You Are Strongly Urged To Obtain Approval From The: Fill & Download for Free

That the Japanese were prepared to surrender and the two atomic bombs were not necessary, as succinctly stated by British historian Max Hastings:The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender has been so comprehensively discredited by modern research that it is astonishing some writers continue to give it credence.Let’s examine how the myth emerged and debunk it.The Big SixThe fate of Japan rested in the hands of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War which consisted of 7 prominent figures of the Japanese military and political establishment.Emperor HirohitoMitsumasa Yonai: Navy MinisterSoemu Toyoda: Chief of the Naval General StaffKorechika Anami: Army MinisterYoshijirō Umezu: Chief of the Army General StaffKantarō Suzuki: Prime MinisterShigenori Tōgō: Foreign MinisterJapan was ruled by a military dictatorship. The army was more dominant than the Navy and wielded absolute political power. The minister was an actively serving general in the Japanese Army. He had the power to dissolve a cabinet if it opposed army’s policies and found a new cabinet more amenable to the ambition and demands of the military.Also, contrary to the popular but mistaken belief that Emperor Hirohito was merely a figurehead who was manipulated by the militarists and that he was kept in the dark about the war, the truth was that he actually had real political power and was fully aware of the course of the war and its outcomes. In an underground chamber, he monitored the progress of the war, domestic conditions, and inquired about war plans with the aid of senior military commanders. The hearing sessions during which the Emperor passively listened to major military plans were intended to create the misleading impression that he was controlled by the military. In reality, the emperor had questioned those plans, voiced his opinions, concerns and suggestions behind the closed doors.Therefore, military leaders and the Emperor had the power to make decisions that determined the fate of Japan. No one else outside of this exclusive circle could negotiate or carry out any diplomatic initiative without unanimous approval of the group. This very fact will explain why the various attempts at peace negotiation carried out by Japanese diplomatic and military representatives in foreign countries failed.Magic and UltraUltra: intelligence about anything related to the Japanese military. It comprised information derived from decrypts of military messages and radio intelligence.Magic: decrypts of Japanese diplomatic messages. Before the outbreak of war between Japan and the US, American codebreakers had begun intercepting and deciphered Japanese diplomatic communication. Thereafter, they had uncovered huge amount of diplomatic information communicated between Japanese officials all over the world. In 1945, Magic became highly successful because in many cases, Japanese diplomatic messages were deciphered and read before they reached the intended recipients.An elite group of intelligence analysts was entrusted with separating the wheat from the chaffs - analyzing the mountain of information gathered to extract actionable insights. Specifically, the analysts would scrutinize decrypts, retain only the most significant parts and translate them into English. Whenever advisable, the analysts would complement those parts with their own assessments + cross references to other texts and ultra information. Finally, they would assemble those passages into Magic Diplomatic Summaries - top-secret documents spanning 6–32 pages to be delivered to a small circle of US wartime leaders every day.The value of Magic consisted in its truthfulness. Because Japan’s leaders were unaware that US intelligence regularly broke their code and read their messages, they expressed themselves candidly in coded messages. This makes Ultra and Magic the most definitive evidential basis for assessing claims of Japanese intention in the last year of the Pacific War: including the claim that Japan was prepared to surrender.How did the myth originate?Since the end of the war, critics of the A-bombs have promoted the following two assertions:The Japanese were prepared to surrender and actively seeking to do so in 1945.US wartime leaders were aware of Japanese peace-seeking attempts.From both of these assertions came the judgment that the use of the A-bombs were unnecessary and war atrocities.Now to be fair, there is some truth in those two assertions.The source of that basis? - Declassified Magic documents.At some point after the war, the US government declassified wartime documents, among which were Magic documents concerning Japanese peace-seeking attempts in 1945 and American awareness of those attempts. When people alighted on those documents, they concluded that the Japanese were prepared to surrender and the two atomic bombs should not have been dropped.BUTWhat these people did not realize at the time was that the declassification was partial, meaning that the US government did not declassify in one go all there was to be declassified.Particularly, the first batch of information was released in the early 1950s and they contained no Ultra information and only partial Magic information, the latter of which was about Japanese peace negotiation with the Soviet Union since mid-July 1945. Being partial, the released Magic information was only a fraction of all Magic information related to all Japanese diplomatic overtures in 1945.These initial disclosures were followed by disclosures of translations of all archived Japanese diplomatic communications. These disclosed documents lacked all the remarks and edits made and attached by intelligence analysts as well as cross-reference to Ultra.In 1978, a relatively complete set of the Magic Diplomatic Summary was released. Finally in 1995, a complete set of the Magic Diplomatic Summary was released.Because the first and second batches of Magic information contained selected pieces that only indicated that the Japanese were seeking peace and were missing all the assessments and cross references by intelligence experts, people were misled into thinking that Japan was truly near surrender and that top-level US leaders were aware of this. The lack of expert assessments plus the missing pieces of sensitive information contained in subsequent disclosures allowed a false picture of historical reality to emerge. By the time the complete set of Magic information was released in 1995 which allowed the actual situation to be accurately and completely reconstructed, the myth had become well-entrenched in public consciousness after 40 years of perpetuation.That is how the myth developed and has lingered as long as it has. The misunderstanding created by partial declassification of Magic information which distorted historical reality and gave rise to the mistaken belief that the Japanese were ready to surrender. By the time all Magic information became public knowledge, this mistaken belief had gained so much credence that it became “historical truth”, and its proponents have refused to consider the other pieces of Magic information that contradicted their belief.This begs the question: what was the rationale of the partial declassification?The answer to this question derives from comparing the two batches of information released in 1978 and 1995. As it turned out, American codebreakers were reading diplomatic messages not only of Japan but also of other allied and neutral nations: Argentina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, China, China, Japanese puppet state, Colombia, Cuba, Free France and Vichy France, Greece, Iran, etc… This amounted to an act of spying.Because the revelation of the fact that the US had been reading diplomatic exchanges of friendly nations could have jeopardized diplomatic relations with those nation, the US government chose not to disclose all Magic Information in one-go.Debunk the MythLet’s examine the MAGIC Information concerning Japanese intention in 1945. This body of information could be divided logically into 2 time frames: before and after 13th July 1945 - the date on which Emperor Hirohito personally intervened into diplomatic attempts.Content-wise, it can be logically divided into two categories: Intention toward the US and intention toward the Soviet Union.These documents had three underlying themes in common:The Big Six’s consistent lack of any desire for peace negotiation with the Western Allies.The rejection of Allies’ demand for unconditional surrender.The will to fight to the bitter end.On January 20, 1945, American codebreakers deciphered a message transmitted to French Ambassador to Japan Henri Cosme. According to the message:thinking people at the Court and in the Navy . . . appear inclined to believe that an end must be put to this war.The so-called thinking people in Cosme’s message did not include Army leaders. As explained the above, Army leaders wielded absolute power in Japan’s government. According to Cosme, they were not among those who wanted to end the fighting.A summary report of 1944 produced by the German military attache in Tokyo indicated that the attitude of the Japanese government toward the war had changed very little. The report points out:recent increases in preparations to defend the Homeland and noted that total mobilization is progressing. The Japanese Army and the circles it influences were determined to go through with the war without compromise on the side of Germany.A Magic decrypt of a mid-January 1945 cable sent to Berlin by German Ambassador Stahmer in Tokyo reported the precarious situation of the cabinet under Kuniaki Koiso. Stahmer expressed concern over the attitude of the Japanese Navy and warned that anew Cabinet would probably be formed of liberal personalities whose past would facilitate a settlement with the Americans. Such a Cabinet would then be overthrown, however, by ultranationalist groups who demand total war until final victory and would oppose with their full strength - and probably with violence - a compromise Cabinet. If these nationalist groups obtain control - which is possible - it will mean a substantial increase in Japan’s total war effort.On 12th March 1945, a deciphered message sent by Swiss Minister Camille Gorge indicated that although the Japanese government “is being criticized more more.”, there was a conspicuous determination to continue the war:there was even talk of transferring the greater part of Japan's war industry to Manchuria in order to carry the war as far as possible to Chinese soilAfter the collapse of the Koiso cabinet on 5th April 1945, Magic experts monitored diplomatic traffic to gauge the intentions the new government led by Kantaro Suzuki and found some glimmers of hope in the assessment of the German ambassador in Japan:To judge by its inner make-up, the new Cabinet is devoting itself to continuing the war with the utmost exertion of energy. It is seeking to reach an agreement with Russia, even if this involves the greatest sacrifices. By this means, in addition to protection in the rear, a more favorable basis for later negotiations with America is expected.However, subsequent Magic information dissolved any hope of and end to hostilities. On 5th May 1945, Swiss Minister Gorge reported to his government that he:no perceptible difference between the present government and its predecessor.The Portuguese minister suspected that the Suzuki cabinet would be short-lived:since the military and the nation in general are not yet prepared to make peace.On 6th May 1945, a message sent from Portuguese Minister Fernandes to his government indicated that:the fortification of coasts and mountains continues, giving the impression that this country, like Germany, is disposed to prosecute the war to its very end without the least probability of victory.On 22nd June 1945, Swiss Minister Gorge noted in his report:Japan does not expect to win, but is still hoping to escape defeat by prolonging the war long enough to exhaust [her] enemies.When the battle of Berlin was raging, a Magic decrypt of a message dated 28th April 1945 indicated that Japan’s government instructed its military attache in Lisbon to:report as fully as possible on the last stage of resistance [in Berlin] in order to furnish reference material for the decisive battle in the Homeland. His attention was directed to matters such as the training of civilian militias, as well as whether the direct participation of the German High Command in combat and the death of Hitler in Berlin would brace German morale and determination to defend the capital to the bitter end.This message unambiguously demonstrated the determination of the Japanese military to commit the nation to one last desperate battle modeled after the Battle of Berlin.One Magic decrypt featured a message announced by the Vice Chief of the Japanese Army general staff to his attaches in Europe. Magic experts commented on this message that while the Vice Chief expressed pessimism over all aspects of the war and concern over a potential invasion of the Home Island, he also proclaimed thatJapan preserves unaltered her conviction of inevitable victory.Other Magic decrypts indicated that despite heavy destruction and death tolls inflicted, there was no sign that the military’s resolve to fight to the bitter end wavered. A total of at least 13 diplomatic messages indicated that the Japanese resolved to continue the war no matter how dire the situation had become for them, as implied by their plans to:produce synthetic aircraft fuelsorganize regional governments designed to continue the war in case an invasion occurred and occupy parts of the countryinduct boys ages 14 and older among Japanese colonists in China.You see? All the Magic decrypts showed an unequivocal determination to continue fighting and refusal to capitulate. This fact alone makes a mockery of the claim that Japan was about to surrender.Next, let’s examine the basis of the myth: Japanese peace-seeking attempts.There were indeed attempts to negotiate an end to war made by Japanese diplomatic and military representatives in foreign nations. However, promoters of the ready-to-surrender myth have either conveniently omitted or overlooked one crucial fact: those Japanese peace-feelers were not empowered to negotiate on behalf of the Japanese government. It follows that their intentions and attempts were not approved by the Japanese government (or more accurately the Big Six)MAGIC uncovered genuine attempts to secure peace for Japan by Japanese representatives serving in Japanese embassies in foreign countries. There were several notable attempts by in Switzerland, the Vatican, and Sweden.In Switzerland, Naval attache Commander Yoshiro Fujimura sought to establish a diplomatic channel to negotiate peace between between the US and Japanese governments. I recounted his commendable attempt here. However, his attempt ended in utter failure due to Japanese military leaders’s apathy toward any peace talk with the US or Britain.Simultaneously with Fujimura’s endeavor, Japan’s military attaché in Zurich and Basel, Lieutenant General Seigo Okamoto, personally made an attempt to negotiate peace with the US. He explained his intentions to Army Chief of Staff Umezu. He hoped to gain official blessing for the talk by appealing to his long-standing friendship with Umezu. But Okamoto’s attempt also failed utterly.In Stockholm, minister Suemasa Okamoto attempted to persuade the Swedish government to facilitate peace talk between the US and Japan. Unfortunately, his commendable but unapproved attempt was flatly rejected by the vice chief of the Imperial Army General Staff as revealed by Magic decrypts dated 24th June 1945:As we have said before, Japan is firmly determined to prosecute the Greater East Asia war to the very end. There is a report, however, to the effect that some Japanese official stationed in Sweden is making peace overtures to America. That is demagoguery pure and simple, and if you have any idea as to the source of those reports please inform us.These genuine peace attempts had two commonalities:They were initiated by Japanese representatives in foreign countries, far away from the military-controlled government in Tokyo.They all failed due to army leaders’ lack of interest in peace talk with the Western Allies.The 2nd point is telling in that it demonstrated the power of army leaders in any political matter: including diplomacy. Without their authorization, no one was entitled to negotiate with the Allies. The fact that all of these secret peace talks failed utterly pointed to a complete lack of desire of army leaders to negotiate peace with the Allies, let alone surrender.That refusal to capitulate and the determination to keep fighting will become more obvious through examining MAGIC documents concerning Japanese diplomatic dealings with the Soviet Unions.Japanese dealing with the Soviet UnionWhile the Big Six shunned negotiations with the Allies, they chose to negotiate with the Soviet Unions to effect an end to the war on terms favorable to Japan. Indeed, a topic that drew great attention from Magic analysts was Japan’s evolving relation with the Soviet Unions which developed from:Japanese wartime leaders’ concern over the prospect of Soviet violation or cancellation of the Neutrality Pact (signed in April 1941) which would likely entail Soviet military aggression against Japan in Manchuria.The hope that the Soviets could somehow be persuaded to mediate an end of war. This hope arose much later in 1945.Since the start fo 1945, Japan’s foreign ministers, Mamoru Shigemitsu and later Shigenori Togo instructed Japanese ambassador to the Soviet Union Naotake Satō to gauge Soviets’ intention toward Japan. The Japanese government feared that as the defeat of Germany was inevitable and Japan’s situation was deteriorating rapidly, the Soviets would exploit Japan’s weakness to opportunistically attack and seize Manchuria.Through several meetings with Soviet foreign minister Molotov, Sato realized that Japan was facing potential danger posed by the Soviet Union and urged the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to make concessions to forestall Soviet hostile moves.Starting since June 1945, Magic decrypts revealed intriguing Japanese intention with regard to the Soviet Union.On 1st June 1945, Togo sent Sato the message below:In view of our situation both at home and abroad, it is quite clear that we will find it extremely difficult to reach any settlement with Russia. We must realize, however, that it is a matter of the utmost urgency that we should not only prevent Russia from entering the war, but should also induce them to adopt a favorable attitude toward Japan. I would therefore like you to miss no opportunity to talk to the Soviet leaders.To discourage the Soviets from entering the war against Japan, Japanese diplomats attempted all kinds of talks such as forming an alliance, renouncing fishing right in exchange for Soviet supply of oil, renouncing the terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese war, etc…Of course, the pragmatic Soviets were fully aware that the Japanese were just trying to buy time to delay defeat. Hence, they had no interest in dealing with the Japanese.Soviet indifference alarmed Togo and compelled him to try harder in the diplomatic gamble. On 11th July 1945, he sent Togo the two cables below:We are now secretly giving consideration to termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad. Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov ... you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war...While we naturally hope[d] to obtain a treaty through negotiations between Hirota and Malik, those talks are also intended to find out the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war. We should like to know the views of the Russian government on this subject with all haste.And:Despite the last statement in my previous message, it would appear suitable to make clear to the Russians our general attitude with regard to termination of the war. Therefore, please tell them that:“We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting Peace—has absolutely no ideas of annexing or holding the territories occupied as a result of the war.”One noteworthy point: the Japanese government was seeking to enlist Soviet help in “ending the war”. Just exactly what the Japanese meant by “ending the war” was extremely vague and suggested a lack of a definite desire for peace.On 12th July 1945, Togo sent Sato a message marked “Very Urgent”:I have not yet received a wire about your interview with Molotov. Accordingly, though it may smack a little of attacking without sufficient reconnaissance, we think it would be appropriate to go a step further on this occasion and before the opening of the Three Power [i.e Potsdam] Conference, inform the Russians of the Imperial Will concerning the ending of the war. We should therefore like you to present this matter to Molotov in the following terms:His Majesty the Emperor mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the people of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland. His Majesty is deeply reluctant to have any further blood lost among the people on both sides, and it is his desire, for the welfare of humanity, to restore peace with all possible speed...It is the Emperor’s private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy with a letter from him containing the statements given above. Please inform Molotov of this and get the Russians’ consent to having the party enter the country.Two noteworthy points in the cable above:Damning evidence that the Japanese government preferred fighting to the bitter end over accepting unconditional surrender.The intervention of Emperor Hirohito in diplomatic dealing with the Soviets.While his superiors in Tokyo demonstrated a complete loss of touch with reality, Ambassador Saito displayed tremendous rationality. He candidly and accurately pointed out the flaw in the various instructions Togo had sent: a complete lack of realistic terms on the part of the Japanese government. Sato argued convincingly that realistic terms were indispensable to elicit Soviet interest in engaging in a negotiation.In all of Togo messages addressed to Sato, the Japanese government offered zero realistic terms. Losing most of its naval assets, the IJN had been reduced to an ineffective fighting force. Most of Japan’s territories gained during the war were of little economic value beyond natural resources. The offer of fishing rights was just ludicrous. In response to Togo’s “Very urgent” message on 12th July, Sato conveyed his unequivocal and scathing remark:How much of an effect do you expect our statements regarding the non-annexation and non-possession of territories which we have already lost or are shout to lose will have on the Soviet authorities?As you are well aware, the Soviet authorities are extremely realistic and it extremely difficult to persuade them with abstract arguments. We certainly will not convince them with pretty little phrases devoid of all connection with reality.If the Japanese Empire is really faced with the necessity of terminating the war, we must first of all make up our own minds to terminate the war. Unless we make up our own mind here is absolutely no point in sounding out the views of the Soviet Government.Most tellingly however, is that Sato incisively argued that since the unlikelihood of enticing the Soviets meant that Japan had no choice but to accept unconditional surrender:in the long run . . . has indeed no choice but to accept unconditional surrender or terms closely Equivalent thereto.I would like to point out, however, that even on the basis of your various messages I have obtained no clear idea of the recent situation. Nor am I clear about the views of the Government and the Military with regard to the termination of the war. Moreover, I have been of the opinion that, if it were finally decided to bring the war to an end, it would be necessary to obtain a new formal resolution which would be sufficient to overrule the decision reached at the conference held in the Imperial Presence on 8 June.Now, being a rational realist that he was, Sato was also a committed patriot who revered the Emperor. Hence, he appealed for accepting unconditional surrender with one condition: the preservation of the Emperor and Imperial Institution.Here was Togo’s response to Sato’s rational assessment? The answer is in his 17th July 1945 message:Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind in the face of an enemy who will attack repeatedly. If today, when we are still maintaining our strength, the Anglo-Americans were to have regard for Japan’s honor ' and existence, they could save humanity by bringing the war to an end. If however, they insist unrelentingly upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese are unanimous in their resolve to wage a through-going war.The Emperor himself has deigned to express his determination and we have therefore made this request of the Russians. Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians’ mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.Two things that stood out from the message above:A non-committal desire to “solicit Soviet’s favor” without offering any realistic term.Most conspicuous of all: the refusal to accept unconditional surrender and the determination to fight to the end.Saito responded to Togo’s message on 17th July, trying to awaken his superiors to the reality:It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving our national structure [i.e., the Imperial system]. Although I have no fear that you misunderstood what I said in the last part of my 8th June message, I am wiring this for your information.In connection with the question of preserving our national structure.......we must create a strong impression [with the Soviets] that our proposals represent the positive demands of Japan’s 70 million people.Except for the matter of maintenance of our national structure, I think that we must absolutely not propose any conditions. The situation has already reached the point where we have no alternative but unconditional surrender or its equivalent.Here is Togo’s response on 21st July 1945,With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. Even if the war drags on and it becomes clear that it will take much more than bloodshed, the whole country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender. It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, which is not so-called unconditional surrender, through the good offices of Russia...Therefore, it is not only impossible for us to request the Russians to lend their good offices in obtaining a peace without conditions, but it would also be both disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms.Once again the same complete absence of unambiguous and realistic terms to the Soviets AND the unequivocal rejection of demand for unconditional surrender.And here is Togo’s public announcement in response to the broadcasts by Captain Zacharias:The fact that the Americans alluded to the Atlantic Charter is particularly worthy of attention at this time. It is impossible for us to accept unconditional surrender, no matter in what guise, but it is our idea to inform them by some appropriate means that there is no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter.All of these messages between Togo and Saito were deciphered and commented on by Magic experts. On July 27th, the analysts delivered a Magic Summary Report which contained the following accurate assessment of Japan’s political situation:An analysis of Japan’s situation, as revealed through Ultra sources, suggests her unwillingness to surrender stems primarily from the failure of her otherwise capable and all-powerful Army leaders to perceive that the defenses they are so assiduously fashioning actually are utterly inadequate. There is nothing in the Japanese mind to prevent capitulation per se, as demonstrated by the advocacy of virtual unconditional surrender by an increasing number of highly placed Japanese abroad. However, until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies.Summary of Magic insightsHopefully the preceding presentation of facts has demonstrated beyond any dispute the true picture of Japanese intention in the chaotic last months of the Pacific War.While it is true that there were attempts to open diplomatic channels to negotiate for peace with the US, those attempts were carried out entirely by representatives of the Japanese government; and they failed utterly due to the lack of official blessing of army leaders in Tokyo who wielded absolute political influence.Even in diplomatic dealings with the Soviet Union, the Japanese government displayed appalling ineptitude evidenced through its lack of specific diplomatic objectives beyond the general desire of keeping the Soviets from entering the war against Japan and attempting to persuade the Soviets to mediate an end to the war. They did not even define exactly what “end to the war” meant; and they asked the rational Sato to negotiate with the Soviets without providing him with clear and realistic terms to elicit Soviet interest in negotiating.Most importantly, as far as Magic evidence reveals, there was NO attempt, official or unofficial, on the part of the Big Six to negotiate with the Western Allies for peace. Instead, what Magic experts had seen led them to the conclusion that Japanese army leaders consistently rejected Allied demand for unconditional and resolved to fight to the bitter end. After reading Magic Summary Report, Joseph Grew stated in an announcement to the press on 10th July 1945:We have received no peace offer from the Japanese Government, either through official or unofficial channels. Conversations relating to peace have been reported to the Department from various parts of the world, but in no case has an approach been made to this Government, directly or indirectly, by a person who could establish his authority to speak for the Japanese government, and in no case has an offer to surrender been made. In no case has this Government been presented with a statement purporting to define the basis upon which the Japanese government would be prepared to conclude peace…Japanese determination to continue fightingJapanese refusal to accept Allies’ demand for unconditional surrender was accompanied by the determination to continue fighting. In the last months of the war, Ultra uncovered an alarming increase in Japanese military strength in Kyushu - the chief target of operation Olympic. Having deduced accurately where and when the American invasion would be mounted, the Japanese stationed large number of troops, weapons near the invasion areas. In addition, they stockpiled thousands of aircraft, motor boats and sea crafts for kamikaze attacks.Japanese intention was clear. They would endeavor to inflict heavy casualties on the invaders in the hope that US leaders - horrified by the losses - would seek to negotiate an end to the fighting. At the negotiation conference, Japanese leaders would dictate terms from an advantageous position that would allow the Japanese to exit the war with the honor of the Empire preserved and some gains of their previous conquest retained.Reference(s)1/ Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire - Richard B. Frank2/ Hirohito’s War: War in the Pacific - Francis Pikes

Were inquisitors agents of the state with permission from the church to determine heresy? Or were they church officials with permission from the crown/state to arrest and punish their subjects? Or were they a third-party with permissions from both?At the time of the Medieval Inquisition, there were over a hundred Kingdoms and Duchies and Baronies, etc. across Europe, with some Princes, Earls and Dukes having power equal to that of any king. Each territory belonged to its noble ruler, and a Church Inquisition could only be established with the ‘permission’ of said ruler and the joint involvement— with the clerics—of that ruler’s local civil authorities. Medieval Inquisitors were agents of the church and agents of the state acting with permission of both authorities. They were, in a way, a composite third party with permission from both.The ‘modern’ inquisitions—the Spanish, Roman, and Portuguese Inquisitions — received their commissions from the church but were fully controlled by their respective crowns. Even the Roman Inquisition had secular influences. The Spanish and Portuguese had government ‘boards’ that directed and monitored them. After the 1400s, only a few Spanish or Portuguese inquisitors were from the religious orders. These inquisitions were tools of the state.In contrast, no Pope ever succeeded in establishing complete control over the prosecution of heresy.[1]Historians have distinguished four manifestations of the Inquisition: The Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, and the Portuguese Inquisition.The Medieval Inquisition was actually a series of Inquisitions beginning from around 1184. It included the Episcopal Inquisition (1184–1230s) and the Papal Inquisition, which started in the 1230s.The long history of the Inquisition divides easily into two major parts: its creation by the medieval papacy in the early thirteenth century, and its transformation between 1478 and 1542 into permanent governmental bureaucracies—the Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman Inquisitions, all of which endured into the nineteenth century. [2]That answers your question directly I think, but if you want to understand more about how the inquisitions worked and why they came about in the first place, I invite you to read on.THE CREATION OF INQUISITION: THE MEDIEVAL INQUISITIONSORIGINS:In the Late Roman Empire, an inquisitorial system of justice developed that allowed magistrates to investigate crimes in the absence of formal charges being brought. The roles of evidence collector, prosecutor, and judge were combined in the individual magistrate—the inquisitor.For both civil and criminal investigations, the use of torture as a means of interrogation expanded from the investigation of treason and became used for other crimes as well, and it also went from being used solely for interrogating slaves to being used on Roman citizens.This inquisitorial process was in place when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity in the fourth century and it is the system that was revived in the middle ages.Heresy was viewed as a threat to the social order—even a kind of treason— and was therefore a civil crime more than a religious one. Heretics of the middle ages refused to honor the oaths that bound feudal life together, therefore, civil authorities of the time saw heresy as an attack against the social and political order as well as an attack on orthodoxy—and orthodoxy also held society together.Heresy was both hated and feared by the common people.A heretic was regarded in the same manner as we might regard someone carrying a highly contagious and incurable deadly disease. We would lock such a person up where they would not come in contact with anyone.The people of the Middle Ages killed them. Moreover, they often killed them in public, in horrible ways, as a warning to everyone of how dangerous heresy was.Mob violence and rioting over heretics and heresy was more and more of a problem all across Europe from the year 1000 onward.In 1076, Pope Gregory VI excommunicated the residents of the entire town of Cambrai because a mob had seized and burned a ‘heretic’ there.In 1114 the Bishop of Soissons imprisoned some heretics, left to go ask the advice of the holy synod on what to do with them, and while he was gone, the town’s folk, fearing what they termed the “habitual soft-heartedness of ecclesiastics” (clericalem verens mollitiem), stormed the prison, took the accused outside of town, and burned them alive.And it was not just the mob that was a problem where ‘heretics’ were concerned; the civil authorities, who made their own laws for their territories, had the power to act independently without concern for church sanction, and they regularly did so.The first official execution for heresy was ordered by the King of the Franks at Orleans in 1022. In 1034, heretics were burned to death in Milan, Italy on the insistence of the leaders of that city. In 1051 the (German) Holy Roman Emperor Henry III, ordered multiple hangings at Goslar.Of the two most famous and best-known heretics of that time, Peter of Bruys was burned at the stake as a victim of popular fury, and Arnold of Brescia died under the henchman's axe as a victim of his political enemies who used ‘heresy’ as their excuse.In response, the church felt the need to make some kind of effort to bring law and order to what was increasing lawlessness.Medieval inquisitions were founded as an emergency-type response to civil unrest and included representatives of both civil and church authority.THE EPISCOPAL INQUISITIONIn 1184 Pope Lucius the third issued a decree establishing the Episcopal Inquisition by papal bull entitled Ad abolendam. (It was called "episcopal" because it was administered by local bishops, which in Latin is episcopus.)It can be said that, for the purposes of law and order, the church reintroduced Roman law in Europe in the form of Inquisition when it seemed Germanic law had failed.[3]The Bishops were supposed to follow guidelines from the Pope, but in reality, there was no uniformity. They were each independent, and their practices and procedures varied greatly. During this period, the tribunals were almost entirely free from oversight by any authority but their own, including that of the pope.The trials were conducted in the presence of either the Bishop himself or his representative and the stipulated number of local laymen, and they followed, for the most part, contemporary legal practice.[4]CHARACTERISTICSWhat most people think of as the characteristic features of Medieval Inquisitions were actually the characteristics of the civil courts of the time.For example, it was common in the civil courts to examine witnesses in secret and to obtain their ‘testimony’ through the use of torture before entering court.However, torture was neither prescribed or even allowed by church law at this time. Local laymen could be convincing that they had ‘more experience handling law-breakers’ than church-men did— ‘their methods should therefore be relied upon.’ So depending upon where you were, and who the Bishop was, these church and local authorities could be in opposition over the use of torture, or they could collude and allow the torture the church was professedly against. The tendency to allow it increased over time.Heresy was against both civil and church law, but civil punishments tended to be much harsher than the church’s: imprisonment, confiscation of goods, and burning at the stake were all carried out by the civil governments.The tradition of burning at the stake is a very ancient one, but during the middle ages it was seen as a fit punishment for heresy because it was comparable to Rome’s punishment for treason. Roman law in the Code of Justinian had (long before the Middle Ages) made heresy a capital offense.However, the burning of heretics was not common in these early Inquisitions; the usual punishments were penance, paying a fine, and imprisonment. Many states gave the Church permission to use the death penalty in their territory, but it was not imposed much by the church of the middle ages, as it had many opponents within the church.A depiction of penance:For the church, convinced that its teaching contained divinely revealed truth, their first recourse was persuasio—to talk, debate, and preach—to change people’s minds. This approach was often successful and no other ‘punishment’ followed.In medieval inquisitions a defendant could name their enemies and thereby nullify the ‘evidence’ being offered against them. Charges were made clear from the beginning, and they were given a fair opportunity to defend themselves; recanting was sufficient to end proceedings which were public.It is worth stressing that, for more than five centuries, the average European Christian approved of the activities of the Inquisitions. Inquisitions depended upon the cooperation of local people to denounce heretics and upon local secular authorities to punish them.Interestingly, the inquisitors never composed written justifications for their activities because their basic purpose seemed self-evidently beneficial to ‘good Christians.’ [5]CIVIL LEADERSThe nobility pursued the enforcement of civil law against heresy in their own ways.To offer a few examples, in 1197, Peter II, King of Aragon, issued an edict expelling all heretics from his lands: whoever was still in his kingdom after Palm Sunday of the next year was to suffer death by fire and confiscation of all his—or her—worldly goods.King Philip Augustus of France had eight Cathars burnt at Troyes in 1200, one at Nevers in 1201, several (at Braisne-sur-Vesle) in 1204, and at Paris he burned "priests, clerics, laymen and women.”The Church’s goal for the early Inquisitions was to bring order and law to volatile and violent situations. They wanted people to recant, abjure, convert, not die.But the secular and the ecclesiastical often ended up working at cross purposes.A verdict of guilty meant the confiscation of property by the civil ruler, who might turn over part of it to the church. This practice led to graft, blackmail, and simony and also created suspicion of some of the inquests.The church was not immune to such corruption either. In the case of Venice, the church’s inquisitors became notorious for their frauds against the Church, for enriching themselves with confiscated property from the heretics, and for the selling of absolutions. Because of their corruption, they were eventually forced by the Pope to suspend their activities in 1302.Generally, church inquisitors were eager to receive abjurations of heresy and to avoid trials.Secular rulers, on the other hand, came to use the persecution of heresy as a weapon of state, as in the case of the suppression of the Knights Templars. [6]The Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick the II, not only made increasingly harsh laws against heretics, he used those laws to eliminate several of his personal enemies under the pretext of heresy.Were inquisitors agents of the state with permission from the church to determine heresy? Or were they church officials with permission from the crown/state to arrest and punish their subjects? Or were they a third-party with permissions from both?As you can plainly see, as far as the Medieval Inquisitions go, power and responsibility were shared. There was some abuse of power on the part of the church for allowing the state to use torture, which the church was supposed to stand against, but most abuses of power were on the state side because civil authorities took advantage in criminal ways and used the threat of heresy as a weapon for personal gain.THE MODERN INQUISITIONS: THE SPANISH INQUISITIONIn 1469, Ferdinand married his cousin Isabella, uniting Aragón and Castile, the Iberian peninsula’s two most powerful kingdoms, into a united Spain. They were Spain’s first monarchs.ORIGINSThe Ottoman Empire was expanding and Ferdinand feared Spain was not strong enough to repel an Ottoman attack. They were known as fierce fighters who were seldom defeated. If the Ottomans had internal help from spies, that could add to the balance against Spain.Ferdinand and Isabella convinced Pope Sixtus IV that former Jews who might be ‘false converts’ and therefore willing to act as spies was a justified concern. They requested an inquisition in Spain in 1478 aimed, initially, at investigating the loyalty of those who were only pretending to be converted so they could spy.The Pope granted the iniquisition, but the initial Inquisitors proved so severe, the Pope decided almost immediately to shut it down.Ferdinand refused. The Spanish crown now had in its possession a weapon too powerful to give up. The Inquisition functioned as a private, sort of “secret police” for the Crown.The Pope wrote against the Spanish Inquisition.Ferdinand responded by ‘blackmailing’ the Pope with threats of withdrawing his troops (which were protecting Rome from the Ottomans), and then with threats of withdrawing Spain from Papal authority altogether as Germany and England had.The Cardinals pressed the Pope to back down. He did.FUNCTIONBy the end of the fifteenth century (the 1400s), Inquisitions were headed by a Grand Inquisitor who was supposed to be named by the Pope. In 1483, Pope Sixtus was induced to give the Spanish crown the authority to choose the grand inquisitor for Castile. Ferdinand went on to name the infamous Torquemada as Grand Inquisitor.During the same year, Aragon, Valencia and Catalonia also fell under the power of the Inquisition.Methods of torture were, in the old Roman manner, used to extract confessions (as opposed to being used as a punishment in its own right), but women, children, the infirm, and the aged—no one was exempt.Historians now assert that in the entire 400 year history of the Spanish Inquisition, only about 3000-4000 people died, but that misses the point. It was the fear it generated—not death—that was Ferdinand’s weapon of choice.On 2 January 1492, the leader of the last Muslim stronghold in Granada surrendered to the armies of the recently united Catholic Spain.Ferdinand used the Inquisition to increase control of his lands, to establish unity behind the throne, and to eliminate any possible source of opposition. Religion and fear were the tools he used to ensure loyalty to the throne—just as Rome had done before him.Despite popular belief, as portrayed and spread by Monty Python, the role of the Spanish Inquisition as a mainly religious institution, or religious in nature at all, is contested at best.Were inquisitors agents of the state with permission from the church to determine heresy? Or were they church officials with permission from the crown/state to arrest and punish their subjects? Or were they a third-party with permissions from both?Historians have for the most part concluded the Spanish Inquisition was a secular, political tool of the crown. It was used by a man with political motives who employed religion and this legal institution for his own ends while the church was powerless to stop it.ROMAN INQUISITIONORIGINSIn 1542, Pope Paul III assigned all the various medieval inquisitions to the Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office. This institution which became known as the Roman Inquisition was part of the Catholic Church's Counter-Reformation movement against the spread of Protestantism.Under Paul III and his successor Julius III, and under most of the popes thereafter, the activity of the Roman Inquisition was relatively restrained. Julius ruled that, although it had universal jurisdiction, it should in principle limit its operations to the papal states in Italy. It mostly did so.Furthermore, by contrast to the Spanish Inquisitions, sentencing was conducted in private rather than in mass public autos. Its sentences also tended to be more lenient. The Roman Inquisition was considerably more bureaucratic than other inquisitions.Where the medieval Inquisition had focused on popular misconceptions which resulted in the disturbance of public order, the Roman Inquisition was concerned with orthodoxy of a more intellectual, academic nature, especially as it appeared in the writings of theologians.[7]Cardinal Carafa became Pope Paul IV in 1555 and immediately urged a vigorous pursuit of "suspects." His search for heretics included bishops and even cardinals of the Church. He also commisioned local congregations with drawing up a list of books which ‘offended faith or morals’—such as Protestant writings, the Bible in the vernacular, and so on. This resulted in the first Index of Forbidden Books in 1559.[8]But the Roman Inquisition is probably best known for its condemnation of the difficult and cantankerous Galileo.GALILEO GALILEIThe problem with Galileo was not the church vs. science of popular myth. It began with rival scientists out of professional jealousy, and with Galileo himself, who was arrogant and abrasive and alienated them instead of convincing them of his view. The problem elevated because the church accepted the view of the secular majority on the science, and because an ambitious, but scientifically illiterate preacher, fanned the flames, and because the sensitive and autocratic Pope felt snubbed and humiliated by one of Galileo's books.It was a conflict of egos.ENDINGIn the 1700s, various Italian states used their civil authority to suppress the local inquisitions instead of support them thereby effectively eliminating the power of the church to prosecute heretical crimes.The Roman Inquisition came to a gradual, bureaucratic end. In 1908, Pius X renamed it the Congregation of the Holy Office, and a few years later its duties were merged with those of the Congregation of the Index. In 1965 Pope Paul VI reorganized the Holy Office and changed its name to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; he eliminated the Index altogether the following year.[9]Were inquisitors agents of the state with permission from the church to determine heresy? Or were they church officials with permission from the crown/state to arrest and punish their subjects? Or were they a third-party with permissions from both?Secular scientists provided the basis for the church’s stand against Galileo, and Galileo did contribute to his own difficulties, but it was ultimately the Pope himself who acted.WITCH TRIALSThe witch trials don’t have a single inquisition of their own as they were tried over a period of centuries by multiple inquisitions and civil authorities. However, most of the witch trials were held by secular courts.The official position of the Roman Catholic Church throughout almost the entire Middle Ages was that witches did not exist.Christianity condemned the belief in witches in medieval canon law in a passage called the Canon Episcopi that takes the position the perceptions of the common people about witches are deceptions, dreams or illusions.In order to get in trouble with the church for witchcraft before the 1300s, you would have had to openly proclaim yourself a witch, in which case you would have been punished for believing in witches—not for actually being one.The Canon had many supporters, and still seems to have been supported by the theological faculty at the University of Paris in 1400. It was never repudiated by any majority of bishops, or by the Council of Trent which immediately preceded the peak of the witch trials. It was never removed or changed.ORIGINSPrior to 1300, records show complaints about witchcraft are so rare it is impossible to detect any pattern of accusation, but by the century and a half between 1500 and 1660, a wave of fear flooded across parts of Europe leaving thousands dead in its wake.The big question here is not, ‘was the secular or religious more responsible?’ The big question is why? Why did this happen? Especially if the church was originally against it?In 1428, witch trials began in the French-speaking lower Valais, but the true epicenter of the witch hunts became Europe’s German-speaking heartland, an area that makes up modern-day Germany, Switzerland, northern Italy, some of northeastern France, and what is now Belgium. From there, witch-mania spread to England and the British Isles, later going east to Hungary, and north to Scandanavia.A map showing European witch trials.In 1572, the killings in Germany began when the civil authorities in the tiny settlement of St Maximin in present-day Germany charged a woman named Eva with using witchcraft to murder a child. Eva confessed, under torture, and she, along with two women she implicated, were burned at the stake.By the mid-1590s, the same territory that burned Eva, burned 500 people as witches—an astonishing feat for a place that only had 2,200 residents to begin with.Most trials were civil, executions were the purview of those courts, and witches were generally accused by their fellow town-folks.The church was conflicted: on the one hand, the church continues to support its written law saying there is no such thing as witches. Several church theologians take a stand on that and openly oppose witch trials. On the other hand, the church courts receive complaints about witches and do prosecute them.That’s because the majority of the people of this time—the educated churchmen and the uneducated common folk alike—believed witches were real no matter what the church said.They believed witches were real and harming others—helpless infants, the elderly, the sick—and that they did so because they were malevolent. Most of Grimm’s Fairy tales are based on old German folktales, and nearly all of them contain a malevolent witch of some sort. Think of ‘Hansel and Gretel’ and ‘Rapunzel;’ the witches in those stories cast wicked spells intent on doing harm to others.Fear grew among some medieval Christian theologians right along side the fear held by ordinary people. Witches were the Reformation age’s serial killer, the terrorist strapped with a bomb, the hidden thing with the power to do you and yours harm from out of the dark where you cannot prepare and protect yourself or those you love.Historian Julian Goodare says witch-hunters of the era were so convinced of this that they accepted stereotyped answers to leading questions—evidence they would not have accepted in other trials. Fear drove them to violate their own legal standards. The escalating numbers of confessions—voluntary and otherwise—only provided further “proof” to them of the terrifying scale of this witchcraft ‘conspiracy.’Sociologists use the term “moral panic” to describe this.There is some disagreement among historians over this, but it appears fear was whipped into a frenzy by a book, written by a defrocked priest named Kramer. He wrote a witch-hunter’s manual (the Malleus Maleficarum) explaining how to recognize witches, and what to do about them. It was propaganda as much as a ‘how-to’— like Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, and Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Both it and Kramer were repudiated by the church, but it was still printed by the newly minted Güttenburg press over 30 times in 200 years. It out-sold the Bible.FUNCTIONIn-depth historical research regarding details of different types of magic, theological heresies, and the political climate of the Reformation have revealed that Inquisitorial procedures did actually work to restrain witch hunting—at least in Italy—among the common people and civil authorities.In 1588 the Roman Curia stated it would only allow testimony about participation in a ‘Black Sabbath’ by the practitioners themselves and not by outside witnesses. Additionally, the Inquisition would eventually ban torture for the procurement of a witchcraft confession.[10]The Holy Office also began seeking less harsh punishment for witches and viewed witches as those who had simply lost their way and who could be redeemed— not as apostates deserving death.POSSIBLE CAUSESMuch conventional wisdom has chalked all of this up to a case of bad weather. Across Europe, it suddenly got wetter and colder in a phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age.[11] Villages were pelted with hailstorms, freak frosts, floods, and plagues of mice and caterpillars. These ecological disasters were followed by crop failures, famine, inflation, and disease. Some witch trials correspond with these events, but there is sufficient discrepancy for this theory to have only modest support as a possible explanation for what happened.An alternate theory based on market competition sees the Catholic and Protestant churches as competing ‘firms’ both offering the same product: salvation. However, there is evidence of adjacent Roman Catholic and Protestant territories cooperating in exchanging information on alleged local witches, viewing them as a common threat to both, thereby making this explanation unlikely.Contrary to popular opinion, most witches were not midwives or folk healers, so that is discounted.It’s possible that witches were an actual surviving pagan cult. However, they were found over a large area, in separated places, and over a long span of time making that unlikely.Some have tried to explain witches with science, saying the fungus that grows on Rye caused hallucinations and convulsions. This theory has also been largely discredited since symptoms were neither universal nor random—and everyone ate the same bread—yet only “afflicted girls” suffered.All the many possible explanations have inadequacies, yet there is one common thread that does seem to explain both its rise and its fall: the social and economic changes of emerging modernity, climate change, and religious competition all created a climate of fear. This fear, combined with local culture and folklore, created witch-mania.A CLIMATE OF FEARThis is not the last time such a thing happens in human history.History records that Hitler created a climate of fear in Germany that led to the deaths of millions of innocent Jewish citizens. The McCarthy era used a climate of fear of communism, and only a few decades before, the KKK had used a climate of fear of immigrants in much the same way.After Charles Manson and his followers were caught, accusations of Satanic rituals ran rampant through America for awhile. Attention mainly fell on alleged child abuse, but investigators looking into these allegations tended to assume the accused were members in a Satan worshipping cult. There was even a manual for therapists on how to deal with them once they were caught.We may be seeing evidence of it trying to break out again in our modern day. Fear mongering seems to have become part of our modern political culture.OPPOSITION AND DEMISEIn spite of a climate of fear, the witch hunts never had universal support. And as time passed, opposition grew. Cautio Criminalis (Precautions for Prosecutors) was a book written by Friedrich Spee, a Jesuit priest and professor who personally witnessed witch trials in Westphalia. He describes the inhuman torture of the rack with the graphic language of the truly horrified. Driven by his priestly charge of enacting Christian charity, Spee sought to expose the flawed arguments and methods used by the witch-hunters and put an end to it.The moral impression of his book was great, and it brought about the abolition of witch trials in a number of places while also leading the way to its gradual overall suppression. Witch trials became scant in the second half of the 17th century, and their growing disfavor eventually resulted in the practice simply subsiding.A scholarly consensus estimating the total number of executions for witchcraft have only emerged in the second half of the 20th century. It has settled on 40,000 to 60,000 across all the countries involved, over the three centuries these trials occurred.Were inquisitors agents of the state with permission from the church to determine heresy? Or were they church officials with permission from the crown/state to arrest and punish their subjects? Or were they a third-party with permissions from both?The common people were the ones who brought complaints about witchcraft. The majority of witch trials were held by civil courts. Civil authorities would also have been involved in any inquisition trial, along side the churchmen. There is an argument to be made that inquisitions actually modified the effects of the fear sweeping through society.However, during the witch trials, the church was at fault for violating its own stated beliefs, and its own legal methods, and in many ways, its own faith.This is one of the most argued over topics among historians, some who see the church as responsible for the frenzy, and some who see the church as ameliorating the frenzy.There is no agreed upon answer to the question.PORTUGUESE INQUISITIONORIGINSThe Inquisition was formally introduced into Portugal in 1536. Ultimately, there were tribunals in Lisbon, Coimbra, and Evora, plus another in Goa, the Portuguese colony in India where the Portuguese Inquisition became infamous.In Portugal, the Inquisition was begun primarily to investigate the practices of those newly converted to Catholicism, including their descendants, to ensure that they were not continuing to practice their old religions. The initial focus of these investigations was directed at former Jews called ‘New Christians’ (or conversos) and crypto-Jews (professing Christians/secret Jews) who had been expelled from Spain and moved west into Portugal.This "anti-Jewish obsession" of the Portuguese Inquisition initially faced resistance from Erasmists (Christian humanists), but the government won the ideological battle against peaceful evangelism, launching warnings and deploying a system of cross denunciations.FUNCTIONThe modern Spanish, Roman, and Portuguese Inquisitions generally followed the body of jurisprudence previously developed by the Medieval Inquisition, however, unlike their medieval predecessor, the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions were fully controlled by their respective crowns.Like Spain, Portugal's Inquisition was under the direction of a government board known as the General Council, which established policies and procedures, oversaw the appointment of officials and the functioning of tribunals, and served as the court of appeals.The Grand Inquisitor was chosen by the king and always came from the royal family. The crown’s “authorization” for an inquisition came from the Holy See, but after the 1400s, few Spanish or Portuguese inquisitors were from the religious orders.PECULIARITIES OF THE PORTUGUESE INQUISITIONOnce detained, the prisoner disappeared to the outside world. In order to inspire fear and prevent reprisals the courts attempted to conduct their business in the strictest secrecy. Similar secrecy within the proceedings kept the prisoner at a disadvantage. Not until well into the trial did the prisoner learn the charges against him, and never was the accused allowed to know who had given evidence against him—or, once freed, to speak about his experiences.The prosecution presented its case first, and the defendant, with the aid of a court-appointed lawyer, could then, finally, respond. At this point, if the defendant's confession was not seen as sufficient, the tribunal would vote on the question of torture: what kind and how much. (In reality, torture was employed in less than 3 percent of cases.)[12]The large majority of cases that got to this point ended in guilty verdicts. In Spain and Portugal, the final act in the trial was the public auto-da-fé, where prisoners were sentenced amid great ceremony; actual punishments were carried out separately.Between its first auto-da-fé held in 1540 and the reduction of its powers in 1760, it is estimated that, of some thirty thousand cases tried, nearly 1200 Judaizers were condemned to death in the mainland venues alone, and another six hundred were burned in effigy because they had already died in prison. Though the numbers were smaller, the rate of capital punishment was actually higher by comparison to the Spanish Inquisition and consistently more focused on conversos and crypto-Jews.The last public auto-da-fe in Portugal took place in 1765, but the Inquisition itself was only abolished in 1821, when the country went through a constitutionalist insurrection.EVOLUTION OF POWERAlthough the focus of the inquisitorial action in Portugal was originally toward the ‘New Christian’ Jewish converts, the Court applied tireless vigilance over the practices and conduct of ‘Old Christians’ as well.According to historians, between 1536 and 1605, the Inquisition stepped up its attention on Protestants—Erasmians, Lutherans, Alumbrados—along with healers, witches, and all those who had sexual behavior considered deviant: bigamists, polygamists, prostitutes, and homosexuals.It gradually added the monitoring of printed documents and manuscripts to its oversight as well. This was enabled by governmental control over trade, the granting of printing licenses, and the list of titles banned by the Council of Trent.The Portuguese Inquisition eventually exerted influence over almost every aspect of Portuguese society: political, cultural, and social.BLOOD PURITY AND ETHNIC NATIONALISMAlonso Sánchez Coello - Felipe II como Rey de PortugalThe first statute of purity of blood appeared in Toledo in 1449. Initially these statutes were condemned by the Church, but in 1496, the highly corrupt Pope Alexander VI approved a ‘blood purity’ statute for one of the religious orders.Portuguese religious and military orders, guilds, and other organizations increasingly incorporated in their bylaws ethnic clauses demanding proof of ‘cleanliness of blood.’There is a deep connection between the rise of the Felipes in Portugal, the growth of the inquisition, and the increasingly broad adoption of the statutes of purity of blood which were more concerned with ethnic ancestry than religion.[13]Those with a mixed background—which was most people— had to either contend with the social consequences and restrictions imposed by their circumstances, or bribe and falsify documents attesting to generations of ‘good Christian-Portuguese ancestry.’ [14]This is the same type of ethnic nationalism found in Spain and in later Nazi Germany.VICTIMSGoa IndiaThe Portuguese Inquisition expanded its scope of operations from Portugal to its colonial possessions, including Brazil, Cape Verde, and Goa, India. Frances Xavier, co-founder of the Jesuit order which was begun in response to Protestantism, suspecting that many newly converted Christians in India continued to practice their old religions, requested that the Inquisition be extended to Goa. However, it was not until eight years after Xavier’s death (1560) that the Inquisition was established there.Goa was originally founded and built by ancient Hindu kingdoms and had served as a capital of the Kadamba dynasty.In the late 13th-century, a Muslim invasion led to the plunder of Goa and Islamic occupation.Then in the 14th-century, Hindu rulers reconquered and occupied it.It became part of Bahmani Sultanate in the 15th century, and was under the rule of Sultan Adil Shah of Bijapur when Vasco da Gama reached Calicut, India in 1498.When Vasco da Gama got home and told the crown what he had found, Portugal sent an armed fleet to conquer the territory and create a colony in India. This was accomplished in 1510.[15]Goa became the center of Portuguese colonial possessions in India and of its activities in other parts of Asia. It also served as the key—highly lucrative—trading center between the Portuguese and the Hindu empire and the Muslim Sultanate.The Inquisition was the judicial system over its residents: Indian Catholics, Hindus, and Portuguese settlers from Europe (mostly New Christians and Jews).In the two and a half centuries the inquisition endured there, it was responsible for the deaths and misery of tens of thousands of people, most of whom were Indian.The Inquisition considered those who had converted to Catholicism and continued their former Hindu customs and cultural practices as heretics. Eventually, there was an effort to eradicate those practices including the indigenous language Konkani.Between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, at least 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Almost all of the Goa Inquisition's records were burnt by the Portuguese when the inquisition was abolished in 1820, therefore it is impossible to know the exact number of those put on trial and the punishments they were prescribed.Other records such as those left by the French physician Charles Dellon, who was also a victim of the Goan Inquisition, suggest that nearly 70% of those found guilty of Crypto-Hinduism were executed, that many prisoners starved to death, and that racial discrimination against Indians was rampant. Goan blood purity didn’t count in their favor.The Goa Inquisition persecuted non-Portuguese Christian missionaries and physicians, such as those from France as well.In the 16th-century, the Portuguese clergy became jealous of a French priest operating in Madras (now Chennai); they lured him to Goa, then had him arrested and sent to the inquisition.Charles Dellon, the 18th-century French physician, was another example of a Christian arrested and tortured by the Goa Inquisition for questioning Portuguese missionary practices in India.[16]DEMISEBetween 1620 and 1674, the most violent period in the history of the Court, not only were those suspected of "judaizing in secret" taken to prisons, but also those sympathetic to the victims were taken, as well as those who disagreed with the inquisitorial methods of repression like the famous Antonio Vieira.The clash between Vieira and the Inquisition eventually led to the suspension of the activities of the Court by the pope. It was briefly suppressed from 1774 to 1778 following complaints made by the New Christian conversos to the Roman curia, questioning the procedures adopted by the Holy Office when extracting the confession of the accused and the fairness of the sentences imposed.The new version of the Inquisition, composed a year later, led to the redefinition of the practice of denunciation and the criminalization of suspects, since the ‘charge in secret’ had become permanently forbidden.The Marquis de PombalThe use of the inquisitorial machine by the Marquis of Pombal to silence his political rivals and opponents explains the episodes that marked the last days of the Portuguese Inquisition, including the execution of the Távoras and of the Italian Jesuit Gabriel Malagrida.It continued until finally abolished in 1820. Shaken in its structure, data brought up by researchers reveals that the inquisition eventually let itself be defeated because it no longer had supporters and sympathizers. [17]Were inquisitors agents of the state with permission from the church to determine heresy? Or were they church officials with permission from the crown/state to arrest and punish their subjects? Or were they a third-party with permissions from both?There is no doubt this was a state institution run by state authorities, but it could not have functioned as it did without church backing and involvement.The Inquisition was used as an instrument of social control against Indian Catholics and Hindus, and also against Portuguese settlers from Europe (mostly New Christians and Jews but also Old Christians). It was also a method of confiscating property and enriching the Inquisitors.It was the worst of all the inquisitions and its ‘pure blood’ ethnic ideology, if modern evidences are anything to go by, is what largely drove that.Footnotes[1] Medieval Inquisition - Wikipedia[2] Inquisition, The: The Inquisition in the Old World[3] Inquisition, The: The Inquisition in the Old World[4] Medieval Inquisition - Wikipedia[5] From start to finish: the history of the Portuguese Inquisition revisited[6] Inquisition: The Medieval Inquisition[7] Roman Inquisition - Wikipedia[8] Historical Overview of the Inquisition[9] Inquisition[10] Roman Inquisition - Wikipedia[11] Little Ice Age - Wikipedia[12] The Marrano Factory[13] List of Portuguese monarchs - Wikipedia[14] Limpieza de sangre[15] Portuguese conquest of Goa - Wikipedia[16] Goa Inquisition - Wikipedia[17] From start to finish: the history of the Portuguese Inquisition revisited

To be absolutely sure, I feel like a true revolution in the US is a remote possibility even under the most volatile conditions. The American people have over 225 years of experience with respecting democratic traditions and the principle of laws above men, to include a bloody Civil War to look back on if ever in doubt of the consequences of failing to resolve differences peacefully (as well as a bloody Revolution that left America devastated, but that aspect of our fight for freedom does not get taught in schools as much).In short, Americans vastly prefer to resolve issues at the ballot box rather than with the ammo box.However, the question does not ask whether a revolution is likely (that’s elsewhere), or whether it would be successful, but what might trigger it. So that’s what I have limited my response to. Although the following scenario might not be probable, I feel it’s the most plausible for what could trigger a revolution in modern America.It’s 2020, and Americans have had it with the two-Party system. Two decades of “Do Nothing” Congresses fighting with successive Administrations, who have turned increasingly to governance by executive decree rather than by law, have left America with no clear domestic agenda while economic and social pressures mount.For decades, major polling firms have tracked the plummet of Americans’ attitudes towards and confidence in their government, and in recent years their moods have been at record lows. At times, even “0%” confidence has been within some polls’ margins of error.Meanwhile, gerrymander-protected Congressmen cushioned by generous campaign donations continue to protect those with access rather than advocate for the nation as a whole. “We’re just responding to the will of our constituents,” they say, even though ever more of them run in decreasingly competitive elections.The disputes in domestic policy are no longer ideological – it is no longer a matter of parties disagreeing with their vision for America – but truly the advantaged versus the disadvantaged. Wealth inequality has transformed from a topic of conversation to something people confront on a daily basis.The 2016 election was one of the most uninspiring in most Americans’ memories, with voter turnout at an historic low and enthusiasm gone beyond the Parties' truly faithful.Two years after the election, faced with still more of the same, the American people decided to make their frustration more apparent, and their resolve channeled into several victories for dark horse, third-party candidates in the 2018 Midterms. It was only a handful of members, but enough to reduce the Republican majority in the House to single-digits. Third-party wins in New England Senate races denied both Parties a majority in the Senate.Political observers expressed their hopes that the voters’ clear message of frustration with the lack of progress in government would force the parties to be more compromising in their agendas, but it did not come to pass. The president, too, did not back down in the face of the independent victories, and continued to use Congressional paralysis as reason to govern by executive order.Going into the presidential election, a charismatic, independent candidate who promises to take the fight to the established Parties grows a large following. His campaign is dubbed “Shock Therapy” for a “flat-lining” America.Despite rising support in the polls over the spring, the Commission on Presidential Debates, controlled by the Democratic and Republican Parties, goes on record as saying that it will exclude the candidate from the debates. This sparks outrage from multiple quarters – not just the candidate’s supporters – and after a demonstration outside the first debate turns violent, the CPD extends the Independent an invitation for the subsequent two debates.The Independent shines on the national stage, eviscerating the Democratic and Republican contenders, who come across as tired advocates for the status quo, unable to rise above ideology for the good of all. He surges in the polls, money and volunteers flood his campaign, and by October there are projections that he could, against all odds, secure an electoral victory.Party stalwarts and pundits, however, cast off these projections as wishful thinking, and claim that their internal polls show no signs of a mass defection towards the Independent.For the remainder of the month, Americans are bombarded with campaign rhetoric that oscillates from combative to panicked, with partisan commentators going well out of their way to demonstrate just why their candidate is all but assured of victory and what that will mean for the country.November 3, 2020Voter turnout in 2016 was down dramatically from 2012, as neither Democrats nor Republicans were particularly enthusiastic about their candidate – to say nothing of the independents’ thoughts – but early signs are that this year’s election has surged to 2008’s level, if not higher.The first polls close at 6 p.m. Eastern time, but it is not until 7 p.m. that results can be announced for certain States. Whereas in elections past the networks are easily able to declare a slew of winners at this hour, the only state they call with certainty is Vermont for the Democratic candidate.It is not necessarily a cause for alarm, though, the pundits say. Voters should be used to the traditional battlegrounds of Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina being called later in the evening. They gloss over that the reported vote tallies are alarmingly low for the traditional Parties. After some nail-biting, however, Kentucky and West Virginia are sorted into the Republican column soon after 7:30.When 8 p.m. rolls around, normalcy appears to return to the electoral landscape. The traditional Northeast, Democratic strongholds roll over to the Democrats. Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, and Oklahoma are called for the Republicans. Battleground states Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Missouri are too close to call, but as the pundits stated before, this should not be unexpected.But when a wave of votes comes in from Virginia, the status quo narrative comes to an abrupt end.The Independent candidate has won the Commonwealth with over 40 percent of the vote. At 8:30, when Arkansas predictably goes for the Republican candidate, North Carolina and Georgia are called for the Independent.Then Ohio goes.Then Florida.Commentators try to remain confident as they make projections about what the rest of the country might do, but it becomes apparent in just a matter of minutes that the electoral math is not looking good for the major Parties. Most concede that the Republican candidate will be unable to get the 270 votes needed to win the election, but surely the Democrats will hold Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, among others, and have a narrow victory.However, too many States remain in play, and the uncertainty grows the longer they remain uncalled.Late in the night, the math becomes clear: In order for the Democrats to win the election outright, they must take at least eight of the twelve outstanding States. Their window narrows once it appears that Missouri will be a toss-up between the Independent and the Republican. More results come in, and New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Colorado fall convincingly for the Independent.There’s no way around the reality of the election’s results anymore. Bewildered pundits declare an event that has not happened in the United States in almost 200 years: Nobody has won a majority of the Electoral Vote, and so the election will have to be decided by the next Congress.On Wednesday morning, the final results are even less comforting to any American who went to bed hoping the election would be settled definitively.Americans split their vote almost perfectly three ways, but the Democratic candidate edged out a slight victory in the popular vote: 35.8 percent against the Independent’s 32.3 and the Republican’s 31.9. The Independent candidate, however, appears to have prevailed with the electoral vote, earning 198 votes to the Democrat’s 186 and the Republican’s 154.Down ticket, a wave of third party candidates have been elected to the House of Representatives, but still nowhere near enough to secure an outright majority. Republicans, still benefiting from the redistricting that followed the 2010 Census, while no longer in the majority, control the most seats.Only one more third-party candidate is elected to the Senate, but the chamber’s edge is to the Democrats.Across the country, the Parties mobilize armies of lawyers and volunteers to dispute the election results before the States can certify them. Yet even if the Democratic and Republican Parties won all of the legal contests where there’s the best chance of victory, the Independent still won too many States indisputably for either of them to secure a majority in the Electoral College. It’s obvious to all that the best they can do is weaken the Independent’s position before the matter is taken up by the incoming Congress.The legal battles continue through December until, as happened 20 years prior, the Supreme Court forces the States still in contest to end their recounts and certify winners so that the incoming Congress can perform its Constitutional duty and elect the next heads of government.The result of their decision causes Missouri to flip to the Republicans, while New Mexico and Michigan edge to the Democrats. This causes the Independent to fall to second place in the electoral count, to only 3 above the Republicans, with the Democrats climbing to above 200.A week following the Supreme Court’s decision, the electors of the Electoral College meet in their respective State capitals. Throughout the week, many commentators have used their respective media platforms to urge the Independent’s electors to be faithless, believing that he will have no mandate to lead, and spare the country the agony of having Congress decide the election.Between having lost the lead in the Electoral College through partisan, acrimonious recounts and a Supreme Court ruling and being bombarded daily by pundits who believe their candidate should simply concede, the tens of millions of Americans who voted for the Independent begin to stitch a narrative together that the Parties are conspiring to nullify the impact of their votes. If anybody should bow out of the election, they say, it should be the Republicans, who placed third in both the electoral and popular votes.There are faithless electors in late December, but not from the Independent camp – and not many. Only one elector from each of the major Parties casts a vote for the Independent, which is not enough to skew the expected outcome: The Democrat leads, but not enough for victory.Americans now get a sobering lesson in the little-regarded Twelfth Amendment.With none of the candidates receiving a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives will be given the task of selecting the President of the United States. The Senate, the Vice President. But whereas each Senator is given the power to vote, in the House, each State Delegation gets a single vote. Moreover, the Twelfth Amendment restricts the selection of Vice President to the candidates who received the two highest numbers of electoral votes, thus eliminating the Republican candidate from consideration. In the House, all three leading presidential candidates are eligible for consideration.The Independent won the most electoral votes before the recounts, but there are only a handful of senators unaffiliated with the major Parties, and are no third party-dominated Delegations in the House. The Democrat won the greatest share of the popular vote before leading in the Electoral College, and the Democrats have the most Senators; but the Republicans, who lost both the popular and electoral votes, control an outright majority of Delegations in the House.January 4, 2021The new Congress convenes and immediately passes a resolution to meet in two days to count the electoral votes. Knowing the electoral situation, the House adopts rules for the counting of ballots that are identical to those passed in 1824, to respect the historic precedent and ensure consistency. After these votes and the recess of Congress, quietly, the Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders meet to discuss a compromise.The leaders agree that nobody wants to see the Independent candidates secure high office, but the question is how to block this from happening without upending the other Parties.In the Senate, the Republicans are urged to support the Democratic candidate for Vice President, as theirs is ineligible for consideration anyway. Republican leaders balk at the proposal, but are eventually persuaded to provide enough support for the Democrats to secure a one or two-vote victory – provided there are no Democratic defections.But what do the Republicans get in return? Democratic support in the House for the selection of the Republican candidate as President? The Democrats reject this. The Republicans trailed too far in the polls for that to be a legitimate possibility.Then what?If the Republicans in the House support the selection of the Democrat as President, then the Democrats will, in turn, support the election of the Republican Speaker of the House. In turn, the Vice President will resign – perhaps in exchange for a high profile cabinet position – and the then-President will select the Speaker as the new Vice President – the Speaker then replaced by another Republican. This would give the Republicans control of House leadership and tie-breaking capacity in the Senate which, given its narrow divide, would not be insignificant.The Republicans are less than convinced and offer no promises.January 6, 2021In the days since Congress convened, it appears to be ever more apparent that House Republicans are poised to select their candidate as President. Even though they came last in the election, they retained control of a large majority of State Delegations in the House. While only a few Republicans have gone on record with their express intent to vote for the Republican candidate, others point to the rules laid out in the Constitution and the necessity of honoring the law.Some Democrats and independents flirt with the possibility of a walkout unless Republicans agree to choose between the leading two candidates, but they simply do not have the numbers to deny the Republicans a Quorum and stall the vote.Tens of thousands of Americans have descended on Washington and Capitol Hill, demanding that their votes be respected. But as the demonstrators come from all camps, and the pressure on Congress already enormous, the protest does not appear to be a particularly persuasive force for those in the Capitol’s halls.A few minutes after 1 p.m., the joint session of Congress convenes in the House of Representatives to verify and count the electoral votes for President and Vice President. As expected, the result is206 for the Democratic candidates169 for the Independent candidates163 for the Republican candidatesThe joint session concludes, and the Members of Congress return to their respective chambers to select the President and Vice President.The Senate is first to go, not as a matter of custom – when the Senate was called upon to select the Vice President in 1836, the Presidential contest was not in doubt at the same time – but because it is easier to organize the roll call necessary to elect the Vice President than it is for the House to take the roll of Members, appoint Representatives as State tellers, cast and tabulate its ballots.By the time the House has confirmed that all 435 voting Members are present, the Senate has, by a larger than expected vote of 78-22, supported the Democratic candidate for Vice President. The news is instantaneously received in the House as its Members mull over their votes.One by one, Members hand their ballots into the Deans of their Delegations, each of whom then proceeds to quietly tabulate the States’ votes with another Member observing. They then wait for the Clerk to call the roll by State.As each State is called, the Sergeant-at-Arms carries two boxes to Delegation, wherein are placed two, identical ballots which declare the States’ selection. He carries one box to each side of the Rostrum, and once all boxes have been collected, 100 Members, two from each State, divide equally to tally and verify the vote of the House.The Republican candidate has prevailed.The presiding officer struggles to bring order to the Chamber as Democrats and independents loudly protest the result. Democratic leaders corner their Republican counterparts to demand answers, but are stonewalled. What are they going to do? Reveal their conspiracy to the public?Outside the Capitol, the scene is even more raucous, and several protesters are detained over the next several hours as many attempt to strike out at Members or otherwise make their disapproval known more physically. Many more protesters are hospitalized as fights break out between rival camps.On the airwaves, commentators and pundits try to play down the shock and anger. “This is how the system works,” they say. “Who should be surprised? Shouldn’t we be relieved that the Constitution has prevailed through this crisis?”Mere hours after Congress’ selection, the President and Vice President-elect hold a joint press conference in which they pledge to help bridge partisan divides and work for all Americans. “We have heard you,” they say. “Now it’s time to move forward.”In other days, these arguments might have prevailed, but Americans no longer believe in “the system.” The system has sheltered the advantaged while doing less and less for those trying to get ahead or scrape by. The system is defending its stagnation and the status quo. The system has obliterated tens of millions of votes for new representation and handed the government over to the minority.Nor do they believe that those in power are capable of bridging partisan divides. They have heard this rhetoric before, and ad nauseum, for far too long and with far too little to show for it to believe it this time.The Independent candidate, though incensed by him and his running mate being shut out by Congress, tries to appeal to people to respect the rule of law and challenge “the corrupt bargain” in coming elections. He promises to form a stronger Party to secure electoral gains in the years ahead and forever shatter the current system.Americans, by and large, are not having it. They no longer want to wait for the next election, or the next, to sort things out. Their anger is real, in the moment, and on the surface.On social media, a passage from America’s most sacred document goes viral: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.It is soon, and then often, accompanied by an amalgamation of quotes from revered Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson:Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. . . . It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. . . . Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents.The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.January 20, 2021Seven-hundred thousand people are in the nation’s capital to attend the country’s 58th Inauguration, but it is hard to find the relatively few people who are there to celebrate if not the incoming leaders, the nation’s tradition of peaceful transfer of power. In cities around the country, millions more have gathered in public areas in protest to the incoming administration.At noon, when the President begins the oath of office, he is almost drowned out by the rise of jeers and curses from the crowd. These persist through his very short address to the agitated masses, in which he seems to be begging them to believe that a new age of unity is at hand that will benefit all Americans.When he and the Vice President retreat into the Capitol at the conclusion of the ceremony, their security advises that they forego the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. The number of arrests has already hit triple-digits, and the crowd moving from the Mall to the route threatens to overwhelm the security in place.They dismiss the recommendation – cowering in the Capitol might only provoke further anger – but they agree to delay the start of the parade, in the hopes people will surrender to the bitter cold and begin to disperse, and to remain in the limousine.The parade was supposed to begin around 2:30 p.m., but does not commence until an hour and a half later. The strategy of hoping the combination of cold and impending sunset would help disperse the crowds has worked to an extent, but it has meant that the devoted demonstrators still lingering are even more riled up.As the motorcade makes its way down Pennsylvania Avenue, the protesters’ response is intense, but mostly vocal – at first. Farther down the road, crowds begin to push against the barricades as the motorcade comes in sight, only to be pushed back by police.Between 9th and 10th Streets, eggs and, in defiance of the cold, shoes are thrown at the presidential limousine, and the motorcade begins to accelerate. But before the President and Vice President can make it to the safety of the White House, a protester becomes the spark that ignites the conflagration.At 13th Street, the corner of Freedom Plaza, as the barricades fail, a man is able to break through the police line and charges at the presidential limousine, rock in hand. He lets it fly, managing little more than to scratch the limousine’s paint, but in a fraction of a second is tackled by a combination of police and Secret Service.That alone might not have been enough to enrage the witnessing crowds, but the law enforcement officers, themselves riled by the hours of confrontation they have endured, break discipline and launch into a brief but brutal assault on the president’s assailant. It looks less like the protester is being arrested and more as though he is receiving a summary punishment.More protesters break free of the barricade in order to rescue their comrade, only to in turn be tackled and assailed. Pushing and shouting gives way to punches, and in minutes Freedom Plaza and the avenue are the site of a melee.Media outlets try to avoid broadcasting scenes of the violence to reduce the risk of provoking the millions watching at home; but as law enforcement and crowd control units rush down Pennsylvania Avenue to contain the violence, those who had remained after the limousine had passed take advantage of the thinning police lines and spill out onto the parade route.There’s no hiding the crumbling security situation anymore, and the nation’s capital is plunged into rioting not seen since 1968.Across the country, most of the crowds dispersed soon after the President was sworn in, but many remain in lasting protest, and are mostly peaceful. Once violence erupts in the capital, however, many local law enforcement agencies attempt to preempt the risk of disorder in their own cities and move in to clear the crowds.In all cases, their plans backfire. City after city witnesses the emergence of riots, until soon there’s hardly a State untouched by the anger spilling out from a fed-up population.Road to RevolutionThe Inauguration Day Riots are mostly quelled by week’s end, with isolated incidents lingering through to the end of the month. The final toll is comparable to a natural disaster. Dozens have been killed, with thousands more seriously injured. Property damages surpass one billion dollars.Although the violence has subsided for now, most recognize that Pandora’s Box has been opened. Grievances against the government are spilling out from all quarters, and respect for lawful authority has plummeted. More and more rallies turn violent at the merest hint of a crackdown, which creates a feedback cycle: Law enforcement arrives to the subsequent rally in bigger numbers and with more gear, convincing the protesters that their rights will not be respected, agitating them to violence, provoking a larger response, and so forth.Eventually, jurisdictions begin denying all demonstration permits in order to ease tensions, but this only sparks a rise in illegal protests and acts of civil disobedience.Congress, in the meantime, has ground to a halt. Democratic leaders, still chaffed by the Republican rejection of their compromise offer, refuse to support any scrap of the Republican agenda in the House and use an array of tactics to stall business in the Senate. Moreover, they refuse to confirm any of the Republican President's Cabinet nominations without concessions, leaving the whole of government starving for leadership. The handful of third party Representatives and Senators have given up on attempting to bridge the divide, and instead serve as conduits of public anger at the intransigent government.Meanwhile, down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House, the President and Vice President often quarrel on the rare occasions where they speak, and the Administration has yet to put forward a clear agenda for moving the country out of its crisis of confidence.Americans’ largest, collective disapproval of their government comes in April, as a record number individuals “fail” to file tax returns. Recognizing the tax revolt, in a rare act of bipartisanship, Congress first passes a law to extend the filing date to the end of June with no penalties for those who did not file by April 15 – but with increased penalties thereafter.The June deadline, however, is not met with an increase in tax returns being filed, but a several-million strong protest on the National Mall. It is the first protest since the Inauguration Day Riots that articulate national demands for changes to the government. There are calls for a Constitutional Convention.Their demands are met with regurgitated rhetoric.In August, after a summer of news about tax evaders being arrested, redistricting favoring incumbents, and the failure of bipartisanship to make meaningful progress in Congress, the electorate’s anger erupts again as Members of Congress, on recess, duck and dodge at town hall meetings and other public events. Several events turn violent. Eventually, Congressmen stop appearing in public altogether.When Congress reconvenes in September, there are angry crowds at Capitol Hill to demand why the Congress has failed to act on an array of measures, with bills to approve a Constitutional Convention among them. Physical confrontations are rare at first – the police are quick to isolate and remove troublemakers – but the thin veneer of peace does not last long against the storm of discontent.On the afternoon of Friday, September 17, as Congress tries to rush through morning business so they can head back to their districts, protesters are successful in surging past the police lines and force their way into the Captiol Building, storming the House Chamber. The Floor is empty, as it usually is during business hours, but their occupation is a major victory in its symbolism and effect.Energized by the scene of their compatriots in command of the halls of Congress, protesters across the country storm and occupy their State assemblies, forcing legislatures in most States to follow in Congress’ footsteps and hastily adjourn.The message is clear: Americans no longer support the rules of the status quo, and no amount of rhetoric will be sufficient to placate them. Two centuries after the end of its first revolution, the American people have risen up again to revoke their consent to be governed under the ruling order.The Second American Revolution has begun.