Thomas Jefferson, 1821: "...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Americans attempt to throw off oppressive, unresponsive rulers on 4th of July
Online activists will leave their offices, bedrooms and basements today and fan out across America to protest against the US government's surveillance of digital communications. The 4th of July protests will see demonstrators descend on more than 100 cities, while some 30,000 websites are expected to show messages demanding …
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 11:52 GMT Don Jefe
That's a good Jefferson quote! Mostly people always trot out the same half dozen and ignore much of his other stuff. He was an insightful guy and funny too.
Unfortunately he's referring to States Rights there, not individual rights. The States Rights fight has already been fought and the States lost. They got left with a enough bones to satisfy their egos but the Civil War and the New Deal solidified the power grab from D.C.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 17:57 GMT Alan W. Rateliff, II
States Sovereignty are only minimally less important than Individual Sovereignty, in that the States are closer to the People than the Federal Government.
I agree with Walter E. Williams when he says that the Civil War has been used as the impetus of the Federal Government to oppress the States. The whole "State's Rights" argument using the 10th Amendment as justification for the secession is invalid. This argument was used in violation of the fundamentals underlying the Constitution as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Sadly, because of this misapplication, the righteous arguments against the government are denigrated and marginalized, and somehow the government continues to come on top. But it does make a convenience argument for oppressing the States, including the ratification of the 17th Amendment which takes representation away from the States and gives it to the mob.
And to that end, I want to make note that it wasn't necessarily the government of the United States which ended slavery. In fact, various detestable federal legislations and Supreme Court decisions worked to solidify slavery. Those we like to call "citizen politicians" who came up from the People and into political positions all the while holding on to and espousing their principles, never giving into popularism or pandering; these are the ones who lead the charge to end slavery. The government didn't run the Underground Railroad; the government didn't provide shelter for free and escaped slaves. The Southern states which seceded from the Union in order to retain slavery were not of the People, but rather corporatists, where politics was heavily invested in the success of the companies which relied upon free labor. Much akin to those who claim that we need to legalize 11 to 20 million people who provide cheap unskilled labor to make our economy grow when we already have a disgustingly high rate of unemployment amongst our unskilled citizens.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 21:40 GMT tom dial
It would be interesting to see a comparison of unemployment rates between the "disgustingly high rate of unemployment amongst our unskilled citizens" and that of the "11 to 20 million people who provide cheap unskilled labor to make our economy grow". I have no idea how that might be done. It also would be interesting to have analysis of the reasons for any difference that might exist.
-
Friday 5th July 2013 10:13 GMT Squander Two
Unskilled citizens.
Unskilled workers are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Last time Apple claimed that they have to offshore their work because companies like Foxconn can provide flexibility and speed in the skilled labour market the like of which simply can't be achieved in the US, it was rightly pointed out that the US, in 1941, took a bunch of unskilled workers and housewives and got them to build one of the most powerful collections of advanced military machinery in history. Workers are as skilled as their employers are willing to make them.
-
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 11:25 GMT Paul Smith
WTF...
"Among other things this meant that legal slavery continued in large parts of the Land of the Free for some decades after it would have been outlawed had the USA remained British. - Ed"
-- What a stupid thing to say on so many different levels. Regardless of your opinions on the matter of slavery or history, all this bootnote does is distract attention from the important themes of the storey.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 11:35 GMT an it guy
Re: WTF...
perhaps, but it was funny to have read.
I've lived in the US, and the almost religious fervour with which the 4th of July is celebrated does make me think that the taxes they were looking to avoid was a bad plan. 6% at the time of rebellion (~50% in the UK at the time)
Currently ~30% at the low end (varies by state), and 20% in the UK.
Oh, and if you've ever filled in a US tax return, you need to do one no matter if you've not lived in US for a few decades.
hmm. I'll take the uk
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 14:00 GMT Magister
Re: WTF...
>> taxes they were looking to avoid was a bad plan. 6% at the time of rebellion (~50% in the UK at the time)<<
It's also worth noting that the taxes were being increased; but also why they were going up. At the time, the British Army were defending the inhabitants of the colonies against attacks by native Americans, French & Spanish troops. There were some colonial militia units attached to the army at the time; but these were few in number and generally only served for a limited time, so the defence of the colonies was being paid for partly by the British tax payers. The increase in tax planned was to try to raise sufficient money to pay for an increase in troop numbers to provide better protection.
I've tried to uncover what the tax levels were after 1781; the only sources I can find don't seem to agree, but it appears that it would have been at least double.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 11:42 GMT John 98
Re: WTF...
Stupid - no, just a fact. As to distracting - maybe not if it reminds Americans the Feds also breach the planet's privacy (yes, i know other governments, including mine, are just as bad) and claim the right to kidnap, torture or incarcerate without trial 95% of humanity - which, just maybe, they have a moral duty to stop by exercising their democra\tic rights.
-
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 13:05 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: WTF...
Most importantly, a disgusting waste of tea.
Today ought to be a global day of mourning, to commemorate the loss of so much delicious, life-giving, life-affirming, civilisation preserving, beautiful tea - so wantonly destroyed. In the afternoon Bostonians ought to hang their heads in shame, while watching ceremonial cricket matches, drinking tea and eating cucumber sandwiches. Before moving on to fireworks hot-dogs and burgers in the evening to celebrate independence. The rest of the world should do the same, but without the ceremonial penance for tea-wasting.
We've just installed a coffee percolator in the office, within arms reach of my desk. So I now need to walk downstairs to the kitchen, and show my righteous love of tea by making a cup. Practising what I preach and all that.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 18:33 GMT 0_Flybert_0
Re: WTF...
Well .. Alexander Hamilton stockpiled tons of tea leaf in his warehouses in Boston .. before paying a bunch of guys to dump an unpaid load off a Brit Merchant ship .. his profits on that and other business dealings helped finance the Revolution .. which why he was the first Treasury Secretary and is on our $10 bill
Our Revolution was more about Bank of England and Merchant class policies than anything else
yet now we've allowed the Fed to do basically the same for 100 years .. in every country with a Central Bank the average citizens are getting fleeced for trillion$ of assets and give up the largest portion of the fruits of their labors to taxes and fees to a corrupt and rich political class in bed with the military industrial extra-national Corp cabal .. which the Central Banks finance ( because your taxes don't cover it ) selling security-debt in each country's name .. with The People's labor having to pay for it some day ..
-
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 18:41 GMT 0_Flybert_0
Re: WTF... "No taxation without representation"
There was a point made by some long term Congressman as the vote came up for ObamaCare .. that if a representative is unable to read nor understand a bill and it's consequences .. how can that representative represent the will of his constituents ?
one can not possibly represent another on legislation without understanding the law being proposed
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 18:40 GMT PJI
Re: WTF...
"Interesting. What election had they won to make that true?": you are betraying your worldly ignorance. Just what authority says that a country must choose its government through elections? Actually, what evidence is there, taking most countries into account, that elections produce a more popular or better government than any other form? So, In Europe and N. America, one may expect elections to be the norm. But for large parts of the world, some under the sponsorship of that great democracy, USA, this is not the case, e.g. the change of government from Sadam, or the two of the recent Egyptian changes, or Libya. How about the technocrat government in Italy between the last two elected governments?
How do you even show that most elections are truly open, fair, free of manipulation through money, business interests, ignorance, fear? (USA in particular, but most of Europe too, are all, it seems, just by chance, governed by those with rather more money and rather more commercial connections than the rest of us; just why does a party exist and why does it need so much money to get its members elected?)
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 20:42 GMT Primus Secundus Tertius
Re: WTF / PJI
Why are western states ruled by those with more money?
Answer, because the ones ruled by poor people run out of money after it has all been "redistibuted". You would think that money is conserved, like mass and energy, but somehow it just seems to disappear. Then those states go bust, and after some chaos the rich resume control.
-
Friday 5th July 2013 10:52 GMT Squander Two
"You are betraying your worldly ignorance."
Not really. The word "legitimate", when applied to governments, usually implies that they arrived where they did via a continuation of the established rules for choosing governments in that jurisdiction. I agree with you that that doesn't always mean democracy -- Hastings, for instance, was about whether Harald or William I was the legitimate king -- but you'd still be stretching the term beyond credulity to use it of the Taliban.
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 6th July 2013 12:32 GMT waldo kitty
Re: WTF...
So this is a celebration of a bunch of insurgents whose terrorist activities overthrew the legitimate government and prolonged slavery for many years.
What "legitimate government" are you talking about, AC? There were numerous "legitimate governments" in the new world that Britain, France, Spain and others simply ran roughshod over and stole the land from. Perhaps you have heard of them? They are known as Native American Indians.
-
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 16:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: WTF...
True, with awful effects right up until the 1970s, some would say, still.
Plus, the British government had made some treaties with native peoples that got in the way of unrestricted land grabbing and settlement at native peoples' expense.
Plus, there was some rather unpleasant terrorism (murder, farm burnings, intimidation) of several hundred thousand or more fellow settlers who were bold enough to prefer to stay with the status quo, silencing a lot more who felt the same way. Many of these moved to Canada (Empire Loyalists) or elsewhere.
Plus, I believe the original tax change was partly because the settlers wanted British troops to "protect" them from native tribes and French and Spanish incursions. this was not cheap, some of the settlers were rather prosperous Britons (such as Washington and his friends) and it was thought reasonable to adjust taxes to pay the bill. After all, they had sufficient representation to demand troops.
Plus, the resulting federation of states has turned out to be one of the most aggressive powers for most of its history, including attacks on the British Isles and British shipping and the 1812 war.
Plus, the new USA fought France and Spain, taking territory from them and even, particularly in the 1812 war, tried to seize Canada.
Plus, the sheer vandalisation of the English language by the mish-mash of non-native-English speakers, making up the sources of the modern USA population, possibly the worst crime of all :).
So, despite the good sides of the whole affair, it is rather deceptive to ignore the realities and that modern USA policies (even Guantanamo is but an echo of Andersonville and others in USA history) are merely a continuation of normal business.
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 11:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
November 5th?
On November 5th can Brits burn effigies of William Hague, for aiding foreign spies in their espionage of Brits?
The same spies he claimed had 'legal authority' to spy, are now apologizing to Congress for lying to them. Since Congress are the ones the legal authority comes from, they don't have legal authority and neither does he.
Parliament didn't grant him, and he doesn't get to grant surveillance powers to a military faction in a foreign state.
The laws of Britain are written by Parliament, not by the FISA and FISC courts in the USA and certainly not by the NSA redefining words to have new meanings.
-
Friday 5th July 2013 11:10 GMT Squander Two
Cameron really is a bloody twonk.
It would have been so bloody easy for him to have done the right thing when the NSA/GCHQ story broke, and there would have been no political downside. The scheme was started under a previous government, which is a godsend to any politician. He could have explained that it is standard practice for intelligence agencies from different countries to exchange information but claimed that he had not been aware that GCHQ were using this to bypass the laws that specifically limit their powers, nor that the NSA were acting unconstitutionally, and that the practice would immediately be stopped and those responsible for OKing it disciplined. And he could have blamed Blair and Brown. And he would have looked like a bloody good leader, it would have won him votes, done wonders for his popularity, and would even have been consistent with the fickle focus-group-driven policies he likes to claim are his principles (as if he had any). It was a huge bloody great gift-wrapped gateaux of a present for a serving Prime Minister, it was placed carefully in his lap, and he still fucked it up.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 11:42 GMT Don Jefe
Television Adverts
The goal of $25k for television adverts might get you a few runs in some small markets at weird times, but that's about all. The placement fees alone will gobble up that cash quick. Even then there's a very real chance the ads won't get shown. Stations/broadcasters here in the U.S. have sole discretion regarding what they allow to air and all the stations that matter nationally are under control of DC so I doubt they'll show them anyway. Sucks really.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 11:44 GMT Otto is a bear.
The Government will be quaking in there boots.
Not being a Merkin, and quite thankful they are not still a colony, I'm not sure that the 4th amendment really applies. Hacking into their home computer, yes, but monitoring transmissions across the public internet. How is this different, other than in scale, than informants or undercover people listening to conversations in public places.
It could be argued that eMail is the same as Post, but equally it could be argued that it's often a conversation carried out in a public place.
It's also true that the NSA, CESG, and all the rest might well collect data, but they do not read it all, by any means. They really don't care what you look at, unless it's very illegal, in which case they will get a warrant and really look at everything you do. I'd still love to know how else you would expect security services to gather intelligence and enforce the law in an electronic world.
If you don't want you eMail or data read, then don't use the internet. Store all your stuff locally and don't use internet based backup and file store services, do it yourself. A third party company is not the same as your home, and will do what is best for it's shareholders not you, which means they'll let security services look at most anything they ask for without warrant, on the verbal assurance of an officer.
If you must use the internet then always be careful about what you say, remember libel applies to social media and messaging.
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 13:08 GMT James Micallef
Re: The Government will be quaking in there boots.
"Not being an American it is important for you to remember we're reading your emails and monitoring your traffic too."
Not to mention that it's not possible to tell whether any internet communication is undertaken by a US citizen abroad, a non-EU citizen in the US etc etc etc. So the Merkins' claim that they're monitoring only foreign nationals and not *consciously* monitoring Americans is a lie
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 11:57 GMT Anonymous Blowhard
Re: The Government will be quaking in there boots.
"It could be argued that eMail is the same as Post, but equally it could be argued that it's often a conversation carried out in a public place."
Exactly; and the 4th Amendment gives an expectation of privacy for both.
The history between the US and UK can be debated by historians, but the future of the world may rest on whether protesters in the US can reign in the activities of the NSA and other intelligence agencies.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 12:02 GMT Ian 62
Re: The Government will be quaking in there boots.
I wrote to my MP complaining about the proposed changes to the snoopers charter and the default Pron filtering, actually got a reply that he agreed and was forwarding it to the Home Secretary. I'll summarise it again here. Ofcourse, this now means that I've stood up and put myself on one of these very lists that I'm about to describe...
These systems once in place can't just be turned off. We're all told once somethings on the internet it's on there forever, the same will apply to data (meta or otherwise) thats gathered by security services.
Once they've got it, they've got it. Today its just looking for keywords, analytics, metadata etc related to terrorism. But what happens when our current "you can trust us" Government is removed? Either by democratic process or something more dramatic?
That network of monitoring stations, listening post and archives of data, they're all still there and still working. The staff are just following orders from above. What today you may feel is your right, to complain about your Police service, write to your paper, write to you MP, vote for someone different, etc. In the future that may suddenly put you on a watch list.
If tomorrow a radical Religious movement was voted in as Government, would you expect the out going Goverment to remove and delete all the security services that they'd put in place to 'protect you'? No, they'd still be there, now just being used by a different Government that has some very different views on who they're protecting from what. (Some may say we're already there)
I know the old quote, 'First they came for...and I said nothing' is over used, but it's valid and frighteningly more and more appropriate.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 16:34 GMT why-can-i-not-just-use-my-real-name
Re: The Government will be quaking in there boots.
You are being too nice to them. Remember that GCHQ does not only target terrorist activity but also activity related to security, general crime and "economic well-being". i.e. anything they feel like.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/21/gchq_nsa_spooks/
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 12:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
They do read it
" but monitoring transmissions across the public internet"
Internet *websites* are public, internet *browsing* is private - it's between you and the website. That's a wordplay you did there.
A TV channel is public, me at home watching the channel is private.
"NSA, CESG, and all the rest might well collect data, but they do not read it all, by any means"
So you accept they *do* read your email, and email is a private conversation usually between me and my kids and is none of your business.
"If you don't want you eMail or data read, then don't use the internet."
The rules say, you have suspicion, you get a warrant, a judge says "yep", and you get to spy on someone. That's constitutionally protected.
What you've changed that into is this: you get a warrant to spy on *everyone* for *everything* on suspicion of *nothing*. You collect all of that data into a giant database under the control of a military leader (the man in charge of Abu Graib prison no less). He then data-mines with new filters depending on what his agenda of the day is. Without a warrant, at his whim.
He also lies to Congress about it, because its so out of legal bounds as to be illegal.
There's are also 97 billion/month unexplained records not covered by FISA or FISC courts so he's even outside the current disclosed data. Phone meta comes under FISA, so that's an extra 97 billion not covered.
3 billion of those are US, so any claim they don't *wittingly* spy on USA is contradicted by their map coverage showing extensive data known to be USA.
If you don't want to stick within the law, then go live in Egypt and join the military dictatorship that just took over there. You have no place in a democracy.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 18:11 GMT John Smith 19
Re: They do read it
"What you've changed that into is this: you get a warrant to spy on *everyone* for *everything* on suspicion of *nothing*. "
That is the core of this problem.
The complete lack of any limits on this process. I don't mean the BS "court" that most people are not even aware exists and whose defendants and plaintiffs cannot even admit they are plaintiffs or defendants, let alone talk about its proceedings.
-
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 12:13 GMT Amorous Cowherder
Tommy Payne is your man!
If it hadn't been for a stroppy corset maker from Norfolk by the name of Thomas Paine, you Yankees would have had a harder time convincing your countrymen to rise up and tell King George where he could stick his taxes.
Thomas Paine, moved to France to aid the revolution and in true Brit style refused to learn a word of French!
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 13:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Sadly, it only protests spying on people residing in the USA.
Yes, it seems the aims of this protest are:
1. Enact reform this Congress to Section 215 of the USA
PATRIOT Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity and phone records of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court.
2. Create a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying. This committee should create specific recommendations for legal and regulatory reform
to end unconstitutional surveillance.
3. Hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance.
Well I guess it is the 4th July, maybe the protesters will protest the US spying on other people on their National Days .......
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 14:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Sadly, it only protests spying on people residing in the USA.
"Why deny us human rights?"
Because you're a terrorist? William Hague said only terrorists and criminals would be have something to fear from this.
So you and that Angela Merkel woman must be terrorists, because if you could see how upstanding and professional our fine men and woman of the intelligence services are you would be assured.
And if they've got their suspicions about you enough to put you under surveillance, then obviously you're iffy.
You and Merkel.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 18:20 GMT John Smith 19
Re: Sadly, it only protests spying on people residing in the USA.
"Because you're a terrorist? William Hague said only terrorists and criminals would be have something to fear from this."
And adultorors
And whistleblowers
And journalists
And anyone else who who is not committing or planning a crime but just wants their stuff kept private
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 16:23 GMT FuzzyTheBear
Re: Sadly, it only protests spying on people residing in the USA.
it's totally up to you to start a similar movement ,
Nothing prevents you from heading and organising a similar protest.
What are you waiting for ? Cant get off your seat and do it ? .. They won .
So .. go , this is a free society and you can make your wish come true.
Ric
-
Friday 5th July 2013 08:37 GMT WatAWorld
Sadly, most US citizens shirk their responsibility
I could start a similar movement here in Canada to influence Canadian politicians. But Canada has a pretty good record of respecting the human rights of foreigners. I'm sure if we're doing spying, it is mostly focused on Canadians, since no other country's internet backbone runs through here.
The problem is the US government.
But not being a US citizen I don't get a vote in their elections and so I'm unlikely to carry any sway with the US government. What am I going to do? Threaten to switch my vote? Make a campaign contribution to his opponent? Those aren't options.
The USA being a democracy, it is up the responsibility of US citizens to ensure that their government respects the human rights of foreigners.
Sadly, most US citizens just don't get that.
Thomas Jefferson did:
"“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...”
Thomas Jefferson said "all men", not "all US persons".
And all those international laws on human rights the USA voluntarily chose to sign, none of define humans as "US persons".
-
-
Friday 5th July 2013 11:23 GMT Squander Two
"Why deny us human rights?"
I don't think the protestors are denying anyone any rights. The protestors are American citizens, and are protesting against the American Government, demanding that they respect a clause in the American Constitution that specifically protects certain civil rights of American citizens. Fair enough. There's nothing in the Constitution regarding not being allowed to spy on foreigners (I think the Framers would have been rather surprised at the suggestion, to be honest). If you don't want YOUR government to collude with US intelligence agencies in trampling YOUR rights, organise your own bloody protest, don't just sit around whining that the American protestors aren't performing your democratic duty for you.
-
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 15:42 GMT Joe Gurman
Re: Bootnote
Nice smear attempt, lickspittle running dog lackey of the Hanoverian fearmongers: the success of the Revolution also meant that in several of the States, slavery was abolished constitutionally (that is, by state constitution) before it was abolished in Britain. And it also meant we former colonies had a written constitution which could be clearly amended to rectify the wrong. Choose your poison, I say, and have a glorious Fourth.
-
Friday 5th July 2013 08:40 GMT WatAWorld
Re: Bootnote
The US War of Independence occurred after the UK had kicked France out of North America, when the Thirteen Colonies no longer needed British protection against the French.
A few years later the French and Americans would join forces in the War of 1812, which was fought on both sides of the Atlantic to prevent the British moving troops from one front to re-enforce the other front.
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 16:08 GMT Derpity
Ed...
Not sure why that Ed guy threw that last bit in there about slavery...Seems unrelated to IT and unrelated to the article in general. He must really miss having the colonies...
Anyway there was more than one reason America declared independence from British rule.
Among the main ponits were the Stamp Act of 1765, the Tea Act in 1773, and the Coercive Acts in 1774. I will let you read on them for yourself and decide if it was worthy of the split.
But again - none of that really relates to IT or this article.
-
Friday 5th July 2013 21:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Ed...
Or, putting it another way, a load of expatriate, wealthy, upper middle class emigrants demanded expensive military help for defence against neighbours and to help break treaties and grab land from Native tribes; but they wanted it for nothing and objected to being subject to law and paying for support.
Nothing changes. Still asking Britain and other European countries for support in their aggrandising wars (and getting very upset if refused, remember the babyish insults against France?).
-
Thursday 4th July 2013 17:49 GMT Alan W. Rateliff, II
Letter to Ed.
Technically, the Declaration of Independence was accepted on July 2nd, 1776. July 4th was the day of public announcements and printings began arriving. In fact, it was expected that July 2nd would be the day of celebration.
But more to your snide point, the abolition movements in England and the Colonies ran pretty much parallel. The original colonies rejected slavery. The Malcom X statement that "Plymouth Rock landed on us" is patently absurd, as the Quakers of Plymouth had no slaves and not a single black human being was listed as a passenger. The first black man to pass through the colony was nearly 30 years later and was described as a servant, which is drastically different than being a slave. It wasn't until the Dutch VOC established itself in the colonies that slaves started to become commonplace, though even at that point slavery was not absolute and the Dutch provided blacks with liberties after a time of servitude. (This is meant to be a comparison to the conditions of slavery under the Dutch versus England, and not by any means excusing the practice.) Even at the point slavery was introduced to the Colonies, the practice was not a given but rather had to be codified into law. These very laws and those which would follow made it virtually impossible to simply employ black workers, and as a result many of the Founders, particularly those from the northern colonies who opposed slavery, seemingly paradoxically, were considered to be slave owners.
There was a strong abolitionist sentiment during the Founding and Revolution, but several states threatened against ratification of the Constitution if it would do anything toward abolishing slavery. Notably, Georgia, which you limeys may recognize as having been a penal colony of yours, and the rest heavily involved in the tobacco and other farming trades which were originally managed by the East India Company. Which, incidentally, was excluded from the 1833 act which formally abolished slavery in the Kingdom, though that exclusion was removed a decade afterward.
During the debates on the Constitution of the United States, slavery was a hot topic and was intended to be eliminated in the fledgling country. Abraham Lincoln noted that the idea of slavery is completely antithetical to the Founding of the country and the creed expressed in the Declaration. Knowing the colonies which supported slavery, coincidentally consisting of high populations of Loyalists, could easily overwhelm the voting population of the abolitionist colonies by artificially inflating their ranks via the import of new slaves, the delegations agreed that each slave would only account for three-fifths for the purposes of population and therefore representation. The Founders knew that over time the slave-owning States would be overcome by the might of abolitionism.
Countless families were torn asunder, and nearly 750,000 Americans spilled their blood unto the very lands on which England established and impressed the brutal and immoral practice, and through this baptism of these desecrated soils ended slavery, once and for all answering the question of whether a man is a man or property.
-
Friday 5th July 2013 11:33 GMT Squander Two
I was going to upvote that comment until the final sentence, which is pompous grandiose bollocks. You're telling us that there was no slavery in North America until the English established it there? Seriously? And, fascinating though your historical explanation is (really, no sarcasm here), it doesn't do anything at all to contradict the original point, which was that one of the results of American Independence was that slavery stayed legal in the US for a lot longer than it would have had the States remained British colonies.
-
Friday 5th July 2013 22:26 GMT PJI
Re: Letter to Ed.
Pious thoughts. I've met, in the last couple of years, black, educated and highly civilised Americans who love living in Europe because they have escaped dreadful racism in the Northern USA. I know a mixed couple (hate that term) who, in some areas, on holiday with a simar couple in USA, retreated to their hotel because of the threatening attitudes. Recent survey (sorry, no reference to hand) showed that "mixed" marriages in UK are common but relative rare in USA. Apartheid was practised officially in certain American states well into the 1970s and is not totally gone now. In USA some very elderly people were born to parents who had been slaves.
In the 1850s in Britain slavery was already denigrated and virtually finished, so passing the law did not cause great disruption. The interesting bit is that it was applied all over the empire, with Royal Navy anti slavery patrols. In fact, a clever tactic in the so-called Independence war ( almost a civil war within the USA) was that British troops freed slaves, recruited some into the army and paid them with land, resettling others in various places.
Of course, Britain was no angel and surely Realpolitik played a strong role. But it was effective, done and accepted long before the American states as a federal whole did it. For the slaves, it was the reality that mattered.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 5th July 2013 06:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Maybe a stupid question
When they drew up the constitution who did they envisage enforcing it? Themselves, the government, because that was obviously not going to work.
So realistically you have a group of people that want to take power and get the people on side so they draw up this constitution that will they don't have to follow, bit like Egypt, let's draw up a constitution pretending to give power to the peoplw...
Maybe I'm too cynical...
-
Friday 5th July 2013 07:28 GMT WatAWorld
I don't see any banner.
I checked Mozilla and Reddit from here in Canada.
Maybe we get a different version of the front page, but I don't see any banner.
Mozilla has a discrete headline half way down its news section, a section that begins well down its home page.
I don't see anything on Reddit.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 5th July 2013 08:28 GMT WatAWorld
NY Times did/buried a story July 3/4: Recording everyone's snail mail
Holiday, when many people are going to be away on vacation or at least doing something other than reading a newspaper or writing letters to their congressmen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html?_r=1&
“In the past, mail covers were used when you had a reason to suspect someone of a crime,” said Mark D. Rasch, who started a computer crimes unit in the fraud section of the criminal division of the Justice Department and worked on several fraud cases using mail covers. “Now it seems to be, ‘Let’s record everyone’s mail so in the future we might go back and see who you were communicating with.’ Essentially you’ve added mail covers on millions of Americans.”
Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and an author, said whether it was a postal worker taking down information or a computer taking images, the program was still an invasion of privacy.
“Basically they are doing the same thing as the other programs, collecting the information on the outside of your mail, the metadata, if you will, of names, addresses, return addresses and postmark locations, which gives the government a pretty good map of your contacts, even if they aren’t reading the contents,” he said.
---
I was impressed with the cases given as examples of where this massive invasion of privacy had shortened investigation times. But there is nothing to say that these cases would not have been solved without this tool, only that the tool allowed the cases to be solved faster.
-
Friday 5th July 2013 09:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
A Warning for All.
If the United States becomes anything at all like NAZI Germany, or Stalinsit Russia, you people will very quickly wish that you had spent more on armaments. What may well happen is that the United States will become a Muslim country. We are in as bad a demographic shape as you Brits and Europeans are. The Muslims are winning by several hundred births per week on that front. My advice is that you take a long hard look at Islam and Sharia and decide right now whether or not you want live under them.
-
-
Saturday 6th July 2013 19:38 GMT Don Jefe
Re: Non news here
Not sure where 'here' is for you, but here in the U.S. all the major papers ran an in depth story about how the French were doing their own data collection/mass surveillance and how these actions were obviously necessary in a world where our enemies hate the Western world for our Freedom.
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
