John Simkin
-
Posts
15,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by John Simkin
-
-
I never met Mark Lane but I had communications with him by email. In the last few years it was with his assistant Sue Herndon. It is worth remembering the extreme difficulty he had publishing material on the case following the assassination. In fact, it might not have happened if it was not for his British contacts.Lane later recalled: "In the weeks following the assassination I analyzed the case, setting my analysis alongside what was then known about the case as I had done a hundred times before for clients I had represented. The difference was that there was no client… When I completed my analysis of the evidence and the charges, I had written a ten-thousand-word evaluation." A copy of the article was sent to Earl Warren. In a letter sent with the article, Lane wrote: "It would be appropriate that Mr. Oswald, from whom every legal right was stripped, be accorded counsel who may participate with the single purpose of representing the rights of the accused."For the first three weeks the mainstream media consistently reported that Oswald had been the lone gunman responsible for the death of Kennedy. However, James Aronson, the editor of the left-wing, National Guardian, had considerable doubts about this story. In the first edition of the newspaper after the assassination, he used the headline: "The Assassination Mystery: Kennedy and Oswald Killings Puzzle the Nation". (9)Meanwhile, Mark Lane also tried to find a magazine to publish the article of the assassination. He approached Carey McWilliams: "The obvious choice, I thought, was the Nation. Its editor, Carey McWilliams, was an acquaintance. He had often asked me to write a piece for him… McWilliams seemed pleased to hear from me and delighted when I told him I had written something I wished to give to the Nation . When he learned of the subject matter, however, his manner approached panic." McWilliams told Lane: "We cannot take it. We don't want it. I am sorry but we have decided not to touch that subject." Lane was unaware that McWilliams had also rejected a proposal by Fred J. Cook to write an article on the assassination.Mark Lane also got the same response from the editors of Fact Magazine who said the subject matter was too controversial. It was also rejected by Life Magazine, Saturday Evening Post, The Reporter, and Look Magazine. However, Cedric Belfrage, a British journalist, who had been deported from America because of his socialist beliefs, was also exploring this story and told his friend, James Aronson about Lane. "I heard that a maverick New York lawyer named Mark Lane had done some careful leg and brain work to produce a thesis casting doubt on the lone-assassin theory – and even whether Oswald had actually been involved in the crime." Aronson contacted Lane who told him that the article had been rejected by thirteen publications. Aronson offered to publish the article. Lane told him that "I would send it to him but I would not authorize him to publish it. He asked why. I said that I was seeking a broader, non-political publisher and that if the piece originated on the left, the subject would likely never receive the debate that it required."Lane now took the article James Wechsler, an editor of the New York Post. He also rejected it and said that Lane would never find a publisher and "urged him to forget about it". Lane now told him about Aronson's offer. Wechsler, according to Lane was "furious" when he heard this news. "Don't let them publish it… They'll turn it into a political issue." By this time the article had been turned down by seventeen publications and so Lane decided to let Aronson to publish the article in the National Guardian.The 10,000 word article, published on 19th December, 1963, was the longest story in its fifteen-year history. It was presented as a lawyer's report to the Warren Commission and titled A Brief for Lee Harvey Oswald. Aronson argued in the introduction: "The Guardian's publication of Lane's brief presumes only one thing: a man's innocence, under US. Law, unless or until proved guilty. It is the right of any accused. A presumption of innocence is the rock upon which American jurisprudence rests… We ask all our readers to study this document… Any information or analysis based on fact that can assist the Warren Commission is in the public interest – an interest which demands that everything possible be done to establish the facts in this case."Mark Lane argued: "In all likelihood there does not exist a single American community where reside 12 men or women, good and true, who presume that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy. No more savage comment can be made in reference to the breakdown of the Anglo–Saxon system of jurisprudence. At the very foundation of our judicial operation lies a cornerstone which shelters the innocent and guilty alike against group hysteria, manufactured evidence, overzealous law enforcement officials, in short, against those factors which militate for an automated, prejudged, neatly packaged verdict of guilty. It is the sacred right of every citizen accused of committing a crime to the presumption of innocence."Aronson later admitted: "Few issues of the Guardian created such a stir. Anticipating greater interest we had increased the press run by 5,000, but an article in the New York Times about our story brought a heavy demand at the news-stands and dealers were calling for additional copies. Before the month was out we had orders for 50,000 reprints."After reading the article Bertrand Russell met Mark Lane. "I was greatly impressed, not only by the energy and astuteness with which Mark Lane pursued the relevant facts, but by the scrupulous objectivity with which he presented them, never inferring or implying meanings not inherent in the facts themselves." As a result of the meeting, Russell established a “Who Killed Kennedy Committee” in the UK, which consisted of John Arden, Caroline Benn, Lord Boyd-Orr, John Calder, William Empson, Victor Gollancz, Michael Foot, Kingsley Martin, Compton Mackenzie, J. B. Priestley, Herbert Read, Tony Richardson, Mervyn Stockwood, Hugh Trevor-Roper, and Kenneth Tynan.Aronson offered the article to both the United Press International and the Associated Press but both agencies rejected it. In January, 1964, Walter Winchell made a vicious attack on Mark Lane and the National Guardian in his regular newspaper column. He described the newspaper as "a virtual propaganda arm of the Soviet Union " and called Lane an "agitator" seeking to abolish the Un-American Activities Committee. Russell responded with a letter to the newspaper arguing that "Lane is no more a left-winger than was President Kennedy. He attempted to publish his evidence... in virtually every established American but was unsuccessful."Mark Lane continued to carry out his research into the assassination. He later recalled: "Had I known at the outset, when I wrote that article for the National Guardian, that I was going to be so involved that I would close my law practice, abandon my work, abandon my political career, be attacked by the very newspapers in New York City which used to hail my election to the state legislature; had I known that - had I known that I was going to be placed in the lookout books, so that when I come back into the country, I'm stopped by the immigration authorities – only in America, but no other country in the world – that my phones would be tapped, that not only would the FBI follow me around at lecture engagements, but present to the Warren Commission extracts of what I said at various lectures - I am not sure, if I knew all that, that I ever would have written that article in the first place."However, Lane did continue and by February 1965 he had completed the first draft of Rush to Judgment. However, he could not find an American company willing to publish the book. Eventually, Bertrand Russell found him a British publisher: "Virtually every publisher in the United States refused to print it. Years passed before we learned of the pressure that had been exerted by the FBI and the CIA against those who considered permitting the publication of a dissenting view in this affair. A British firm with offices in London, The Bodley Head, agreed to publish the book. Subsequently Holt, Rinehart and Winston in the United States agreed as well."
-
William Weyland Turner died on 26th December, 2015. I never met him but he was always helpful by email.
It should not be forgotten that Turner was the senior editor at Ramparts when several articles appeared on the subject of the assassination of JFK. Books by Turner include Hoover's FBI: The Men and the Myth (1970), Power on the Right (1973), The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (1978), The Fish Is Red: The Story of the Secret War Against Castro (1981) and Deadly Secrets (1992) (with Warren Hinckle). He also wrote a great autobiography, Rearview Mirror: Looking Back at the FBI, the CIA and Other Tails (2001). In his book he published details of wiretapping and bugging abuses by the FBI, its secret campaign against left-wing groups such as Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers Union and the stealth war against Cuba.
-
I urge all members to see the film Kill the Messenger about the life of Gary Webb. It is the best film I have seen this year and the best one that has ever been made about how the CIA control the mainstream press in the USA (Operation Mockingbird).
-
Don Bohning died a few days ago. He worked for the Miami Herald for 41 years was a CIA informant. In a document dated 14th June, 1968, revealed that Bohning received his Provisional Covert Security Approval as a CIA confidential informant on August 21, 1967, "for use as a confidential informant with natural access to information about news companies and personalities."
It seems that Bohning became part of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird programme. In her book, A Farewell to Justice (2005) Joan Mellen argues that Bohning was given the code-name AMCARBON-3. On 8th September, 2005, Larry Hancock speculated on the Education Forum that whereas Bohning was AMCARBON-3, Hal Hendrix was AMCARBON-1 and Al Burt, also a journalist at the Miami Herald, was AMCARBON-2.
While working on his book, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, David Talbot contacted Bohning to ask him about his reported ties to the CIA. Bohning denied that he was paid for the work he did for the CIA. However, as Talbot pointed out: "The fact that Bohning was given a CIA code as an agency asset and was identified as an agency informant is a relevant piece of information that the readers" of his books and articles have a right to know.
Talbot argued that AMCARBON was the cryptonym that the CIA used to identify friendly reporters and editors who covered Cuba. Talbot found a declassified CIA memo dated 9th April, 1964 that showed that the CIA’s covert media campaign in Miami aimed “to work out a relationship with [south Florida] news media which would insure that they did not turn the publicity spotlight on those [CIA] activities in South Florida which might come to their attention...and give [the CIA’s Miami station] an outlet into the press which could be used for surfacing certain select propaganda items.”
Don Bohning later admitted: "I have obtained the document about the JMWave relationship with the Miami Herald and references to AMCARBON-2, AMCARBON-3, etc., etc. As you noted, it is very confusing but it seems quite clear to me that AMCARBON-2 was probably Al Burt, my predecessor as Latin America editor at the Miami Herald. I have no idea who might have been AMCARBON-1 or Identity, 2, etc. even what they refer to. I also have obtained documents that clearly state that I was AMCARBON-3, something I was not previously aware of."
Bohning first contacted me in 2005, about an article I had written about an interview that Gene Wheaton gave when he named CIA officer, Carl E. Jenkins and the Cuban, Rafael Quintero, as both being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Bohning claimed that he was close to both Jenkins and Quintero and that they denied being involved in the assassination. They did admit to telling the story to Wheaton but they were only joking. Bohning attempted to persuade me to remove this information from my website. When I refused he took the news very badly and I received a series of abusive emails. I then produced a page on Bohning that revealed his CIA connections.
Bohning continued to work as a CIA asset. In an article that appeared in The Intelligencer (Volume 16 – Number 2 – Fall 2008), a journal published on behalf of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, Bohning attacked me for my work on the JFK case. Using interviews with former CIA officers, Porter Goss, Carl Jenkins and Tom Clines, he criticized me for my work on the CIA’s Operation 40. Up until about a year ago he would regularly send me an abusive email. He was clearly very upset by the outing of him as a CIA asset.
-
You can hear me on BBC Radio 4 tonight at 2000 against the smears made by the British intelligence services against Cedric Belfrage.If you miss it you can hear it on the BBC website.
If you are interested in the background to the case see the following links:Why the BBC and the Daily Mail ran a false story on anti-fascist campaigner, Cedric Belfrage.
Biography of Cedric Belfrage:
-
Contact the PCC, PARTIDO COMUNISTA DE CUBA, The Communist party of Cuba, through their facebook page, direct email (?), or write to Granma.
If you let them know who the doco makers are and details of the program it'll help him to decide whether or not to contact you.
Thank you for your suggestions. It seems that Tony Summers has his contact details.
-
Maybe through his publisher he can be contacted.
The company tried that but they did not know his contact details.
-
I have been contacted by a television company who want to make a drama series about Fabien Escalente, former head of Cuban State Security and author of several books that relate to the assassination of JFK. Has anyone got his contact details?
-
Gary wasn't entirely secret about his not swallowing it all, hook, line, and sinker.
"The conspiracy theories are still around because people don't know what to believe," said museum curator Gary Mack, who admits he's "not satisfied with the official story." CNN.com, 11-18-13
Gary Mack told The Dallas Morning News a few years ago that he did not believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed John F. Kennedy: “I’m personally convinced there’s more than just Oswald involved, but I can’t prove it and neither can anyone else."
-
Gary Mack was helpful to me when I was seeking certain recordings [which I never was able to obtain] from 11/22/63. He could be a great asset to investigation, when he chose to be.
It is very true that Gary Mack could be helpful if he wanted to be. However, he could be very abusive if he disagreed with you. The problem people had with Gary was the change in his views after 1994 when Mack became an archivist and later curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.
This might have been because of his research or maybe it had something to do with his job. I know he got very upset when I quoted him the words of the great investigative journalist, Upton Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
-
You might be interested in seeing Dorothy Kilgallen on What's My Line (31 May, 1959) with Gypsy Rose Lee.
-
Hillary Clinton has made $10.2 million from 45 speeches in 2014, from her first full year out of office. Almost $4.6 million came from clients looking to shape future policy on issues as varied as taxes, trade policy, financial regulation and health care.
Since leaving office in 2001, Bill Clinton has made $82.8 million making similar speeches. Hillary Clinton recently commented: "Obviously, Bill and I have been blessed and we've never forgotten where we've come from."
According to data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, federal lobbyists spent $72.5 million in 2014.
-
I found this notion as presented interesting. (It brought to my mind the system used in Imperial China where a 'commoner' could enter the court upon passing an exam.)
Henry VIII of course, had political reasons for this policy. He was highly suspicious of the nobility and he mainly kept them out of the top posts. He feared they would use this power to overthrow him.
According to the historian, Raphael Holinshed, who wrote twenty-five years after Henry's death, 72,000 thieves and vagabonds were hanged during his reign. Jasper Ridley has commented: "Many letters have survived from judges and government officials which give the number of malefactors executed after a recent assize or quarter sessions - some of them for high treason or murder, but the great majority for theft. The figures usually vary from six or eight to twelve or fourteen. If an average of ten persons were hanged at every session, this means that forty a year would be hanged in every county, which means 1,600 a year in the forty counties of England, even if we disregard Wales, where different circumstances prevailed. This would amount to about 60,000 during the thirty-eight years of Henry's reign. It is over 2 per cent of the 2,800,000 inhabitants of England, which equals the proportion of the 6,000,000 Jews exterminated by Hitler, who constituted 2 per cent of the population of occupied Europe, though it falls short of the 10,000,000 Russians who are said to have been put to death under Stalin's regime - more than 5 per cent of the population of the USSR." -
Henry VIII had a tendency of appointing people from humble backgrounds to senior posts in his government. For example, Thomas Wolsey, who served as his Lord Chancellor (1515–1529) was the son of a butcher, whereas Thomas Cromwell, who held most of the senior posts in government (1533-1540), was the son of a blacksmith. Other important government officials, including archbishops, during the reign of Henry, such as Thomas Cranmer, William Warham, Thomas Audley, Thomas More, Richard Rich and Stephen Gardiner, came from families outside the power elite. This policy came to an end when Henry died and it is interesting to note that after Queen Mary had Cranmer burnt at the stake she replaced him with Reginald Pole, the son of Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury.
Sir Robert Walpole was Britain's first Prime Minister. He started a tradition that was very different from the one established by Henry VIII. Walpole went to Eton, as did many of those who followed him: William Pitt, John Stuart, George Grenville, William Cavendish Bentinck, Frederick North, William Grenville, George Canning, Arthur Wellesley, Charles Grey, William Melbourne, Edward Derby, William Gladstone, Robert Cecil, Archibald Rosebery, Arthur Balfour, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home. Most of the others also went to top public schools. Until the election of Harold Wilson in 1964, the only other non-public school prime ministers were Henry Campbell-Bannerman (1905-1908), David Lloyd George (1916-1922), Andrew Bonar Law (1922-1923) and James Ramsay MacDonald (1924, 1929-1935).I remember the discussions that took place after Wilson's 1964 General Election victory. It was argued that one of the reasons why Douglas-Home lost the campaign was that he appeared out of touch in a rapidly changing world. It was suggested that we had seen the last public school educated prime minister. At first this seemed to be the case as Wilson was followed by Edward Heath, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The Conservative Party thought that it was too risky to elect a leader who had been educated at public school. Of course, it took the Labour Party to change this mind-set when it elected Tony Blair as its leader. It was therefore not considered a problem to select David Cameron as its leader.Since coming to power Cameron has returned to the idea that the country should be run by former public school boys. Despite the fact that around only 7% of British children are privately educated, the figure for Tory members of parliament is 54%. As The Guardian pointed out in November 2013: "Recent figures based on current and previous salaries, shares and property suggest that two thirds of senior ministers are millionaires... And though some who sit around the cabinet table came from state schools (the foreign secretary William Hague is a good example), there is still something remarkable about how many of the top political jobs are currently held by people who went to some of Britain's major fee-paying institutions: among them, the prime minister, the deputy prime minister, the chancellor, and the mayor of London. Then, of course, there is the Eton factor, which encompasses not just Cameron and Johnson, but plenty of their Tory colleagues, aides and advisers. Cameron's chief of staff is an Old Etonian, as is George Osborne's chief economics adviser. The Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin is too, along with the Tory chief whip, George Young, and the chief of the Downing Street policy unit – Jo Johnson, younger brother of Boris."John Major, who left his south-London state school at 16, with only three O-levels, is one of those who recently argued: "In every single sphere of British influence, the upper echelons of power in 2013 are held overwhelmingly by the privately educated or the affluent middle class. To me, from my background, I find that truly shocking." It was of course very different during the reign of Henry VIII. -
Robert Blair Kaiser, the author of R.F.K. Must Die! Chasing the Mystery of the Robert Kennedy Assassination (2008) has died.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/robert-blair-kaiser-passes-84-holy-thursday
-
St. John Hunt is coming out with a new book on his mom:
He did an interview recently with Jesse Ventura as well, but doesn't talk much about the upcoming book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OesbEiHLHY
The interview is mostly stuff we've already heard, but there are a few parts that stick out:
He says it can be heard on the Nixon tapes that Nixon specifically wanted Hunt for certain projects and that's why Colson hired him. Is this true?
He's asked about theories that the Watergate operation was sabotaged or intended to fail. He denies his dad was part of this, but says McCord had different assignments from the CIA and probably sabotaged the mission (something I don't believe).
He takes Judyth Vary Baker seriously which left a bad taste in my mouth.
I agree that raises doubts as his ability as a researcher.
-
I see Hal Hendrix has died. His obituary in the Miami Herald covers up his role working with the CIA. Although he won the Pulitzer Prize in 1963 (based on reports on Cuba provided by the CIA) there is very little information on the web about Hendrix (he does not even have a Wikipedia entry). My page on Hendrix appears first but Howard Cohen appears to have ignored this and seems to have completely replied on an interview with his daughter.
In October, 1962, Hendrix reported on the Cuban Missile Crisis. According to William Pawley, Hendrix was fed information by Ted Shackley, the CIA chief in Miami (quoted by David Corn in his book, Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades). As a result Hendrix wrote a number of articles on the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The following year he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism as a result of his reports on Cuba.
In September, 1963, Hendrix joined Scripps-Howard News Service as a Latin American specialist. Instead of moving to Washington he remained in Miami "where his contacts were". In an article on 24th September, 1963, Hendrix was able to describe and justify the coup that overthrew Juan Bosch, the president of Dominican Republic. The only problem was the coup took place on the 25th September. Some journalists claimed that Hendrix must have got this information from the CIA.A few hours after John F. Kennedy had been killed, Hendrix provided background information to a colleague, Seth Kantor, about Lee Harvey Oswald. This included details of his defection to the Soviet Union and his work for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. This surprised Kantor because he had this information before it was released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation later that evening.However, Jeff Morley has pointed out that there is another explanation for this story. "A tape of the WDSU radio debate was first played on the air by NBC television at 3:30 Central Time (4:30 Eastern) on November 22. So the imputation that Hendrix had some inside knowledge is not confirmed. He could have gotten the information about the WDSU debate that he relayed to Kantor from watching TV."In her book, A Farewell to Justice (2005) Joan Mellen argues that Hal Hendrix was one of a group of journalists in Miamia working for the CIA. Mellen claims that Don Bohning was given the code-name AMCARBON-3. On 8th September, 2005, Larry Hancock speculated on the Education Forum that whereas Bohning was AMCARBON-3, Hal Hendrix was AMCARBON-1 and Al Burt, also a journalist at the Miami Herald, was AMCARBON-2.Hendrix left the Scripps-Howard News Service in 1966 and went to work for the International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, as director of inter-American relations in Buenos Aires. Officially, Hendrix worked in public relations but according to Thomas Powers, "he was something in the way of being a secret operative for the company". Later Hendrix moved to ITT's world headquarters in New York City.In 1970 ITT sent Hendrix to represent the company in Chile. On 4th September, 1970, Salvador Allende was elected as president of the country. Hendrix was disturbed by this development as Allende had threatened to nationalize $150 million worth of ITT assets in Chile if he won the election. It later emerged that Hendrix worked with the CIA in the overthrow of Allende. His CIA contact during the Chile operation was David Atlee Phillips.On 20th March, 1973, Hendrix gave evidence before Frank Church and his Multinational Corporations Subcommittee. He denied ever being a paid agent of the CIA. However, an investigation by Justice Department lawyer Walter May discovered documents that showed that Hendrix had lied when interviewed by Church's committee. Hendrix was allowed to plead guilty to lying under oath (which cost him a $100 fine and a one-month suspended sentence) in return for his cooperation with the Justice Department in its pursuit of perjury charges against higher-ranking ITT and CIA officials in the Chile matter. -
I have uploaded a new photograph of Sheffield Edwards that recently appeared on E-bay.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKedwardsS.htm
Thank you Steve Rosen for this photograph.
-
There has been a lot of discussion about freedom of expression since the killing of the eight journalists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly newspaper, that had published a number of controversial Muhammad cartoons. It has been suggested that there is a long tradition of freedom of speech in the UK and that we need to defend this ancient right in response to this terrorist outrage. Although journalists have been keen to point this out it seems their editors are unwilling to publish any of the offending cartoons. It has also emerged that official guidelines previously published online said that the Prophet revered by Muslims “must not be represented in any shape or form” in BBC output.Freedom of expression is something that has taken a long time to establish in this country. Dominant religious, political and cultural institutions have always used their power to protect themselves from criticism. An interesting case in our history concerns Anne Askew who was burnt at the stake on 16th July 1546. Anne had taken on every powerful institution that existed in Tudor England.Anne was the daughter of Sir William Askew (1489–1541) a large landowner and the former MP for Grimsby. When she was fifteen her family forced her to marry Thomas Kyme. Anne rebelled against her husband by refusing to adopt his surname. The couple also argued about religion. Anne was a supporter of Martin Luther, while her husband was a Roman Catholic. From her reading of the Bible she believed that she had the right to divorce her husband. For example, she quoted St Paul: "If a faithful woman have an unbelieving husband, which will not tarry with her she may leave him"?In 1544 Askew decided to travel to London and request a divorce from Henry VIII. This was rejected and in March 1546 she was arrested on suspicion of heresy. She was questioned about a book she was carrying that had been written by John Frith, a Protestant priest who had been burnt for heresy in 1533, for claiming that neither purgatory nor transubstantiation could be proven by Holy Scriptures. She was interviewed by Edmund Bonner, the Bishop of London who had obtained the nickname of "Bloody Bonner" because of his ruthless persecution of heretics.After a great deal of debate Anne Askew was persuaded to sign a confession which amounted to an only slightly qualified statement of orthodox belief. With the help of her friend, Edward Hall, the Under-Sheriff of London, she was released after twelve days in prison. She was sent back to her husband. However, when she arrived back to Lincolnshire she went to live with her brother, Sir Francis Askew.In February 1546 conservatives in the Church of England, led by Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, began plotting to destroy the radical Protestants. He gained the support of Henry VIII. As Alison Weir has pointed out: "Henry himself had never approved of Lutheranism. In spite of all he had done to reform the church of England, he was still Catholic in his ways and determined for the present to keep England that way. Protestant heresies would not be tolerated, and he would make that very clear to his subjects." In May 1546 Henry gave permission for twenty-three people suspected of heresy to be arrested. This included Anne Askew.Gardiner selected Askew because he believed she was associated with Henry's sixth wife, Catherine Parr. Catherine also criticised legislation that had been passed in May 1543 that had declared that the "lower sort" did not benefit from studying the Bible in English. The Act for the Advancement of the True Religion stated that "no women nor artificers, journeymen, serving men of the degree of yeomen or under husbandmen nor labourers" could in future read the Bible "privately or openly". Later, a clause was added that did allow any noble or gentlewoman to read the Bible, this activity must take place "to themselves alone and not to others". Catherine ignored this "by holding study among her ladies for the scriptures and listening to sermons of an evangelical nature".Gardiner believed the Queen was deliberately undermining the stability of the state. Gardiner tried his charm on Askew, begging her to believe he was her friend, concerned only with her soul's health, she retorted that that was just the attitude adopted by Judas "when he unfriendly betrayed Christ". On 28th June she flatly rejected the existence of any priestly miracle in the eucharist. "As for that ye call your God, it is a piece of bread. For a more proof thereof... let it but lie in the box three months and it will be mouldy."Gardiner instructed Sir Anthony Kingston, the Constable of the Tower of London, to torture Askew in an attempt to force her to name Catherine Parr and other leading Protestants as heretics. Kingston complained about having to torture a woman (it was in fact illegal to torture a woman at the time) and the Lord Chancellor Thomas Wriothesley and his assistant, Richard Rich took over operating the rack. Despite suffering a long period on the rack, Askew refused to name those who shared her religious views. According to Askew: "Then they did put me on the rack, because I confessed no ladies or gentlemen, to be of my opinion... the Lord Chancellor and Master Rich took pains to rack me with their own hands, till I was nearly dead. I fainted... and then they recovered me again. After that I sat two long hours arguing with the Lord Chancellor, upon the bare floor... With many flattering words, he tried to persuade me to leave my opinion... I said that I would rather die than break my faith."Askew was removed to a private house to recover and once more offered the opportunity to recant. When she refused she was taken to Newgate Prison to await her execution. On 16th July 1546, Agnew "still horribly crippled by her tortures" was carried to execution in Smithfield in a chair as she could not walk and every movement caused her severe pain. It was reported that she was taken to the stake which had a small seat attached to it, on which she sat astride. Chains were used to bind her body firmly to the stake at the ankles, knees, waist, chest and neck. Askew's executioner helped her die quickly by hanging a bag of gunpowder around her neck.Bishop Stephen Gardiner had a meeting with Henry VIII after the execution of Anne Askew and raised concerns about his wife's religious beliefs. Henry, who was in great pain with his ulcerated leg and at first he was not interested in Gardiner's complaints. However, eventually Gardiner got Henry's agreement to arrest Catherine Parr and her three leading ladies-in-waiting, "Herbert, Lane and Tyrwhit" who had been involved in reading and discussing the Bible.Henry then went to see Catherine to discuss the subject of religion. Probably, aware what was happening, she replied that "in this, and all other cases, to your Majesty's wisdom, as my only anchor, Supreme Head and Governor here in earth, next under God". He reminded her that in the past she had discussed these matters. "Catherine had an answer for that too. She had disputed with Henry in religion, she said, principally to divert his mind from the pain of his leg but also to profit from her husband's own excellent learning as displayed in his replies." Henry replied: "Is it even so, sweetheart? And tended your arguments to no worse end? Then perfect friends we are now again, as ever at any time heretofore." Gilbert Burnett has argued that Henry put up with Catherine's radical views on religion because of the good care she took of him as his nurse. The next day Chancellor Thomas Wriothesley arrived with a detachment of soldiers to arrest Catherine. Henry told him he had changed his mind and sent the men away.During his reign Henry VIII (1509-1547) executed 81 heretics. The Protestant government of Edward VI (1547-1553) took a moderate approach to the subject and only two heretics were burnt at the stake. His sister, Mary (1553-1558) was a much more passionate hunter of heretics and an estimated 280 people were put to death during her five-year reign.Elizabeth (1558-1603) had a fairly good record of only ordering two heretics to be burnt at the stake. However, she could be very cruel if anyone dared to express views that were critical of her. In 1579 Elizabeth's officials were involved in negotiations about the possible marriage to the Duke of Alençon. Lord Chancellor Christopher Hatton was against the match "but joined with the rest of the council in a sullen acquiescence, offering to support the match if it pleased her." However, there was a great deal of opposition to the proposed marriage. As Elizabeth Jenkins has pointed out: "The English dislike of foreign rule, which had shown itself strongly on the marriage of Mary Tudor, was now indissolubly connected with a fear of Catholic persecution. The idea of a French Catholic husband for the Queen roused the abhorrence which, in the Puritans, reached almost to frenzy."John Stubbs was totally opposed to the marriage and wrote a pamphlet, The Discovery of a Gaping Gulf, criticizing the proposed marriage. It accused certain evil "flatters" and "politics" of espousing the interests of the French court "where Machiavelli is their new testament and atheism their religion". He described the proposed union as a "contrary coupling" and an "immoral union" like that of a cleanly ox with an uncleanly ass". Stubbs accused the Alençon family of suffering from sexually transmitted diseases and that Elizabeth should consult her doctors who would tell her she was exposing herself to a frightful death. Stubbs also argued that, at forty-six, Elizabeth may not have children or may be endangered in childbirth.On 27th September 1579 a royal proclamation was issued prohibiting the circulation of the book. On 13th October Stubbs, Hugh Singleton (the printer), and William Page (who had been involved in the distribution of the pamphlet) were arrested. Elizabeth wanted to be immediately executed by royal prerogative but eventually agreed to their trial for felony. The jury refused to convict, and they were then charged with conspiring to excite sedition. The use of this statute was criticized by Judge Robert Monson. He was imprisoned and removed from the bench when he refused to retract.Stubbs, Singleton and Page were all found guilty of sedition and were sentenced to have their right hands cut off and to be imprisoned, though it appears that Singleton was pardoned because of his age: he was about eighty. The sentence was carried out at the market place in Westminster on 3rd November 1579, with surgeons present to prevent them bleeding to death. Stubbs made a speech on the scaffold where he asserted his loyalty and asked the crowd to pray that God would give him strength to endure the punishment.William Camden points out in The History of Queen Elizabeth (1617): "Stubbs and Page had their right hands cut off with a cleaver, driven through the wrist by the force of a mallet, upon a scaffold in the market-place at Westminster... I remember that Stubbs, after his right hand was cut off, took off his hat with his left, and said with a loud voice, 'God Save the Queen'; the crowd standing about was deeply silent: either out of horror at this new punishment; or else out of sadness."An eyewitness claims it took three blows before his hand was chopped off. The bleeding was stopped by searing the stump with a hot iron. Stubbs fainted but William Page walked off unaided, and found the strength to shout: "I have left there a true Englishman's hand!" Stubbs and Page were then taken back to the Tower of London. Parliament was due to meet in October, 1579, to discuss her proposed marriage. Elizabeth did not allow this to happen. Instead she called a meeting of her council. After several days of debate the council remained deeply divided, with seven of them against the marriage and five for it. "Elizabeth burst into tears. She had wanted them to arrive at a definite decision in favour of the marriage, but now she was once more lost in uncertainty."Elizabeth was shocked to discover that the punishment of Stubbs had a negative impact on her popularity. As Anka Muhlstein pointed out: "Thanks to her unerring political instinct, Elizabeth realized at once that she had taken the wrong tack. Her people's respect and affection, which she had never lacked hitherto, were essential to her. The easy-going relationship she enjoyed with her subjects warmed her heart." In January, 1580, Queen Elizabeth admitted to Alençon that public opinion made their marriage impossible.On 11th April 1612, Edward Wightman Became the last heretic to be burnt at the stake when he was put to death in Lichfield. However, people were still in danger of serving long-terms of imprisonment if they made comments that were considered dangerous by religious and political leaders. There was also a strict form of censorship that attempted to stop people from questioning the status quo.An interesting case concerns the political career of Tom Paine. In 1791 Paine published his most influential work, The Rights of Man. In the book Paine attacked hereditary government and argued for equal political rights. Paine suggested that all men over twenty-one in Britain should be given the vote and this would result in a House of Commons willing to pass laws favourable to the majority. The book also recommended progressive taxation, family allowances, old age pensions, maternity grants and the abolition of the House of Lords.The British government was outraged by Paine's book and it was immediately banned. Paine was charged with seditious libel but he escaped to France before he could be arrested. Paine announced that he did not wish to make a profit from The Rights of Man and anyone had the right to reprint his book. It was printed in cheap editions so that it could achieve a working class readership. Although the book was banned, during the next two years over 200,000 people in Britain managed to buy a copy.To escape imprisonment Paine fled to Paris and in 1792 he became a French citizen and was elected to the National Convention. The following year he discovered that even revolutionary governments were not in favour of freedom of speech and when he opposed the execution of Louis XVI he was arrested and kept in prison under the threat of execution from 28th December 1793 and 4th November 1794.Paine's book did help to stir up debate on the idea of freedom of speech. Thomas Spence, a schoolmaster from Newcastle, moved to London and attempted to make a living my selling Paine's Rights of Man on street corners. He was arrested but soon after he was released from prison he opened a shop in Chancery Lane where he sold radical books and pamphlets. In 1793 he started a periodical, Pigs' Meat. He said in the first edition: "Awake! Arise! Arm yourselves with truth, justice, reason. Lay siege to corruption. Claim as your inalienable right, universal suffrage and annual parliaments. And whenever you have the gratification to choose a representative, let him be from among the lower orders of men, and he will know how to sympathize with you."In May 1794 Spence was arrested and imprisoned and because Habeas Corpus had been suspended, the authorities were able to hold him without trial until December 1794. He was eventually released but it was not long before he was back behind bars for selling what the government described as "seditious publications".One way the government attempted to silence radical newspapers was by taxation. These taxes were first imposed on British newspapers in 1712. The tax was gradually increased until in 1815 it had reached 4d. a copy. As few people could afford to pay 6d. or 7d. for a newspaper, the tax restricted the circulation of most of these journals to people with fairly high incomes.Richard Carlile was another one who tried to make a living from selling the writings of Tom Paine on street corners. In 1817 Carlile decided to rent a shop in Fleet Street and become a publisher. This included the radical newspaper called The Republican. On 16th August 1819, Carlile was one on the main speakers at a meeting on parliamentary reform at St. Peter's Fields in Manchester. The local magistrates ordered the yeomanry (part-time cavalry) to break up the meeting. Just as Hunt was about to speak, the yeomanry charged the crowd and in the process killed eleven people. Afterwards, this event became known as the Peterloo Massacre.In the next edition of his newspaper he wrote a first-hand account of the massacre. Carlile not only described how the military had charged the crowd but also criticised the government for its role in the incident. Under the seditious libel laws, it was offence to publish material that might encourage people to hate the government. In October 1819, Carlile was found guilty of blasphemy and seditious libel and was sentenced to three years in Dorchester Gaol. Carlile was also fined £1,500 and when he refused to pay, his Fleet Street offices were raided and his stock was confiscated.When Richard Carlile was released from prison in November 1825 he returned to publishing newspapers. Carlile was now a strong supporter of women's rights. He argued that "equality between the sexes" should be the objective of all reformers. Carlile wrote articles in his newspapers suggesting that women should have the right to vote and be elected to Parliament. In 1826 he also published Every Woman's Book, a book that advocated birth control and the sexual emancipation of women.In 1831 Henry Hetherington began publishing The Poor Man's Guardian. Hetherington's refused to pay the 4d. stamp duty on each paper sold. On the front page, where the red spot of the stamp duty should have been, Hetherington printed the slogan "Knowledge is Power". Underneath were the words, "Published in Defiance of the Law, to try the Power of Right against Might".By 1833 circulation had reached 22,000, with two-thirds of the copies being sold in the provinces. In a three year period, twenty-five of these forty agents went to prison for selling an unstamped newspaper. One of those was arrested was George Julian Harney, who was imprisoned three times for selling the Poor Man's Guardian. Later Harney was to become the editor of the very successful Chartist newspaper, The Northern Star.The campaign for an untaxed press obtained a boast in June 1834 when it was ruled that the Poor Man's Guardian was not an illegal publication. The newspaper reported: "After all the badgerings of the last three years - after all the fines and incarcerations - after all the spying and blood-money, the Poor Man's Guardian was pronounced, on Tuesday by the Court of Exchequer (and by a Special Jury too) to be a perfectly legal publication." As a result of this court ruling, Henry Hetherington invested in a new printing press, the Napier double-cylinder, a machine capable of printing 2,500 copies an hour.The authorities responded by ordering an increase in the prosecution of newspaper sellers. Joseph Swann was another reformer who tried to make a living from selling the The Poor Man's Guardian. In 1835 he was sentenced to four and a half years for selling the newspaper. During the trial he explained his actions. "I have been unemployed for some time, neither can I obtain work, my family are starving. And for another reason, the most important of all, I sell them for the good of my countrymen."In 1835 the two leading unstamped radical newspapers, The Poor Man's Guardian, and The Police Gazette, were selling more copies in a day than The Times sold all week. It was estimated at the time that the circulation of leading six unstamped newspapers had now reached 200,000.The government decided to bring an end to the reformist press. Ignoring the court decision, in 1835 the offices of the newspaper were raided. Hetherington's stock and equipment, including his new Napier printing machine, was seized and destroyed. For a while Henry Hetherington printed the Poor Man's Guardian on borrowed equipment but in December, 1835, he was forced to cease publication.Although the authorities had stopped burning heretics people did not have complete freedom of speech in religious matters. In August 1842, George Holyoake, the editor of Oracle of Reason, was charged with "condemning Christianity" in a speech he made at Cheltenham. He was found guilty and sentenced to six months in prison. This did not stop Holyoake in his campaign for freedom of speech and established The Reasoner. Over the next fifteen years the journal became one of the most important working class journals of the 19th century.Despite the extension of the vote, the Church was still able to prevent the publication of books and pamphlets. For example, the Church was totally opposed to the use of contraception to control family size. In 1877 Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh decided to publish The Fruits of Philosophy, written by Charles Knowlton, a book that advocated birth control. Besant and Bradlaugh were charged with publishing material that was "likely to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences". In court they argued that "we think it more moral to prevent conception of children than, after they are born, to murder them by want of food, air and clothing." Besant and Bradlaugh were both found guilty of publishing an "obscene libel" and sentenced to six months in prison. At the Court of Appeal the sentence was quashed.Even in the 20th century the Church continued to use its influence to try to stop people discussing this issue. Guy Aldred was someone who spent his life campaigning against censorship. In 1909 he was sentenced to twelve months hard labour for printing the August issue of The Indian Sociologist, an Indian nationalist newspaper edited by Shyamji Krishnavarma.In 1921 Aldred established the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation (APCF), a breakaway group from the Communist Party of Great Britain. He edited the organisation's newspaper, The Communist. The authorities began to investigate this group and Aldred, Jenny Patrick, Douglas McLeish and Andrew Fleming were eventually arrested and charged with sedition. After being held in custody for nearly four months they appeared at Glasgow High Court on 21st June 1921. They were all found guilty. The Socialist reported: "Lord Skerrington then passed sentences: Guy Aldred, one year: Douglas McLeish three months: Jane Patrick, three months, Andrew Fleming (the printer), three months and a fine of £50, or another three months."Patrick Dollan, wrote in The Daily Herald: "Guy Aldred, in prison for exercising the traditional right of free speech, was imprisoned four months before his trial, then sentenced for a year and not allowed to count the four months he had already served as part of this imprisonment. The brutality of this sentence is a disgrace to the country, and nothing can remove that,disgrace except the organised power of Labour."After his release from prison Guy Aldred and his partner, Rose Witcop, joined the campaign for birth-control information that had began by Marie Stopes publishing a concise guide to contraception called Wise Parenthood. Aldred and Witcop published several pamphlets on birth-control and on 22nd December, 1922 he was prosecuted for publishing Family Limitation, a pamphlet written by Margaret Sanger. Aldred conducted his own defence. Among the witnesses he called was Sir Arbuthnot Lane, a leading surgeon at Guy's Hospital. He argued that the pamphlet should be read by every young person about to be married. Despite this, the magistrate ordered the books to be destroyed "in the interests of the morals of society."As one can see, the freedom to express opinions that are not shared by people in authority, has been a long-drawn struggle. For most of the time, those in authority, use the most extreme form of punishment they can get away with. Henry VIII and Mary believed in setting fire to people. Elizabeth, who considered herself a humane ruler, preferred the idea of removing the offender's right hand. However, as she discovered, extreme forms of punishment can lose you the support of your people. In January, 1580, Elizabeth admitted to the Duke of Alençon that public opinion made their marriage impossible.In the 20th century dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin had few qualms about executing those who advocated free speech. (Stalin discovered the best way of keeping people quiet is to threaten the lives of their children. Something that has been repeated recently by people using social media.) Freedom of speech is denied in all dictatorships.Over the last few years, people who have been unable to gain the right to freely express their views in their own society, have decided to use methods employed by religious and political dictatorships, to silence people living in democracies. In many ways it has worked because people have employed self-censorship. As Miloš Forman, who worked as a film director in the communist regime of Czechoslovakia, once pointed out: "The worst evil is - and that's the product of censorship - is the self-censorship, because that twists spines, that destroys my character because I have to think something else and say something else, I have to always control myself."The journalists at Charlie Hebdo were unwilling to impose self-censorship and they have paid the ultimate price. Their lives will not have been wasted if newspaper and television companies follow the example of Wikipedia and refuse to be intimidated into silence.
-
Open Letter in Support of Cheryl Abbate
Dean of the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences, Marquette University, Dr. Richard C. Holz, richard.holz@marquette.edu
Interim Provost, Marquette University, Dr. Margaret Faut Callahan, margaret.callahan@marquette.edu.
Dear Dean Holz and Provost Callahan:
I write to express my deep concern about the behavior of Professor McAdams and to offer my support to Ms Abbate over the events reported here: http://dailynous.com/…/philosophy-grad-student-target-of-p…/
The one-sided public attack on a graduate student by a professor over classroom behavior is a threat to academic freedom. It does not appear to me, from reading the blog post of Professor McAdams, that he made any attempt to get Abbate’s side of the story. Instead he took up the motivated report of a student and based an attack on Abbate solely on that student’s testimony. http://mu-warrior.blogspot.in/…/marquette-philosophy-instru…
I hope that you will offer your support to Ms Abbate and take steps to ensure that Professor McAdams learns the rudiments of professional behavior in the future.
Yours respectfully,
John Protevi (PhD, Philosophy, Loyola University Chicago 1990)
Chair, Department of French Studies
Phyllis M Taylor Professor of French Studies
Professor of Philosophy
416 Hodges Hall
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge LA 70803 USA
http://proteviblog.typepad.com/protevi/2014/11/open-letter-in-support-of-cheryl-abbate.html
As the first person who signed this statement said:
Please add my name to this. Even if everything printed were true and the grad student said and did everything attributed to her ( which I do not grant) this response -- public calling out, exposure to public condemnation, political labeling,-- by a faculty member violates every expectation of graduate training and collegiality. It is a betrayal of the trust invested in faculty to mentor and guide students, not to make of them casualties in larger battles whether inside or outside their institutions.
Posted by: Bonnie Honig
-
My grandson tells me that at his school anti-gay comments are treated as seriously as anti-racist comments. Attacking a colleague on a Blog who is carrying out this policy, is likely to get you suspended in any institution.
-
Does anyone know if Carl Elmer Jenkins is still alive?
-
In 1976 Cleveland Cram, the former Chief of Station in the Western Hemisphere, met Ted Shackley and George T. Kalaris at a cocktail party in Washington. Kalaris, who had replaced Angleton as Chief of Counterintelligence, asked Cram if he would like to come back to work. Cram was told that the CIA wanted a study done of Angleton's reign from 1954 to 1974. "Find out what in hell happened. What were these guys doing." (1)
Cram took the assignment and was given access to all CIA documents on covert operations. The study took six years to complete. In one section, Cram looks at the reliability of information found in books about the American and British intelligence agencies. Cram praises certain authors for writing accurate accounts of these covert activities. He is especially complimentary about the books written by David C. Martin, the author of Wilderness of Mirrors (1980), Tom Mangold the author of Cold Warrior (1991) and David Wise the author of Molehunt (1992). Cram points out that these authors managed to persuade former CIA officers to tell the truth about their activities. In some cases, they were even given classified documents.
Cram is highly critical of the work of Edward J. Epstein, the author of Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978). Cram makes it clear that Epstein, working with James Jesus Angleton, was part of a disinformation campaign. Cram writes: “Edward J. Epstein's Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald provided enormous stimulus to the deception thesis by suggesting that Yuri Nosenko, a Soviet defector, had been sent by the KGB to provide a cover story for Lee Harvey Oswald, who the book alleged was a KGB agent.... Epstein's suggested that Nosenko's defection from the KGB was in reality a mission to provide a cover story for Oswald, which would absolve the Soviet Government of complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy." (2)
Cram is equally dismissive of Epstein's book, Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA (1989): "Like Legend, it is propaganda for Angleton and essentially dishonest. The errors are too many to document here... In summary, this is one of many bad books inspired by Angleton after his dismissal that have little basis in fact. An interview with Epstein in Vanity Fair magazine in May 1989 suggests he too has had second thoughts about Angleton and even about Golitsyn, his pet defector. Epstein admitted that Golitsyn shaped Angleton's views and possibly was a xxxx." (3)
Cleveland Cram investigation lasted six years. According to David Wise "The names of the mole suspects were considered so secret that their files were kept in locked safes in yet another vault directly across from Angleton's office... Cram... produced twelve legal-sized volumes, each three hundred to four hundred pages. Cram's approximately four-thousand-page study has never been declassified. It remains locked in the CIA's vaults." (4) However, a 71 page report, Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature, was declassified in 2003. The CIA have a copy of it on their website:
(1) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) page 256
(2) Cleveland Cram, Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature declassified (2003) pages 6-7
(3) Cleveland Cram, Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature declassified (2003) page 59
(4) David Wise, Molehunt (1992) page 257
-
Can anyone speculate on whether Ray Rocca was predicting a conviction based on any of Garrison's known evidence at the time of Rocca's opinion, rather than Rocca projecting the conviction based on the Agency's guilty knowledge?
There is no real evidence that Ray Rocca was involved in illegal operations. However, his boss, James Jesus Angleton, definitely was. Angleton also received notification of other illegal acts being committed by the CIA. These documents were retained by Angleton and never found the way into the CIA records. Only Angleton and Rocca had access to these documents. They were destroyed when both men were forced to resign by William Colby when Seymour Hersh exposed Angleton's illegal activities in December 1973. If the CIA were involved in the assassination of JFK, Angleton and Rocca would definitely have known about it. Maybe, Rocca had seen Angleton's files concerning Clay Shaw's involvement. I would have thought that Rocca was mainly concerned about Shaw's connections with those who had been involved in the assassination.
However, the main point is that any document that shows CIA involvement in the assassination ceased to exist many years ago.
Trump?
in JFK Deep Politics
Posted
The election of Donald Trump on 8th November, 2016, was the most significant political event since Adolf Hitler managed to persuade the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act on 24th March 1933. I say this not because I believe Trump is a fascist who is about to become some sort of dictator. In fact, I think over the next four years he will illustrate just how difficult it is for the President of the United States to implement his political ideas. Even if he was allowed by Congress to carry out his his proposed programme, it would not solve the economic problems faced by those who voted for him. If there is a great deal of dissatisfaction now, it will be far greater in 2020.
Why the election of Trump is so significant is that it dramatically reflects the crisis in our economic system. It was the Wall Street Crash in October, 1929, when shares lost 47 per cent of its value in twenty-six days, that created the Great Depression. At the time many thought this was the end of capitalism and large numbers of people became socialists and communists. Others were attracted to the far-right and became committed fascists.
Politicians responded to the crisis in different ways. Ramsay MacDonald, the 63-year-old British prime-minister, was slow to react to the crisis that caused large-scale unemployment. Relying on the advice of the economist John Maynard Keynes, the former prime-minister, David Lloyd George, published a pamphlet, We Can Conquer Unemployment, where he proposed a government scheme where 350,000 men were to be employed on road-building, 60,000 on housing, 60,000 on telephone development and 62,000 on electrical development. The cost would be £250 million, and the money would be raised by loan.
Philip Snowden, his Chancellor of the Exchequer, rejected this proposal and wrote in his notebook on 14th August 1930, that "the trade of the world has come near to collapse and nothing we can do will stop the increase in unemployment." By December 1930, 2,725,000 people in Britain were recorded as being unemployed (20% of the insured workforce), and exports had fallen in value by 50%.
Snowden was mainly concerned about the impact of the increase in public-spending. At a cabinet meeting in January 1931, he estimated that the budget deficit for 1930-31 would be £40 million. Snowden argued that it might be necessary to cut unemployment benefit. Margaret Bondfield looked into this suggestion and claimed that the government could save £6 million a year if they cut benefit rates by 2s. a week and to restrict the benefit rights of married women, seasonal workers and short-time workers.
In March 1931 MacDonald asked Sir George May, the retired former company secretary of the Prudential Assurance Company, to form a committee to look into Britain's economic problems. At the same time, John Maynard Keynes, the chairman of the Economic Advisory Council, published his report on the causes and remedies for the depression. This included an increase in public spending and by curtailing British investment overseas.
Philip Snowden rejected these ideas and this was followed by the resignation of Charles Trevelyan, the Minister of Education. "For some time I have realised that I am very much out of sympathy with the general method of Government policy. In the present disastrous condition of trade it seems to me that the crisis requires big Socialist measures. We ought to be demonstrating to the country the alternatives to economy and protection. Our value as a Government today should be to make people realise that Socialism is that alternative."
When the May Committee produced its report in July, 1931, it forecast a huge budget deficit of £120 million and recommended that the government should reduce its expenditure by £97,000,000, including a £67,000,000 cut in unemployment benefits. The two Labour Party representatives on the committee, Arthur Pugh and Charles Latham, refused to sign the report.
On 5th August, Keynes wrote to MacDonald, describing the May Report as "the most foolish document I ever had the misfortune to read." He argued that the committee's recommendations clearly represented "an effort to make the existing deflation effective by bringing incomes down to the level of prices" and if adopted in isolation, they would result in "a most gross perversion of social justice".
The vast majority of Labour MPs refused to support the May Report and MacDonald went to see King George V and offered his resignation. Under pressure from the king he was persuaded to form a National Government that was mainly made up of Conservative and Liberal MPs.
On 8th September 1931, the National Government's programme of £70 million economy programme was debated in the House of Commons. This included a £13 million cut in unemployment benefit and a 10% cut in public sector wages. Tom Johnson, who wound up the debate for the Labour Party, declared that these policies were "not of a National Government but of a Wall Street Government". In the end the Government won by 309 votes to 249, but only 12 Labour M.P.s voted for the measures.
Of course the cuts did not have their desired impact on the economy. Snowden's measures were deflationary and merely reduced purchasing power in the economy, worsening the situation, and by the end of 1931 unemployment had reached nearly 3 million. By 1933 over 25% of the insured workforce were out of work.
In the 1932 Presidential Election, the American people rejected the austerity policies of Herbert Hoover and elected Franklin D. Roosevelt to office. As William E. Leuchtenburg, the author of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (1963), has argued: "Franklin Roosevelt swept to victory with 22,800,000 votes to Hoover's 15,750,000. With a 472-59 margin in the Electoral College, he captured every state south and west of Pennsylvania. Roosevelt carried more counties than a presidential candidate had ever won before, including 282 that had never gone Democratic. Of the forty states in Hoover's victory coalition four years before, the President held but six."
During the election campaign Roosevelt promised to reduce taxation. After taking office he initially rejected the idea of increased public spending. However, by the spring of 1933, the needs of more than fifteen million unemployed had overwhelmed the resources of local governments. In some areas, as many as 90 per cent of the people were on relief and it was clear something needed to be done. His close advisors and colleagues, Frances Perkins, Harry Hopkins, Rexford Tugwell, Robert LaFollette Jr. Robert Wagner, Fiorello LaGuardia, George Norris and Edward Costigan eventually won him over to a new approach to the problem.
On 9th March 1933, Roosevelt called a special session of Congress. He told the members that unemployment could only be solved "by direct recruiting by the Government itself." For the next three months, Roosevelt proposed, and Congress passed, a series of important bills that attempted to deal with the problem of unemployment. The special session of Congress became known as the Hundred Days and provided the basis for Roosevelt's New Deal.
The government employed people to carry out a range of different tasks. These projects included the Works Projects Administration (WPA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the National Youth Administration (NYA), the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Public Works Administration (PWA). As well as trying to reduce unemployment, Roosevelt also attempted to reduce the misery for those who were unable to work. One of the bodies Roosevelt formed was the Federal Emergency Relief Administration which provided federal money to help those in desperate need.
To help pay for these measures Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass the Wealth Tax Act in August, 1935. It was a progressive tax that took up to 75 percent on incomes over $5 million. Roosevelt admitted that the tax had created a great deal of hostility: "The forces of organized money... are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match."
When Roosevelt took office the national deficit was nearly $3,000,000,000 and the unemployment-rate was 23.6%. His Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, and aides within the Treasury Department favored an approach that sought to balance the federal budget. But other advisers in the President's inner circle, including Harry Hopkins, Marriner Eccles and Henry Wallace, had accepted the recent theories of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that technically advanced economies would need permanent budget deficits or other measures (such as redistribution of income away from the wealthy) to stimulate consumption of goods and to maintain full employment. It was argued that it was the attempt to balance the budget that was causing the recession.
President Roosevelt was eventually convinced by these arguments and he recognized the need for increased government expenditures to put people back to work. An important part of his New Deal programme was increased spending on government expenditures for relief and work schemes. From 1933 to 1937, unemployment was reduced from 25% to 14%.
Roosevelt was much attacked by his political opponents for not concentrating on reducing the national deficit. However, as Roosevelt explained in a speech in 1936: "To balance our budget in 1933 or 1934 or 1935 would have been a crime against the American people. To do so we should either have had to make a capital levy that would have been confiscatory, or we should have had to set our face against human suffering with callous indifference. When Americans suffered, we refused to pass by on the other side. Humanity came first."
Roosevelt was attacked for not keeping his promise to balance the budget. Some went as far as accusing Roosevelt of being a communist. Those on the left hated Roosevelt because they believed that his policies helped save capitalism. However, his economic policies were popular with the American people and he defeated his Republican presidential candidates in 1936 (Alfred M. Landon), 1940 (Wendell Willkie) and 1944 (Thomas E. Dewey).
After the Second World War it European countries that were attracted to the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes. Up until the late 1970s it provided a growing economy and low unemployment rates. It also help to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. For example, the data available shows that the share of income going to the top 10% of the population fell over the 40 years to 1979, from 34.6% in 1938 to 21% in 1979, while the share going to the bottom 10% rose slightly.
The 1973 oil crisis resulted in high inflation. In the UK inflation reached 26.9% in the 12 months to August 1975. In an effort to maintain the living standards of their members, trade unions demanded higher wages which in turn led to even higher inflation. The number of industrial disputes also increased during this period. On 22nd January 1979 more people in the UK took strike action, than on any day since the General Strike of 1926.
Margaret Thatcher was elected to power in Britain in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. They both embraced the economic theories of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman that became known as Neo-Liberalism. This was a return to the world before the Great Depression in the 1930s. It was the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. They were also the economic policies that Karl Marx believed would lead to a socialist revolution.
Neo-Liberalism meant privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. It also involved passing legislation that weakened the trade union movement. These policies completely reversed the move towards a more equal society. Since the early 1980s the gap between rich and poor has widened considerably.
During this period China has emerged as America's main economic rival. Although it claims to be a communist country, in reality it is state capitalist economy. This gives it great advantages over laissez-faire capitalism. For example, it has totally control over the cost of labour. (This is what happened in Germany in the 1930s.) It also has complete control over investment in certain industries. It can therefore give out state subsidies to industries in trouble, for example, steel. It also invests in other countries and controls over 30% of America's national debt.
The second Great Depression took place in 2007. Its consequences are still being felt today. This time the major problem is not unemployment. Yesterday it was announced that Britain has an unemployment rate of 4.8%. The lowest in 11 years. USA has an unemployment rate of 4.9%. Why, therefore, did American workers vote for Trump? The reason is low wages. The majority of the American people have seen a fall in their living standards since the end of the 1970s.
Will the proposals of Donald Trump work? Will Congress allow him to place high tariffs on goods imported from abroad? If they do it will cause inflation and is unlikely to persuade capitalists to invest in manufacturing in the United States. Do the businessmen who fund the political parties in America really want an end to the cheap labour provided by Mexico?
In his first speech after being elected Trump spoke of a massive investment in America's infra-structure. In other words, something similar to Roosevelt's New Deal. However, he is also committed to reducing taxes for the wealthy. How is he going to pay for this? Will Congress allow him to increase public borrowing?
I think he will probably cut defence spending and significantly reduce America military commitment to Europe and other areas, especially in the Middle-East. But this will not be enough to please those people who voted for Trump in the election. What kind of candidate will Americans vote for in 2020?