THE SILVER PRESIDENT; part I
“The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver. Experience has proved the MISCHIEFS and DANGERS of a PAPER CURRENCY, and it rests with you to determine whether the proper remedy shall be applied.”---President Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
“Now, I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system since the 18th century. And to those Members of Congress, who are here on this very historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the 18th century we have no idea of returning to it.”---President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ, Lousy Bum Job), part of remarks made on signing the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965
“IT IS APPARENT FROM THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS THE HISTORY OF THE TIMES WHICH GAVE BIRTH TO IT, THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION TO ESTABLISH A CURRENCY CONSISTING OF THE PRECIOUS METALS.”---President Jackson’s annual message, December 5, 1836
“Silver coinage has gone hand in hand with civilization through most of recorded history. Undeniably silver coinage has served the world well.”---“The Future of U.S. Coinage,” speech by Dr. V. Clain-Stefanelli, Curator of Numismatics, Smithsonian Institution, delivered on October 20, 1964 to the American Society for Metals Annual Awards Luncheon in Philadelphia (Vital Speeches of the Day, found in larger libraries).
Last month we evaluated three presidents who were antagonistic towards silver as money---Grover Cleveland, Lyndon Baines Johnson and George Bush. This month let’s take another look at Andrew Jackson---the Silver president. He was also of course, the gold money President.
He had silver or gray hair by the time he took office on March 4, 1829 and still had it upon departing office on March 3, 1837. Jackson commanded Sam Houston (later known as the “Father of Texas”) and David Crockett, of Alamo fame, in the Creek Indian wars. Fess Parker’s hit song “The Ballad of Davy Crockett” overlooked the much more towering figure behind the famous frontiersman. Jackson also served under President Monroe (appointed Territorial Governor of Florida on March 10, 1821) and was instrumental in getting Spain to cede Florida over to United States control on July 17, 1821. A monument in Pensacola commemorates that event---
The Monroe Doctrine, declared on December 2, 1823, was a policy telling the European powers “hands off” the United States especially, and also covering nations to our South; that these regions are no longer to be viewed by the long-standing powers as targets of colonialism. James Monroe, as we saw last month, was another gold and silver as money advocate. So it is not surprising that he and Jackson were associated politically. Jackson had a hostility against foreign intervention in American affairs since he was assaulted as a boy age 13 by a vindictive British officer for refusing to shine the invader’s boots---
The British caused the extermination of Jackson’s immediate family. When as a young man the British were attempting to re-take their “colonies” here by the financial subversion of the Bank of North America, Jackson was destined to deal them two of the most severe defeats in the infamous history of the British Empire. Robert Morris together with Thomas Wiling and Alexander Hamilton, secured a charter for the Bank of North America in 1781. Its British connections were obvious and so its charter was not restored in 1785. Robert Morris Associates, named after him, more recently renamed the Risk Management Association, is a bankers organization with the typical links to Pilgrims run institutions like JPMorganChase www.rmahq.org/RMA/
Nothing changes---the Plan is handed down through generations. General Lord Cornwallis, one of the British military leaders to attack America, was also Governor General of India. The Pilgrims of Great Britain leaked list, circa 1969, features the listed name “Lord Cornwallis.” This is the paper money mob, the anti-silver crowd---the anti-gold crowd. Whether the Rothschilds were the driving force, or the British Crown, the effect was no different in essence---the British intended to re-take the United States by means of a central bank of issue to be dominated from London. In 1791 the first Bank of the United States was chartered. Prime power in it, domestically, was Stephen Girard, of Philadelphia---richest man in America at that time and known British collaborator. The charter of the Bank expired in 1811 and Congress refused to restore it. What followed was the War of 1812 with the British invading Washington and burning the White House. We had to be controlled---either financially, or by direct military force!
Towards the end of the conflict, General Lord Packenham, brother in law of the Duke of Wellington, attempted to invade New Orleans with a force of 12,000 troops; some accounts say the contingent exceeded 14,000 soldiers. Jackson resoundingly defeated the numerically superior force with only 4,000 under his command---some of whom were pirates affiliated with Jean Lafitte! Jackson arrived in New Orleans, sensed the emergency, declared martial law, and embarrassed the British in a confrontation which is still the talk of military historians---
One of his Jackson’s sub-commanders was Colonel David Morgan--- www.vic.com/tnchron/class/NewOrleans.htm The facts are also memorialized in the 1958 film “The Buccaneer” in which Charlton Heston played General Jackson and Yul Brynner played the pirate leader. So superior a tactician was Jackson that his forces suffered a mere 8 fatalities, causing over 2,000 British casualties---fewer than one half of one percent by ratio to the British. The proportion becomes even more exaggerated within the framework that the British outnumbered the defenders by two and a half to one! Upon seeing their front ranks cut down and their leader dispatched, the British cowered into retreat. We really need such a triumph today on a monetary front against the British affiliated Federal Reserve System! Lord Packenham was killed by one of General Jackson’s Tennessee marksmen---Michael Womack, who fired from behind cotton bales www.womacknet.com/features/michaelwomack.html The Battle of New Orleans was also commemorated in the 1959 hit song by balladeer Johnny Horton at www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/battleof.htm , and in this monument to General (later President) Jackson---
I still remember lines from the hit song---
“Well they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles and they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn’t go! They ran so fast that the hounds couldn’t catch ‘em, on down the Mississippi to the gulf of Mexico!”
You can go to www.thehermitage.com/ to see image of his home in Tennessee where he lived out his days after leaving public office. Now a museum, the “Hermitage” has seen over 14 million visitors since 1889. Unfortunately, and I say this in all seriousness, British collaborators control this museum, including Alexander Heard, Vanderbilt family agent and Pilgrims Society member on the Council of The Hermitage. They have done so also in the case of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Jefferson Levy, charter member of The Pilgrims, bought Monticello, Jefferson’s magnificent hilltop home in Virginia. Howard H. Baker Jr., former Senator and on Barrick Gold advisory board, chairs The Hermitage Museum! Jackson made a run for the Presidency in 1824. He in fact received more popular and Electoral College votes than any other candidate. However, since no candidate received an outright majority, the election was sent to the House of Representatives for resolution. Henry Clay, a supporter of the United States Bank, threw his voting bloc behind John Quincy Adams. Upon becoming President, Adams appointed Henry Clay (spooky looking) Secretary of State---
Jackson denounced the affair as a “corrupt bargain,” and his supporters among the common people viewed the matter as string pulling on the part of “corrupt aristocrats of the East.”
The leaked 1969 list of The Pilgrims United States contained the name Charles F. Adams (1910-1999)---tracing his lineage directly to two Presidents! Remember the “Adams Family” television series? It was a comedy about a family of monsters! But there is no humor in this Adams family. Charles Adams IV became chairman of Raytheon, a large defense contractor, in 1964. He was on other boards including Gillette Company; Bath Iron Works; First National Bank of Boston; Liberty Mutual Insurance; and Paine Webber (investment bankers) and was a trustee of the National Security Industrial Association (“International Year Book & Statesmen’s Who’s Who,” 1969, Burke’s Peerage, London, pages 5-6). Who’s Who for 1976, page 2486, has Thomas L. Phillips (below) as chairman of Raytheon, director of John Hancock Life Insurance; State Street Investment Trust; trustee, Gordon College and Northeastern University; developed Sparrow III Missile System for the U.S. Navy; member Pilgrims of U.S.---
Charles Adams the IV’s daddy was Charles III (1866-1954) who was Secretary of the Navy (1929-1933) under President Herbert Hoover (The Pilgrims). Hoover fully collaborated with his brother Pilgrims Society members in England over the silver situation. The Royal Commission on Indian Currency put out its report in 1926 that demonetized silver and made silver prices crash all over the world by threatening to dump, then following through, on dumping silver, first in Shanghai, China. Pilgrims member Lord Halifax, Viceroy of India, engineered that hatchet job. The New York Times Index for 1931, page 2279, referred to a story put out on September 13, 1931, page 22, column 4 and said---
“President Hoover reported willing to have U.S. participate in international conference if Great Britain calls it.”
The conference was sought by Mexico and others who were looking for ways to stabilize the silver price and get governments to stop dumping it in order to depress prices! Imagine, the President of the United States will participate in a silver supporting venture IF Great Britain says it’s okay! The British sabotaged the international effort to organize a silver conference in Mexico City. This will be the topic of a forthcoming article. Page 2278 of the 1931 NYT Index had an item that appeared on April 12, 1931, page 2, column 5---
“Mexicans alarmed at report that Senator Borah has little hope U.S. will call international parley.”
Senator Borah was a fine silver Senator from Idaho; the state’s highest mountain bears his name. I wanted to digress and supply this background on President Hoover, so you could see the generations-long association of the Presidential Adams family with the British, that predates the political prominence of Andrew Jackson! Charles Adams III, after serving as Secretary of the Navy, became chairman of State Street Trust Company in Boston. The 1940 Who’s Who, page 140 says “director many corporations.” The 1928 edition, pages 141-142 says he was a director of Provident Institution for Savings; Fifty Associates; Boston Rent Trust Company; Massachusetts Gas Company; Western Real Estate Trust; Old Colony Railroad; Old Colony Trust; Boston Consolidated Gas; Security Safe Deposit; “also officer in many other corporations.”
I guess when you are associated with money creators, you can get on a lot of boards and have large financial interests that drain everyone not involved in the Plan. He was treasurer of Harvard and his Pilgrims member son, who commanded Pacific fleet battle groups in World War II, was a Harvard trustee. Twenty-nine naval vessels were built during 1958-1967 in the Charles F. Adams class of destroyers. Charles Adams Jr. (1835-1915) was a Union General in the Civil War. He became president of the Harriman allied Union Pacific Railroad, 1884-1890. His father, Charles Adams (1807-1886), was Minister to England, 1861-1868 then became a Harvard overseer. John Adams, President 1797-1801, had been Minister to England, 1785-1788. Another son of the Adams who passed on in 1886 was Henry B. Adams, who in 1879 authored “Life of Albert Gallatin.” Albert Gallatin was a contemporary of Andrew Jackson, and a political enemy of Jackson. The eerie looking Gallatin supported the United States Bank---
Gallatin’s great-great grandson was Albert Eugene Gallatin, who on page 927 of the 1934 Who’s Who admitted to being a member of “The Pilgrims.” The original Gallatin, a Swiss immigrant, was Treasury Secretary in 1801-1814. His maternal ancestors were involved in raising mercenaries for the British Crown. Albert Gallatin Associates is connected to New York University, which Gallatin helped found in 1831 and is another Pilgrims operation www.nyu.edu/kaufman/alumni/gallatin.html They sponsor the Elmer Holmes Bobst Library (named for Pilgrims member who chaired Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical and was a “mentor” of Richard Nixon). Interest of The Pilgrims organization in patent drugs is understandable, considering the hereditary links they have to the old Indian/Chinese opium trade and the fact that pharmaceuticals are SO profitable. Over and over we continually see, in families such as the Adamses, Gallatins, Du Ponts, Astors and the Biddles, that the financial fiat conspiracy is truly passed down generation to generation and is structured to NEVER QUIT! Their central organization, a fact I have repeatedly stressed, calls itself The Pilgrims based in London and New York and remains the ONLY “internationalist” organization that refuses to release membership lists. Andrew Jackson would be appalled as to how these vipers never relent. Albert Gallatin died on August 12, 1849, on Long Island, in the town of Astoria---named after British collaborator John Jacob Astor, main domestic power in the second United States Bank and wealthiest man in America.
After his campaign was sabotaged in the House of Representatives by British maneuvering, Jackson’s supporters redoubled their will to elect him President. To the horror of the money creators, Jackson was swept into office in 1829 by a landslide. The second United States Bank received its charter in 1816 with a twenty-year span. Its supporters tried to renew its charter four years early, in 1832, which Jackson opposed. On September 18, 1833, President Jackson delivered the following message to his Cabinet concerning his order that Federal deposits be removed from the British-controlled central bank (excerpts)---
“Having carefully and anxiously considered all the facts and arguments which have been submitted to him relative to a removal of public deposits from the Bank of the United States, the President deems it his duty to communicate in this manner to his Cabinet the final conclusions of his own mind and the reasons on which they are founded, in order to put them in durable form and to prevent misconceptions. The President’s convictions of the DANGEROUS TENDENCIES of the Bank of the United States, since signally illustrated by its own acts, were so overpowering when he entered the duties of Chief Magistrate that he felt it his duty to avail himself of the first occasion to call the attention of Congress and the people to the question of its recharter. The opinions expressed in his annual message of December 1829 were reiterated in those of December 1830 and 1831, and in that of 1830 he threw out for consideration some suggestions in relation to a substitute. At the session of 1831-1832 an act was passed by the majority of both Houses of Congress rechartering the present bank, upon which the President felt it his duty to put his constitutional veto. In his message returning that act he repeated and enlarged upon the principles and views asserted in his annual message, declaring the bank to be, in his opinion, both inexpedient and unconstitutional, and announcing to his countrymen very unequivocally his firm determination NEVER TO SANCTION BY HIS APPROVAL THE CONTINUANCE OF THAT INSTITUTION OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY OTHER UPON SIMILAR PRINCIPALS.”
Can you imagine a President today denouncing the Federal Reserve System and its fiat currency notes, and working to abolish it, so that the money powers are returned to Congress where they belong? Jackson had guts by the trainload; he was a buzz-saw in political affairs; he was a man’s man; and he was someone you could not slip any trick past, no matter how slippery!
“There are strong reasons for believing that the motive of the bank in asking for a recharter at that session of Congress was to make it a leading question in the election of a President of the United States the ensuing November, and all steps deemed necessary were taken to procure from the people a reversal of the President’s decision. Although the charter was approaching its termination, and the bank was aware that it was the intention of the Government to use the public deposit as fast as it has accrued in the payment of the public debt, yet did it extend its loans from January 1831 to May 1832, from $42,402,304.24 to $70,428,070.72, being an increase of $28,025,766.48 in sixteen months. It is confidently believed that the leading object of this immense extension of its loans was to bring as large a portion of the people as possible UNDER ITS POWER AND INFLUENCE, and it has been disclosed that SOME OF THE LARGEST SUMS WERE GRANTED ON VERY UNUSUAL TERMS TO THE CONDUCTORS OF THE PUBLIC PRESS. In some of these cases the motive was made manifest by the nominal or insufficient security taken for the loans, by the large amounts discounted, by the extraordinary time allowed for payment, and especially BY THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THOSE RECEIVING THE ACCOMODATIONS.” Bribery, anyone? Influence peddling? Financial racketeering? These were all characteristics of the Bank of the United States (United States Bank, terms are interchangeable) to the nth degree.
“Having taken these preliminary steps to obtain control over public opinion, the bank came to Congress and asked a new charter. The object avowed by many of the advocates of the bank was to put the President to the test, that the country might know his final determination relative to the bank prior to the ensuing election. Many documents and articles were printed and circulated at the expense of the bank to bring the people to a favorable decision upon its pretensions. Those whom the bank appears to have made its debtors for the special occasion were warned of the ruin which awaited them should the President be sustained, and attempts were made to alarm the whole people by painting the depression in the price of property and produce and the general loss, inconvenience, and distress which it was represented would immediately follow the reelection of the President in opposition to the Bank.”
“Can it now be said that the question of a recharter of the bank was not decided at the election which ensued? Had the veto been equivocal, or had it not covered the whole ground; if it had merely taken exceptions to the details of the bill or to the time of its passage; if it had not met the whole ground of constitutionality, then there might have been some plausibility for the allegation that the question was not decided by the people. It was to compel the President to take his stand that the question was brought forward at that particular time. He met the challenge, willingly took the position into which his adversaries sought to force him, and frankly declared his unalterable opposition to the bank as being unconstitutional. On that ground the case was argued to the people; and now that the People have sustained the President, notwithstanding THE ARRAY OF INFLUENCE AND POWER WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR UPON HIM, it is too late, he confidently thinks, to say that the question has not been decided. Whatever may be the opinions of others, the President considers his reelection AS A DECISION OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE BANK.”
There were many large employers who tried to frighten their workers by telling them that if Jackson were reelected President, their jobs would be lost. This of course was a diseased lie. In fact, Jackson retired from his illustrious two-term Presidency leaving an actual surplus for the nation. He literally saved the country twice! First, by trouncing the invading British military force at New Orleans; and second, by sinking the British-allied central bank, not with rifle and cannon fire, but by the broadside of his veto, which the bank’s supporters in Congress could not override.
“He was sustained by a just people, and he desires to evince his gratitude by carrying into effect their decision so far as it depends upon him. Of all the substitutes for the present bank which have been suggested, none seems to have united any considerable portion of the public in its favor. Most of them are liable to the same constitutional objections for which the present bank has been condemned, and perhaps to all there are strong objections on the score of expediency. In ridding the country of AN IRRESPONSIBLE POWER WHICH HAS ATTEMPTED TO CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT, care must be taken not to unite the same power with the executive branch. To give a President the control over the currency and the power over individuals now possessed by the Bank of the United States, even with the material difference that he is responsible to the people, would be as objectionable and as dangerous as to leave it as it is. Neither one nor the other is necessary, and therefore ought not to be resorted to.”
It is an extreme rarity in high political office to encounter a man who is not just out for himself. Jackson actually did care about the common man. He said, he did not want to exercise the money power that the monopoly bank wielded.
“The President considers it as conclusively settled that the charter of the Bank of the United States will not be renewed, and he has no reasonable ground to believe that any substitute will be established. Being bound to regulate his course by the laws as they exist, and not to anticipate the interference of the legislative power for the purpose of framing new systems, it is proper for him to consider the means by which the services rendered by the Bank of the United States are to be performed after its charter shall expire. The existing laws declare that---“The deposits of the money of the United States in places in which the said bank and branches thereof may be established shall be made in said bank or branches thereof unless the Secretary of the Treasury shall at any time otherwise order and direct, in which case the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately lay before Congress, if in session, and if not, immediately after the commencement of the next session, the reasons of such order or direction.” The power of the Secretary of the Treasury over the deposits is unqualified. The provision that he shall report his reasons to Congress is no limitation. Had it not been inserted he would have been responsible to Congress had he made a removal for any other than good reasons, and his responsibility now ceases upon the rendition of sufficient ones to Congress. The only object of the provision is to make his reasons accessible to Congress and enable that body the more readily to judge of their soundness and purity, and thereupon to make such further provision by law as the legislative power may think proper in relation to the deposit of the public money. Those reasons may be very diversified.”
Here Jackson referred to the monetary power of the Treasury Secretary. Perhaps it was modesty on Jackson’s part, that he didn’t mention that the Secretary had to carry out Presidential orders. Jackson directed his Treasury Secretary, Louis McLane, to remove government deposits, from the bank. McLane refused, and Jackson fired him. McLane had been minister to England just before appointment to Treasury; no doubt while in England he was indoctrinated by the British. Jackson next ordered William J. Duane to carry it out. Duane also refused, and was fired. The Money Power must have managed to filter cabinet candidates to Jackson who would make an initial pretense about agreeing with him. Then when action was needed, their true (British) colors would show). Jackson appointed Roger Taney to be Treasury Secretary on September 24, 1833, and Taney without hesitation carried out Jackson’s Presidential directive starting on October 1, 1833 (Jackson appointed Taney Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1836) Taney also called the United States Bank a “monster”---
“It was asserted by the Secretary of the Treasury, without contradiction, as early as 1817, that he had power “to control the proceedings” of the Bank of the United States at any moment “by changing the deposits to the State banks” should it pursue an illiberal course towards those institutions; that “the Secretary of the Treasury will always be disposed to support the credit of the State banks, and will invariably direct transfers from the deposits of the public money in aid of their legitimate exertions to maintain their credit;” and he asserted a right to employ the State banks when the Bank of the United States should refuse to receive on deposit the notes of such State banks as the public interest required should be received in payment of the public dues. In several instances he did transfer the public deposits to State banks in the immediate vicinity of branches, for reasons connected only with the safety of those banks, the public convenience, and the interests of the Treasury.”
William H. Crawford was Treasury Secretary in 1817. He was a supporter of the United States Bank, a curious fact in view of President Madison’s opposition to the international moneylenders. Another curious fact of the time is the matter of Daniel Webster also being a supporter of the bank, yet being on record several times as bitterly opposed to irredeemable paper money---which the bank was sponsoring. Was Webster confused? These matters would make interesting research projects. Here is what the Treasury Department is saying today about William Crawford---
“The Second Bank of the United States, viewed by Jackson and much of the nation as an unconstitutional and dangerous monopoly, was Ingham's primary concern as Secretary. Jackson not only mistrusted the Second Bank of the United States, but all banks. He thought that there should be no currency but coin, that the Constitution was designed to expel paper currency as part of the monetary system. Ingham believed in the Bank and labored to resolve conflicts between Jackson, who wanted it destroyed, and the Bank's president, Nicholas Biddle. Ingham was unable to reach any resolution between Jackson and Biddle but he left office over an incident unrelated to the Bank. Unwilling to comply with Jackson's demand that Mrs. Eaton, the socially unacceptable wife of the Secretary of War, be invited to Washington social functions, Ingham and several other members of Jackson's cabinet resigned.”
Returning now to President Jackson’s message to his cabinet on his withdrawal order of public funds from the bank---
“If it was lawful for Mr. Crawford, the Secretary of the Treasury at that time, to act on these principles, it will be difficult to discover any sound reason against the application of similar principles in still stronger cases. And it is a matter of surprise that a power which in the infancy of the bank was freely asserted as one of the ordinary and familiar duties of the Secretary of the Treasury should now be gravely questioned, and attempts made to excite and alarm the public mind as if some new and unheard of power was about to be usurped by the executive branch of the Government.”
In barely 16 years, the bought-off press succeeded in warping some public opinion, to the effect that the United States Bank should be totally autonomous of the President and his Treasury Secretary---just like the Federal Reserve today.
“To the Treasury Department is entrusted the safe keeping and faithful application of the public moneys. A plan of collection different from the present must therefore be introduced and put in complete operation before the dissolution of the present bank. When shall it be commenced? Shall no step be taken in this essential concern until the charter expires and the Treasury finds itself without an agent, its accounts in confusion, with no depository for its funds, and the whole business of the Government deranged, or shall it be delayed until six months or a year, or two years before the expiration of the charter? It is obvious that any new system which may be substituted in the place of the Bank of the United States could not be suddenly carried into effect on the termination of its existence without serious inconvenience to the Government and the people. Its vast amount of notes are then to be redeemed and withdrawn from circulation and its immense debt collected. These operations must be gradual, otherwise much suffering and distress will be brought upon the community. It ought not to be a work of months only, but of years, and the President thinks it can not, with due attention to the interests of the people, be longer postponed. It is safer to begin too soon than to delay it too long.”
Jackson’s methods could be a lesson for any college student needing to start an exhaustive research project---start immediately so as to make a deadline. It is also a suggestion to our irresponsible Congress that there is no sense in delaying the reestablishment of a national silver reserve for defense purposes.
“It is for the wisdom of Congress to decide upon the best substitute to be adopted in the place of the Bank of the United States, and the President would have felt himself relieved from a heavy and painful responsibility if in the charter to the bank Congress had reserved to itself the power of directing at its pleasure the public money to be elsewhere deposited, and had not devolved that power exclusively on one of the Executive Departments. It is useless now to inquire why this high and important power was surrendered by those who are peculiarly and appropriately the guardians of the public money. But as the President presumes that the charter to the bank is to be considered as a contract on the part of the Government, it is not now in the power of Congress to disregard its stipulations; and by the terms of that contract the public money is to be deposited in the bank during the continuance of its charter unless the Secretary of the Treasury shall otherwise direct.”
“Unless, therefore, the Secretary of the Treasury first acts, Congress have no power over the subject, for they can not add a new clause to the charter or strike one out of it without the consent of the bank, and consequently the public money must remain in that institution to the last hour of its existence unless the Secretary of the Treasury shall remove it at an earlier day. The responsibility is thus thrown upon the executive branch of the Government of deciding how long before the expiration of the charter the public interest will require the deposits be placed elsewhere; and although according to the frame and principle of our Government this decision would seem more properly to belong to the legislative power, yet as the law has imposed it upon the executive department the duty ought to be faithfully and firmly met, and the decision made and executed upon the best lights that can be obtained and the best judgment that can be formed.”
“It would ill become the executive branch of the Government to shrink from any duty which the law imposes on it, to fix upon others the responsibility which justly belongs to itself. And while the President anxiously wishes to abstain from the exercise of doubtful powers and to avoid all interference with the rights and duties of others, he must yet with unshaken constancy discharge his own obligations, and can not allow himself to turn aside in order to avoid any responsibility which the high trust with which he has been honored requires him to encounter; and it being the duty of one of the Executive Departments to decide in the first instance, subject to the future action of the legislative power, whether the public deposits shall remain in the Bank of the United States until the end of its existence or be withdrawn some time before, the President has felt himself bound to examine the question carefully and deliberately in order to make up his judgment on the subject, and in his opinion the near approach of the termination of the charter and the public considerations heretofore mentioned are of themselves amply sufficient to justify the removal of the deposits, without reference to the conduct of the bank or their safety in its keeping.”
“But in the conduct of the bank may be found other reasons, very imperative in their character, which require prompt action. Developments have been made from time to time of ITS FAITHLESSNESS AS A PUBLIC AGENT, ITS MISAPPLICATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS, ITS INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS, its efforts by the machinery of committees to deprive the Government directors of a full knowledge of its concerns, and above all, its FLAGRANT MISCONDUCT as recently and unexpectedly disclosed in placing all the funds of the bank, including the money of the Government, at the disposition of the president of the bank as means of operating upon public opinion and procuring a new charter, without requiring him to render a voucher for their disbursement. A brief recapitulation of the facts which justify these charges, and which have come to the knowledge of the public and the President will, he thinks, remove every reasonable doubt as to the course which it is now the duty of the President to pursue.”
“We have seen that in sixteen months ending in May 1832, the bank extended its loans more than $28,000,000, although it knew the Government intended to appropriate most of its large deposit during that year in payment of the public debt. It was in May 1832, that its loans arrived at the maximum, and in the preceding March so sensible was the bank that it would not be able to pay over the public deposit when it would be required by the Government that it commenced a SECRET NEGOTIATION, without the approbation or knowledge of the Government, with the agents for about $2,700,000 of the 3 per cent stocks held in Holland, with a view of inducing them not to come forward for payment for one or more years after notice should be given by the Treasury Department. This arrangement would have enabled the bank to keep and use during that time the public money set apart for the payment of those stocks.”
“After this negotiation had commenced, the Secretary of the Treasury informed the bank that it was his intention to pay off one half of the 3 percents on the 1st of the succeeding July, which amounted to about $6,500,000. The president of the bank, although the committee of investigation was then looking into its affairs at Philadelphia, came immediately to Washington, and upon representing that the bank was desirous of accommodating the importing merchants at New York (which it failed to do) and undertaking to pay the interest itself, procured the consent of the Secretary, after consultation with the President, to postpone the payment until the succeeding 1st of October.”
“Conscious that at the end of that quarter the bank would not be able to pay over the deposits, and that further indulgence was not to be expected of the Government, an agent was dispatched to England secretly to negotiate with the holders of the public debt in Europe and induce them by the offer of an equal or higher interest than that paid by the Government to hold back their claims for one year, during which the bank expected thus to retain the use of $5,000,000 of the public money, which the Government should set apart for the payment of that debt. The agent made an arrangement ON TERMS WHICH WERE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER OF THE BANK, and when some incidents connected with this secret negotiation accidentally came to the knowledge of the public and the Government, then, and not before, so much of it as was palpably in violation of the charter was disavowed. A modification of the rest was attempted with the view of getting the certificates without payment of the money, and thus absolving the Government from its liability to the holders. In this scheme the bank was partially successful, but to this day the certificates of a portion of these stocks have not been paid and the bank retains the use of the money.”
“This effort to thwart the Government in the payment of the public debt THAT IT MIGHT RETAIN THE PUBLIC MONEY TO BE USED FOR THEIR PRIVATE INTERESTS, palliated by pretenses notoriously unfounded and insincere, would have justified the instant withdrawal of the public deposits. The negotiation itself rendered doubtful the ability of the bank to meet the demands of the Treasury, AND THE MISREPRESENTATIONS BY WHICH IT WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE JUSTIFIED PROVED THAT NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED UPON ITS ALLEGATIONS.”
Lies, lies and damned lies, were as much the currency of the Bank of the United States as any paper notes it flung about the country. Jackson could not be deceived nor could he be bought off! Those must have been the reasons for the attempt on his life on January 30, 1835 (described in “Monetary Madhouse” and “The Greatest Right,” Archives).
“If the question of a removal of the deposits presented itself to the Executive in the same attitude that it appeared before the House of Representatives at their last session, their resolution in relation to the safety of the deposits would be entitled to more weight, although the decision of the question of removal has been confided by law to another department of the Government. But the question now occurs attended by other circumstances and new disclosures of the most serious import. It is true that in the message of the President which produced this inquiry and resolution on the part of the House of Representatives it was his object to obtain the aid of that body in making a thorough examination into the conduct and condition of the bank and its branches in order to enable the executive department to decide whether the public money was longer safe in its hands. The limited power of the Secretary of the Treasury over the subject disabled him from making the investigation as fully and satisfactorily as it could be done by a committee of the House of Representatives, and hence the President desired the assistance of Congress to obtain for the Treasury Department a full knowledge of all the facts which were necessary to guide his judgment. But it was not his purpose, as the language of his message will show, to ask the representatives of the people to assume a responsibility which did not belong to them and relieve the executive branch of the Government from the duty which the law imposed on it.”
“It is due to the President that his object in that proceeding should be distinctly understood, and that he should acquit himself of all suspicion of seeking to escape from the performance of his own duties or of desiring to interpose another body between himself and the people in order to avoid a measure which he is called upon to meet. But although as an act of justice to himself he disclaims any design of soliciting the opinion of the House of Representatives in relation to his own duties in order to shelter himself from responsibility under the sanction of their counsel, yet he is at all times ready to listen to the suggestions of the representatives of the people, whether given voluntarily or upon solicitation, and to consider them with the profound respect to which all will admit that they are justly entitled.”
“Whatever may be the consequences however, to himself, he must finally form his own judgment where the Constitution and the law make it his duty to decide, and must act accordingly; and he is bound to suppose that such a course on his part will never be regarded by that elevated body as a mark of disrespect to itself, but that they will, on the contrary, esteem it the strongest evidence he can give of his fixed resolution conscientiously to discharge his duty to them and the country.”
Sam Houston (1793-1863), who served in Tennessee under Andrew Jackson, became known as the “Father of Texas,” and had Francis Scott Key, composer of the “Star Spangled Banner” as his personal attorney, has a large monument in his memory at Huntsville, Texas, noting comments made by Jackson himself on Houston’s character---
“A new state of things has, however, arisen since the close of the last session of Congress, and evidence has since been laid before the President which he is persuaded would have led the House of Representatives to a different conclusion if it had come to their knowledge. The fact that the bank controls, and in some cases substantially owns, and by its money supports SOME OF THE LEADING PRESSES OF THE COUNTRY is now more clearly established. Editors to whom it loaned extravagant sums in 1831 and 1832, on unusual time and nominal security, have since turned out to be insolvent, and to others apparently in no better condition accommodations still more extravagant, on terms more unusual, and some without any security, have also been heedlessly granted.”
The United States Bank was intent on controlling the channels of information and influencing public opinion to its own ends---that of maintaining its monopoly power over money. When the bank expired in 1836, the only reason the British did not invade the United States again (they did in 1812 after the charter of the first United States Bank was not renewed)---was that they were readying to launch the Opium War against China in 1837. The British did not have the necessary military force to mount two major wars simultaneously. They concluded they were making greater income (mostly in silver, by the way) by pushing opium to tens of millions of addicts in China, than by running a central bank in America (see “Silver Users And Opium,” Archives, for details). After his first two Treasury Secretaries turned out to have been bought off by the British, and Roger Taney proved to be a loyal American, Jackson, after Taney’s tenure at Treasury, appointed Levi Woodbury to that post, making highly certain first of Woodbury’s opposition to any British controlled central bank. Woodbury was New Hampshire governor, 1825-1831; Secretary of the Navy, 1831-1834; and Treasury Secretary from 1834 through 1841 (through the Van Buren administration; Martin Van Buren was Jackson’s vice president and another hard money Constitutionalist. Levi Woodbury---
“The allegation which has so often circulated through these channels that the Treasury was bankrupt and the bank was sustaining it, when for many years there has been not less, on an average, than six millions of public money in that institution, might be passed over as a harmless misrepresentation; but when it is attempted by substantial acts to impair the credit of the Government and tarnish the honor of the country, such charges require more serious attention. With six millions of public money in its vaults, after having had the use of from five to twelve millions for nine years without interest, it became the purchaser of a bill drawn by our Government on that of France for about $900,000, being the first installment of the French indemnity. The purchase money was left in the use of the bank, being simply added to the Treasury deposit. The bank sold the bill in England, and the holder sent it to France for collection, and arrangements not having been made by the French government for its payment, it was taken up by agents of the bank in Paris with the funds of the bank in their hands. Under these circumstances it has through its organs OPENLY ASSAILED THE CREDIT OF THE GOVERNMENT, and has actually made and persists in a demand of 15 per cent, or $158,842.77 as damages, when no damage has in fact been sustained, and when the bank had in its own possession on deposit several millions of the public money which it was then using for its own profit. IS A FISCAL AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH THUS SEEKS TO ENRICH ITSELF AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC WORTHY OF FURTHER TRUST?”
“There are other important facts not in the contemplation of the House of Representatives or not known to the members at the time they voted for the resolution. Although the charter and the rules of the bank both declare that “not less than seven directors” shall be necessary to the transaction of business, yet the most important business, even that of granting discounts to any extent, is entrusted to a committee of five members, who do not report to the board. To cut off all means of communication with the Government in relation to its most important acts at the commencement of the present year, not one of the Government directors was placed on any one committee; and although since, by an unusual remodeling of those bodies, some of those directors have been placed on some of the committees, they are yet entirely excluded from the committee of exchange, through which the greatest and most objectionable loans have been made.”
As we shall see later, the Bank was seeking to drive gold and silver out and run a full fiat system. One of the powers in the bank was Eleuthere Du Pont (1771-1834), whose descendants today still control the Silver Users Association company of that name that he founded in the gunpowder business (his grandson Henry Algernon Du Pont, a Senator from Delaware, 1906-1917, opposed silver money) and has ancestors in The Pilgrims paper money mob---
“When the Government directors made an effort to bring back the business of the bank to the board in obedience to the charter and the existing regulations, the board not only overruled their attempt, but altered the rule so as to make it conform to the practice, in direct violation of one of the most important provisions of the charter which gave them existence. It has long been known that the president of the bank, by his single will, originates and executes many of the most important measures connected with the management and credit of the bank, and that the committee as well as the board of directors are left in entire ignorance of many acts done and correspondence carried on in their names, and apparently under their authority. The fact has been recently disclosed that an unlimited discretion has been and is now vested in the president of the bank to expend its funds in payment for preparing and circulating articles and purchasing pamphlets and newspapers, calculated by their contents TO OPERATE ON ELECTIONS AND SECURE A RENEWAL OF ITS CHARTER. It appears from the official report of the public directors that on the 30th November, 1830, the president submitted to the board an article published in the American Quarterly Review containing favorable notices of the bank, and suggested the expediency of giving it a wider circulation at the expense of the bank; whereupon the board passed the following resolution---“Resolved, That the president be authorized to take such measures in regard to the circulation of the contents of the said article, either in whole or in part, as he may deem most for the interest of the bank.”
Nicholas Biddle was president of the second Bank of the U.S. and has had descendants appear in the ranks of The Pilgrims Society---paper money mob (“Paper Notes Cannot Depreciate,” Archives)---
“By an entry in the minutes of the bank dated March 11, 1831, it appears that the president had not only caused a large edition of that article to be issued, but had also, before the resolution of 30th November was adopted, procured to be printed and widely circulated numerous copies of the reports of General Smith and Mr. McDuffie in favor of the bank; and on that day he suggested the expediency of extending his power to the printing of other articles which might subserve the purposes of the institution, whereupon the following resolution was adopted---“Resolved, That the president is hereby authorized to cause to be prepared and circulated such documents and papers as may communicate to the people information in regard to the nature and operations of the bank.”
“The expenditures purporting to have been made under authority of these resolutions during the years 1831 and 1832 were about $80,000. For a portion of these expenditures vouchers were rendered, from which it appears that they were incurred IN THE PURCHASE OF SOME HUNDRED THOUSAND COPIES OF NEWSPAPERS, reports and speeches made in Congress, reviews of the veto message and reviews of speeches against the bank. For another large portion, no vouchers whatever were rendered, but the various sums were paid on orders of the president of the bank, making reference to the resolution of the 11th of March, 1831.”
According to Gustavus Myers in “History of the Great American Fortunes” (1907, page 78)---
“No business institution in the first three decades of the nineteenth century exercised such a sinister and overshadowing influence as this chartered monopoly. With its control of deposits of government funds and by the provisions of its charter, THIS BANK SWAYED THE WHOLE MONEY MARTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND COULD MANIPULATE THEM AT WILL. THE FULL TALE OF ITS BRIBERY OF POLITICIANS AND NEWSPAPER EDITORS, in order to perpetuate its great privileges and keep a hold upon public opinion, HAS NEVER BEEN SET FORTH.”
Returning to President Jackson’s message---
“On ascertaining these facts and perceiving that expenditures of a similar character were still continued, the Government directors a few weeks ago offered a resolution in the board calling for a specific amount of these expenditures, showing the objects to which they had been applied and the persons to whom the money had been paid. This reasonable proposition was voted down. They also offered a resolution rescinding the resolutions of November 1830 and March 1831. This also was rejected.”
“Not content with thus refusing to recall the obnoxious power or even to require such an account of the expenditure as would show whether the money of the bank had in fact been applied to the objects contemplated by these resolutions, as obnoxious as they were, the board renewed the power already conferred, and even enjoined renewed attention to its exercise by adopting the following in lieu of the propositions submitted by the Government directors---“Resolved, That the board have confidence in the wisdom and integrity of the president and in the propriety of the resolutions of 30th November 1830, and 11th March, 1831, and entertain a full conviction of the necessity of a renewed attention to the object of those resolutions, and that the president be authorized and requested to continue his exertions for the promotion of said object.”
“Taken in connection with the nature of the expenditures heretofore made, as recently disclosed, which the board not only tolerate, but approve, THIS RESOLUTION PUTS THE FUNDS OF THE BANK AT THE DISPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMPLOYING THE WHOLE PRESS OF THE COUNTRY IN THE SERVICE OF THE BANK, TO HIRE WRITERS AND NEWSPAPERS, AND TO PAY OUT SUCH SUMS AS HE PLEASES TO WHAT PERSON AND FOR WHAT SERVICES HE PLEASES WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RENDERING ANY SPECIFIC ACCOUNT. THE BANK IS THUS CONVERTED INTO A VAST ELECTIONEERING ENGINE, WITH MEANS TO EMBROIL THE COUNTRY IN DEADLY FEUDS, AND, UNDER COVER OF EXPENDITURES IN THEMSELVES IMPROPER, EXTEND ITS CORRUPTION THROUGH ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS OF SOCIETY.”
Can any of us name just one large magazine; newspaper; television broadcaster; or media holding company, which has ever run an expose of the fiat currency of the Federal Reserve System? Our elitists are still in league with the British and their Bank of England---over a century and a half after Andrew Jackson went to his rest!
“Some of the items for which accounts have been rendered show the construction which has been given to the resolutions and the way in which the power it confers has been exerted. The money has not been expended merely in the publication and distribution of speeches, reports of committees, or articles written for the purpose of showing the constitutionality or usefulness of the bank, but publications have been prepared and extensively circulated containing the grossest invectives against the officers of the Government, and the money which belongs to the stockholders and to the public has been freely applied in efforts to degrade in public estimation those who were supposed to be instrumental in resisting the wishes of THIS GRASPING AND DANGEROUS INSTITUTION.”
“As the president of the bank has not been required to settle his accounts, no one but himself knows how much more than the sum already mentioned may have been squandered, and for which a credit may hereafter be claimed in his account under this most extraordinary resolution. With these facts before us can we be surprised at THE TORRENT OF ABUSE INCESSANTLY POURED OUT AGAINT ALL WHO STAND IN THE WAY OF THE AMBITION OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES? Can we be surprised at sudden and unexpected changes of opinion in favor of an institution which has millions to lavish and avows its determination not to spare its means when they are necessary to accomplish its purposes? The refusal to render an account of the manner in which a part of the money expended has been applied gives just cause for the suspicion that it has been used for purposes which it is not deemed prudent to expose to the eyes of an intelligent and virtuous people. THOSE WHO ACT JUSTLY DO NOT SHUN THE LIGHT, NOR DO THEY REFUSE EXPLANATIONS WHEN THE PROPRIETY OF THEIR CONDUCT IS BROUGHT INTO QUESTION.”
“With these facts before him in an official report from the Government directors, the President would feel that he was not only responsible for all the abuses and corruptions the bank has committed or may commit, but almost an accomplice in a conspiracy against that Government which he has sworn honestly to administer, if he did not take every step within his constitutional and legal power in putting an end to these enormities. If it be possible within the scope of human affairs to find a reason for removing the Government deposits and leaving the bank to its own resource for the means of effecting ITS CRIMINAL DESIGNS, we have it here. Was it expected when the moneys of the United States were directed to be placed in that bank that they would be put under the control of one man empowered to spend millions without rendering a voucher or specifying the object? Can they be considered safe with the evidence before us that tens of thousands have been spent for highly improper, if not corrupt, purposes, and that the same motive may lead to the expenditure of hundreds of thousands, and even millions more? And can we justify ourselves to the people by longer lending to it the money and power of the Government to be employed for such purposes?”
(With but little imagination you could picture Biddle crowing---“A banker can do what he wants!”)
“It has been alleged by some as an objection to the removal of the deposits that the bank has the power, and in that event will have the disposition, to destroy the State banks employed by the Government, and bring distress upon the country. It has been the fortune of the President to encounter dangers which were represented as equally alarming, and he has seen them vanish before resolution and energy. Pictures equally appalling were paraded before him when this bank came to demand a new charter. But what was the result? Has the country been ruined, or even distressed? Was it ever more prosperous than since that act? The President verily believes the bank has not the power to produce the calamities its friends threaten.”
Notwithstanding commentary to suggest otherwise, the main domestic power in the bank was John Jacob Astor, undisputed in his later years as the wealthiest man in America, and by an extremely exaggerated margin. Astor’s fortune traced, among other things, to a concession in the Chinese opium trade granted to him by the British Crown (“Silver Users And Opium,” Archives). Five of his descendants were listed in The Pilgrims of Great Britain leaked list, circa 1969---
Gustavus Myers, author of “History of the Great American Fortunes” (1909) suspected Astor of buying land with paper notes spit out by the United States Bank---