See other Israel/Zionism Articles
Title: Espionage, Treason, and the Congressional Fifth Column
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/ ... he-congressional-fifth-column/
Published: Mar 25, 2015
Author: Justin Raimondo
Post Date: 2015-03-25 08:43:21 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 238
Comments: 15
Congress canoodles with Israeli spies to undermine Iran deal The spectacle of virtually the entire Senate GOP caucus mobilizing in support of a foreign power in order to drag us into war with Iran has certainly been instructive. Not since the Federalist party plotted with the British during the War of 1812 has an American fifth column been so open about their treason. But isn’t the "t"-word a bit hyperbolic? After all, don’t all Americans, even the worst warmongers among us, have the right to free speech? Those members of Congress were merely expressing their opinion – right? Not so fast: "Soon after the U.S. and other major powers entered negotiations last year to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, senior White House officials learned Israel was spying on the closed-door talks. "The spying operation was part of a broader campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to penetrate the negotiations and then help build a case against the emerging terms of the deal, current and former U.S. officials said. In addition to eavesdropping, Israel acquired information from confidential U.S. briefings, informants and diplomatic contacts in Europe, the officials said. "The espionage didn’t upset the White House as much as Israel’s sharing of inside information with U.S. lawmakers and others to drain support from a high-stakes deal intended to limit Iran’s nuclear program, current and former officials said." To be clear: the Israelis penetrated our communications, and used other means – including "informants" presumably inside the U.S. government – to uncover details about the emerging deal with Iran, and then passed this information on, perhaps indirectly, to their congressional fifth column, including presidential aspirants Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul, all of whom then signed on to Sen. Tom Cotton’s "open letter" to Tehran. If this isn’t treason, then the word has no meaning. Speaker of the House John Boehner, who plotted with Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer behind the President’s back to invite Netanyahu to address Congress, said he was "shocked" and "baffled" by the news. Not by the news they spied on us – it’s well known that the Jewish state is among the most aggressive foreign adversaries our counterintelligence agencies have to fend off – but "by the fact that there were reports in this press article that information was being passed on from the Israelis to members of Congress. I’m not aware of that at all." What’s baffling, however, is Boehner’s behavior during this Israeli incursion onto American territory: why did he suddenly decide to go full wingnut and canoodle with the Israelis to bring Bibi to American shores? And how is it the Speaker has so little knowledge of what’s going on right under his nose on Capitol Hill? "The White House discovered the operation," reports Adam Entous of the Wall Street Journal, "when U.S. intelligence agencies spying on Israel intercepted communications among Israeli officials that carried details the U.S. believed could have come only from access to the confidential talks, officials briefed on the matter said." Those telling details then somehow found their way into conversations between the Israelis (and their American agents) and "U.S. lawmakers and others," accord to the Journal. It’s one thing to spy, said a top U.S. official, but "it’s another thing to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy." Given the extensive surveillance capabilities of our government, one assumes they have concrete evidence of such "play back." And surely the Israelis knew this, and yet didn’t hesitate to engage in such brazen behavior. One can only conclude they wanted to get caught. This is the Israeli style: flagrant flouting of diplomatic conventions and norms in order to display their prowess – and their utter contempt for their adversaries, in this case the Obama administration. And not only the Obama administration: for surely the Israelis knew their congressional enablers would be left hanging, at a loss to explain how such information came into their possession. One can almost hear them laughing in Tel Aviv: "Those stupid Americans, how they grovel before us – even as we kick them in the teeth!" Relentless Israeli espionage in order to manipulate U.S. policy toward Iran is hardly new. The case of Larry Franklin, formerly a high ranking Pentagon Iran analyst, who handed over top secret information to two employees of AIPAC – who then transmitted it to their Israeli handlers – underscores the lengths Tel Aviv will go to in order to push us into war with Tehran. The two AIPAC officials – longtime AIPAC lobbyist Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, a foreign policy analyst for the powerful pro-Israel group – were interested in procuring internal U.S. government documents detailing Washington’s evolving stance toward Tehran. At the time there was a vigorous internal debate about whether to launch a preemptive strike against Iran, and the Israelis wanted the inside dope. U.S. counterintelligence caught Franklin – a dyed-in-the-wool neocon, who had committed treason for purely ideological motives – red-handed, and confronted him. Faced with a long jail sentence, he agreed to be wired, and the FBI caught Rosen and Weissman on tape, openly celebrating their success in securing vital U.S. secrets on Israel’s behalf. Franklin was sentenced to 12 years in prison, but was given time off for cooperating with investigators: Rosen and Weissman fought the charges, and were lionized by the neocon media as "martyrs" to "free speech" (!). The only reason they didn’t wind up in the slammer was because they threatened to reveal in court the very secrets they had handed over to Israel: in the face of this blackmail, the government declined to pursue the case – although the charges were never dropped. Rosen slunk off to work for some neocon outfit, and the whole thing was forgotten. Perhaps it’s time to recall it. Speaking of AIPAC and the FBI: federal agents have raided AIPAC’s Washington headquarters on no less than two occasions, looking for evidence of the same sort of collusion with Israeli spy agencies that our congressional solons have apparently engaged in. On December 1, 2004, FBI agents seized the hard drives of Rosen and Weissman at AIPAC’s offices, and, as Richard Sale of UPI reported at the time: "The FBI also served subpoenas on AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Communications Director Renee Rothstein, and Research Director Raphael Danziger. "All are suspected of having acted as ‘cut outs’ or intermediaries who passed highly sensitive U.S. data from high-level Pentagon and administration officials to Israel, said one former federal law enforcement official." Franklin was nabbed when the FBI videotaped him in conversation with Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at Israel’s embassy in Washington, D.C. The feds were observing Gilon as part of a larger investigation into an extensive Israeli spying operation inside the U.S. government. As Sale reported: "In 2001, the FBI discovered new, ‘massive’ Israeli spying operations in the East Coast, including New York and New Jersey, said one former senior U.S. government official. The FBI began intensive surveillance on certain Israeli diplomats and other suspects and was videotaping Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, who was having lunch at a Washington hotel with two lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group. Federal law enforcement officials said they were floored when Franklin came up to their table and sat down." U.S. counterintelligence agencies were hot on the trail of a much larger Israeli spying operation, of which the Franklin-Rosen-Weissman team was just the tip of the iceberg. Those "high-level Pentagon and administration officials" who were passing U.S. secrets to Israel were never caught, or at least they were never prosecuted. They are presumably still at large – and perhaps still embedded in the high councils of state. Whenever Israel’s aggressive spying in the U.S. is uncovered the usual excuse is that countries spy on each other all the time, and this practice is "routine" even among allies. Yet this is nonsense, and especially so in the case of Israel’s covert activities in this country. The very real consequences of Israeli espionage on our soil are being felt today, in the present debate over the not- yet-signed U.S. deal with Iran. This story goes back to the earlier part of this decade. The U.S. had cracked the Iranian inter-agency code, which gave Washington a vital window into the internal workings of the Tehran regime. Suddenly, however, all went dark. What had happened? The fact that we cracked their code had somehow been leaked to Tehran and the Iranians immediately changed their communications protocols: U.S. intelligence was blinded as to what was going on inside Iran. So who was the leaker? Ahmed Chalabi, a neocon favorite with considerable support inside the Bush administration – who, it turned out, had been an Iranian agent all along – was the prime suspect. When Franklin was questioned about this he stopped cooperating with the FBI and secured a prominent lawyer, Plato Chacheris. This led to the raids on AIPAC. When the Obama administration came into office the case against the AIPAC defendants was summarily dropped, much to the chagrin of U.S. counterintelligence agencies. These days I’m willing to bet administration officials are quite sorry they let those Israeli big fish – and their American minnows – off the hook. So Boehner is "baffled," is he? Perhaps an interview with a couple of U.S. law enforcement officers – preferably conducted under hot lights, with him in a straight-backed chair – would succeed in un-baffling him. I seem to recall a number of people, among them prominent reporters such as Glenn Greenwald, who have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for passing classified intelligence along – or receiving it – without authorization. I wonder how many of those Senators who signed the Cotton letter were privy to classified information given to them courtesy of Israeli "briefers," and who then paraded around Washington braying about what a "bad deal" the administration was preparing to sign. Do these esteemed solons think they’re above the law? Clearly they do. One longs for the day when they realize they aren’t – on the wrong side of a set of prison bars.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
A bit of history on those developments: Hartford Convention - Wikipedia outcries among Federalists for New England secession and a separate [War of 1812] peace with Great Britain both Hartford Convention and Federalist Party became synonymous with disunion, secession, and treason, ... The party was ruined, and ceased to be a significant force in national politics Era of Good Feelings - Wikipedia Monroe reaffirmed his conviction – an “anti-Federalist” article of faith - that the Federalist Party was committed to installing a monarch and overthrowing republican forms of government at the first opportunity. To appoint a member of such a party to a top executive position, Monroe reasoned, would only serve to prolong the inevitable decline and fall of the opposition. Monroe made absolutely clear in this document that his administration would never allow itself to become tainted with Federalist ideology. Monroe sought to merge former Federalists with Republicans as a prelude to eliminating party associations altogether from national politics, including his own Republican party. All political parties, wrote Monroe, were by their very nature, incompatible with free government. Ideally, the business of governing was best conducted by disinterested statesmen, acting exclusively in the national interest – not on behalf of sectional interests or personal ambition. This was “amalgamation” – the supposed end of party warfare His policy echoed the arguments put forth by President George Washington in his farewell address in 1796 and his warnings against political “factions.” The method Monroe employed to deflate the Federalist Party was through neglect: they were denied all political patronage, administrative appointments and federal support of any kind. Monroe pursued this policy dispassionately and without any desire to persecute the Federalists: his purpose was simply to extirpate them from positions of political power, both Federal and State, especially in its New England strongholds. He understood that any expression of official approval would only encourage hope for a Federalist revival, and this he could not abide. In his public pronouncements, Monroe was careful to avoid any comments that could be interpreted as politically partisan. Not only did he never attack the Federalist party, he made no direct reference to them in his speeches whatsoever: officially, they ceased to exist. ... he proceeded quietly with a program of “de-Federalization.” ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The New England Federalists were opposed to the War of 1812 and were right to do so.
The most major issue of that war was Britain's kidnapping of American men to crew its warships -- i.e. "impressment"/drafting by force into foreign Naval servitude/deadly alien-Military enslavement. Sure, the ideal resolution of that problem would have been for Britain to voluntarily stop doing that but it didn't. Not that the Treaty of Ghent properly resolved the issue either but the New England Federalists opposing America then instead of Britain about that was wrong and weird, imo. Edit to add: Not saying those Federalists didn't have any legit concerns otherwise, just saying regarding the accusations of treason against them. + Grammar edits. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
New England was the region most affected by the impressment of American seamen. Nevertheless, New England was almost in open revolt against the US government over war with England. A more important reason that the new American nation unwisely declared war on a superpower was the election of “war hawks” (today's neocons) to Congress in 1810. They wanted to grab Canada, and when the war started, an American invasion force was quickly dispatched there to do so.
I think it was more complex than war hawks wanting to grab Canada. War of 1812 | 3 Minute History - YouTube - 3.25 minutes Not only were American men being forcibly "drafted"/enslaved into Britian's Navy to fight in its Napoleonic War against France (many of them British born -- an example of the Constitution's natural born citizenship requirement being a necessity for our Presidents and Vice Presidents), Britain was also blockading and licensing our neutral trade here with France to obstruct supplies from reaching it and was controlling the Great Lakes, as well, from its Canadian support base to move troops and supplies for fomenting Native American conflict here. Superpower Britain being preoccupied with the Napoleonic War may have had something to do with the decision to move against it Militarily at that time and its launching facilities in Canada. However, the New York and Ohio Militias particularly refused, and rightly so, to cross into that country on the grounds that they were American Defense Forces for our country and not Regular Army subject to foreign invasion objectives and orders. However, America was defeated in Canada with many killed, wounded and torturously captured, because of their numbers being too few. When Britain ended its Napoleonic War and sent invasion forces here, who burned the capitol in retaliation for the Canadian "expedition", strangely enough, they were defeated in D.C. by a hurricane level storm and tornado so strong it not only extinguished most of the fires there but lifted two cannons within their camp and flung them about, which reportedly resulted in some casualties. Here's a short video about that from a History Channel program: Coincidence Or The Hand of GOD? - YouTube - 4.25 minutes, link set to start at 2:08 [for the D.C. storm] Longer version with more info on the war: The War of 1812 - Washington DC is burned to the Ground - Torna[d]o - YouTube - 8.75 minutes Mentions (at 3:02-3:26) Dolly Madison's insistance on saving George Washington's portrait but I suspect the reason it was taken out of the frame instead of just carrying it away intact, quicker and easier, may have been because an original of the Delaration of Independence (called the Fair Copy, handwritten by Jefferson and used by the Continental Congress; possibly edited during debate by the Secretary of Congress) was, perhaps, hidden behind it. Edited spelling, punctuation and bracketed video notation. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
This stuffs had been going on for more than a decade, and seafaring New England was almost in open revolt against the U.S. government even since the War Hawks got control of the of Congress in 1810. All countries twist their history into a more favorable light, and America is no exception.
study.com: American Patriots vs. British Loyalists/aka New England Federalists [who probably did have some legitimate issues at the time in question but am not sure what exactly] No problemo if you're unimpressed by the American side of the war. It's being impressed by the British side that would be problematic because, well, you know what that means re: the War of 1812 issues. : ] ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Some War of 1812 history at livescience.com: Black Locust: The Tree on Which the US Was Built - excerpts Wesley Greene, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation | May 04, 2015 [Wesley Greene is garden historian for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.] As the strongest timber in North America, black locust helped build Jamestown and hardened the navy that decided the War of 1812, yet today few Americans have heard of it. [...] we could make the case that the black locust helped the United States win the War of 1812. The decisive battle of that war was fought on Lake Champlain. On Sept. 11, 1814, the American fleet, commanded by Commodore Thomas Macdonough, engaged the British fleet, commanded by Capt. George Downie (killed in action), in Plattsburg Bay. The Americans won a decisive victory, essentially stopping the invasion forces, led by Sir George Prevost. Prevost was recalled to England to face a court martial for his actions but died before the trial was convened. One of the reasons circulated for the British Navy's defeat was that English ships were built with oak nails (the large pins or trunnels that hold the wooden members of a ship together), while American ships were built with locust nails. As a result, when the cannonballs from the American fleet hit the British ships, those ships came apart. But when the shot from the British ships hit the American fleet, their ships held together — and that is the reason they lost the Battle of Plattsburg Bay. The very next year, the British began importing thousands of locust nails to refit the British Navy. By 1820, the Philadelphia market alone was exporting between 50,000 and 100,000 locust nails to England per year. As locust continues in export, even to this day, some would say we have been selling weapons to the enemy ever since. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Imagery altered at the linked site. Replacements here, here and here: ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Thank you for the history posts, great information.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Spelling correction made there re: the 2nd YouTube at Post #5. Archiving some sources for further info and historical context re: the War of 1812. 2 more videos, circa the 2014 bicentennial commemorative observances of that war: 1. History in 4 Minutes or less: Beginning to the War of 1812 - YouTube, 4 minutes [Native American conflict aspect; Noting that they were paid 5 million 700+ thousand dollars by the U.S. government for east coast property -- a phenomenal amount of money at that time, with which some purchased lands west for relocation: Tennessee, etc.] Published on Jan 19, 2014 by Chris Layton SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 “American Under Fire: Mr. Madison’s war and the Burning of Washington City” took place on September 3-4, 2014 at the David M. Rubenstein National Center for White House History at Decatur House in Washington, D.C. War of 1812 200th Anniversary, Andrew Lambert: [Professor] Andrew Lambert spoke at a symposium commemorating the 200th anniversary of the British invasion and burning of Washington, D.C., in August 1814. Some video highlights: @ 19:00-25:00, Pre-War Impressment/military drafting; Canada; America - trade neutrality; Britain said to be protecting global trade but was actually blockading it; run out of money - U.S. would have to stop fighting; Russia victorious against France - Britain benefited and could send more military to fight America; @ 28:25, British Foreign Secretary's refusal to discuss [with Eurpeans or Americans] Maritime Belligerent Rights [Blockade, Impressment] at a peace conference. @ 30:00, run on American banks to Canadian banks; default on Louisiana Purchase. @ 31:15 Canadian demands to end Impressment and "abrogate British Maritime Belligerent Rights" were abandoned; @ 40:15 no record of the British destroying private buildings [other than D.C. area] but said earlier and later that places of those whose Congressman had voted for war were blockaded, targeted and attacked/damaged per "the Congressional Division lists". @ 44:15, a Native American buffer zone [between the U.S. and Canada, etc. territory] proposed by Britain as a treaty-terms bluff to deter Americans from talking about Maritime Belligerent Rights issues [such as Impressment; which was thereby taken off the discussion table]. Wikipedia Refs. re: the Treaty of Ghent and Status quo ante bellum - Latin phrase meaning "the state existing before the war" (i.e. no change/no gains or losses of territory or economic and political rights) ... The term has been generalized to form the phrases status quo ante and status quo. Previewable Ref. of Prof. Lambert's Britsh-perspectives re: Maritime Belligerent Rights/blockade, impressment ... Some governments, including Britain, issued "Protections" against impressment which protected men had to carry on their person at all times; but in times of crisis the Admiralty would order a "hot press", which meant that no-one remained exempt. ... One of the largest impressment operations occurred in the spring of 1757 in New York City, then still under British colonial rule. Three thousand British soldiers cordoned off the city, and plucked clean the taverns and other sailors' gathering places. "All kinds of tradesmen and Negroes" were hauled in, nearly eight hundred in all. Four hundred of these were "retained in the service." The Royal Navy also used impressment extensively in British North America from 1775 to 1815. Its press gangs sparked resistance, riots, and political turmoil in seaports such as Halifax, St John's, and Quebec City. Nevertheless, the Royal Navy extended the reach of its press gangs into coastal areas of British North America by the early 19th century. During the wars with France (1793 to 1815), the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters on board ships of other nations, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and, in many cases, by searching American port cities. Although this was illegal, Jefferson ignored it to remain on good terms with Britain as he was negotiating to obtain "the Floridas". This changed in 1805 when the British began seizing American merchantmen trading with the West Indies and condemning the ships and their cargoes as a prize and enforcing impressment on their crews. Under the Rule of 1756, in times of war, direct trade between a neutral European state and a British colony was forbidden if such trade had not existed in time of peace. The Americans had found a way around this by "landing" cargoes from Europe in the United States and issuing certificates that duty had been paid. The ship would then sail, with the cargo never having been offloaded or duty actually paid, as now bona fide commerce between neutral America and the West Indies. The British became aware of the practice during the court case involving the seizure of the Essex. The court ruled that the cargo of the Essex had never been intended for American markets so the voyage had not been broken and could thus be considered continuous. The end result was the blockade of New York Harbor by two British frigates, the Cambrian and the Leander, which provoked public demonstrations. For the next year scores of American ships were condemned in admiralty courts and American seamen were impressed with increasing frequency until [the] early summer of 1807 ... As a cause of the War of 1812, the impressment and ship seizures caused serious diplomatic tension, and helped to turn American public opinion against Britain. At the same time, commanders of British warships patrolling the Atlantic, short of seamen in their own ships, pressed American merchant seamen into service. When boarding a U.S. ship for inspection, British officers frequently demanded a muster of the ship's crew in order to search for deserters. Without doubt, some American merchantmen had signed on British deserters, but the majority of men taken were naturalized U.S. citizens who had been born in the British Isles or colonies. The British, however, did not recognize changes in citizenship. A man born a British subject always owed service and allegiance to the Crown. Thus, a seaman on board an American vessel who could not prove his U.S. origins risked being seized and virtually enslaved on board a British warship for years. In December 1806, with tensions increasing between Great Britain and the United States, President Thomas Jefferson sought grounds for amicable settlement of grievances through a new treaty, ... Its principal aims were to obtain the end of impressment of U.S. seamen; the restoration of the West Indian trade, which Great Britain had forbidden; and to obtain payments of indemnities for ship seizures made after 1805. ... Following this diplomatic fiasco, Jefferson had to cope with the most serious threat to peace since his assumption of the presidency. [Wikipedia Refs., the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair: British envoys showed no contrition for the Chesapeake affair, delivering proclamations reaffirming impressment. Jefferson's political failure to coerce Great Britain led him toward economic warfare: the Embargo of 1807] Jefferson's method of extracting concessions from the British would henceforth be that of withholding trading privileges. Thus, the Embargo Act of 1807 and various non-importation acts were intended to damage the British economy in the midst of its war against France. The effects, Jefferson hoped, would persuade England that it needed U.S. trade more than it needed impressed seamen or confiscated cargoes, but Jefferson's efforts failed. ... The U.S. embargo of British goods placed the United States in the position of being a French ally while not having any of the advantages of such a position. Indeed, Napoleon's restrictive decrees increased the danger of U.S. ships being taken by the French navy and others. ... Within a week after America declared war on Great Britain, his grand army entered Russia. How did the war of 1812 affect the Federalists and War hawks? - Yahoo Answers When the war began in 1812, this interpretation continues, Federalist opposition became even more critical in its effects. New England's refusal to commit militia to the war weakened America's military effort, and the region's continued trade with Britain sent a message of national disunity to British officials. As a result, Madison's diplomatic objectives were undermined and the war was lengthened. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Thanks, again.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Wikipedia Refs. Impressment | The Impress Service and impressment at sea | English and later British naval impressment laws: In Elizabethan times a statute regulated impressment as a form of recruitment, and with the introduction of the Vagabonds Act in 1597 men of disrepute (vagrants) found themselves drafted into service. The Recruiting Act 1703 ... reaffirmed rogues and vagabonds were subject to be pressed into the navy. It also made those listed in several categories liable for impressment in the service of the fleet. It was repealed by section 28 of the Vagrants Act 1713. A vagrant or a vagabond is a person, often in poverty, who wanders from place to place without a home or regular employment or income. both [the poor and criminals] received the same harsh punishments. In 1530, Henry VIII decreed that "beggars who are old and incapable of working receive a beggar's licence. On the other hand, [there should be] whipping and imprisonment for sturdy vagabonds. They are to be tied to the cart-tail and whipped until the blood streams from their bodies, then they are to swear on oath to go back to their birthplace or to serve where they have lived the last three years and to 'put themselves to labour'. For the second arrest for vagabondage the whipping is to be repeated and half the ear sliced off; but for the third relapse the offender is to be executed as a hardened criminal and enemy of the common weal."[10] In 1547, Edward VI ordained that "if anyone refuses to work, he shall be condemned as a slave to the person who has denounced him as an idler. The master has the right to force him to do any work, no matter how vile, with whip and chains. If the slave is absent for a fortnight, he is condemned to slavery for life and is to be branded on forehead or back with the letter S; if he runs away three times, he is to be executed as a felon...If it happens that a vagabond has been idling about for three days, he is to be taken to his birthplace, branded with a red hot iron with the letter V on his breast, and set to work, in chains, on the roads or at some other labour...Every master may put an iron ring round the neck, arms or legs of his slave, by which to know him more easily."[11] In 1572, Elizabeth I decreed "unlicensed beggars above 14 years of age are to be severely flogged and branded on the left ear unless someone will take them into service for two years; in case of a repetition of the offence, if they are over 18, they are to be executed, unless someone will take them into service for two years; but for the third offence they are to be executed without mercy as felons."[12] James I ordained that "anyone wandering about and begging is declared a rogue and a vagabond. Justices of the peace are authorized to have them publicly whipped and to imprison them for six months for the first offence, and two years for the second. While in prison they are to be whipped as much and as often as the justices of the peace think fit...incorrigible and dangerous rogues are to be branded with an R on the left shoulder and set to hard labour, and if they are caught begging again, they are to be executed without mercy." These laws were legally binding until the beginning of the eighteenth century; they were repealed by 12 Anne, c. 23[13] In eighteenth century Britain, people suspected of vagrancy could be detained by the constable or watchman and brought before a magistrate who had the legal right to interview them to determine their status.[14] If declared vagrant, they were to be arrested, whipped, and physically expelled from the county by a vagrant contractor, whose job it was to take them to the edge of the county and pass them to the contractor for the next county on the journey.[15] This process would continue until the person reached his or her place of legal settlement, which was often but not always their place of birth. In 1824, earlier vagrancy laws were consolidated in the Vagrancy Act 1824 (UK) whose main aim was removing undesirables from public view. The act assumed that homelessness was due to idleness and thus deliberate, and made it a criminal offence to engage in behaviours associated with extreme poverty. [See also: The Poor Law] ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Thank you for your friendly visitations, Lod. : ) Wanted to clarify some matters here, if I could, before linking the info at another conversation on the War of 1812.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Imagery altered at the linked site. Replacements Deactivated the first link above due to imagery alteration at that site, too, and denial of usage here. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Not since the Federalist party plotted with the British during the War of 1812 has an American fifth column been so open about their treason.
a series of meetings from December 15, 1814 – January 5, 1815 in Hartford, Connecticut, United States, in which New England Federalists met to discuss their grievances
As president-elect, [James Monroe] carefully crafted the stance he would assume towards the declining Federalists in a letter to General Andrew Jackson of Tennessee in December 1816.
#2. To: GreyLmist (#1)
#3. To: Ada (#2)
(Edited)
The New England Federalists were opposed to the War of 1812 and were right to do so.
#4. To: GreyLmist (#3)
#5. To: Ada (#4)
(Edited)
New England was the region most affected by the impressment of American seamen. Nevertheless, New England was almost in open revolt against the US government over war with England. A more important reason that the new American nation unwisely declared war on a superpower was the election of “war hawks” (today's neocons) to Congress in 1810. They wanted to grab Canada, and when the war started, an American invasion force was quickly dispatched there to do so.
#6. To: GreyLmist (#5)
I think it was more complex than war hawks wanting to grab Canada.
#7. To: Ada (#6)
#8. To: All (#7)
(Edited)
The tree that won a war
#9. To: All (#7)
study.com: American Patriots vs. British Loyalists/aka New England Federalists [who probably did have some legitimate issues at the time in question but am not sure what exactly]
#10. To: GreyLmist (#9)
#11. To: All (#5)
(Edited)
... an original of the Declaration of Independence (called the Fair Copy, handwritten by Jefferson and used by the Continental Congress; possibly edited during debate by the Secretary of Congress) ...
2. War of 1812 200th Anniversary, Andrew Lambert | Video | C-SPAN.org [British perspective. View at the site - 50 minutes.] The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 - Andrew Lambert - Google Books
Wikipedia: Impressment | The Impress Service and impressment at sea | British North America | Conflict with the United States [and Canada] refers to the act of taking men into a military or naval force [domestic or foreign] by compulsion, with or without notice. ... Impressment was [mostly] a Royal Navy practice, reflecting the size of the British fleet and its substantial manpower demands. ... became consistently unpopular with the British public (as well as in the American colonies [and also in Canada - Ref. the C-Span video above at approx. 31:15.]) ... The great majority of men pressed were taken from merchant ships at sea, especially those homeward bound for Britain. ... The impressment of seamen from American ships caused serious tensions between Britain and the United States in the years leading up to the War of 1812.
Federalist Opposition To The War Of 1812 - Archiving Early America the United States remained neutral [in Europe's warring] and its citizens endeavored to trade with both sides [French and British]. ... This situation became increasingly difficult, as both France and England objected to this trade as not being "neutral." ... From [1803-1807], the British seized 528 American ships, while France seized 206 from [1803-1806]. In England influential essayists pointed out the folly of allowing the United States to supersede the former mother country in trade with the West Indies and Canada.
There is an interpretation of the War of 1812, this one emphasizing the role that New England Federalists played in inadvertently bringing about the war. While Republican Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison tried to force British recognition of American commercial and maritime rights through commercial pressure, Federalist opposition undermined their efforts. New England Federalists' evasion of Jefferson's Embargo of 1807 forced Congress to repeal the embargo before it had a chance to place any real pressure on the British economy. Moreover, Federalists' persistent and highly visible resistance to Republican policies encouraged an uncompromising and increasingly hostile stance from British policymakers.
#12. To: GreyLmist (#11)
#13. To: All (#11)
(Edited)
In the Vagabonds Act 1597, several lists of persons were subject to impressment for service in the fleet.
Vagabonds Act 1597: During the reign of Henry VIII, it has been estimated that 72,000 people were executed. With the establishment of settlements in North America, an alternative practice (seemingly borrowed from Spain) began of a reprieve of the death sentence, should the condemned person consent to be transported to an American colony and be entered into bond service. ... Another effect of the Act was to lessen the severity of a punishment meted out to strolling players imposed under a 1572 act wherein "all fencers, bearwards, common players of interludes, and minstrels (not belonging to any baron of this realm, or to any other honourable person of greater degree)," wandering abroad without the license of two justices at the least, were subject "to be grievously whipped and burned through the gristle of the right ear with a hot iron of the compass of an inch about."
Vagrancy (people) | Vagrancy laws: United Kingdom
Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union ... an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first constitution. to establish equal treatment and freedom of movement for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice."
A bit more historical context on the issue of poverty as grounds for forced impressment and other punishments, as well as the scope of what the term "vagabond" would have conveyed to our Founders. They not only included it within the Revolutionary wartime-constructed Articles of Confederation to exclude the poor from equal freedom and protection here but (because that was written at a time of revolt against Britain, making it more likely Americans might be forcibly drafted by it in retaliation) ... the "Vagabond Clause" practically amounted to a license for Britain, France, Spain, etc. to conscript whatever American male paupers they could by forced impressment into their militaries, even if used against America's embattled Armed Forces. smh Just another example of why the Super-Centralized government structure of those Articles wasn't better than the Constitution.
#14. To: Lod (#12)
(Edited)
#15. To: All (#9)
[@ Post #9, re: Post #7]
study.com: American Patriots vs. British Loyalists/aka New England Federalists [who probably did have some legitimate issues at the time in question but am not sure what exactly]
here, here and here:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
