quote from pismo10": And he was not the first president to entertain thoughts of eliminating the Fed: When congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of the United States - the second incarnation of today's Fed - President Jackson vetoed the bill. Not long afterward, a ... "guy" ... stuck two pistols in Jackson's belly, but they both misfired. Then, a few years later, facing the costs of a civil war, Lincoln, unable to secure loans from NY bankers at less than 24%, got the congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of debt-free money as legal tender - greenbacks. This emergency measure worked so well that Lincoln considered adopting it as permanent policy. But John Wilkes Booth, a member in good standing of the Knights of the Golden Circle, did his thing. History - both American and European - has recorded the horrific consequences resulting from challenging the central banking system and those who control it. ( Strange how our history books omitted certain very significant facts ... isn't it???)
1. You were already refuted. 2. Greenbacks were the first fiat money - a pure paper currency - issued by the USG. Which is fine, since the Constitution only prohibited the states, not the Feds, from issuing money not backed by precious metals, the Founders having known their history, which included plenty of times when war made it necessary to suspend the use of precious metals as money. Complete suspension of precious metals didn't occur; greenbacks were circulated as being equivalent in parity to gold and gold-backed money, although they wound up being accepted at a discount in a lot of places. They were retired after the war after Congress overwhelmingly approved going back on the gold standard.
quote from trefoil: With the Contraction Act of 1866, congress authorized the treasury to call in and retire some, not all, of Lincoln's greenbacks. The European banking community was not at all pleased with the thought that our success with printing our own debt-free money just might catch on in their own back yards. Their American banking puppets began calling in existing loans and refused to renew and issue new ones - their tried and true proven method of creating depression. They then used the media to proclaim that the lack of a gold standard was the cause. As this depression brought the public to its knees, the Bank of England sent Ernest Seyd to America to straighten us out. With a half a mil in his pockets, he not only successfully bribed enough congressmen to get his way, but he actually drafted the the bill himself - the Coinage Act - to demonitize silver. In his own words: "I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money." So you're right, we did return to the gold standard ... not because it was best for us, but because it was best and most profitable for the Rothschilds.
This is ridiculous. First, this Ernest Seyd thing was investigated and rejected, and caused a bunch of gullible Congress critters to actually have to apologize: Ernest Seyd bio Secondly, here's the title of an Ernest Seyd book: "The Depreciation Of Labour And Property Which Would Follow The Demonetisation Of Silver" Does that sound to you like someone the Bank of England would send over to demonetize our silver? Get a grip.
quote from trefoil: Ridiculous ... get a grip ??? No doubt there have been times when those shoes fit me quite well, but this time, you must have been looking in a mirror when those words came to mind. First, to detail support for your allegation, doubt was cast on Seyd's role in demonitizing silver as the result of a letter from his son and his brother: SIR : Our attention having been directed to statements that have been made in the American press with regard to the action of the late Ernest Seyd, in 1872, respecting the coinage act then pending, you will oblige us much by giving an unqualified contradiction to these statements. Ernest Seyd was not in the United States at that date for the purpose of bribing members of Congress to vote for the demonetization of silver, never having been there since 1856. The statement is the more absurd as he was the first to take up the cause of silver in England against the prevailing doctrine here, and remained a consistent supporter of silver, as his numerous works on the subject will show. We remain, yours truly, ERNEST SEYD, RICHARD SEYD. The above was a letter - neither sworn to nor notarized. Mr. Saeyd's statement regarding his participation in this fiasco was part of a SWORN statement given in 1892 to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Colorado. Now ... does that automatically mean that this sworn statement was 100% truthful??? Any more, or less, truthful than the unsworn letter from Seyd's blood kin looking to clean the family name??? YOU have to put each on a scale and give credibility where you think is due. My scale happens to tip in favor of the sworn statement. And by the way ... the Crime of 1873 was not Seyd's alledged bribary, but rather the Coinage Act itself, due to the resulting depression. Secondly, What better representative to send than one with unquestionable credentials in favor of silver??? Few were more supportive of the American Revolution than Benedict Arnold until the lure of English gold. Was Seyd of a stronger will than Arnold??? Who knows ? Look ... this one incident may not indeed support any allegation that the Bank of England sought to interfere with our banking system. However, if you consider the pains it had taken the years before and after 1873 to keep us on the gold standard, you have to ask yourself: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...
I've found you entertaining up until now, but I will leave you with this, from a guy who had way more common sense than you will probably acquire in this lifetime and the next: