On this day:

BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593172932240.png​

"June 26, 2015 marks a major milestone for civil rights in the United States, as the Supreme Court announces its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. By one vote, the court rules that same-sex marriage cannot be banned in the United States and that all same-sex marriages must be recognized nationwide, finally granting same-sex couples equal rights to heterosexual couples under the law.

In 1971, just two years after the Stonewall Riots that unofficially marked the beginning of the struggle for gay rights and marriage equality, the Minnesota Supreme Court had found same-sex marriage bans constitutional, a precedent which the Supreme Court had never challenged. As homosexuality gradually became more accepted in American culture, the conservative backlash was strong enough to force President Bill Clinton to sign the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages at the federal level, into law in 1996.

Over the next decade, many states banned same-sex marriage, while Vermont instituted same-sex civil unions in 2000 and Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003. Gay marriage was the predominant "culture war" issue of George W. Bush's presidency, and even his successor Barack Obama, elected on a platform of liberal change in 2008, did not fully endorse same-sex marriage at the time of his election. Obama did state his opposition to DOMA and instructed his Justice Department to stop defending it in 2011. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional and declined to rule on a case regarding a California ban, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage there.

Obergefell originated with a gay couple, Jim Obergefell and John Arthur, who were married in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, but whose marriage was not recognized by Ohio authorities. As often happens with Supreme Court cases, a number of similar cases in Ohio and elsewhere were consolidated into what became Obergefell v. Hodges. The Supreme Court heard arguments on April 28, 2015. On June 26, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that both bans on same-sex marriages and bans on recognizing same-sex marriages were unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.” Chief Justice John Roberts and three Associate Justices—Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—each wrote dissenting opinions. The ruling overturned the 13 statewide bans still in effect and effectively settled the issue at the federal level, although a few rogue counties ignored the ruling."
 
BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593255209742.png
​
(My favorite museum complex)

"In Genoa, Italy on June 27, 1829, English scientist James Smithson dies after a long illness, leaving behind a will with a peculiar footnote. In the event that his only nephew died without any heirs, Smithson decreed that the whole of his estate would go to “the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.” Smithson’s curious bequest to a country that he had never visited aroused significant attention on both sides of the Atlantic.

Smithson had been a fellow of the venerable Royal Society of London from the age of 22, publishing numerous scientific papers on mineral composition, geology, and chemistry. In 1802, he overturned popular scientific opinion by proving that zinc carbonates were true carbonate minerals, and one type of zinc carbonate was later named smithsonite in his honor.

Six years after his death, his nephew, Henry James Hungerford, indeed died without children, and on July 1, 1836, the U.S. Congress authorized acceptance of Smithson’s gift. President Andrew Jackson sent diplomat Richard Rush to England to negotiate for transfer of the funds, and two years later Rush set sail for home with 11 boxes containing a total of 104,960 gold sovereigns, eight shillings, and seven pence, as well as Smithson’s mineral collection, library, scientific notes, and personal effects. After the gold was melted down, it amounted to a fortune worth well over $500,000. After considering a series of recommendations, including the creation of a national university, a public library, or an astronomical observatory, Congress agreed that the bequest would support the creation of a museum, a library, and a program of research, publication, and collection in the sciences, arts, and history. On August 10, 1846, the act establishing the Smithsonian Institution was signed into law by President James K. Polk.

Today, the Smithsonian is composed of 19 museums including the recently opened National Museum of African American History and Culture, nine research centers throughout the United States and the world and the national zoo. Besides the original Smithsonian Institution Building, popularly known as the “Castle,” visitors to Washington, D.C., tour the National Museum of Natural History, which houses the natural science collections, the National Zoological Park, and the National Portrait Gallery. The National Museum of American History houses the original Star-Spangled Banner and other artifacts of U.S. history. The National Air and Space Museum has the distinction of being the most visited museum in the world, exhibiting marvels of aviation and space history such as the Wright brothers’ plane and Freedom 7, the space capsule that took the first American into space."
 
BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593328404242.png​

The Stonewall Riots, also called the Stonewall Uprising, began in the early hours of June 28, 1969 when New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay club located in Greenwich Village in New York City. The raid sparked a riot among bar patrons and neighborhood residents as police roughly hauled employees and patrons out of the bar, leading to six days of protests and violent clashes with law enforcement outside the bar on Christopher Street, in neighboring streets and in nearby Christopher Park. The Stonewall Riots served as a catalyst for the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world.

Constant Raids at Gay Bars
The 1960s and preceding decades were not welcoming times for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans. For instance, solicitation of same-sex relations was illegal in New York City.

For such reasons, LGBT individuals flocked to gay bars and clubs, places of refuge where they could express themselves openly and socialize without worry. However, the New York State Liquor Authority penalized and shut down establishments that served alcohol to known or suspected LGBT individuals, arguing that the mere gathering of homosexuals was “disorderly.”

Thanks to activists’ efforts, these regulations were overturned in 1966, and LGBT patrons could now be served alcohol. But engaging in gay behavior in public (holding hands, kissing or dancing with someone of the same sex) was still illegal, so police harassment of gay bars continued and many bars still operated without liquor licenses—in part because they were owned by the Mafia.

Gay Rights Before Stonewall
The first documented U.S. gay rights organization, The Society for Human Rights (SHR), was founded in 1924 by Henry Gerber, a German immigrant. Police raids forced them to disband in 1925, but not before they had published several issues of their newsletter, “Friendship and Freedom,” the country’s first gay-interest newsletter. America’s first lesbian rights organization, The Daughters of Bilitis, was formed in San Francisco on September 21, 1955.

In 1966, three years before Stonewall, members of The Mattachine Society, an organization dedicated to gay rights, staged a “sip-in” where they openly declared their sexuality at taverns, daring staff to turn them away and suing establishments who did. When The Commission on Human Rights ruled that gay individuals had the right to be served in bars, police raids were temporarily reduced.

The crime syndicate saw profit in catering to shunned gay clientele, and by the mid-1960s, the Genovese crime family controlled most Greenwich Village gay bars. In 1966, they purchased Stonewall Inn (a “straight” bar and restaurant), cheaply renovated it, and reopened it the next year as a gay bar.

Stonewall Inn was registered as a type of private “bottle bar,” which did not require a liquor license because patrons were supposed to bring their own liquor. Club attendees had to sign their names in a book upon entry to maintain the club’s false exclusivity. The Genovese family bribed New York’s Sixth Police Precinct to ignore the activities occurring within the club.

Without police interference, the crime family could cut costs how they saw fit: The club lacked a fire exit, running water behind the bar to wash glasses, clean toilets that didn’t routinely overflow and palatable drinks that weren’t watered down beyond recognition. What’s more, the Mafia reportedly blackmailed the club’s wealthier patrons who wanted to keep their sexuality a secret.

Nonetheless, Stonewall Inn quickly became an important Greenwich Village institution. It was large and relatively cheap to enter. It welcomed drag queens, who received a bitter reception at other gay bars and clubs. It was a nightly home for many runaways and homeless gay youths, who panhandled or shoplifted to afford the entry fee. And it was one of the few—if not the only—gay bar left that allowed dancing.

Raids were still a fact of life, but usually corrupt cops would tip off Mafia-run bars before they occurred, allowing owners to stash the alcohol (sold without a liquor license) and hide other illegal activities. In fact, the NYPD had stormed Stonewall Inn just a few days before the riot-inducing raid.

The Stonewall Riots Begin
When police raided Stonewall Inn on the morning of June 28, it came as a surprise—the bar wasn’t tipped off this time.

Armed with a warrant, police officers entered the club, roughed up patrons, and, finding bootlegged alcohol, arrested 13 people, including employees and people violating the state’s gender-appropriate clothing statute (female officers would take suspected cross-dressing patrons into the bathroom to check their sex).

Fed up with constant police harassment and social discrimination, angry patrons and neighborhood residents hung around outside of the bar rather than disperse, becoming increasingly agitated as the events unfolded and people were aggressively manhandled. At one point, an officer hit a lesbian over the head as he forced her into the police van— she shouted to onlookers to act, inciting the crowd to begin throw pennies, bottles, cobble stones and other objects at the police.

Within minutes, a full-blown riot involving hundreds of people began. The police, a few prisoners and a Village Voice writer barricaded themselves in the bar, which the mob attempted to set on fire after breaching the barricade repeatedly.

The fire department and a riot squad were eventually able to douse the flames, rescue those inside Stonewall, and disperse the crowd. But the protests, sometimes involving thousands of people, continued in the area for five more days, flaring up at one point after the Village Voice published its account of the riots.

Stonewall's Legacy
Though the Stonewall uprising didn’t start the gay rights movement, it was a galvanizing force for LGBT political activism, leading to numerous gay rights organizations, including the Gay Liberation Front, Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD (formerly Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), and PFLAG (formerly Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

On the one-year anniversary of the riots on June 28, 1970, thousands of people marched in the streets of Manhattan from the Stonewall Inn to Central Park in what was then called “Christopher Street Liberation Day,” America’s first gay pride parade. The parade’s official chant was: “Say it loud, gay is proud.”

In 2016, then-President Barack Obama designated the site of the riots—Stonewall Inn, Christopher Park, and the surrounding streets and sidewalks—a national monument in recognition of the area’s contribution to gay rights.
 
lokie

lokie

Well-Known Member
1593398121538.png

June 28

On this day in history:

1762 - 1st reported counterfeiting attempt (Boston)
In June 1761, Jeremiah Dexter of Walpole, MA was caught trying to pass counterfeit dollars of his own making. As punishment, Dexter was forced on September 10 to stand in the pillory for one hour and pay a fine of 20 pounds. Among the crowd who showed up that day to ridicule Dexter was the eccentric Dr. Seth Hudson, a wealthy Dutchman who drew the attention of the city’s populace with his flamboyant crimson velvet outfits. Hudson landed in Boston earlier in the year during his leisurely travels, and he quickly began to move within the inner circles of the Boston elite. But his travels, it turns out, were not entirely “for his own amusement.” In March, he began offering 100-pound treasury notes that guaranteed six percent returns to the wealthy client base he had been carefully cultivating. Hudson’s enthusiasm at the pillory was most likely motivated by his desire to protect his new business, since the detection of counterfeit bills could reduce public confidence in paper currency and adversely affect sales of his own treasury notes. Hudson’s fears were well founded, because one month later the operations of yet another counterfeiter, Joshua Howe, were exposed. Howe confessed soon after he was apprehended that he did not act alone: he was “a partner in villainy with Doctor Hudson.” On October 8, both Howe and Hudson were thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

A Liar and a Thief
It will come as no surprise that Seth Hudson was not born in Holland as he claimed, but rather in Marlborough, MA on April 13, 1728. His title of “Doctor” seems to have had some justification: he may or may not have received formal medical training, but he did begin a medical career in 1749 as a surgeon at Fort Massachusetts, where he later became a commanding officer.

In October 1757, Hudson was kicked out of the military after he was accused of being a liar and a thief, although the details of exactly what he did to bring about such charges are sketchy. He eventually landed in New Hampshire, where he probably met the experienced counterfeiter, Joshua Howe. There, the two of them hatched a scheme to print Massachusetts treasury notes in 100 pound increments and sell them to wealthy Bostonians.

Howe and Hudson created their fake 100 pound notes by first printing the bills using tools they acquired from the notorious New Hampshire counterfeiter, Glazier Wheeler. They then placed the fake note over a real one, traced the original signature with a sharp instrument so that an impression of it was transferred over to the fake one, and then filled in the impression with black ink. The second step of creating the signature was not nearly as successful as the first step of printing of the bills. The Boston Post-Boy reported that the printed notes were “every Way like the true Notes, save that the written Part is badly done.”

All together, Hudson sold 800 pounds worth of these fake notes. One of Hudson’s victims was the gullible Samuel Wells, a merchant and judge of the Court of Common Pleas, who back in 1749 was the target of a failed extortion scheme carried out by James Williams and Mary Richards.

Conviction and Punishment
While Hudson and Howe waited in prison for their trial, Howe was punished on February 2, 1762 for a previous counterfeiting conviction by being forced to stand in the pillory for one hour and be whipped 20 times. No doubt motivated by Howe’s description of his experience, Hudson tried to escape from prison two days later, but he was easily captured and returned to jail.

On Feburary 26, so many people showed up for the trial of Hudson and Howe that it had to be moved from the courthouse to the largest meetinghouse in Boston. The evidence presented against the two was so strong that the jury members did not even leave the room to deliberate. They found Hudson guilty of four counts of counterfeiting, and he was sentenced to one hour in the pillory, 20 lashes at the whipping post, and a 100-pound fine for each count. In addition, he received a 1-year prison term. They also found Howe guilty of two counts of counterfeiting, and he was handed the same set of penalties as Hudson, except that he was to receive 39 stripes at the whipping post.

The irony of Hudson’s behavior during Dexter’s punishment and the sensation of his own case were too rich for satirists and pamphleteers to pass up. At least two poetic broadsides of Hudson’s “speech” and “confession” were circulated during his several trips to the pillory, which probably was located on State Street in Boston.


The Humble Confession of that
NOTORIOUS CHEAT,
Doctor SETH HUDSON.
1762.


I Come, I come, the Villain cries,
With Terror sparkling in his Eyes;
While Fires from Hell his Soul inflame,
Distrest with Guilt–and stab’d with Shame.

Ye murder’d Hours so gaily flown,
These present Pangs are all your own.
My tortur’d Soul reflects with Pain,
On all the thoughtless, guilty Train.

Forgive, My Country, O forgive;
With deep Remorse I plead to live:
With Pity all my Crimes chastise,
And drink Repentance from these Eyes.

Hard’ned to Crimes–prone to rebell,
I dar’d assault the Gates of Hell:
No Vice my callous Heart declin’d;
No Ray of Grace illum’d my Mind.

Now all my Sins like Fiends arise,
And burning Tortures blast my Eyes:
Mercy from injur’d Heav’n implore,
Resolve by Grace to sin no more.

I come–submit to all my Shame,
Nor dare my injur’d Country blame:
Some Pity sure a Wretch may share,
Nor let me double Tortures bear.

Contempt I know is my Desert;
But O let Pity reach the Heart:
And let these transient Pangs atone;
Nor smile insulting while I groan.–

But ye whose Breasts are rib’d with Steel,
Whose marble Hearts disdain to feel,
Go lay our lurking Vices bare,
And judge with Rigour Follies there.–

And ye whose Souls relenting prove,
Those Twins of Virtue, Pity, Love;
May righteous Heav’n at length bestow
That Mercy, you to other’s show.

But O though Power of Grace divine,
Thy Mercy grant–for Mercy’s thine;
Tho’ Man condemn–do though forgive,
And let a Rebel Sinner live.




Pillory and Stocks

____________________





H-ds-n’s SPEECH from the Pillory.


What mean these Crouds, this Noise and Roar!
Did ye ne’er see a Rogue before?
Are Villains then a Sight so rare,
To make you press and gape and stare?
Come forward all who look so fine,
With Gain as illy got as mine:
Step up—you’l soon reverse the Show;
The Croud above, and few below.

Well—for my Roguery here I stand,
A Spectacle to all the Land:
High elevated on this Stage,
The greatest Villain of the Age.
My Crimes have been both great and many,
Equal’d by very few, if any:
And for the Mischief I have done
I put this wooden Neckcloth on.

There HOW his brawny Back is stripping,
Quite callous grown with often whipping.
In vain you wear your Whip-Cord out,
You’l ne’er reclaim that Rogue so stout.
To make him honest, take my Word,
You must apply a bigger Cord.

Now all ye who behold this Sight,
That ye may get some profit by’t,
Keep always in your Mind, I pray,
These few Words that I have to say.
Follow my Steps and you may be
In Time, perhaps, advanc’d like me;
Or, like my fellow Lab’rer How,
You’l get at least a Post below.

Apparently a “bigger Cord” was never found for Joshua Howe, because he never entirely gave up his counterfeiting career. In 1764 his name appeared in an escape advertisement for breaking out of the Cambridge jail. The notice describes Howe as “a stout fat Man,” who “wears a Cap, is very grey haired, has a short blue Jacket, a red Waistcoat, dirty Leather-Breeches, and light-worsted Stockings.” In 1768, the New-York Gazette reported that Howe was committed to jail once again for counterfeiting, this time in New Hampshire, and claimed that he was one of “a Clan of these Gentry of at least 500, who correspond thro’ all the Colonies, as far as North-Carolina.” Howe denied that he had counterfeited any money and said that he only rented out at 10 dollars per day certain tools that could presumably be used for such a purpose. He was later acquitted of the charges due to a lack of evidence.

As for Seth Hudson, he did not fully serve out his one-year prison sentence, because in July 1762 he was allowed to join the navy and was later released from service in December. He eventually moved to Albany, NY where in 1767 he died of smallpox. There was nothing fake about Hudson’s death, because while on his deathbed, he passed the virus on to one of his old associates, who also died of the disease.


http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/poems/seth-hudson
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
lokie said:
View attachment 4608772

Thursday, June 28

On this day in history:

1762 - 1st reported counterfeiting attempt (Boston)
In June 1761, Jeremiah Dexter of Walpole, MA was caught trying to pass counterfeit dollars of his own making. As punishment, Dexter was forced on September 10 to stand in the pillory for one hour and pay a fine of 20 pounds. Among the crowd who showed up that day to ridicule Dexter was the eccentric Dr. Seth Hudson, a wealthy Dutchman who drew the attention of the city’s populace with his flamboyant crimson velvet outfits. Hudson landed in Boston earlier in the year during his leisurely travels, and he quickly began to move within the inner circles of the Boston elite. But his travels, it turns out, were not entirely “for his own amusement.” In March, he began offering 100-pound treasury notes that guaranteed six percent returns to the wealthy client base he had been carefully cultivating. Hudson’s enthusiasm at the pillory was most likely motivated by his desire to protect his new business, since the detection of counterfeit bills could reduce public confidence in paper currency and adversely affect sales of his own treasury notes. Hudson’s fears were well founded, because one month later the operations of yet another counterfeiter, Joshua Howe, were exposed. Howe confessed soon after he was apprehended that he did not act alone: he was “a partner in villainy with Doctor Hudson.” On October 8, both Howe and Hudson were thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

A Liar and a Thief
It will come as no surprise that Seth Hudson was not born in Holland as he claimed, but rather in Marlborough, MA on April 13, 1728. His title of “Doctor” seems to have had some justification: he may or may not have received formal medical training, but he did begin a medical career in 1749 as a surgeon at Fort Massachusetts, where he later became a commanding officer.

In October 1757, Hudson was kicked out of the military after he was accused of being a liar and a thief, although the details of exactly what he did to bring about such charges are sketchy. He eventually landed in New Hampshire, where he probably met the experienced counterfeiter, Joshua Howe. There, the two of them hatched a scheme to print Massachusetts treasury notes in 100 pound increments and sell them to wealthy Bostonians.

Howe and Hudson created their fake 100 pound notes by first printing the bills using tools they acquired from the notorious New Hampshire counterfeiter, Glazier Wheeler. They then placed the fake note over a real one, traced the original signature with a sharp instrument so that an impression of it was transferred over to the fake one, and then filled in the impression with black ink. The second step of creating the signature was not nearly as successful as the first step of printing of the bills. The Boston Post-Boy reported that the printed notes were “every Way like the true Notes, save that the written Part is badly done.”

All together, Hudson sold 800 pounds worth of these fake notes. One of Hudson’s victims was the gullible Samuel Wells, a merchant and judge of the Court of Common Pleas, who back in 1749 was the target of a failed extortion scheme carried out by James Williams and Mary Richards.

Conviction and Punishment
While Hudson and Howe waited in prison for their trial, Howe was punished on February 2, 1762 for a previous counterfeiting conviction by being forced to stand in the pillory for one hour and be whipped 20 times. No doubt motivated by Howe’s description of his experience, Hudson tried to escape from prison two days later, but he was easily captured and returned to jail.

On Feburary 26, so many people showed up for the trial of Hudson and Howe that it had to be moved from the courthouse to the largest meetinghouse in Boston. The evidence presented against the two was so strong that the jury members did not even leave the room to deliberate. They found Hudson guilty of four counts of counterfeiting, and he was sentenced to one hour in the pillory, 20 lashes at the whipping post, and a 100-pound fine for each count. In addition, he received a 1-year prison term. They also found Howe guilty of two counts of counterfeiting, and he was handed the same set of penalties as Hudson, except that he was to receive 39 stripes at the whipping post.

The irony of Hudson’s behavior during Dexter’s punishment and the sensation of his own case were too rich for satirists and pamphleteers to pass up. At least two poetic broadsides of Hudson’s “speech” and “confession” were circulated during his several trips to the pillory, which probably was located on State Street in Boston.


The Humble Confession of that
NOTORIOUS CHEAT,
Doctor SETH HUDSON.
1762.


I Come, I come, the Villain cries,
With Terror sparkling in his Eyes;
While Fires from Hell his Soul inflame,
Distrest with Guilt–and stab’d with Shame.

Ye murder’d Hours so gaily flown,
These present Pangs are all your own.
My tortur’d Soul reflects with Pain,
On all the thoughtless, guilty Train.

Forgive, My Country, O forgive;
With deep Remorse I plead to live:
With Pity all my Crimes chastise,
And drink Repentance from these Eyes.

Hard’ned to Crimes–prone to rebell,
I dar’d assault the Gates of Hell:
No Vice my callous Heart declin’d;
No Ray of Grace illum’d my Mind.

Now all my Sins like Fiends arise,
And burning Tortures blast my Eyes:
Mercy from injur’d Heav’n implore,
Resolve by Grace to sin no more.

I come–submit to all my Shame,
Nor dare my injur’d Country blame:
Some Pity sure a Wretch may share,
Nor let me double Tortures bear.

Contempt I know is my Desert;
But O let Pity reach the Heart:
And let these transient Pangs atone;
Nor smile insulting while I groan.–

But ye whose Breasts are rib’d with Steel,
Whose marble Hearts disdain to feel,
Go lay our lurking Vices bare,
And judge with Rigour Follies there.–

And ye whose Souls relenting prove,
Those Twins of Virtue, Pity, Love;
May righteous Heav’n at length bestow
That Mercy, you to other’s show.

But O though Power of Grace divine,
Thy Mercy grant–for Mercy’s thine;
Tho’ Man condemn–do though forgive,
And let a Rebel Sinner live.




Pillory and Stocks

____________________





H-ds-n’s SPEECH from the Pillory.


What mean these Crouds, this Noise and Roar!
Did ye ne’er see a Rogue before?
Are Villains then a Sight so rare,
To make you press and gape and stare?
Come forward all who look so fine,
With Gain as illy got as mine:
Step up—you’l soon reverse the Show;
The Croud above, and few below.

Well—for my Roguery here I stand,
A Spectacle to all the Land:
High elevated on this Stage,
The greatest Villain of the Age.
My Crimes have been both great and many,
Equal’d by very few, if any:
And for the Mischief I have done
I put this wooden Neckcloth on.

There HOW his brawny Back is stripping,
Quite callous grown with often whipping.
In vain you wear your Whip-Cord out,
You’l ne’er reclaim that Rogue so stout.
To make him honest, take my Word,
You must apply a bigger Cord.

Now all ye who behold this Sight,
That ye may get some profit by’t,
Keep always in your Mind, I pray,
These few Words that I have to say.
Follow my Steps and you may be
In Time, perhaps, advanc’d like me;
Or, like my fellow Lab’rer How,
You’l get at least a Post below.

Apparently a “bigger Cord” was never found for Joshua Howe, because he never entirely gave up his counterfeiting career. In 1764 his name appeared in an escape advertisement for breaking out of the Cambridge jail. The notice describes Howe as “a stout fat Man,” who “wears a Cap, is very grey haired, has a short blue Jacket, a red Waistcoat, dirty Leather-Breeches, and light-worsted Stockings.” In 1768, the New-York Gazette reported that Howe was committed to jail once again for counterfeiting, this time in New Hampshire, and claimed that he was one of “a Clan of these Gentry of at least 500, who correspond thro’ all the Colonies, as far as North-Carolina.” Howe denied that he had counterfeited any money and said that he only rented out at 10 dollars per day certain tools that could presumably be used for such a purpose. He was later acquitted of the charges due to a lack of evidence.

As for Seth Hudson, he did not fully serve out his one-year prison sentence, because in July 1762 he was allowed to join the navy and was later released from service in December. He eventually moved to Albany, NY where in 1767 he died of smallpox. There was nothing fake about Hudson’s death, because while on his deathbed, he passed the virus on to one of his old associates, who also died of the disease.


http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/poems/seth-hudson
Click to expand...
 
BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593504106540.png​

1947: John Bardeen and Walter Brattain, with support from colleague William Shockley, demonstrate the transistor at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.

It's been called the most important invention of the 20th century. The transistor, aka point-contact transistor, is a semiconductor device that can amplify or switch electrical signals. It was developed to replace vacuum tubes.

Vacuum tubes were bulky, unreliable and consumed too much power. So AT&T's research-and-development arm, Bell Labs, started a project to find an alternative.

For nearly a decade before the first transistor was developed, Shockley, a physicist at Bell Labs, worked on the theory of such a device. But Shockley couldn't build a working model. His first semiconductor amplifier had a "small cylinder coated thinly with silicon, mounted close to a small, metal plate."

So Shockley asked his colleagues, Bardeen and Brattain, to step in. One of the problems they noticed with Shockley's first attempt was condensation on the silicon. So they submerged it in water and suggested the initial prototype have a metal point "that would be pushed into the silicon surrounded by distilled water." At last there was amplification — but disappointingly, at a trivial level.

Following more experiments, germanium replaced silicon, which increased amplification by about 300 times.

A few more modifications later, Brattain had a gold metal point extended into the germanium. That resulted in better ability to modulate amplification at all frequencies.

The final design of a point-contact transistorhad two gold contacts lightly touching a germanium crystal that was on a metal plate connected to a voltage source. Also known as the "little plastic triangle," it became the first working solid-state amplifier.

Bardeen and Brattain demonstrated the transistor device to Bell Lab officials Dec. 23, 1947. Shockley was reported to have called it "a magnificent Christmas present." But Shockley himself was not present when it happened and was said to be bitter over losing out on that day.

He had his revenge, though. Shockley continued to work on the idea and refine it. In early 1948, he came up with the bipolar or junction transistor, a superior device that took over from the point-contact type.

Bell Labs publicly announced the first transistor at a press conference in New York on June 30, 1948.

The transistor went on to replace bulky vacuum tubes and mechanical relays. The invention revolutionized the world of electronics and became the basic building block upon which all modern computer technology rests.

Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics for the transistor, but the trio never worked together after the first few months of their initial creation of the transistor.

Shockley left Bell Labs and founded Shockley Semiconductor in Mountain View, California – one of the early high-tech companies in what would later become Silicon Valley.

Brattain remained a fellow at Bell Labs. Bardeen became a professor at the University of Illinois in 1951, and he shared a second Nobel Prize in Physics in 1972, for the first successful explanation of superconductivity.
 
lokie

lokie

Well-Known Member
BarnBuster said:

1947: John Bardeen and Walter Brattain, with support from colleague William Shockley, demonstrate the transistor at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.

It's been called the most important invention of the 20th century. The transistor, aka point-contact transistor, is a semiconductor device that can amplify or switch electrical signals. It was developed to replace vacuum tubes.

Vacuum tubes were bulky, unreliable and consumed too much power. So AT&T's research-and-development arm, Bell Labs, started a project to find an alternative.

For nearly a decade before the first transistor was developed, Shockley, a physicist at Bell Labs, worked on the theory of such a device. But Shockley couldn't build a working model. His first semiconductor amplifier had a "small cylinder coated thinly with silicon, mounted close to a small, metal plate."

So Shockley asked his colleagues, Bardeen and Brattain, to step in. One of the problems they noticed with Shockley's first attempt was condensation on the silicon. So they submerged it in water and suggested the initial prototype have a metal point "that would be pushed into the silicon surrounded by distilled water." At last there was amplification — but disappointingly, at a trivial level.

Following more experiments, germanium replaced silicon, which increased amplification by about 300 times.

A few more modifications later, Brattain had a gold metal point extended into the germanium. That resulted in better ability to modulate amplification at all frequencies.

The final design of a point-contact transistorhad two gold contacts lightly touching a germanium crystal that was on a metal plate connected to a voltage source. Also known as the "little plastic triangle," it became the first working solid-state amplifier.

Bardeen and Brattain demonstrated the transistor device to Bell Lab officials Dec. 23, 1947. Shockley was reported to have called it "a magnificent Christmas present." But Shockley himself was not present when it happened and was said to be bitter over losing out on that day.

He had his revenge, though. Shockley continued to work on the idea and refine it. In early 1948, he came up with the bipolar or junction transistor, a superior device that took over from the point-contact type.

Bell Labs publicly announced the first transistor at a press conference in New York on June 30, 1948.

The transistor went on to replace bulky vacuum tubes and mechanical relays. The invention revolutionized the world of electronics and became the basic building block upon which all modern computer technology rests.

Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics for the transistor, but the trio never worked together after the first few months of their initial creation of the transistor.

Shockley left Bell Labs and founded Shockley Semiconductor in Mountain View, California – one of the early high-tech companies in what would later become Silicon Valley.

Brattain remained a fellow at Bell Labs. Bardeen became a professor at the University of Illinois in 1951, and he shared a second Nobel Prize in Physics in 1972, for the first successful explanation of superconductivity.
Click to expand...
The first transistor.
World's first transistor - the fundamental building block of ...


La invención del transistor, el comienzo de una nueva época


Today you can not see a single transistor.

Intel Unveils 4GHz Core i7 Quad-Core CPU


.


Mihai
Answered March 16, 2018

Be aware that the number of transistors can be different from a CPU generation to another.
Skylake i3 6100 = 1,400,000,000 transistors (1.400 billion)
Skylake i5 6600K = 1,750,000,000 transistors (1.750 billion)
Skylake i7 6700K = 1,750,000,000 transistors (1.750 billion)
 
BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593585715203.png​

At 7:30 a.m on this day in 1916., the British launch a massive offensive against German forces in the Somme River region of France. The Battle of the Somme, which took place from July to November 1916, began as an Allied offensive against German forces on the Western Front and turned into one of the most bitter and costly battles of World War I.

British forces suffered more than 57,000 casualties—including more than 19,000 soldiers killed—on the first day of the battle alone, making it the single most disastrous day in that nation’s military history. By the time the Battle of the Somme (sometimes called the First Battle of the Somme) ended nearly five months later, more than 3 million soldiers on both sides had fought in the battle, and more than 1 million had been killed or wounded.

Prior to the attack, the Allies launched a week-long heavy artillery bombardment, using some 1.75 million shells, which aimed to cut the barbed wire guarding German defenses and destroy the enemy’s positions. On the morning of July 1, 11 divisions of the British 4th Army (many of them volunteer soldiers going into battle for the first time) began advancing on a 15-mile front north of the Somme. At the same time, five French divisions advanced on an eight-mile front to the south, where the German defenses were weaker.

Allied leaders had been confident the bombardment would damage German defenses enough so that their troops could easily advance. But the barbed wire remained intact in many places, and the German positions, many of which were deep underground, were stronger than anticipated. Along the line, German machine gun and rifle fire cut down thousands of the attacking British troops, many of them caught in no man’s land.

Some 19,240 British soldiers were killed and more than 38,000 wounded by the end of that first day—almost as many casualties as British forces suffered when the Allies lost the battle for France during World War II (May-June 1940), including prisoners.

Trench Warfare & War of Attrition
Other British and French forces had more success to the south, these gains were limited compared to the devastating losses sustained on that first day of battle. But Haig was determined to press on with the offensive, and over the next two weeks the British launched a series of smaller attacks on the German line, putting increasing pressure on the Germans and forcing them to divert some weapons and soldiers from Verdun.

Early on the morning of July 15, British troops launched another artillery barrage followed by a massive attack, this time on Bazentin Ridge, in the northern part of the Somme. The assault took the Germans by surprise, and the British were able to advance some 6,000 yards into enemy territory, occupying the village of Longueval. But any small advance continued to come at the expense of heavy casualties, with the Germans losing 160,000 soldiers and the British and French more than 200,000 by the end of July.

Near the end of August, with German morale running low due to lost ground both on the Somme and at Verdun, Germany’s General Erich von Falkenhayn was replaced by Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff. The command change marked a change in German strategy: They would build a new defensive line behind the Somme front, conceding territory but allowing them to inflict even more casualties on the advancing Allied troops.

Tanks Join the Battle
On September 15, during an attack at Flers Courcelette, the British artillery barrage was followed by an advance of 12 divisions of soldiers accompanied by 48 Mark I tanks, making their first-ever appearance on the battlefield. But the tanks were still early in their development stages, and many of them broke down before making it to the front line. Though the British were able to advance some 1.5 miles, they sustained some 29,000 casualties and fell short of a true breakthrough.

As October began, bad weather stymied another Allied attack, with soldiers struggling to cross muddy terrain under fierce fire from German artillery and fighter planes. The Allies made their final advance of the battle in mid-November, attacking the German positions in the Ancre River valley. With the arrival of true winter weather, Haig finally called the offensive to a halt on November 18, ending the battle of attrition on the Somme, at least until the following year. Over 141 days, the British had advanced just seven miles, and had failed to break the German line.

Legacy of the Battle of the Somme
More than anything else, the Battle of the Somme—and especially its devastating first day—would be remembered as the epitome of the brutal and seemingly senseless carnage that characterized trench warfare during World War I. British officers, especially Haig, would be criticized for continuing the offensive in spite of such devastating losses.

Many of the British soldiers who fought at the Somme had volunteered for army service in 1914 and 1915 and saw combat for the first time in the battle. Many were members of so-called Pals battalions, or units that were made up of friends, relatives and neighbors in the same community. In one poignant example of a community’s loss, some 720 men from the 11th East Lancashire battalion (known as the Accrington Pals) fought on July 1 at the Somme; 584 were killed or wounded.

Despite its failure, the Allied offensive at the Somme did inflict serious damage on German positions in France, spurring the Germans to strategically retreat to the Hindenburg Line in March 1917 rather than continue battling over the same land that spring.

Though the exact number is disputed, German losses by the end of the Battle of the Somme probably exceeded Britain’s, with some 450,000 soldiers lost compared with 420,000 on the British side. The surviving British forces had also gained valuable experience, which would later help them achieve victory on the Western Front.

49 men would receive the Victoria Cross, (Great Britain's highest Military Award for Valor) including 9 on the first day.
 
BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593684589410.png​

On the evening of July 2, 1947, several witnesses in and near Roswell, New Mexico, observed a disc-shaped object moving swiftly in a northwesterly direction through the sky. The following morning Mac Brazel, foreman of a ranch located near tiny Corona, New Mexico, rode out on horseback to move sheep from one field to another. Accompanying him was a young neighbor boy, Timothy D. Proctor. As they rode, they came upon strange debris -- various-size chunks of metallic material -- running from one hilltop, down an arroyo, up another hill, and running down the other side. To all appearances some kind of aircraft had exploded.

In fact Brazel had heard something that sounded like an explosion the night before, but because it happened during a rainstorm (though it was different from thunder), he had not looked into the cause. Brazel picked up some of the pieces. He had never seen anything like them. They were extremely light and very tough.

By the time events had run their course, the world would be led to believe that Brazel had found the remains of a weather balloon. For three decades, only those directly involved in the incident would know this was a lie. And in the early 1950s, when an enterprising reporter sought to re-investigate the story, those who knew the truth were warned to tell him nothing.

The cover-up did not begin to unravel until the mid-1970s, when two individuals who had been in New Mexico in 1947 separately talked with investigator Stanton T. Friedman about what they had observed. One, an Albuquerque radio station employee, had witnessed the muzzling of a reporter and the shutting down of an in-progress teletyped news story about the incident. The other, an Army Air Force intelligence officer, had led the initial recovery operation. The officer, retired Maj. Jesse A. Marcel, stated flatly that the material was of unearthly origin.

science.howstuffworks.com

History of the Roswell UFO Incident

The history of the Roswell UFO incident has a long, complicated legacy of truth and conspiracy. From the crash site to the recovered alien bodies, there is a lot of speculation -- how much is believable? Learn more history of the Roswell UFO incident.
science.howstuffworks.com science.howstuffworks.com
 
BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593771898846.png​

"Iran Air flight 655, flight of an Iranian airliner that was shot down by the missile cruiser USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 people on board. The passenger plane, which was in Iranian airspace, had been incorrectly identified as a fighter jet.

In July 1988 Iran and Iraq were in the midst of a war that included attacks on each other’s oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The United States was among several countries that had warships in the area to safeguard the transport of oil. Various incidents, notably an attack on the USS Stark involving Iraq missiles in May 1987, had resulted in a revision to the U.S. rules of engagement, allowing U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf to undertake more protective measures. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes, under the command of Capt. William C. Rogers III, was involved in several skirmishes with Iranian vessels. According to various reports, Rogers, who had a reputation for aggressiveness, ignored orders to change course and instead continued to pursue the enemy gunboats.

Against this background, the Iranian airliner, an Airbus A300, departed from Bandar-e ʿAbbās, Iran, at approximately 10:47 AM, headed to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Crewmen aboard the Vincennes immediately began tracking Iran Air flight 655, which had taken off from an airport used by both military and commercial aircraft. For the next several minutes, there was confusion aboard the U.S cruiser over the identity of the aircraft, which was eventually determined to be a much smaller F-14 fighter jet. After several warning calls went unheeded, the Vincennes fired two surface-to-air missiles at 10:54 AM, destroying the plane and killing all those on board.

Immediately after the event, U.S. officials reported that the Iranian airliner had been rapidly descending and was headed toward the Vincennes. In addition, it was stated that Iran Air flight 655 was not within its normal route. However, a U.S. Navy report on July 28, 1988—released to the public in redacted form on August 19—refuted these claims. It concluded that the Iranian aircraft was actually ascending “within the established air route,” and it was traveling at a much slower speed than reported by the Vincennes. Furthermore, the airliner’s failure to communicate with the Vincennes was dismissed; in contact with two air control towers, the Iranian pilot was likely not checking the international air-distress channel. In the end, U.S. officials concluded that it was “a tragic and regrettable accident.” In explaining how the state-of-the-art cruiser had misidentified Iran Air flight 655, authorities cited “stress…and unconscious distortion of data.” However, U.S. officials also claimed that Iranian aggression played a key role in the incident. In 1990 the U.S. Navy notably awarded Rogers the Legion of Merit for his “outstanding service” during operations in the Persian Gulf.

Some, however, accused the U.S. military of a cover-up. It was noted that investigators failed to interview others near the Vincennes—notably the commander of the USS Sides, some of whose personnel had identified the aircraft as a commercial plane—as well as the surface warfare commander who had ordered Rogers to change course several hours before the incident. In addition, the report’s statement that the Vincennes was in international waters was later acknowledged as incorrect; the cruiser was in Iranian waters.

In Iran it was widely believed that the U.S. attack had been deliberate, and Iranian authorities worried that it indicated the United States was planning to join forces with Iraq. That assumption was thought to have played a role in Iran’s decision to agree to a cease-fire with Iraq in August 1988. In May 1989 Iran filed a lawsuit against the United States at the International Court of Justice. As the case dragged on, a settlement was reached in 1996. The United States, which “expressed deep regret” for shooting down Iran Air flight 655, agreed to pay $61.8 million to the victims’ families, and Iran dropped its suit."

The U.S. later would give USS Vincennes Capt. William C. Rogers the country’s Legion of Merit award, further angering Iran.

H-020-1: USS Vincennes Tragedy

H-Gram 020, Attachment 1 Samuel J. Cox, Director NHHC July 2018 Following the execution of Operation Praying Mantis on 18 April 1988, President Ronald Reagan gave U.S. Navy ships authority to engage Iranian warships that were in the act of attacking neutral merchant ships in the Arabian Gulf...
www.history.navy.mil www.history.navy.mil
 
BudmanTX

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
BarnBuster said:

"Iran Air flight 655, flight of an Iranian airliner that was shot down by the missile cruiser USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 people on board. The passenger plane, which was in Iranian airspace, had been incorrectly identified as a fighter jet.

In July 1988 Iran and Iraq were in the midst of a war that included attacks on each other’s oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The United States was among several countries that had warships in the area to safeguard the transport of oil. Various incidents, notably an attack on the USS Stark involving Iraq missiles in May 1987, had resulted in a revision to the U.S. rules of engagement, allowing U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf to undertake more protective measures. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes, under the command of Capt. William C. Rogers III, was involved in several skirmishes with Iranian vessels. According to various reports, Rogers, who had a reputation for aggressiveness, ignored orders to change course and instead continued to pursue the enemy gunboats.

Against this background, the Iranian airliner, an Airbus A300, departed from Bandar-e ʿAbbās, Iran, at approximately 10:47 AM, headed to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Crewmen aboard the Vincennes immediately began tracking Iran Air flight 655, which had taken off from an airport used by both military and commercial aircraft. For the next several minutes, there was confusion aboard the U.S cruiser over the identity of the aircraft, which was eventually determined to be a much smaller F-14 fighter jet. After several warning calls went unheeded, the Vincennes fired two surface-to-air missiles at 10:54 AM, destroying the plane and killing all those on board.

Immediately after the event, U.S. officials reported that the Iranian airliner had been rapidly descending and was headed toward the Vincennes. In addition, it was stated that Iran Air flight 655 was not within its normal route. However, a U.S. Navy report on July 28, 1988—released to the public in redacted form on August 19—refuted these claims. It concluded that the Iranian aircraft was actually ascending “within the established air route,” and it was traveling at a much slower speed than reported by the Vincennes. Furthermore, the airliner’s failure to communicate with the Vincennes was dismissed; in contact with two air control towers, the Iranian pilot was likely not checking the international air-distress channel. In the end, U.S. officials concluded that it was “a tragic and regrettable accident.” In explaining how the state-of-the-art cruiser had misidentified Iran Air flight 655, authorities cited “stress…and unconscious distortion of data.” However, U.S. officials also claimed that Iranian aggression played a key role in the incident. In 1990 the U.S. Navy notably awarded Rogers the Legion of Merit for his “outstanding service” during operations in the Persian Gulf.

Some, however, accused the U.S. military of a cover-up. It was noted that investigators failed to interview others near the Vincennes—notably the commander of the USS Sides, some of whose personnel had identified the aircraft as a commercial plane—as well as the surface warfare commander who had ordered Rogers to change course several hours before the incident. In addition, the report’s statement that the Vincennes was in international waters was later acknowledged as incorrect; the cruiser was in Iranian waters.

In Iran it was widely believed that the U.S. attack had been deliberate, and Iranian authorities worried that it indicated the United States was planning to join forces with Iraq. That assumption was thought to have played a role in Iran’s decision to agree to a cease-fire with Iraq in August 1988. In May 1989 Iran filed a lawsuit against the United States at the International Court of Justice. As the case dragged on, a settlement was reached in 1996. The United States, which “expressed deep regret” for shooting down Iran Air flight 655, agreed to pay $61.8 million to the victims’ families, and Iran dropped its suit."

The U.S. later would give USS Vincennes Capt. William C. Rogers the country’s Legion of Merit award, further angering Iran.

H-020-1: USS Vincennes Tragedy

H-Gram 020, Attachment 1 Samuel J. Cox, Director NHHC July 2018 Following the execution of Operation Praying Mantis on 18 April 1988, President Ronald Reagan gave U.S. Navy ships authority to engage Iranian warships that were in the act of attacking neutral merchant ships in the Arabian Gulf...
www.history.navy.mil www.history.navy.mil
Click to expand...
Oops
 
BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593855497763.png​

In Congress, July 4, 1776.
A Declaration
by the Representatives of
United States of America,
in General Congress Assembled​

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
 
BarnBuster

BarnBuster

Virtually Unknown Member
1593940231955.png​

"On July 5, 1946, French designer Louis Réard unveils a daring two-piece swimsuit at the Piscine Molitor, a popular swimming pool in Paris. Parisian showgirl Micheline Bernardini modeled the new fashion, which Réard dubbed “bikini,” inspired by a news-making U.S. atomic test that took place off the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean earlier that week.

European women first began wearing two-piece bathing suits that consisted of a halter top and shorts in the 1930s, but only a sliver of the midriff was revealed and the navel was vigilantly covered. In the United States, the modest two-piece made its appearance during World War II, when wartime rationing of fabric saw the removal of the skirt panel and other superfluous material. Meanwhile, in Europe, fortified coastlines and Allied invasions curtailed beach life during the war, and swimsuit development, like everything else non-military, came to a standstill.

In 1946, Western Europeans joyously greeted the first war-free summer in years, and French designers came up with fashions to match the liberated mood of the people. Two French designers, Jacques Heim and Louis Réard, developed competing prototypes of the bikini. Heim called his the “atom” and advertised it as “the world’s smallest bathing suit.” Réard's swimsuit, which was basically a bra top and two inverted triangles of cloth connected by string, was in fact significantly smaller. Made out of a scant 30 inches of fabric, Réard promoted his creation as “smaller than the world’s smallest bathing suit.” Réard called his creation the bikini, named after the Bikini Atoll.

In planning the debut of his new swimsuit, Réard had trouble finding a professional model who would deign to wear the scandalously skimpy two-piece. So he turned to Micheline Bernardini, an exotic dancer at the Casino de Paris, who had no qualms about appearing nearly nude in public. As an allusion to the headlines that he knew his swimsuit would generate, he printed newspaper type across the suit that Bernardini modeled on July 5 at the Piscine Molitor. The bikini was a hit, especially among men, and Bernardini received some 50,000 fan letters.

Before long, bold young women in bikinis were causing a sensation along the Mediterranean coast. Spain and Italy passed measures prohibiting bikinis on public beaches but later capitulated to the changing times when the swimsuit grew into a mainstay of European beaches in the 1950s. Réard's business soared, and in advertisements he kept the bikini mystique alive by declaring that a two-piece suit wasn’t a genuine bikini “unless it could be pulled through a wedding ring.”

In prudish America, the bikini was successfully resisted until the early 1960s, when a new emphasis on youthful liberation brought the swimsuit en masse to U.S. beaches. It was immortalized by the pop singer Brian Hyland, who sang “Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka-Dot Bikini” in 1960, by the teenage “beach blanket” movies of Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon, and by the California surfing culture celebrated by rock groups like the Beach Boys. Since then, the popularity of the bikini has only continued to grow."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top