Willie Sutton: Why We Should Tax the Rich

According to a much related story, a newspaper reporter once asked the renowned bank robber Willie Sutton (1901-1980) why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is," he is alleged to have answered. Sutton denied ever saying such a thing. It was too obvious, he claimed. 

Perhaps he didn't say that, but he did say he loved robbing banks. It gave him a tremendous thrill, he claimed. And he was very good at it. He never killed anyone. He even carried unloaded guns to make sure he didn't. [Image: Willie Sutton]

Sutton was no heroic Robin Hood, despite some attempts to romanticize his exploits. He robbed the rich, but kept the proceeds. He spent about half his life in jail, but savvy technician that he was, escaped from prison three times. He was a master of disguise and subterfuge. His nicknames included "Willie the Actor" and "Slick Willie."

Nevertheless, one can't help wishing that a man of Sutton's ability could help our world separate the filthy rich from their ill-gotten gains. Perhaps its too obvious to need saying, but defenders of obscene wealth keep pulling the wool over our eyes and dragging red herrings across our path. 

In the world today, the super rich and huge corporations are like an enormous vacuum, sucking up an astonishing percentage of global wealth. In the process, they have caused or exacerbated enormous economic, environmental,  and social problems. 

Think Exxon Mobil, Shell, and other fossil fuel giants. Think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and their ilk. I will give a pass to Bill Gates for his well directed philanthropy, and a partial pass to the rich who urge governments to tax them more. 

Increasing taxes on the rich will not solve all our current problems. But it would help more than decreasing taxes on the rich, the default position of many countries in recent decades. 

The promises of "trickle down" economics have proved false. Much like the "opportunities" of Brexit in the UK, the benefits have not materialized, only the costs. 

Higher taxes on great wealth would also help to restore some sense of fairness in our society, a social contract that any healthy polity must possess. Our present trajectory is leading us to an apocalyptic world. 

So, the next time you meet with friends to have a drink, raise a toast to Willie Sutton and don't forget where the money is.

[[Image: Willie Sutton in 1966]

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

Coronation! British Monarchs Who Ended Badly, Part 10: The Last Stuarts

The Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 produced the only joint monarchy in British history, William III (II in Scotland) and Mary II. Parliament made them monarchs in gratitude for Dutchman William's invasion, which its members saw as saving Protestantism from the Catholic James II. When James fled to France, Parliament declared he had abdicated, and the throne was vacant. 

The solution to filling the vacancy violated strict hereditary succession, which would have made James' infant son king. But the child had been baptized Catholic and was therefore unacceptable to most members of Parliament. Mary was second in line for the throne, and William, her cousin as well as her husband, fourth. Mary's sister, Anne, was third. 

Settling the throne on William and Mary jointly was accepted, if grudgingly, by most MPs in 1689. But it stored up problems for the future. Many people in Britain continued to support the claims of James and his heir. They are known to British history as Jacobites, from the Latin for James, Jacobus. In 1696, Jacobites tried and failed to assassinate William. 

William was initially a hero to most in Britain, especially after he defeated a Catholic army led by James in Ireland at the Battle of the Boyne and relieved the siege of Derry (AKA Londonderry) in 1690. 

Many English historians have called the Glorious Revolution the "Bloodless Revolution" because it avoided civil war. While that may be accurate enough in England, much blood was shed in Ireland, and some in Scotland as well. It also had some future stings in its tail. 

William's Irish victories inspired the creation of the anti-Catholic organization known as the Orange Lodge, which embitters the life of Northern Ireland to this day. The name derives from William's Dutch family, the House of Orange. (The reason the Dutch national football team wear orange.) In Northern Ireland, Orangemen march and beat the Orange Drum every year for "King Billy."

In the early years of their dual reign, Queen Mary was often the effective ruler in Britain. William was away on the Continent much of the time, directing the war with France. 

In 1694, Mary died of smallpox, and after that William ruled alone. She was a major loss to him, as she had social skills he lacked. He never remarried or took any mistresses, leading to (probably false) rumors of homosexuality. Courtiers viewed him as cold and aloof. His popularity with the public waned. 

One reason was resentment of his Dutch confidants and the Dutch businessmen who came to England during his reign. Anti-Dutch sentiment peaked just after 1700. It produced a brilliant response that speaks even today in our xenophobic world: a poem by Daniel Defoe, "The True Born Englishman." 

England owed major innovations to William and his Dutch followers. One was the creation of the Bank of England in 1694. Modelled on the Bank of Amsterdam, it soon became a financial powerhouse for the British government. The London Stock Exchange was also opened, modeled on that of Amsterdam. A third Dutch import was gin. 

War with France (The Nine Years' War) ended inconclusively in 1697. It broke out again in 1701 (War of the Spanish Succession). William did not live to direct the new war. He died a few months later, aged 51. 

His horse stumbled on a mole's burrow. William fell, breaking his collarbone. He died from the pneumonia that followed. After his death, gleeful Jacobites are said to have toasted "the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat," meaning the mole. 

William had never produced an heir. The crown passed to his sister-in-law, Queen Anne, who was much more popular than William. But Anne had no surviving heir either, despite numerous pregnancies. The death of her last surviving child, William, Duke of Gloucester, in 1700, created a dynastic and political crisis. [Image: Queen Anne, 1705, by Michael Dahl]

Anne was the last of the Protestant Stuart line. Fears grew that her death would lead to a restoration of her father the Catholic James II or his son (James "III"). 

To prevent this, the English Parliament passed the Act of Settlement in 1701. It barred Roman Catholics from the throne. It also provided that if William or Anne had no surviving issue, the throne would to Anne's nearest Protestant relative. She was a German princess, Electress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James I. Dozens of Anne's relatives had better hereditary claims to the throne, but they were all Catholic. 

The Act of Settlement only applied to England and Ireland. The English MPS did not consult the Parliament of Scotland, which was still a separate kingdom, although ruled by the same monarch since 1603. 

Soon after Anne became Queen, the Scottish Parliament declared that it would not necessarily select the same monarch as England after her death. They would do so, they declared, only if Scotland was granted free trade with England and its colonies. 

The fear that Scotland might choose to restore the Catholic Stuarts spurred efforts to achieve something James VI and I had proposed a century before: a formal union of the two kingdoms. 

After several years of negotiation, threats on both sides, and a good deal of bribery, the Act of Union passed through both parliaments. Finalized in 1707, it created the Kingdom of Great Britain with one parliament, located at Westminster. It is notable that, as a nation, Britain is nearly as young as the United States. The flag of the new nation combined the English Cross of St. George and the Scottish Cross of St. Andrew. [Image: First Union Jack, 1707-1800]

Many people on both sides of the border opposed the union. Angry Scots claimed that their leaders had sold off their parliament and independence for English gold. Disgruntled English folk were aghast at the prospect of being inundated with lean and hungry Scots barbarians looking to take over their jobs, money, empire, and women. [Image: A Flight of "Scotchmen" descending on London, 18th century]

Both nations benefited from the Union, in different ways. The Scots received the right to trade freely with England and its colonies, something Scots merchants had long desired. 

The Union created the largest tariff free economic zone in Europe at the time. Ironically, in 2016 the British (or rather the English) voted to leave today's largest free trade bloc, the European Union. "Brexit" is now one of the most decisive issues in British politics. 

In her later years, Queen Anne was plagued by ill health and obesity. At  times, she was disabled. She was often grumpy, but 17 pregnancies (at least) can do that. In the early part of her reign, she was close to Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, who became her close confidante for several years. 

Anne had appointed Sarah's husband John to command the army and made him Duke of Marlborough. He was the Wellington of his time, winning several key battles against the French. 

John's stunning victory at Blenheim in 1704 netted him a huge reward from Parliament, which he used to build the massive Blenheim Palace near Oxford. [Image: Blenheim Palace, designed by Sir John Van Brugh]

Despite Marlborough's success on the battlefield, the war dragged on for more than ten years. The Tories, mostly landed gentlemen, turned against the war because of its expense. It was largely funded by a tax on their land. 

Around the same time, Anne became estranged from Sarah Churchill. The breakdown of their relationship is portrayed in somewhat fanciful style in the otherwise excellent film The Favourite starring Olivia Colman. 

Anne didn't have a menagerie of 17 bunnies. They are there to represent the loss of her 17 children. There is also no evidence she was in a same sex relationship. She adored her husband George, Prince of Denmark, and lamented his death in 1708. 

Sarah's husband the Duke of Marlborough wanted to continue the war. Although he was a moderate Tory, he relied heavily on the support of Whig oligarchs to stay in his position. 

Anne preferred the Tories to the Whigs, partly because they were staunch defenders of her beloved Anglican Church. The Whigs defended the rights of Dissenting Protestants such as Presbyterians, Baptists, and Congregationalists.  

After 1710, Anne's support for Tory politicians and declining enthusiasm for the war brought the Tories to power. They began negotiations for peace with France and Spain, which was concluded in 1713 on terms quite favorable to Britain. 

The Peace of Utrecht ceded Nova Scotia and Gibraltar to Britain and added the right to trade with Spanish Empire in the New World. That included the right to send one shipment of enslaved Africans to be sold in the Spanish Caribbean. 

Anne's already poor health gave way in late 1713, and she died aged 49 after a stroke the following summer. Sophia, the aged Electress of Hanover, had died two months before. In July 1714, Sophia's son George, Elector of Hanover, became king of the new nation of Great Britain, courtesy of Parliament. 

The death of Anne was not only a change of dynasty. It was passing of an old mindset. She was the last British sovereign to use the monarch's veto power to stop an act of Parliament. She was also the last to touch for the King's Evil, or scrofula, a lymphatic disease caused by the tuberculosis bacillus. 

For a long time after her death, historians tended to dismiss Queen Anne as a nonentity: not very bright, bigoted, fat, and weepy. That view was largely based on the writings of her estranged confidante Sarah Churchill. 

Recent assessments of Anne stress the major accomplishments of her short reign: the Act of Union, victory in war, a flourishing economy, and greater political stability than Britain had known for a century, thanks to the development of a working two-party system. Governments came and went without violence.

Anne was a hardworking monarch despite her poor health. She had a major impact on many policy decisions. When she died, the new nation of Great Britain was verging on becoming the leading economic and imperial power in the world, for good and ill. Civil war and political revolution were left behind. Economic and Industrial Revolution lay ahead, under a new German dynasty, the Hanoverians.  

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

The Brexiteer's Guide to English Ancestry

Hey, Brexiteers! Mes amis! You don't have to have a DNA test to prove what a True Born Englishman you are! All you need to do is read a poem by Daniel Defoe, an Englishman of oops, Flemish descent.

"A Brexit victory's a contradiction, In speech an irony, in fact a fiction." (Apologies and thanks to Daniel Defoe,1660-1731)

Brexit is real now, sort of. Devout Brexiteers proclaim, in near holy terms, that the UK has finally achieved "independence." By the "UK", however, they really mean England. 

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland must reconcile themselves to being dragged about by the whims of English nationalists. British companies are in the same boat. The immense costs of Brexit for those trading to Europe are becoming distressingly clear. 

Narrow English nationalists are the big winners for now. It remains to be seen what they have actually won. In fact, Brexit is a triumph of extreme nationalism, aided by ignorance and lies, over economic rationality. 

Much of the pro-Brexit vote in 2016 stemmed from xenophobia, a hatred of foreigners. In this case, "tyrannical" foreigners in Brussels. Of course, not all who voted for Brexit were motivated by by xenophobia. Yet the rhetoric of hard Brexiteers is often based on the assumption that people who are "Not English" are somehow "lesser breeds," not to be trusted and certainly not listened to.

England found itself in a similar situation more than 300 years ago. The thrones of Britain were occupied by a foreigner, the Dutch prince William of Orange. He and his wife Mary had become joint sovereigns in 1689 following the Glorious Revolution, in which he and the Dutch military had played the pivotal role. (Image: William III, of Orange)

 

Despite being hailed as the savior of English Protestantism, William III (II in Scotland) was never much liked in England or in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, of course, he is still idolized by people who remain imprisoned in a time warp, the eponymous "Orangemen." 

William became thoroughly unpopular in England after Mary died of smallpox in 1694. People not only disliked him but the Dutch soldiers, politicians, and merchants who followed him to London in particular. They were the target of numerous vitriolic pamphlets and poems. 

In 1701, Daniel Defoe took up his pen to defend the Dutch king and his countrymen. He did so in a long satirical poem that was highly successful in its time. "The True-Born Englishman" is not read much today. Perhaps it should be, at least some of it. 

Defoe was a prolific writer, mostly of political pamphlets at this time. Later he made his name as the author of Robinson Crusoe (1719) and other novels. (Image: Defoe)

The target of Defoe's satire was not Englishness per se, but anti-Dutch xenophobia. To clear up any misunderstanding about that he added an explanatory preface two years later. In it he declared "that an Englishman, of all men, ought not to despise Foreigners as such ... since what they are today, we were yesterday, and tomorrow they will be like us." 

The English were themselves foreigners, invaders who eventually assimilated into one nation. The Dutch newcomers would assimilate as well, given the chance, Defoe implied. 

The English, far from being racially pure, were in reality a mongrel race. The "English" were a people forged from the union of Celtic Britons, Romans, Scots, Picts, "Anglo-Saxons," and Danes. Somewhat oddly, Defoe left out the Normans, here wearing the latest in 12th century fashion.

Defoe pulled no punches. The "union" he meant was sexual. Englishness originated "in eager rapes, and furious lust." The "rank daughters" of the land "Receiv'd all nations with promiscuous lust." The "nauseous brood" that resulted contained the "well extracted blood of Englishmen." 

In reality, the "True-Born Englishman" did not exist: "A true-born Englishman's a contradiction, In speech an irony, in fact a fiction."

Defoe understood the biological and cultural reality of Englishness 300 years ago. Why do so many people today continue to champion a view so much at variance with history and biology? They should check the ancestry of their leader, True-Born Boris.

Further Reading: Daniel Defoe, The True-Born Englishman (London, 1701 and later editions)

  

The Peasants Strike Back

The people had had enough. Endless war, a deadly pandemic, and stagnant wages had pushed them to the edge of revolt. The actions of a selfish oligarchy took them over it. I could be writing about the present time in many places, but the events in question took place in 14th century England.

England had been at war with France almost continuously since King Edward III laid claim to the French throne in the 1330s. Historians call the conflict the Hundred Years War, though no one called it that at the time, obviously. 

The fighting had favoured the English in the early going. They won several lopsided victories, notably at Crecy in 1346 and at Poitiers ten years later. In a treaty of 1360, they gained control of large parts of France. In the 1370s, however, the war resumed, and the French won back what they had lost and more. (Image: Battle of Crecy, 1346. From the Chronicles of Jean Froissart)

In 1376 England's greatest warrior, Edward the Black Prince, died of a lingering disease. He was also heir to the English throne. His father Edward III died the following year. The crown passed to his son, ten-year-old Richard II. During the next few years, actual power was in the hands of councils dominated by overmighty nobles, including Richard's uncles. (Image: Richard II, portrait in Westminster Abbey, 1390s)

In order to pay for the French war, the government raised taxes. It introduced a new tax, a regressive poll tax. Attempts to collect the tax in May 1381 triggered a massive popular uprising. The causes of the revolt go far beyond hatred of the particular tax, however. Unrest and tension had been growing for decades. At its heart was the response of the ruling classes to the effects of the plague pandemic later known as the Black Death.

The plague arrived in England in 1348, having made its way along trade routes from the Far East. By 1349 it had killed between 40 and 60 per cent of the population. Plague returned in 1361, killing off another 20 per cent or so. One effect of this massive mortality was a severe shortage of labour. Peasants and other workers saw an opportunity to improve their condition. They demanded higher wages and an end to serfdom and other injustices.

The landed classes, the lords and gentry who dominated Parliament, responded with the Statute of Labourers (1351). It essentially froze wages at their pre-plague levels. Although not entirely successful, it worked well enough to arouse widespread anger at the government and the aristocrats that controlled it. The sense of injustice contributed to the popularity of egalitarian ideologies.

The revolt broke out in Essex on May 30 with an attack on tax collectors. It spread quickly to Kent and much of the Southeast. The rebels, who included artisans and local officials, burned court records and emptied the jails. Thousands of Kentish rebels marched on nearby London, led by Wat Tyler and a radical priest, John Ball, whom the rebels had released from prison.

At Blackheath, near London, Ball famously exhorted the rebels to fight for equality. "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" he asked. "From the beginning all men were by nature created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of evil men ... now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may ... cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty." (Image: John Ball encouraging the rebels; Wat Tyler is in red at front left. Chronicles of Jean Froissart)

On June 13, sympathetic citizens admitted them into the capital. Together, they destroyed the Savoy Palace, residence of the king's hated uncle John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. They attacked the jails, burned buildings, and killed a number of government officials, including the Lord Chancellor and Lord High Treasurer. Richard II fled to the safety of the Tower of London.

On the 14th, Richard met the rebels' representatives at Mile End and granted most of their demands, including the abolition of serfdom. On the following day he met them again. On this occasion, a confused melee broke out, and a member of the king's party killed Wat Tyler. (Image: The Death of Wat Tyler, Chronicles of Jean Froissart)

In the confusion that followed, Richard managed to calm the rebels and assure them he was on their side. "I am your captain, follow me," he is alleged to have said, and led them away from the scene. Meanwhile, the Lord Mayor of London rallied a militia and confronted the rebel forces. Richard urged them to disperse to their homes, which most did.

The rebellion continued in other locales, but the king's supporters suppressed it during the next few weeks and months. Richard rescinded his promises for change, including the abolition of serfdom. Most of the rebel leaders were hunted down and executed, along with about 1500 others.

The Great Revolt, or Peasants' Revolt, as it is more conventionally known, failed to win the rebels' immediate demands. Yet, the fright it gave to the ruling orders did help bring change. The poll tax was abandoned. Nothing like it was imposed again until the premiership of Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990), who forgot the lesson of 1381. It aroused mass protests, first in Scotland, then in England. It was replaced in 1993 by the Council Tax.

Subsequent Parliaments were reluctant to raise taxes, making it difficult for the government to pay for campaigns in France. Serfdom was not abolished but it gradually died out over the next few decades, as landowners commuted labour services into money rents.

Wages also rose, in spite of the Statute of Labourers. Economic laws of supply and demand proved stronger than the laws of Parliament. Between 1350 and 1450 wages nearly doubled. The 15th century has sometimes been called the Golden Age of the English Peasant. Unfortunately, these gains were largely lost by population growth in the 16th century.

The Peasants' Revolt has continued to fascinate historians, writers, artists, and musicians into our own times. In 1888, the artist, writer, and designer William Morris published a novel about the Great Revolt, A Dream of John Ball. The work centres on Ball and his egalitarian ideology. Below is one of Morris's illustrations for the novel.

In many respects the situation of the UK today resembles that of 1381. The combination of disasters: Brexit, Covid pandemic, the Ukraine war, and an out of touch government has produced economic crises and widespread industrial unrest. Will it all lead to another mass revolt? We will see. 

POLIMERICKS from Brexitstan: Updated

My guardian angel sent me these political limericks (polimericks) to keep me sane while enduring the Tory Brexdemic. The angel instructed me to share them with the world. Listen, my children, and you shall hear of the shameless liars who kicked your rear. 

There once was a PM lackaday!
Who said, Parliament's in my way.
He hatched a cunning plan
And didn't give a damn
The law must simply give way.

There once was a Theresa named May
Who said, Brexit's the work of a day.
The EU will give up
As soon as I gear up.
Now she's feeling a sense of Dis-May.

There once was a Scotsman name Haggis
Who said Brexit is going to shag us.
I voted Remainer,
Now I'm a Complainer.
Out of Europe England has drug us.

There once was a Boris named Johnson
Who said, Brexit has been by me be won. 
I'm your greatest PM,
A wonderful gem
Such a damn brilliant son of a gun.

There was a young man from the City
Who said, life was formerly pretty.
I once was a banker
I'm now just a wanker.
Brexit has made everything shitty. 

Three Cheers for Boris and the Tories: Lies! Corruption! Sewage! 

Polimericks, c. 2019-22

An Unwelcome Immigrant: Cholera Comes to Britain

At the beginning of the 1830s, Britain was in ferment. As with Brexit today, the country was badly divided over several issues: reform of Parliament and extension of the suffrage, abolition of slavery, poor law reform. In the midst of rising unrest, an unwelcome immigrant was approaching Britain. 

Doctors called it Indian or Asiatic Cholera after its alleged place of origin. It had long been known in the Indian subcontinent, much of which was now under British control. An outbreak in 1817 killed 10,000 British soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Indians.

In the following years cholera spread inexorably into Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Russia, and continental Europe. By 1830 it had reached Western Europe and was poised to cross the English Channel. 

Local authorities in Britain vowed to keep it out. The cartoon below imagines John Bull seizing the cholera, imagined as an Indian, trying to sneak through an equally imaginary protecting fence into England. The reality was far different.

Efforts to prevent cholera reaching Britain proved in vain, as no one then knew how cholera spread or what caused it. Indeed, within a few months after making landfall in Britain it had reached the Americas and become a truly global pandemic. 

In November 1831, cholera broke out in the northern English port city of Sunderland. The main effect of cholera is violent diarrhea, which produces severe dehydration and often death, within hours or a day or two. The victims' skin often turned blue, giving it the name "Blue Disease." The image below shows a woman who died at Sunderland. 

Within weeks, cholera was breaking out in many parts of the kingdom. In London and elsewhere, authorities tried to locate the source of the disease, with no success. See Looking for the Elusive Mr. Cholera on this blog.

Boards of health informed the inhabitants of cholera's symptoms and listed remedies, most of which would have had no impact on the course of the disease. Medical and health boards often emphasized temperance in eating and drinking. They advised agaist drinking cold water when the body was heated and consuming "ardent spirits." 

The connection with water was correct. The main medium through which cholera spreads is water contaminated by the intestinal evacuations of the infected. But avoiding water only when one was "heated" would have had little effect. Ardent spirits caused many health problems, but cholera was not one of them. Some doctors prescribed ardent spirits.

Medical professionals tended to favor standard remedies for most dangerous diseases: bleeding, purging, mercury, and opium. Removing fluids from a body that was already becoming dehydrated seems perverse, and did make things worse. 

A couple of physicians argued for rehydrating with saline solution and got better results. Most medical men scorned such an unorthodox therapy until the late 19th century or later. Today rehydrating is a standard procedure, often combined with antibiotics.

Critics ridiculed the advice and efforts of boards of health and doctors in the 1830s, as seen in these contemporary cartoons. 

The cartoon below shows the Central Board of Health congratluating iself with a sumptuous dinner despite the mounting death toll from cholera. At bottom right a paper has the words "while doctors differ and deny, the country bleeds and patients die."

The 1832 epidemic killed about 55,000 people in the UK. It was the first of several outbreaks to strike the country during the nineteenth century. Other diseases killed far more people during that time, but they were mostly familiar and aroused far less terror than cholera. 

In the 1850s, following a couple more severe outbreaks in Britain, London surgeon John Snow demonstrated that contaminated water was the main source of cholera infection. See London's Great Stinks, Cholera, and John Snow on this blog. 

Snow had no idea what the contaminant was. He theorized that it might be a microscopic organism. In the early 1880s, German physician Robert Koch isolated the microbe responsible: the cholera vibrio. 

The solution became obvious: avoid drinking contaminated water and you could prevent cholera. Some authorities, accepting Snow's theory, had begun to advise that precaution even before Koch's discovery, as this poster from 1866 shows. 

The first cholera vaccine came into use in the 1880s and improved versions followed. (Below: Inoculation in Calcutta 1894) 

Today, cholera is preventible and curable. But thousands of people continue to die of this dreadful disease each year from a lack of safe water and adequate medical care in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The civil war in Yemen has unleashed an ongoing major epidemic, with hundreds of thousands of infections. (Below: cholera patients in India)