list of items that repeatedly reoccurs in this way are suits, shoes, watches, and apparently automobiles.

The thesis is that you have to present yourself as successful as a message to your clients and, most of all, your opponents.

Hmmm. . . I don't know that this would have occurred to me.

Now, let me say here that this post isn't an argument for "buy cheap stuff".  Cheap stuff is often cheap stuff as its cheap.  A person is definitely much better off buying quality, even when more expensive, in the "Buy It For Life" line of thought (another Reddit subreddit).  Indeed, high quality watches, although not necessarily the modern Rolex, might very well it into that mold. High quality items are often near term expensive and short term costs savings for that very reason.  And in some instances, such as boots for example, high quality items can help prevent injury where their cheap counterparts will not.

So I'm not speaking of that at all.

Rather, what I'm speaking of is the purchase of really expensive items to make a statement.

I wonder how common that is?

I've seen arguments printed arguing that very thing, usually in regards to bespoke suits or Rolex watches.  Indeed, I've seen it stated that a person in certain professions should buy a Rolex in order to make a statement.

And at least in one profession, real estate brokerage, presentation in this fashion is regarded as absolutely mandatory.  Real estate brokers, if you know them from the inside, will often complain about this as they have to have the best clothes and the best cars, they feel (and live in one of the best houses) as a form of advertising.  

Is that true for other professions?

Well, it is is, I've ignored it and so have most of the people that I've known in the profession that I'm in, except maybe in the case of watches (there are a lot of really nice watches out there).

Well. . . I'm not buying it.

Frankly, the only person I think who notices that expensive item routinely is another person who thinks it sends a message, in which case they realize it doesn't . . unless the display is so ostentatious that it has to be noticed. . .which sends some sort of message to everyone but not the right one to everyone.

Which is a good thing, because as a person in their mid 50s, I'm holding on to my vehicles in hopes of never having to buy another one and I'm too old to justify buying a Rolex.

But back to the caption. What's your view?

_________________________________________________________________________________

This post is part of a Labor Day 2018 series of posts, that also include posts from 1918.  We don't usually do an entire week of such posts, but in this case, it seemed warranted for various reasons, including the century long contrast.

Others posted, at the time of this Tuesday September 4 post, were:

Labor Day, 2018. A Query
Labor Day 2018. A Contemplation
Lex Anteinternet: Labor Day, 1918. The local news
Labor Day, 1918.