“They call me a brainless Tory. Now tell me, which is best? To be ruled by one tyrant three-thousand miles away, or by three-thousand tyrants not a mile away.”—The Rev. Dr. Mather Byles, Sr.
Since recent polls reveal that 80% Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve and 68% Believe U.S. Economy is in a Recession, we feel it is a good time to propose an appropriate day to target the real problem. We recommend July 10 to celebrate
End of the Federal Reserve Day!
A gift to America from the Federal Reserve Board
Our recommended proclamation: “Congress declares that this day be used to vote into passage by the House of Representatives and the Senate H.R. 2755 to end the Federal Reserve Board as introduced to the 110th Congress by the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul and to account for all of the measures they have taken by voting into passage H.R. 1207. We invite the People to conduct appropriate ceremonies and demonstrations to ensure that we honor this most noble effort.”
Most people do not even know what sparked the War of Independence in the United States. We are taught, in public school, to point to the stamp act and the tax on tea. The reasons, however, are deeper than that.
The Stamp act, indeed, was one of the “intolerable” acts. It allowed soldiers to write their own warrants to enter homes to check and make sure that the King’s stamp was on all documents, letters and even furniture. If not, they could confiscate them all—and even your house—and arrest you.
The History Channel, in the 90s, ran a series called The American Revolution. Far from a “right wing” series, it was hosted by Bill Kurtis (with a K) and takes every opportunity to stab at the founding fathers. They refer to Adams and Thomas Paine as “propagandists” and Paine’s writings as “brilliant pieces of propaganda.” They point out that George Washington came to the Continental Congress in his uniform from the French and Indian War “…as if advertising his availability” for the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Colonial forces. The American Revolution: The Conflict Ignites, however, makes some interesting points.
Don Higginbotham, Author and Historian said, in this episode,
“The colonists saw themselves as the freest people in the world. Living in the kind of society envisioned by eighteenth-century philosophers. The land was cheap. It was available. Society was fluid. The social ladder was short, but shaky, too.”
“Wealth was accessible through hard work and perseverance. And wealth was the key to moving up that social ladder,” the host tells us.
Thomas Fleming, who wrote a brilliant piece of propaganda called “Liberty! The American Revolution,” points out:
The tax on tea was three-tenths a pound. And that meant the average man would have to drink a gallon of tea a day to pay a one-dollar tax at the end of the year.
So you really couldn’t say that this was a cause for revolution. The sense that the British were slowly trying to take control of the American Colonies; that is the essence of the perturbed state of the American mind in the 1770′s.
In Chapter Three of Citadels of Chaos (1949), Cornelius Carl Veith, writes:
When Benjamin Franklin made a visit to his native England he was asked how he accounted for the prosperous condition of the Colonies. He said, “That is simple. It is only because in the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called ‘Colonial Script’—and we issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry.” This circulating medium, Colonial Script, was printed by the Governors of the various Colonies and brought an adequate purchasing power for the abundance of produce and goods that was available now that they had their newly-cleared fields producing.
Something had to be done about this prosperity. It was bringing prosperity to the wrong people. Foreign financiers could no longer loan the Colonies their currency as long as they were keeping plenty of good Colonial money in circulation. So they had to get rid of it somehow.
When the colonies agitated for the right to make a fiduciary issue of paper money, the British Parliament countered in 1751 by passing an act prohibiting an issue of paper money in New York, and this was later extended to other colonies. Benjamin Franklin said, “On the slight complaint of a few Virginia merchants, the colonies had been restrained from making paper money which had become absolutely necessary for their internal commerce from the constant remittance of their gold and silver to Britain.”
Ben Franklin, himself, pointed out that
“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”
After the war, Alexander Hamilton placed the first nail in the coffin of the American ideal by convincing Washington that a debt-based economy, debt to banks, was the way to kick start the country. Of course bankers were happy to take on the debt of the United States—with interest.
This was despite the objection of Thomas Jefferson who wrote,
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the Government and the people to whom it rightfully belongs.”
It would take until July 10, 1832 before an American President would strike another blow for the ideal of freedom which was the spark for the American Revolution. On that day, Andrew Jackson tried to work for America by destroying the National Bank. When its twenty year charter ended, President Jackson vetoed the Charter of the National Bank returning the bill with this message which reads in part:
WASHINGTON, July 10, 1832.
To the Senate.
The bill “to modify and continue” the act entitled “An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States” was presented to me on the 4th July instant. Having considered it with that solemn regard to the principles of the Constitution which the day was calculated to inspire, and come to the conclusion that it ought not to become a law, I herewith return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with my objections.
A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty at an early period of my Administration to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.
The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders.
An apology may be found for the failure to guard against this result in the consideration that the effect of the original act of incorporation could not be certainly foreseen at the time of its passage. The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more. This donation finds no apology in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. On all hands it is conceded that its passage will increase at least so or 30 per cent more the market price of the stock, subject to the payment of the annuity of $200,000 per year secured by the act, thus adding in a moment one-fourth to its par value. It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars. For these gratuities to foreigners and to some of our own opulent citizens the act secures no equivalent whatever. They are the certain gains of the present stockholders under the operation of this act, after making full allowance for the payment of the bonus.
…
The modifications of the existing charter proposed by this act are not such, in my view, as make it consistent with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people. The qualification of the right of the bank to hold real estate, the limitation of its power to establish branches, and the power reserved to Congress to forbid the circulation of small notes are restrictions comparatively of little value or importance. All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation.
The fourth section provides ” that the notes or bills of the said corporation, although the same be, on the faces thereof, respectively made payable at one place only, shall nevertheless be received by the said corporation at the bank or at any of the offices of discount and deposit thereof if tendered in liquidation or payment of any balance or balances due to said corporation or to such office of discount and deposit from any other incorporated bank.” This provision secures to the State banks a legal privilege in the Bank of the United States which is withheld from all private citizens. If a State bank in Philadelphia owe the Bank of the United States and have notes issued by the St. Louis branch, it can pay the debt with those notes, but if a merchant, mechanic, or other private citizen be in like circumstances he can not by law pay his debt with those notes, but must sell them at a discount or send them to St. Louis to be cashed. This boon conceded to the State banks, though not unjust in itself, is most odious because it does not measure out equal justice to the high and the low, the rich and the poor. To the extent of its practical effect it is a bond of union among the banking establishments of the nation, erecting them into an interest separate from that of the people, and its necessary tendency is to unite the Bank of the United States and the State banks in any measure which may be thought conducive to their common interest.
The ninth section of the act recognizes principles of worse tendency than any provision of the present charter. It enacts that “the cashier of the bank shall annually report to the Secretary of the Treasury the names of all stockholders who are not resident citizens of the United States, and on the application of the treasurer of any State shall make out and transmit to such treasurer a list of stockholders residing in or citizens of such State, with the amount of stock owned by each.” Although this provision, taken in connection with a decision of the Supreme Court, surrenders, by its silence, the right of the States to tax the banking institutions created by this corporation under the name of branches throughout the Union, it is evidently intended to be construed as a concession of their right to tax that portion of the stock which may be held by their own citizens and residents. In this light, if the act becomes a law, it will be understood by the States, who will probably proceed to levy a tax equal to that paid upon the stock of banks incorporated by themselves. In some States that tax is now I per cent, either on the capital or on the shares, and that may be assumed as the amount which all citizen or resident stockholders would be taxed under the operation of this act. As it is only the stock held in the States and not that employed within them which would be subject to taxation, and as the names of foreign stockholders are not to be reported to the treasurers of the States, it is obvious that the stock held by them will be exempt from this burden. Their annual profits will therefore be I per cent more than the citizen stockholders, and as the annual dividends of the bank may be safely estimated at 7 per cent, the stock will be worth 10 or 15 per cent more to foreigners than to citizens of the United States. To appreciate the effects which this state of things will produce, we must take a brief review of the operations and present condition of the Bank of the United States…
Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.
Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.
…
But in the case relied upon the Supreme Court have not decided that all the features of this corporation are compatible with the Constitution. It is true that the court have said that the law incorporating the bank is a constitutional exercise of power by Congress; but taking into view the whole opinion of the court and the reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion, I understand them to have decided that inasmuch as a bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect the enumerated powers of the General Government, therefore the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have power ” to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying those powers into execution. ” Having satisfied themselves that the word “necessary” in the Constitution means needful,” “requisite,” “essential,” “conducive to,” and that “a bank” is a convenient, a useful, and essential instrument in the prosecution of the Government’s “fiscal operations,” they conclude that to “use one must be within the discretion of Congress ” and that ” the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution;” “but, ” say they, “where the law is not prohibited and is really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the Government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department and to tread on legislative ground.”
The principle here affirmed is that the “degree of its necessity,” involving all the details of a banking institution, is a question exclusively for legislative consideration. A bank is constitutional, but it is the province of the Legislature to determine whether this or that particular power, privilege, or exemption is “necessary and proper” to enable the bank to discharge its duties to the Government, and from their decision there is no appeal to the courts of justice. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province of Congress and the President to decide whether the particular features of this act are necessary and proper in order to enable the bank to perform conveniently and efficiently the public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitutional, or unnecessary and improper, and therefore unconstitutional.
Without commenting on the general principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, let us examine the details of this act in accordance with the rule of legislative action which they have laid down. It will be found that many of the powers and privileges conferred on it can not be supposed necessary for the purpose for which it is proposed to be created, and are not, therefore, means necessary to attain the end in view, and consequently not justified by the Constitution.
…
This act authorizes and encourages transfers of its stock to foreigners and grants them an exemption from all State and national taxation. So far from being “necessary and proper” that the bank should possess this power to make it a safe and efficient agent of the Government in its fiscal operations, it is calculated to convert the Bank of the United States into a foreign bank, to impoverish our people in time of peace, to disseminate a foreign influence through every section of the Republic, and in war to endanger our independence.
The several States reserved the power at the formation of the Constitution to regulate and control titles and transfers of real property, and most, if not all, of them have laws disqualifying aliens from acquiring or holding lands within their limits. But this act, in disregard of the undoubted right of the States to prescribe such disqualifications, gives to aliens stockholders in this bank an interest and title, as members of the corporation, to all the real property it may acquire within any of the States of this Union. This privilege granted to aliens is not “necessary” to enable the bank to perform its public duties, nor in any sense “proper,” because it is vitally subversive of the rights of the States.
The Government of the United States have no constitutional power to purchase lands within the States except “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and even for these objects only “by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be.” By making themselves stockholders in the bank and granting to the corporation the power to purchase lands for other purposes they assume a power not granted in the Constitution and grant to others what they do not themselves possess. It is not necessary to the receiving, safe-keeping, or transmission of the funds of the Government that the bank should possess this power, and it is not proper that Congress should thus enlarge the powers delegated to them in the Constitution.
…
It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power “to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.
…
It can not be necessary to the character of the bank as a fiscal agent of the Government that its private business should be exempted from that taxation to which all the State banks are liable, nor can I conceive it “proper” that the substantive and most essential powers reserved by the States shall be thus attacked and annihilated as a means of executing the powers delegated to the General Government. It may be safely assumed that none of those sages who had an agency in forming or adopting our Constitution ever imagined that any portion of the taxing power of the States not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress was to be swept away and annihilated as a means of executing certain powers delegated to Congress.
…
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.
Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves-in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.
…
I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellow citizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which impel me ample grounds for contentment and peace. In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers which threaten our institutions there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which I am sure watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our Republic, and on the intelligence and wisdom of our countrymen. Through His abundant goodness and heir patriotic devotion our liberty and Union will be preserved.
ANDREW JACKSON.
Unfortunately, the National Bank charter was restored after Jackson served his term as President and led to the 1913 enactment of the Federal Reserve Act pushed by Democrat Woodrow Wilson. The Federal Reserve has since given us the Great Depression, recession, the housing bubble burst and banker bail out. They have transferred our wealth through money-laundering schemes to foreign off-shore banks for which you would go to jail.
This day should commemorate the efforts of President Andrew Jackson and, today, Dr. Ron Paul who are adamant in restoring the freedom of this country by restoring the control of our money to the government and the people in whom it rightfully belongs.
You are welcome to join the campaign. Add a button to your web site or blog. Use one of ours or make your own!
Possibly related articles:
Tags: Bill of Rights, Constitution, Federal Reserve, Media, News Item, Tea Party, Video
Loading ...
You conveniently forget to mention that during Martin van Buren’s term, shortly after the National Bank lost its charter, the nation fell into a deep economic recession. You also forget to mention that in the interval between the 2nd National Bank and the Federal reserve, that recessions (called Panics back then) occasionally as bad as or more often worse than the current one occurred like clockwork almost every 7 years.
Your ideals of liberty are very noble but you do not temper them with unimportant things like facts or reality. The current Fed is wrong, and needs badly to be audited and reorganized, and put under the control of people elected by the People. But History shows that without some form of national bank our economy collapses into a crash-and-bubble cycle far worse than the one we know today.
If you will also remember, the government fought Andrew Jackson over the measure. He had to replace three Treasury secretaries before one would distribute the government funds into State banks. The banks caused that “depression” just as the Federal Reserve did in the 20′s. Terror, like today, is always used to get measures installed that are unconstitutional. You need banks only to hold the funds of the government. You do not need banks to control the government. The government is supposed to coin money and regulate the value thereof. The Federal Reserve now orders money to be printed out of thin air and transfers “bailout” money to governments without Congressional oversight. And you cannot fire them. Congress cannot even fire them.
“Certainly no nation ever before abandoned to the avarice and jugglings of private individuals to regulate according to their own interests, the quantum of circulating medium for the nation — to inflate, by deluges of paper, the nominal prices of property, and then to buy up that property at 1s. in the pound, having first withdrawn the floating medium which might endanger a competition in purchase. Yet this is what has been done, and will be done, unless stayed by the protecting hand of the legislature. The evil has been produced by the error of their sanction of this ruinous machinery of banks; and justice, wisdom, duty, all require that they should interpose and arrest it before the schemes of plunder and spoilation desolate the country.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Rives, 1819. ME 15:232
The ability to print paper, which Jefferson objected to, is much easier than having to pay with hard currency. That is the danger of turning over the coining of money to a group who have only their best interests at heart. They are a danger to liberty.
Though we may disagree, I do appreciate that you seem to have studied the issue. I respect people who argue with facts rather than emotion. Thanks for your comment.
[...] have lower expectations because we still have one very serious problem. We have something called a Federal Reserve which is doing the Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 & 5 duty that “We the People” [...]