Wealth Inequality—The Haves Versus the Have-Nots

“History is little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind.” Historian Edward Gibbon.

Is wealth inequality really a fact of life? Say, like the immutable Law of Nature? How about the political policies of the very men who give meaning to such inequalities? The usual economic explanations for the “inequality” all follow the same bone-dry assertions, from the same drab, monolithic drones of the same old industrial economic perspective. Those who own the Capital will always out-perform the labor class. No kidding— as if that observation required a rocket-scientist to confirm.

A recent article on this point of discussion:

No, Inequality Isn’t Preventing A US Economic Recovery
James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute| May 17, 2013,

Brookings scholar Scott Winship has his doubts, telling the New York Times, “The evidence does not give much reason to worry that inequality saps growth, or much reason to think that it increases it.”

Among his reasons:

1. It seems that for authoritarian nations with emerging economies, but that relationship has been tough to pin down for democratic, advanced economies.

2. A highly regarded 2010 study Do Rising Incomes Lift All Boats looking at data from 1905 to 2000 found “no systematic relationship between top income shares and economic growth in a panel of 12 developed nations observed for between 22 and 85 years.”

3. A March 2012 study by Michael Bordo and Christopher Meissner, Does Inequality Lead to a Financial Crisis, concludes “low interest rates and economic expansions are the only two robust determinants of credit booms in our data set. Anecdotal evidence from US experience in the 1920s and in the years up to 2007 and from other countries does not support the inequality, credit, crisis nexus. Rather, it points back to a familiar boom-bust pattern of declines in interest rates, strong growth, rising credit, asset price booms and crises.”

Well, isn’t that just peachy. Another drone informs us that the standard model is right after all, and none of that inequality crap supports any other possibility except the one already known— boom bust cycles.

Here is another point of view:

Anti-Wealth Inequality Legislation Is Just A Matter Of Time
Derek Thompson, The Atlantic | Mar. 18, 2013, 11:33 AM

You might consider America’s vast wealth inequality, vividly illustrated in this viral video, to be offensive, infuriating, or irrelevant. But it is not terribly mysterious. 

Rich people have more money. More money tends to lead to bigger properties, fatter savings, and better access to capital markets. As a result, the top 1% of the country controls between 40 and 50 percent of the total wealth from stocks and bonds.

What’s more, the very very richest people tend to be lawyers, doctors, and executives, especially in finance, with equity in their firms and companies. And that, right there, represents the overwhelming source of high wealth (as opposed to high income) at the tippy top: It comes from stocks, from real estate, and from business equity.

Poorer people save much less, don’t have much in the way of a stock portfolio, and (somewhat by definition) aren’t owners or partners in rich private firms. Instead, they might own homes. But homes, as we’ve seen, aren’t always the steadiest investment. All of that explains why the share of total household wealth, which has fallen at the bottom thanks to the housing bust, is accumulating at the top 1 percent.”

Now that is indeed some enlightening analysis on why poor people have declining shares in wealth. The housing market caved in and more money simply accumulated at the top. Economics is so easy to understand when every other possibility is excluded before a single conclusion can be drawn. Why bother bringing up that old sludge about “inflation” destroying the incentives to save those declining synthetic dollars, when worth determines the timing function, of that so very un-sound, fiat money. Those poor people should have known to buy yen or something. What were they thinking?

Meanwhile, higher prices on those consumer items, which are excluded from the most popular pricing indexes due to that wretched “volatility” and yet, are also the very same items which suck up every last extra dime wage earners are allowed to keep after deductions. Could there be a connection– a nexus to wealth credit inequality— rising interest rates clobbering the holder of that credit loan or card— even as their real wages decline?

Nah—  they just mis-invested their money in their homes—- well it was a suckers market after all. Silly people thinking they could buy low and sell high during a recession. That boom and bust cycle always catches people by surprise every time.  Adding to the pain is the explosive growth in taxes, of every kind, which apparently confuses the thematic quality of the argument. Poor people are poor because they do not make enough money. If they made more money they would not be poor. Therefore, inequality is actually caused by poor people, which is why it has no factual relationship, to merely the perceived problem of inequality. That would be that the rich are always getting richer, which is purely a superfluous coincidence.  The rich are not suffering from any inequality at all. Which is why rich people hate the assumption the rich do not suffer. They suffer from wealth just as the poor suffer from poverty. Therefore, inequality by such observations is impossible.

Now call me a skeptical cynic if you will, but I suspect those old worn out excuses of “wealth inequality” are just simplistic absurdities from the same heap of bullshit trotted out year after year like a cheezy, Christmas ornament. Except that it smells bad.

Social inequality and financial inequality are two separate issues which intertwine dynamically as the basis of the ‘Tension Function’— what people feel in economic decisions— not just the mathematical choices derived from the numbers themselves.  The critical observation is that perception of wealth depends upon the comparison, not the meaning of value. The second critical aspect is access to sources of money. The printing press is a mechanical negation of scarcity in action. People however, do NOT have first rights to the results of said process, or the political power to challenge such rights. No economist dares reveal what this implies.

Which is why this critical connection of inequality to political power is avoided. There is no scarcity of printing press money. People who have no first Rights, suffer the consequences of political policy, as the loss of access to capital. This is the root of financial inequality. Banks receive their money for free, you the consumer must pay for it over and over again, even as your Rights to earn money are removed, diminished and basically ripped to little inflated pieces. People have been experiencing the rotten policies of the money scum-lords for so long— it seems natural. Why of course the wage earners are last for any Shares of the real capital, if they receive any at all. This diabolical BS needs to end, but wage earners have no political power and thus, the Policy Cycle repeats accordingly, as if it was indeed natural.

The truth is wage-slavery goes all the way back to the very days before the constitution ever combined the union states. Wage-slavers were considered to be no better than slaves. They owned no land and were not allowed to vote, but they were free in the sense that they had no Master telling them what to do with their labors. The had the same rights, but not the same social liberties or privileges. Being a free man on the land was no cake walk, but those who were able to do so could move up into the ranks of the merchants and professionals. The entrepreneurial spirit of such people was a factor in Americas favor, but the real difference was why they were able to actually hold onto the wealth so created and build family fortunes. They were not burdened by the excesses of government.

Mass manufacturing threw a new wrinkle into the wage-slavery to business owner relationship. Factories needed lots of wage-workers and the need for labor as cheap as it could be hired…  bringing in new foreign labor also meant fierce competition between the working class already here and those which were soon to be streaming in from other parts of the world. Wage inequality was an issue right along with working conditions and other factors such as food, shelter etc. A permanent underclass developed right on cue and the economic conditions so suffered were indeed quite different, as people struggled with the necessities of living, as very few were afforded the right to be lazy or free-loaders. Back in those days welfare did not mean what it implies today. Those who did not perform Labors, were the superior class. Those would include the growing class of the Creditors, to whom the Public Credit was their sacred Income-interest-profit cow.

The period of time which led to many of the current theories of the economists, still copiously dominating the ivory towers, bestowed upon the people by the Creditors, no less, is also one of great diversity of activities of the American culture and people. To understand where we are today requires knowing where we came from… for many reading about the past is tedious and of no interest. But to understand why there has always been such a great divide between the haves and the have-not requires delving deep into the very nature of human economic relationships through American history.

Now I simply chose  just a few sources of historical commentary which carry a moderate stance on the political side and demonstrate the factual aspects well enough to be checked for accuracy. It is of course the “interpretation” which de-evolves into opinion, but for the purpose here the following commentary, from the primary source http://www.ushistory.org/us/  is just fine to illustrate the fact, such problems of “inequality” have plagued this country right along side the stories of great success. The division of wealth is not the simplistic subject as it is portrayed to be, and such issues, deserve a deeper look to determine what that “gap” really meant back then and onward till today.

So on the road to industrialization:

“The new industrialization was very expensive. Out of the need for money grew the corporation. Chartered under state laws, corporations could accumulate capital from as many investors as were interested in them, each of them enjoying some stock or stake in the corporation’s success. There was no limit to how much investors could earn, yet each with “limited liability” whereby, they were financially responsible for the corporation’s debts only to the extent of their investment.”

[Note that the significant factor brought about by the passage of the 16th was the apparent move of corporations, from under state authority, to the federal zone. And of course the no limit of profit and limited liability being key points of their success.]

“Yet, the Industrial Revolution would not have been possible without one further ingredient — people. Canals and railways needed thousands of people to build them. Business schemes required people to execute them. The number of projects and businesses under development was enormous. The demand for labor was satisfied, in part, by millions of immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and elsewhere. As is often the case when there is a mass immigration, there was a great deal of resistance. Old and new political parties took strong positions on the rights of immigrants. Ultimately these positions hardened, leading to major political changes in America.”

“Perhaps no one had as great an impact on the development of the industrial north as Eli Whitney. Whitney raised eyebrows when he walked into the US Patent office, took apart ten guns, and reassembled them mixing the parts of each gun. Whitney lived in an age where an artisan would handcraft each part of every gun. No two products were quite the same. Whitney’s milling machine allowed workers to cut metal objects in an identical fashion, making interchangeable parts. It was the start of the concept of mass production. Over the course of time, the device and Whitney’s techniques were used to make many others products. Elias Howe used it to make the first workable sewing machine in 1846. Clock-makers used it to make metal gears. In making the cotton gin, Eli Whitney had played a major part in expanding slavery. In making the milling machine to produce precision guns and rifles in a very efficient and effective way, he set the industrial forces of the North in motion.”

“From 1820 to 1870, over seven and a half million immigrants came to the United States — more than the entire population of the country in 1810. Nearly all of them came from northern and western Europe — about a third from Ireland and almost a third from Germany. Burgeoning companies were able to absorb all that wanted to work. Immigrants built canals and constructed railroads. They became involved in almost every labor-intensive endeavor in the country. Much of the country was built on their backs.”

“With the vast numbers of German and Irish coming to America, hostility to them erupted. Part of the reason for the opposition was religious. All of the Irish and many of the Germans were Roman Catholic. Part of the opposition was political. Most immigrants living in cities became Democrats because the party focused on the needs of commoners. Part of the opposition occurred because Americans in low-paying jobs were threatened and sometimes replaced by groups willing to work for almost nothing in order to survive. Signs that read NINA — “No Irish Need Apply” — sprang up throughout the country.”

[Wage-slavers being pitted against even more desperate soon to be wage-slave workers means a downward trend of wage value has begun for any worker competing in the same fields of labor. The critical function of Capital controlling the wage means the have-not race to the wage value bottom is now a way of wage-earning life.]

“And the new American thinkers? They exhorted each citizen to “Hitch your wagon to a star!” The Transcendentalists and literary lights wanted to remind everyone who he or she was and might become. Their philosophy celebrated individualism, the goodness of humankind and the benevolence of the universe.”

“It was an exciting era to live in. But, like any other, it inevitably developed problems for which neither optimism nor expansion, religion nor reform could provide answers. The tragic flaw in the American experiment would slowly reveal itself in the widening breach between the North and the South over the issue of slavery. As the tone of the Abolitionist cause became more and more shrill, it began to drown out moderation, compromise and good feelings. Americans had previously been willing to argue about everything from women’s rights to the virtues of homemade bread, yet rarely did they lose sight of another American’s right to disagree.”

“At the same time the Second Awakening was freeing men and women in the north and west, churches in the south began adopting a more authoritarian, paternalistic tone and did not encourage thinking about or questioning of social institutions, since such probing might have an undesired effect. The idea that all men have a spark of divinity and are therefore to be treated equally and benevolently did not mesh well with the existence of slavery. But everywhere else in America, the church and the clergy became, at least in spirit, a champion for the common man, his individual dignity and salvation, and the betterment of his condition.”

[The moral ambiguity slavery presented upon the conscience could not be ignored even as the question persisted as whether or not Black-Americans were equals in all other citizenship respects. There is no Honor in slavery. A dry fact, those of the South preferred to ignore. The resistance of the South to the changing perceptions, which the rest of the Nation was embracing,  begins sowing the seeds of discontent.]

“The 1840s marked the height of the Utopian trials. The belief that man was “naturally” good and that human institutions were perfectible had raised tremendous expectations about the possibilities of reform and renewal. These experiments ultimately disintegrated but, for a while, tried to be ideal places where a brotherhood of followers shared equally in the goods of their labor and lived in peace. It seemed that within the great American experiment, searching for utopia required only the commitment of people who found it easy to believe that nothing was impossible.”

[Without telling us why these experiments disintegrated or destroyed beyond any hope of recovery, leaves a big question mark. And which human institutions are these exactly? The ideals of the “Utopians” seemed to have hit a deeper social nerve. I also suspect by what is not said is the role of money was not resolved in these communities in harmony with the expectations.]

“Around 1840 the abolitionist movement was split over the acceptance of female speakers and officers. Ultimately snubbed as a delegate to a World Anti-Slavery Convention in London, Elizabeth Cady Stanton returned to America in 1848 and organized the first convention for women’s rights in Seneca Falls, New York. Under the leadership of Stanton, Mott, and Susan B. Anthony, the convention demanded improved laws regarding child custody, divorce, and property rights. They argued that women deserved equal wages and career opportunities in law, medicine, education and the ministry. First and foremost among their demands was suffrage — the right to vote. The women’s rights movement in America had begun in earnest. Amelia Bloomer began publishing The Lily, which also advocated “the emancipation of women from temperance, intemperance, injustice, prejudice, and bigotry.” She also advocated the wearing of pantaloons for women that would allow for greater mobility than the expected Victorian costume — now these garments are called “bloomers.”

“In addition to the problems in asylums, prisons were filled to overflowing with everyone who gave offense to society from committing murder to spitting on the street. Men, women, children were thrown together in the most atrocious conditions. Something needed to be done — but what?”

[The prison system was a foul institution even then. Giving slight offense to society equals prison speaks volumes about how people related to one another— perhaps one class was clearly not so happy with the rest and exercised that power of condemnation to banish from view such offenders, which no doubt also violated that inalienable Right… thus the unalienable as well. The Law was a codified social wall between people which was not to be breeched lightly.]

“As a group, the transcendentalists led the celebration of the American experiment as one of individualism and self-reliance. They took progressive stands on women’s rights, abolition, reform, and education. They criticized government, organized religion, laws, social institutions, and creeping industrialization. They created an American “state of mind” in which imagination was better than reason, creativity was better than theory, and action was better than contemplation. And they had faith that all would be well because humans could transcend limits and reach astonishing heights.”

[These transcendentalists were some mighty optimistic people. Their core belief is a positive model for the enterprising spirit and when channeled into positive works, a well balanced life, is a real result worth pursuing. So what went wrong for these people? What was keeping them from realizing such interesting goals and pursuits? The obvious answer is economic trends moved with technological innovations faster than perhaps idealized, non-money making ones. It would appear the function of money was a serious impediment to the virtues of their success.

Becoming wealthy is not the same as becoming wiser, not that the two are mutually exclusive. But being a hard-nosed, greedy, duplicitous bastard does not often lead to transcendental wisdom. Perhaps, these transcendentalists as groups of people simply ran out of money faster, than those operating only for profit as if nothing else mattered. Wealth is often like the hyena eating anything its teeth can bite into and consume. The destructive truth of predatory wealth pursuits is well hidden from proper public view. Better public relations as well also keeps the far too inquisitive from seeing what lies behind those golden curtains. Those at the top of the economic food scale are predators and they kill their prey to feast, thus devour the wealth of others to add to their own.]

The next big thing of technological revolution: The invention of the cotton gin radically changes industrial production in the south.

“This phenomenal and sudden explosion of success of the cotton industry gave slavery a new lease on life. Prior to this, most thoughtful Southerners, including Washington and Jefferson, had seen slavery as an evil that must eventually be swept away. But with the southern economy now reliant on cotton, these beliefs were seen as old-fashioned, and slavery now was seen as an institution to be cherished. That Cotton was King was now well understood in the south. It became the foundation of southern economy, southern culture, and southern pride.”

“As the Peculiar Institution spread across the South, many states passed “slave codes,” which outlined the rights of slaves and the acceptable treatment and rules regarding slaves. Slave codes varied from state to state, but there were many common threads. One could not do business with a slave without the prior consent of the owner. Slaves could be awarded as prizes in raffles, wagered in gambling, offered as security for loans, and transferred as gifts from one person to another.”

[Basically, within the slave States, people simply lost their damn minds, ignored their moral-conscience, as if it can actually cease to exist, turning themselves into morally, defective fools. The principle of the unalienable rights was lost on them altogether. In addition, the underlying claim here is the Southern mans Rights to induce human bondage supersedes the immutable Rights of the Creator, as expressed in human existence. Southern pride was actually mocking the core principles of the constitution, as well as, the Creator. It is an insult to the principle of —All men are created equal– to insist these are not actually men, they are slaves of ordinary men.

An insult to the principle of sovereign citizenship— slaves are not men— so claimed, even as the southern man demanded the common labors of slaves not one whit different than any free man. If slaves were sub-human, un-worthy of any equality why were they capable of doing, speaking, or living in every manner so capable of the slave-holders themselves? The southern mind-set had de-evolved to an inferior level of conscience. Apparently the old saying, “Pride goeth before the fall” was lost on southern men, who never questioned the false assumption, that they were naturally superior to other races of mankind, by no factual known measure, except by the rights so conferred by birth. Instituted, on the very Law they now mocked openly.]

In the very early days, when the Crown set the wheel in motion:

“Tobacco played the central role in defining social class, local politics, the labor system; in fact, it shaped the entire life of the region. The planter was essentially a country gentleman, looking to England for political and economic guidance as well as for its literature, manner of dress, and etiquette. In the 1700s the Virginia gentry established a code of behavior that can still be seen in parts of the south today. Aristocrats had certain rights and privileges, and, in return, had certain responsibilities for their “*inferiors.” By around 1825, the dominance of Virginia was fading and the emergence of King Cotton shifted the center of Southern influence to South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.”

[*That no doubt included any man also not a slave, as this gentry class was never in any doubt about who was superior to who. The British character was “Norman” in qualities and came right on over to America. Of course they had slaves, indentured servants and all manner of house-hold help. The Haves did not have any remorse about which side they stood on. An entire set of code of behaviors was already well established and practiced accordingly.  The right to live this way is inalienable. The Right to believe in this way of life is unalienable.  But not the right of slavery. The right to slave ownership was alienable from day one. Owning another human being is not possible without government protection. A privilege so granted is always alienable period.]

“The southern woman was genteel and gracious. She knew how to entertain guests and tenaciously defended her husband and children. She was not outspoken and was pure of mind and body.”

“A proper gentleman, it was believed, should be a lawyer, politician, planter, or military man, rather than be a businessman or other occupation. Because plantation owners had their money tied up in property and slaves, many of the generation could not afford to send their children to prestigious colleges, but were able to send them to the esteemed military schools.”

[Not all black people during this period were slaves. Free blacks were successful and proved the qualitative differences of culture did not impede the social questions which plagued the recognitions of Rights. Parties reflected the beliefs of the members and sprang up on both sides of the issues of freedom and Rights. And that other ‘occupation’ would be wage-slavers— the laboring class.]

“Free blacks were highly skilled as artisans, business people, educators, writers, planters, musicians, tailors, hairdressers, and cooks. African-American inventors like Thomas L. Jennings, who invented a method for the dry cleaning of clothes, and Henry Blair Glenn Ross, who patented a seed planter, contributed to the advancement of science. Some owned property and kept boarding houses, and some even owned slaves themselves.”

“James Thornwell, a minister, wrote in 1860, “The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobin’s on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other.”

“President Andrew Jackson banned the post office from delivering Abolitionist literature in the south. A “gag rule” was passed on the floor of the House of Representatives forbidding the discussion of bills that restricted slavery. Abolitionists were physically attacked because of their outspoken anti-slavery views.”

[The violation of free speech to address the slavery issues of freedom— the intellectual absurdity here alone is quite obvious now, but back then apparently not. The development of the technology known as ‘railroads’ played an important role in this period of moral conflicts and were well utilized to help people called ‘slaves’ escape. The term ‘slaves’ is not a race of mankind, it is a false condition so imposed on man. This distinction is simply reinforcing the fact the Creator, did not create slaves as a race of men. Therefore, all men were created equal. The term “men” includes all of mankind, both male and female, as it is profoundly disingenuous to claim otherwise. I sincerely hope all those who read these words comprehend the deeper meaning as well.

There is no natural slave race, therefore, any claim to impose slavery is defective, as it based on a bold-faced lie.  Slavery is forced upon people unable to defend themselves from its conditions. This all goes straight back to the conquest of nations, where the winners made slaves of people as a Faustian choice: Live as a slave or die. Thus, proving slavery is not a Right it is a form of violence upon others to do Harm. No Law based on a principle of Right can do Harm. The Framers, like many men of that time, were acting on the presumptions of Rights, as conferred by Birth status. They held themselves to be superior a priori therefore, they can ignore inferiors Rights and make other men of foreign births into slaves, justified by the economic necessity of labors. They were wrong. The defect is the result of their lies unto themselves.]

“Needless to say, the Underground Railroad was not appreciated by the slave-owners. Although they disliked Abolitionist talk and literature, this was far worse. To them, this was a simple case of stolen property. When Northern towns rallied around freed slaves and refused compensation, yet another brick was set into the foundation of Southern secession.”

[Here too the Southerners duality mind-set is quite strange. If they had to ban literature and “talk” as well, they had already crossed into the moral hypocrite zone, or worse yet pure, intellectual fraud. Their persistence in claiming biblical vindications is also so thin as to be laughable, if it was actually funny. Any man under the right conditions can be declared a slave. This is where the Southern mind-set clouded their judgment to their actual problem. They knew what was wrong, but did not want to give up the economic fortunes the slave labor force provided. The answer was simply: end slavery in graduated steps where every step allowed both sides the ability to part ways or form a more equitable labor relationship. Not that this would be easy. Had they took a moral approach the north would have responded in kind or become moral hypocrites themselves. Hubris by the peaceful method is avoided and honor still prevails.]

The millionaires, back then as today,  are born up by resource domination, extraction and control. He who controlled the land made a fortune and Income so derived was the basis for state taxes:

“Economic motives were paramount for others. The fur trade had been dominated by European trading companies since colonial times. German immigrant John Jacob Astor was one of the first American entrepreneurs to challenge the Europeans. He became a millionaire in the process. The desire for more land brought aspiring homesteaders to the frontier. When gold was discovered in California in 1848, the number of migrants increased even more.”

—“At the heart of manifest destiny was the pervasive belief in American cultural and racial superiority. Native Americans had long been perceived as inferior, and efforts to “civilize” them had been widespread since the days of John Smith and Miles Standish. The *Hispanics who ruled Texas and the lucrative ports of California were also seen as “backward.”

—“For African Americans, slavery came to be a way of life in the eastern settlements, even as the Mexican government had strongly expressed disapproval of the system. The immediate future of the “peculiar institution” seemed uncertain during the early years of settlement, as the Mexican government persisted in its opposition to slavery but did not enforce edicts abolishing it.”

—“Once the Federalists in Coahuila and Texas succeeded in making slavery legal, the institution took root, even as the national government reversed its position on the matter several other times. It gained a foothold because Anglo-Texans generally perceived blacks as destined for servitude; most of the immigrants came from the lower South, where attitudes prescribed specific roles for both races. Furthermore, the immigrants considered slavery essential for the economic growth of Texas, a conviction with which Tejano oligarchs and their colleagues in Coahuila concurred. By 1836, 5,000 slaves resided in Texas, concentrated in the Anglo settlements.”

—“Most Hispanic Texans remained situated in central and southern Texas, where they made their livelihood as bucolic workers, but others resided in the three urban settlements founded in the early eighteenth century-San Antonio, Goliad, and Nacogdoches. According to Almonte’s report in 1834, Bexar and outlying ranches had a Hispanic population of 2,400, Goliad 700, and Nacogdoches 500. The new town of Victoria, colonized by Martín De León in 1824, had 300 residents in 1834. On the Rio Grande, Laredo had a population of about 2,000 in 1835.

—“Mexican Texas featured social divisions with origins in the colonial era that were now exacerbated by the new economics stimulated by the immigration of the 1820s and 1830s. A group of ricos occupied the upper crust of society; their standing rested on government position, family, racial background, business, and land possession. At the bottom lived peones and day laborers, usually mixed-bloods and Hispanicized Indians. The aristocrats sent their children to schools in Coahuila or had private tutors for them. Throughout the Mexican era, it was the ricos who voiced political opinions.”https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/npm01

—“SPANISH TEXAS. Spanish Texas, situated on the border of Spain’s North American empire, encompassed only a small portion of what is now the Lone Star State. The Spanish province lay above the Nueces River to the east of the Medina River headwaters and extended into Louisiana. Over time, Texas was a part of four provinces in the Vice royalty of New Spain (Colonial Mexico): the El Paso area was under the jurisdiction of New Mexico, the missions founded near La Junta de los Ríos were under Nueva Vizcaya, the coastal region from the Nueces River to the Rio Grande and thence upstream to Laredo was under Nuevo Santander after 1749, and Texas was initially under joint jurisdiction with the province of Coahuila. Slightly more than three centuries elapsed between the time the Texas shoreline was first viewed by a Spaniard in 1519 and July 21, 1821, when the flag of Castile and León was lowered for the last time at San Antonio.” http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/nps01

[This historical series http://www.ushistory.org/us/did not delve into the Spanish conquering of the natives of central America—so I went to other sources, as excerpts above show for the essential links and one more:

—–“Mexico became a nation in 1821 when Mexico achieved independence from the Spanish Empire; this began the process of forging a Mexican national identity that fused the cultural traits of indigenous pre-Columbian origin with those of European, particularly Iberian, ancestry. This led to what has been termed “a peculiar form of multi-ethnic nationalism. After the conquest of the Aztec empire, the Spanish re-administered the land and expanded their own empire beyond the former boundaries of the Aztec, adding more territory to the Mexican sphere of influence which remained under the Spanish Crown for 300 years.”]

Knowing a bit more about the ‘cultural backgrounds’ helps to explain the ‘why’ of so many regional conflicts both cultural and economic:

“Expanding the boundaries of the United States was in many ways a cultural war as well. The desire of southerners to find more lands suitable for cotton cultivation would eventually spread slavery to these regions. North of the Mason-Dixon line, many citizens were deeply concerned about adding any more slave states. Manifest destiny touched on issues of religion, money, race, patriotism, and morality. These clashed in the 1840s as a truly great drama of regional conflict began to unfold.”

“Most Texan-Americans wanted to be annexed by the United States. They feared that the Mexican government might soon try to recapture their land. Many had originally come from the American south and had great interest in becoming a southern state. President Andrew Jackson saw trouble. Many Whigs and Abolitionists in the North refused to admit another slave state to the Union. Rather than risk tearing the nation apart over this controversial issue, Jackson did not pursue annexation. The Lone Star flag flew proudly over the Lone Star Republic for nine years.”

“Texas was an independent country.”

“Very few Americans had ever heard the name Polk, but Clay’s illustrious career was widely known. However, Polk was an excellent strategist. He tapped into the public mood and realized that manifest destiny was the very issue that could lead him to victory. Polk called for expansion that included Texas, California, and the entire Oregon territory. The northern boundary of Oregon was the latitude line of 54 degrees, 40 minutes. “Fifty-four forty or fight!” was the popular slogan that led Polk to victory against all odds.”

“Nevertheless, Polk boldly declared to Great Britain that joint occupation would end within one year. The British were confident they could win, but by 1846 they were vastly outnumbered in Oregon by a margin of greater than six to one. In June of that year, Britain proposed splitting Oregon at the 49th parallel. Polk agreed to the compromise, and conflict was avoided.”

“President Polk’s true goal was to acquire the rich ports of California. He envisioned a lucrative trade with the Far East that would revolve around San Francisco and Monterey. Great Britain also had designs on the territory, so Polk thought he would have to act fast. He sent John Slidell to Mexico with an offer. The United States would pay Mexico a combined sum of $30 million for the Texan boundary of the Rio Grande, New Mexico territory, and California.”

“Polk directed the war from Washington, D.C. He sent a 4-prong attack into the Mexican heartland. John Fremont and Stephen Kearny were sent to control the coveted lands of California and New Mexico. Fremont led a group of zealous Californians to declare independence even before word of hostilities reached the West. The “Bear Flag Republic” was not taken seriously, but Fremont and his followers did march to Monterey to capture the Mexican presidio, or fort. By 1847, California was secure.”

“At home, the Whigs of the north complained bitterly about the war. Many questioned Polk’s methods as misleading and unconstitutional. Abolitionists rightly feared that southerners would try to use newly acquired lands to expand slavery. Antiwar sentiment emerged in New England much as it had in the War of 1812. Writer Henry David Thoreau was sentenced to prison for refusing to pay the taxes he knew were used to fund the war effort. His essay, Civil Disobedience, became a standard of peaceful resistance for future activists.”

“The Mexican-American War was formally concluded by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The United States received the disputed Texan territory, as well as New Mexico territory and California. The Mexican government was paid $15 million — the same sum issued to France for the Louisiana Territory. The United States Army won a grand victory. Although suffering 13,000 killed, the military won every engagement of the war. Mexico was stripped of half of its territory and was not consoled by the monetary settlement.”

“In January of 1848, a man named James Marshall innocently noticed a few shiny flecks in a California stream at Sutter’s Mill. Word spread of gold and soon people from all over California flocked inland seeking instant fortune. By autumn, word had reached the east, and once again Americans earned their reputation as a migratory people. During the year that followed, over 80,000 “forty-niners” flocked to California to share in the glory. Some would actually strike it rich, but most would not.”

“Word reached European shores and immigrants headed to America’s west. German-Jewish immigrant Levi Strauss invented trousers for the miners — his blue jeans became an American mainstay. Another significant segment of the diversity was the Chinese, who hoped to find gold and return to their homeland. Over 45,000 immigrants swelled the population between 1849 and 1854. Diversity did not bring harmony. The white majority often attacked the Mexican and Chinese minorities. The miners ruthlessly forced the California Native Americans off their lands. Laws were passed to restrict new land claims to white Americans.”

“The land obtained from Mexico quickly became the subject of a bitter feud between the Northern Whigs and the Southern Democrats. Abolitionists rightly feared that attempts would be made to plant cotton in the new territory, which would bring the blight of slavery. Slaveholders feared that if slavery were prohibited in the new territory, southern slave-holding states would lose power in Congress.”

“Although Taylor didn’t advocate any position regarding slavery during his campaign, after his election he stated that California and New Mexico should be admitted to the union and should decide their status by means of popular sovereignty.”

[Up until now, it is quite clear that allowing States to decide how they were going to decide that question of the “peculiar institution” was indeed of their own popular sovereign  choice. This does suggest that State Rights were being acknowledged to the degree so implied, that what the Federal Congress wanted, could not simply be declared by fiat alone. This bitter, political power struggle also underscores the fight for legislative supremacy was not leading the country in the right direction period. The moral defect of slavery was ignored right along with the deeper implications such cultural excesses soon un-leash. Once a society maintains slavery is a Right it is a slippery slope to declare who is un-fit to be a citizen and thus be declared a slave regardless of race, or any other factor so imposed.]

“The Gold Rush led to the rapid settlement of California which resulted in its imminent admission as the 31st state. Southerners recognized that there were few slaves in California because Mexico had prohibited slavery. Immediate admission would surely mean California would be the 16th free state, giving the non-slave-holding states an edge in the Senate. Already holding the House of Representatives, the free states could then dominate legislation.”

“Texas was claiming land that was part of New Mexico. As a slave state, any expansion of the boundaries of Texas would be opening new land to slavery. northerners were opposed. The north was also appalled at the ongoing practice of slavery in the nation’s capital — a practice the south was not willing to let go.”

“For decades, both northern states and southern states had threatened secession and dissolution of the Union over the question of where slavery was to be permitted. At issue was power. Both sides sought to limit the governing power of the other by maintaining a balance of membership in Congress. This meant ensuring that admission of a new state where slavery was outlawed was matched by a state permitting slavery. For example, at the same time that Missouri entered the Union as a slave state, Maine entered the Union as a free state.”

“Kansas would be the battleground on which the north and south would first fight. The Kansas-Nebraska Act led both to statehood and to corruption, hatred, anger, and violence. Men from neighboring Missouri stuffed ballot boxes in Kansas to ensure that a legislature friendly to slavery would be elected. Anti-slavery, or free soil, settlers formed a legislature of their own in Topeka. Within two years, there would be armed conflict between proponents of slavery and those against it.”

[When social disputes rise to the level of blood-shed, that is the red-flag a lawful defect has turned into a wider social maladjustment not just a difference of polite opinion. The struggle of political power vested on a false right has taken the next odious turn to violence as the only solution. The absurdity of slavery is that it affords society an economic boon not otherwise achieved. Industrial innovations were proving slave labor was not the path of progress, its proponents claimed. Agricultural slavery was not the same thing as political slavery or personal slavery. Each form harms the People thus negates the Law meant to protect them equally. This is the principle which proves the violation of constitutional unalienable Rights. All men have an unalienable Right not to be the mere slave of another more powerful group.

Was having a slave really like owning a horse?

No– the horse has never looked a man in the eye and demanded recognition of being in the same race.  By blurring the real lines of the moral compass the consequences were catching up to the the reality. Slave holding was tearing the country apart and for no good reason. Moral inferiority can only be sustained for so long before it collapses under the weight of the lies necessary for its impositions by force. If it was so good to be a slave why did the blacks themselves hate it so much? If blacks did not want to be slaves and whites did not want to be slaves for the same reasons, the law of slavery is fatally voided. Who can argue that it is naturally bad to be good?

Hence the absurdity of claiming, contrary to the facts, that slavery was good because blacks are bad people. What harm did they do specifically which necessitated their removal from their own ancestral lands to be punished as slaves by southern policies of defective applications of Law? No Southern man then or now, can answer that question with truth. Defective moral reasoning Harmed innocent men, woman and children. To deny this is absurd.]

“The political effects of Douglas’ bill were enormous. Passage of the bill irrevocably split the Whig Party, one of the two major political parties in the country at the time. Every northern Whig had opposed the bill; almost every southern Whig voted for it. With the emotional issue of slavery involved, there was no way a common ground could be found. Most of the southern Whigs soon were swept into the Democratic Party. Northern Whigs reorganized themselves with other non-slavery interests to become the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln. This left the Democratic Party as the sole remaining institution that crossed sectional lines. Animosity between the North and South was again on the rise. The North felt that if the Compromise of 1820 was ignored, the Compromise of 1850 could be ignored as well. Violations of the hated Fugitive Slave Law increased. Trouble was indeed back with a vengeance.”

“Within a year, the population of anti-slavery residents in Kansas far outnumbered legal residents of Kansas who were pro-slavery. They were not prepared to obey the laws of the “bogus legislature,” seated in Shawnee Mission. Organized under the name of Free Soilers, they drew up a free state constitution and elected a separate governor and state legislature located in Topeka. The result was a state with two governments. Violence would soon follow.”

“The sack of Lawrence and the massacre at Pottawatomie set off a brutal guerrilla war in Kansas. By the end of 1856, over 200 people would be gunned down in cold blood. Property damage reached millions of dollars. Federal troops were sent in to put down the fighting, but they were too few to have much effect. Kansas served as a small scale prelude to the bloody catastrophe that engulfed the entire nation only 5 years later.”

“John Brown returned. He organized a daring attack on slavery by attempting to incite a mass uprising of slaves, at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. While he failed in his effort to cause a slave rebellion, he succeeded in causing an insurrection of conscience in the north as well as grave misgivings in the south about its future in the Union.”

“The results of these events and the forces that caused them became hot spots in the cauldron of electoral politics. The north could never accept a President who planned to protect or extend slavery. The south would never accept a President who refused to do so. The nomination of candidates and the election of the President in 1860 were among the most divisive events in the history of this nation. Abraham Lincoln was President, and within weeks, 7 states left the Union to form the Confederate States of America.”

“In 1846, Dred Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived in a free state and a free territory for a prolonged period of time. Finally, after eleven years, his case reached the Supreme Court. At stake were answers to critical questions, including slavery in the territories and citizenship of African-Americans. The verdict was a bombshell.”

“The Court ruled that Scott’s “sojourn” of two years to Illinois and the Northwest Territory did not make him free once he returned to Missouri.
The Court further ruled that as a black man Scott was excluded from United States citizenship and could not, therefore, bring suit. According to the opinion of the Court, African-Americans had not been part of the “sovereign people” who made the Constitution.”

“The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law.”

“The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.”

[This ruling turned a Right up-side down to enforce an absurdity about what constituted citizenship of the United States. The assertion that African -Americans were not real men of the sovereign class is just idiotic. All men are created equal in the eyes of their Creator— to be true must be for all mankind on earth or it is just BS.

The judge cannot change the Sovereignty of the Creator over the whole of the Earth, just for the sake of slave States.  The “slave” property rights of the southern slave holder were alienable— given or taken by congress—therefore, congress was quite within its Rights to decide to prohibit slavery from any territory the slave States had no authority over period. Otherwise, it begs the question of who actually set the policy for such territories.

The Supreme Court, mangled the constitution to afford a slave state citizen a prohibitive right— to deny Congress—proper authority  and allowed for a narrow interpretation of freedom to castigate a man for being a free man, like every other man, so created. If the cowards on the bench had ruled upon the actual moral question instead of property rights, Mr. Scott actually proved the black race understood perfectly well, only the law gave the white slave holder command of his body BUT never his will and soul.

The Court basically chickened-out of the real question which was why Mr. Scott had to remain a slave to a man who was morally inferior by virtue of his intellectual dishonesty. Slavery has no Honor and Mr. Scott is under no obligation to up-hold any law repugnant to his own moral character. This case is another example of the law being an ass of itself. If the Supreme Court cannot comprehend the Truth of the Law then their Authority to adjudicate the Law is voided in the same instant. A Law not based on Truth cannot be enforced by a lie or Justice is voided and all power of that false authority is gone. The People of the North knew this to be  fact and ignored the ruling.]

“Two of the three branches of government, the Congress and the President, had failed to resolve the issue. Now the Supreme Court rendered a decision that was only accepted in the southern half of the country. Was the American experiment collapsing? The only remaining national political institution with both northern and southern strength was the Democratic Party, and it was now splitting at the seams. The fate of the Union looked hopeless.”

“Time and time again, Lincoln made that point that “a house divided could not stand.” Douglas refuted this by noting that the founders, “left each state perfectly free to do as it pleased on the subject.” Lincoln felt that blacks were entitled to the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, which include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Douglas argued that the founders intended no such inclusion for blacks.”

[Douglas was wrong for being right. He was right the Framers denied the rights of free men so enslaved by force, ignoring the moral defective position so claimed. He was wrong that this morally-defective reasoning was set in stone and could not be changed by the simple application of moral-reasoning.

Had Douglas agreed to be a slave, or better yet forced to become a slave, only then would he keenly understand the moral objective of the principle so enshrined had to be up-held for all men, or the federal forfeits any claim to Law as espoused.

The States were only allowed to remain slave States for a period of time. That period was technically over and yet they clung to this damningly stupid doctrine for benefits only manifest by the Harming of the helpless, so stripped of the most basic function of law the Law itself becomes an absurdity. The blacks could only be brought to America by violence upon them, so captured they were forced to remain in bondage by defective moral reasoning. Hence why it was so damn peculiar in the first place.]

—–The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued “importation” of slaves. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.

—–As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited citizens from providing assistance to escaping slaves and required the return of chattel property to owners.

—–In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated “other persons” (slaves) to be added to the total of the state’s free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state’s official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation. This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation.

—–The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years.

“Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Stephen Douglas won a popular election that fall. Under rules governing Senate elections, voters cast their ballots for local legislators, who then choose a Senator. The Democrats won a majority of district contests and returned Douglas to Washington. But the nation saw a rising star in the defeated Lincoln. The entire drama that unfolded in Illinois would be played on the national stage only two years later with the highest of all possible stakes.”

Meanwhile, anti-slavery advocate John Brown struck again at the holders of slavery:

“Southerners were shocked and outraged. How could anyone be sympathetic to a fanatic who destroyed their property and threatened their very lives? How could they live under a government whose citizens regarded John Brown as a martyr? Southern newspapers labeled the entire north as John Brown sympathizers. Southern politicians blamed the Republican Party and falsely claimed that Abraham Lincoln supported Brown’s intentions. Moderate voices supporting compromise on both sides grew silent amid the gathering storm. In this climate of fear and hostility, the election year of 1860 opened ominously. The election of Abraham Lincoln became unthinkable to many in the south.”

“With four candidates in the field, Lincoln received only 40% of the popular vote and 180 electoral votes — enough to narrowly win the crowded election. This meant that 60% of the voters selected someone other than Lincoln. With the results tallied, the question was, would the South accept the outcome? A few weeks after the election, South Carolina seceded from the Union.”

“Within a few days, the two United States Senators from South Carolina submitted their resignations. On December 20, 1860, by a vote of 169-0, the South Carolina legislature enacted an “ordinance” that “the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of ‘The United States of America,’ is hereby dissolved.” As Grist had hoped, South Carolina’s action resulted in conventions in other southern states. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all left the Union by February 1. On February 4, delegates from all these states except Texas met in Montgomery, Alabama, to create and staff a government called the Confederate States of America. They elected President Jefferson Davis. The gauntlet was thrown. How would the North respond?”

“The most destructive war in America’s history was fought among its own people.”

“The Civil War was a tragedy of unimaginable proportions. For four long and bloody years, Americans were killed at the hands of other Americans. One of every 25 American men perished in the war. Over 640,000 soldiers were killed. Many civilians also died — in numbers often unrecorded.”

“At the battle of Antietam, more Americans were killed than on any other single day in all of American history. On that day, 22,719 soldiers fell to their deaths — four times the number of Americans lost during the D-Day assault on Normandy in WWII. In fact, more American soldiers died in the Civil War than in all other American wars combined.”

“In 1861, everyone predicted a short war. Most believed that one battle of enormous proportion would settle a dispute at least 90 years in the making. But history dictated a far more destructive course.”

“The Civil War began at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery, under the command of General Pierre Gustave T. Beauregard, opened fire on Fort Sumter. Confederate batteries showered the fort with over 3,000 shells in a three-and-a-half day period. Anderson surrendered. Ironically, Beauregard had developed his military skills under Anderson’s instruction at West Point. This was the first of countless relationships and families devastated in the Civil War. The fight was on.”

“Passions raged as hot in the South. Like Lincoln, Jefferson Davis also believed in the Declaration of Independence. He insisted that governments existed with the consent of the governed. Northern interference with popular Southern law was an affront to this ideal.”

“Many Southerners believed the Northern position was an outright attack on the Southern way of life. They observed that the poverty suffered by Northern industrial workers created living conditions worse than those endured by Southern slaves. They also cited the Bible in defense of plantation life.”

[The observation that wage-slaves were in living conditions far worse than those who were enslaved, was a keen insight on the inequality such industrial workers suffered at the hands of the mercantile class, who dominated their fellow man by control of capital resources. This difference was also an essential factor to be exploited by the English banking syndicate, whose ruthless manipulations of the American economy were already well under way. To bad these same southern men, could not see their own exploitations of men were just as wrong no matter how well the suffering was administered. The Founding Fathers were not intending slavery to be the essential trait of the American people, or why bother Declaring such rights at all? If slavery was the purposeful intention why not expand the defining quality to include any man so captured? By this principle northern people might well take southern as slaves. Once that door is opened it leads down the path of destruction as conflict resolution by blood-shed knows no other master.]

“Southern legalists believed that the North was undermining the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The cornerstone of the American system was the state government, for which Confederates believed the Northerners had little respect.”

“The horror of Antietam proved to be one of the war’s critical events. Lee and Davis did not get their victory. Neither Britain nor France was prepared to recognize the Confederacy. Five days after the battle, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. On November 5, Lincoln, impatient with McClellan’s hesitancy, relieved him of command, and replaced him with General Ambrose Burnside. Antietam changed everything.”

“Lee sent a note to Grant, and later that afternoon they met in the home of Wilmer McLean. Grant offered generous terms of surrender. Confederate officers and soldiers could go home, taking with them their horses, sidearms, and personal possessions. Also, Grant guaranteed their immunity from prosecution for treason. At the conclusion of the ceremony, the two men saluted each other and parted. Grant then sent three day’s worth of food rations to the 25,000 Confederate soldiers. The official surrender ceremony occurred three days later, when Lee’s troops stacked their rifles and battle flags.”

“President Lincoln’s will to save the Union had prevailed. He looked with satisfaction on the survival of his country and with deep regret on the great damage that had been done. These emotions did not last long, however.”

“Lincoln had only five days left to live.”

“Modern wars are not confined to the battlefield. Americans in the North and South contributed to the war effort unlike civilians of any previous conflict. The political leaders in the Union and Confederacy each had battles of their own to wage. The Civil War would also require a complete revolution in the economies of both regions. The results of such changes would not only determine the outcome of the war, but would utterly transform the new nation politically, socially, and economically.

“As the war progressed, a stark contrast between the two economies emerged. Both the North and the South experienced high rates of inflation, but the South’s rate was 80 times greater than in the North. Labor shortages occurred on both sides, as did increasing class conflict between the wealthy and the poor. Since most of the battles in the Civil War took place in the South, great physical destruction was wrought throughout the region, causing mass poverty and despair.”

[Here it is observed that the consequences of the conflict promptly self-destructed the economies of both sides, but with un-equal levels of destruction. The lack of Southern manufacturing, even for the most basic necessities such as shoes, demonstrates how tragic their logic actually was even as they defied the consensus of their fellow countrymen. This is what the southern people failed to understand, by ignoring the Rights of the blacks, they defeated their own by the same measure of ignorance.

Why would Southerners start a war without ever considering the immediate ramifications of such a hasty act? By the historical records so referenced here they never considered the need for shoes? Or other manufactured goods?  Or the salient fact the war would bring the inflictions of destruction on their own innocent? They apparently did not plan for a real war, they planned for a stand off. Did they assume by forming another country of slave states, this action was going to be allowed to stand un-challenged? That would seem to be the case.

The lack of true diplomacy was suffered upon by both sides as this war was never necessary for the freedom of blacks. The southern way of life did not need to be destroyed to free slaves. The failure of leadership doomed both sides to acrimonious destitutions of principle. To repress the Rights of others is to eventually void them, as your own. The southerners were ignorant of the principle, of genuine freedom and the northerners were no longer interested in pretending southern culture was superior by virtues of lies. The hatred, simmering as it was in the background, erupted with full fury against the whole of the southern culture. Northern people had no sympathies for a privilege only the Southerners espoused as a Right. And so the South fell accordingly.]

“The Emancipation Proclamation created a climate where the doom of slavery was seen as one of the major objectives of the war. Overseas, the North now seemed to have the greatest moral cause. Even if a foreign government wanted to intervene on behalf of the South, its population might object. The Proclamation itself freed very few slaves, but it was the death knell for slavery in the United States. Eventually, the Emancipation Proclamation led to the proposal and ratification of the *Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which formally abolished slavery throughout the land.”

[*Which demands the question of what really happened to the original 13th amendment? What a coincidence the British burned down the White House and with it the original 13th amendment of denying Noble Titles from holding Office. That amendment by curious fact was valid as Law and still is…]

Union manufacturers grew so profitable that many companies doubled or tripled their dividends to stockholders. The newly rich built lavish homes and spent their money extravagantly on carriages, silk clothing and jewelry. There was a great deal of public outrage that such conduct was unbecoming or even immoral in time of war. What made this lifestyle even more offensive was that workers’ salaries shrank in real terms due to inflation. The price of beef, rice and sugar doubled from their pre-war levels, yet salaries rose only half as fast as prices — while companies of all kinds made record profits.”

[Would people be that surprised if it could be known who the profiters were by distinction of the credit class? A war of the wealthy which conscripted the poor males and sent them to their deaths for a profit? The greed for war profit might help explain the total lack of diplomacy. Black-Americans might want to consider how many poor, white males died in the name of stopping slavery as an institution of ignorant men. When people speak of reparations today I find it absurd they do not speak of such men at all. They died for no other reason period.

“Anthony Johnson, a free black, later owned the American Colonies’ first true slave. Anthony Johnson was an Angolan held as an indentured servant by a merchant in the Colony of Virginia in 1620, but later freed to become a successful tobacco farmer and property owner. Notably, he was the first true slave owner: that is, the first to hold a black African servant as a slave in the mainland American colonies. Upon his death in 1670, a court ruled that he was “a Negro and by consequence, an alien”, and the colony seized his land.”

The truth is indeed stranger than fiction. I hope people realize what I am pointing out is that if a man of the same race deems it proper to hold another as a slave, only the Principle stands to defend you today.

“As men entered the Union army, women’s proportion of the manufacturing work force went from one-fourth to one-third. At home, women organized over one thousand soldiers’ aid societies, rolled bandages for use in hospitals and raised millions of dollars to aid injured troops.”

“Nowhere was their impact felt greater than in field hospitals close to the front. Dorothea Dix, who led the effort to provide state hospitals for the mentally ill, was named the first superintendent of women nurses and set rigid guidelines. Clara Barton, working in a patent office, became one of the most admired nurses during the war and, as a result of her experiences, formed the American Red Cross.”

“In 1863, facing a serious loss of manpower through casualties and expiration of enlistments, Congress authorized the government to enforce conscription, resulting in riots in several states. In July 1863, when draft offices were established in New York to bring new Irish workers into the military, mobs formed to resist. At least 74 people were killed over three days. The same troops that had just triumphantly defeated Lee at Gettysburg were deployed to maintain order in New York City.”

“Money was another problem. The South’s decision to print more money to pay for the war simply led to unbelievable increases in price of everyday items. By the end of 1861, the overall rate of inflation was running 12% per month. For example, salt was the only means to preserve meat at this time. Its price increased from 65¢ for a 200 pound bag in May 1861 to $60 per sack only 18 months later. Wheat, flour, corn meal, meats of all kinds, iron, tin and copper became too expensive for the ordinary family. Profiteers frequently bought up all the goods in a store to sell them back at a higher price. It was an unmanageable situation. Food riots occurred in Mobile, Atlanta and Richmond. Over the course of the war, inflation in the South caused prices to rise by 9000%.”

“The most unpopular act of the Confederate government was the institution of a draft. Loopholes permitted a drafted man to hire a substitute, leading many wealthy men to avoid service. When the Confederate Congress exempted anyone who supervised 20 slaves, dissension exploded. Many started to conclude that it was “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” This sentiment and the suffering of their families led many to desert the Confederate armies.”

“Everything changed on September 6, 1864, when General Sherman seized Atlanta. The war effort had turned decidedly in the North’s favor and even McClellan now sought military victory. Two months later, Lincoln won the popular vote that eluded him in his first election. He won the electoral college by 212 to 21 and the Republicans had won three-fourths of Congress. A second term and the power to conclude the war were now in his hands.”

“On April 11, 1865, two days after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln delivered a speech outlining his plans for peace and reconstruction.”

He would not live to see those plans come to fruition:

“A mourning nation turned out by the hundreds of thousands to say good-bye to their President, the first to fall by an assassin’s bullet.

“The Congressional elections of 1866 brought Radical Republicans to power. They wanted to punish the South, and to prevent the ruling class from continuing in power. They passed the Military Reconstruction Acts of 1867, which divided the South into five military districts and outlined how the new governments would be designed. Under federal bayonets, blacks, including those who had recently been freed, received the right to vote, hold political offices, and become judges and police chiefs. They held positions that formerly belonged to Southern Democrats. Many in the South were aghast. President Johnson vetoed all the Radical initiatives, but Congress overrode him each time. It was the Radical Republicans who impeached President Johnson in 1868. The Senate, by a single vote, failed to convict him, but his power to hinder radical reform was diminished.”

[This is where the Radical Northern senators crossed the line and allowed their moral hatred to blur their conscience. The also breached their constitutional enumerated powers to force both State and civil voting outcomes—by military decrees, while never pondering for a second, why this action nullified the results. The desire to punish was not theirs to have or to inflict. Their motives were not morally defensible and yet they carried on without restraint. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary the 14th amendment was not the answer and it was not passed by any legitimate law of the land. IN 1975 the Utah Supreme Court made the following statement in a Court Decision:-

—–“I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment (14th) was properly approved and adopted. – State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, Page 941, 942 (1975)]

Meanwhile, the radical beat went on:

“Andrew Johnson’s policies were initially supported by most Northerners, even Republicans. But, there was no consensus as to what rights African-Americans received along with Emancipation. Yet a group of Radical Republicans *wanted the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence extended to include all free men, including those who were formerly slaves. A political power struggle was in the offing.”

[*I found this statement to be absurd– the true word here is Recognized: as in all men are created equal– no man can be a slave of another if all men recognize the Rights of one another, equal in the Law.  If men cannot agree to the Principle as truth— The constitutions of the States and the Federal become dust to the wind. Laws devoid of principles of truth are dust to the wind, right along with those institutions so formed.

The real actionable cause was to re-affirm as in: do the men of this Nation, affirm the principle of equal Rights? If yes, the Principle stands as truth and the Law is good as it does no Harm. Only living men can declare what they believe thus, re-affirm the unalienable Rights are True, thus institutions will respect the Law as upheld. The logic is self-evident IF men are to remain equal in their claim of unalienable rights.  Those radicals sure seemed to have a different agenda than their words or actions actually expressed.]

“Americans had long been suspicious of the federal government playing too large a role in the affairs of state. But the Radicals felt that extraordinary times called for direct intervention in state affairs and laws designed to protect the emancipated blacks. At the heart of their beliefs was the notion that blacks must be given a chance to compete in a free-labor economy. In 1866, this activist Congress also introduced a bill to extend the life of the Freedman’s Bureau and began work on a Civil Rights Bill.”

“In the spring of 1868, Andrew Johnson became the first President to be impeached. The heavily Republican House of Representatives brought 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson. Many insiders knew that the Congress was looking for any excuse to rid themselves of an uncooperative President.”

[Translation, he was actually rejecting the unconstitutional demands as his conscience and knowledge of the Law demanded.]

“Many whites resented and rejected the changes taking place all about them. Taxes were high. The economy was stagnant. Corruption ran rampant. Carpetbaggers and scalawags made matters worse.

Carpetbaggers were Northerners who saw the shattered South as a chance to get rich quickly by seizing political office now barred from the old order. After the war these Yankees hastily packed old-fashioned traveling bags, called carpetbags, and rushed south. “Scalawags” were southern whites, who allied themselves with the Carpetbaggers, and also took advantage of the political openings.”

From the ashes of the American Civil War sprung an economic powerhouse:

“The factories built by the Union to defeat the Confederacy were not shut down at the war’s end. Now that the fighting was done, these factories were converted to peacetime purposes. Although industry had existed prior to the war, agriculture had represented the most significant portion of the American economy.”

“After the war, beginning with the railroads, small businesses grew larger and larger. By the century’s end, the nation’s economy was dominated by a few, very powerful individuals. In 1850, most Americans worked for themselves. By 1900, most Americans worked for an employer.”

[What the hell happened, after the war, which would change this economic balance so radically? Read that paragraph as “inequality” triumphs in America. A few men dominated the rest. A result of the Banking syndicates ruthless manipulations of the Nations money issuance and circulation.]

“The growth was astounding. From the end of Reconstruction in 1877 to the disastrous Panic of 1893, the American economy nearly doubled in size. New technologies and new ways of organizing business led a few individuals to the top. The competition was ruthless. Those who could not provide the best product at the cheapest price were simply driven into bankruptcy or were bought up by hungry, successful industrialists.”

[This is how history is written by the winners over the objections of the losers… as IF that ‘cheapest price’ was the only rod measure of succesful wealth accumulation that even mattered.  Money by itself is a lousy measure of the man, but the men who claimed otherwise also owned those ‘institutions’ where such high-learning is always favoring their ends.]

“Nevertheless, the American economy grew and grew. By 1914, the small nation once seen as a playground for European empires had now surpassed them all. The United States had become the largest industrial nation in the world.”

“However, the prosperity of America did not reach everyone. Amid the fabulous wealth of the new economic elite was tremendous poverty. How did some manage to be so successful while others struggled to put food on the table? Americans wrestled with this great question as new attitudes toward wealth began to emerge.”

[The actual answer is not to be found in these and many other historical commentaries of that period. Just the unanswered questions so posed to give an illusion of merit upon the subject itself.]

“What role did the government play in this trend? Basically, it was pro-business. Congress, the Presidents, and the Courts looked favorably on this new growth. But leadership was generally lacking on the political level. Corruption spread like a plague through the city, state, and national governments. Greedy legislators and “forgettable” Presidents dominated the political scene.”

[How about the insatiable greed of the bond-holders, securities and bullion dealers operating under the power of the banking syndicates?]

“The Gilded Age will be remembered for the accomplishments of thousands of American thinkers, inventors, entrepreneurs, writers, and promoters of social justice. Few politicians had an impact on the tremendous change transforming America. The Presidency was at an all-time low in power and influence, and the Congress was rife with corruption. State and city leaders shared in the graft, and the public was kept largely unaware. Much like in the colonial days, Americans were not taking their orders from the top; rather, they were building a new society from its foundation.

[Would that be the dirt-poor Americans or only the wealthy elite?]

“The American Presidents who resided in the White House from the end of the Civil War until the 1890s are sometimes called “the forgettable Presidents.”

“One President impeached, one President drowning in corruption, one President elected by possible fraud, one President assassinated, and one disgraced by his own party for doing what he thought was right. Clearly this was not a good time in Presidential history.”

[Another factor was the silver dollar unit manipulations which were occurring during this time.  The demonetization of silver wiped out millions of hard working Americans, especially those in the south and west. This was another act of economic warfare which receives very little attention, despite the fact it led to the doctrine only gold is money era which ended with the Great Depression, which then repudiated, gold is money at all. Well, only as a policy of the wealthy elite giving the rest of America the finger.]

The contentions of the reasons for such economic “inequality” is quite diverse. Different economic schools of thought lead to different conclusions:

—-Economic Trends Preceding the 1890s

—–Between 1870 and 1890 the number of farms in the United States rose by nearly 80 percent, to 4.5 million, and increased by another 25 percent by the end of the century. Farm property value grew by 75 percent, to $16.5 billion, and by 1900 had increased by another 25 percent. The advancing checkerboard of tilled fields in the nation’s heartland represented a vast indebtedness. Nationwide about 29% of farmers were encumbered by mortgages.

One contemporary observer estimated 2.3 million farm mortgages nationwide in 1890 worth over $2.2 billion. But farmers in the plains were much more likely to be in debt. Kansas croplands were mortgaged to 45 percent of their true value, those in South Dakota to 46 percent, in Minnesota to 44, in Montana 41, and in Colorado 34 percent. Debt covered a comparable proportion of all farmlands in those states. Under favorable conditions the millions of dollars of annual charges on farm mortgages could be borne, but a declining economy brought foreclosures and tax sales.

—The post-Civil War generation saw an enormous growth of manufacturing. Industrial output rose by some 296 percent, reaching in 1890 a value of almost $9.4 billion. In that year the nation’s 350,000 industrial firms employed nearly 4,750,000 workers. Iron and steel paced the progress of manufacturing. Farm and forest continued to provide raw materials for such established enterprises as cotton textiles, food, and lumber production. Heralding the machine age, however, was the growing importance of extractives — raw materials for a lengthening list of consumer goods and for producing and fueling locomotives, railroad cars, industrial machinery and equipment, farm implements, and electrical equipment for commerce and industry. The swift expansion and diversification of manufacturing allowed a growing independence from European imports and was reflected in the prominence of new goods among US exports. Already the value of American manufactures was more than half the value of European manufactures and twice that of Britain.

—The depression, which was signaled by a financial panic in 1893, has been blamed on the deflation dating back to the Civil War, the gold standard and monetary policy, underconsumption (the economy was producing goods and services at a higher rate than society was consuming and the resulting inventory accumulation led firms to reduce employment and cut back production), a general economic unsoundness (a reference less to tangible economic difficulties and more to a feeling that the economy was not running properly), and government extravagance .

[While it was true the monetary “policy” was driving the cause the reasons are obscured by the lack of details as to WHY… there is a sad absurdity here that is like a dogmatic rock in all such excuses… producing goods and services is the Production of Wealth— not its absence. If people cannot afford to consume the very things their labors produce— the reason why cannot be left out or lumped under some nonsensical BS as feelings made people too poor to support their families. There was a reason– social inequality made possible wealth inequality— the poor did not have a voice in any of those high-powered banking institutions— or the benefit of their patronage– and no access of easy credit or first rights on the money itself. They were locked out of Capital equality on purpose. ]

—European depression was a further source of weakness as 1893 began. Recession struck France in 1889, and business slackened in Germany and England the following year. Contemporaries dated the English downturn from a financial panic in November. Monetary stringency was a base cause of economic hard times. Because specie — gold and silver — was regarded as the only real money, and paper money was available in multiples of the specie supply, when people viewed the future with doubt they stockpiled specie and rejected paper. *The availability of specie was limited, so the longer hard times prevailed the more difficult it was for anyone to secure hard money.

[*This is very clever, but absolutely wrong on several levels.]

—In addition to monetary stringency, the collapse of extensive speculations in Australian, South African, and Argentine properties; and a sharp break in securities prices marked the advent of severe contraction. The great banking house of Baring and Brothers, caught with excessive holdings of Argentine securities in a falling market, shocked the financial world by suspending business on November 20, 1890. Within a year of the crisis, commercial stagnation had settled over most of Europe. The contraction was severe and long-lived.”  http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whitten.panic.1893

Another writer/researcher puts a bit more clarity into the why, but not that much:

—The Gold Rush to California in 1849 resulted in such large quantities of gold found that the value of gold became less. Previous to this, gold was 16 times more valuable (16x more silver in a silver dollar than gold in a gold dollar).

—People began melting down silver dollars and using the silver for other purpose, such as jewelry. In 1873 Congress terminated the making of silver coins and placed the country on a “gold standard”.

—In 1890, President Benjamin Harrison agreed to purchase $4.5 million ounces of silver a month. The “Sherman Silver Purchase Act” was passed by Congress and the price of silver shot up from .84 cents to $1.50 an ounce, but it’s market value would drop from this high.

—This created fear among eastern republican business men and foreign investors that the gold dollar would be replaced by a less valuable silver dollar. Stores and banks began to go out of business and gold became a commodity to be hoarded.

—1893 spelled the end of an era of silver by the repeal of the “Sherman Silver Act”. Almost immediately mines and smelters began to shut down in Colorado. Silver prices dropped from .83 cents to .62 cents an ounce in one 4 day period. Banks closed their doors and real estate values plummeted. http://www.ellensplace.net/hcg_fac8.html

[Some truth mixed in with assertions, which lead to false conclusions. The price of the unit was fixed and the bullion price of silver was speculated upon thereby driving up the profit of one over the other.]

On the other side of the Atlantic, a small glimpse of the activities related to the silver market:

“In 1873 the demonetization of silver by the German Government took place we took immediate steps not to have in India any rupee assets which were not secured by sterling. We took them in 1873.”

Another writer of history took a much deeper look at this over-looked period:

—- The Silver Panic  JUNE 01, 1978 by LAWRENCE W. REED

—Strangely, the awesome Panic of 1893 seems to have escaped the careful scrutiny and exhaustive research of historians. Though it occurred only eighty-five years ago, it remains an obscure episode in American history. It signaled the beginning of a deep depression. Businesses collapsed by the thousands. Banks closed their doors in record numbers. Unemployment soared and idle millions roamed the streets and countryside seeking jobs or alms. And the country witnessed a spectacular display of political fireworks, now all but forgotten.

—For the believer in the free economy, the story of the Panic of 1893 offers a treasure chest of empirical support. The lessons of this tragedy add up to a compelling indictment of government’s ability to ” manage” a nation’s money.

[Actually, it was an indictment of the rapacious greed of the National bank syndicate to thoroughly corrupt the government and povertize the public at large.]

—-Charles Albert Collman observed that ” Money trouble was the manifest peculiarity of the long, drawn out Panic of ’93.” ¹ ;Indeed, a break down of the monetary system and national bankruptcy were narrowly averted in that year. But money is that great invention which permits the development of a modern exchange economy. How could something so vital to commerce become so troublesome?

[Can you say, bankers holding a money monopoly?]

—America’s first cyclical depression occurred in 1819, after three wild years of currency inflation caused by the Second Bank of the United States. When that ” money monster” was eliminated by hard money man Andrew Jackson, the economy slumped into depression again and all the maladjustments of the Bank era had to be liquidated. In 1857 the economy had to retrench after a decade of credit expansion on behalf of state governments that had forced their obligations on the state banking systems. In 1873 the post-Civil War readjustment finally corrected the excesses of the government’s rampant greenback inflation. The background of the 1893 debacle is equally interventionist and has some uniquely interesting features which give rise to the label, ” The Silver Panic.”

—“Gold and silver rose to prominence as the monies of the civilized world through a process of free and natural selection in the marketplace of exchange. Both circulated as money, though gold was far more valuable. The market ratio between the metals had been roughly 15 to 1 (15 ounces of silver trading for 1 ounce of gold) for centuries. Gold was preferred for large transactions and silver for small ones. The free market had established ” parallel standards” of gold and silver, each freely fluctuating within a narrow range in relation to market supplies and demands. Before long, though, government decided it would ” help out” the market by interfering to ” simplify” matters. The result was another of the many well-intentioned blunders imposed on a populace by force of law: the official ” fixing” of the gold/silver ratio. This became the policy of bimetallism.”

—“In 1875, the newly-formed National Greenback Party called for currency inflation. The proposal attracted widespread support in the West and South where many farmers joined associations to lobby for inflation. They demanded at first that the government balloon the paper money supply in the belief that such a policy would guarantee prosperity. It was a demand that finds a less shrill but no less potent voice among many economists today. An eloquent refutation of the idea that the printing press can create economic wealth can be found in the words of Benjamin Bristow, President Grant’s Secretary of the Treasury. In his annual message of 1874, Bristow declared:-

—–“The history of irredeemable paper currency repeats itself whenever and wherever it is used. It increases present prices, deludes the laborer with the idea that he is getting higher wages, and brings a fictitious prosperity from which follow inflation of business and credit and excess of enterprise in ever-increasing ratio, until it is discovered that trade and commerce have become fatally diseased, when confidence is destroyed, and then comes the shock to credit, followed by disaster and depression, and a demand for relief by further issues. . . .  The universal use of, and reliance on, such a currency tends to blunt the moral sense and impair the natural self-dependence of the people, and trains them to the belief that the Government must directly assist their individual fortunes and business, help them in their personal affairs, and enable them to discharge their debts by partial payment. This inconvertible paper currency begets the delusion that the remedy for private pecuniary distress is in legislative measures, and makes the people unmindful of the fact that the true remedy is in greater production and less spending, and that real prosperity comes only from individual effort and thrift. ³”

[Great words bad objectivity— The non-interest notes were swept out of circulation by the national syndicate to flood the market with their interest-bearing notes already depreciated. These bankers waged a war on the silver dollar that was un-relenting in ruthless manipulations of the unconstitutional policies they themselves erected in defiance of the peoples will. The absurdity is the people wanted a sound money BUT the bankers spit in their collective faces and lent nothing but worthless debt notes.]

—“The action of the United States government in 1878 and 1890 with respect to silver was especially peculiar in light of world monetary events. Germany, immediately after the Franco-Prussian War in the early 1870s, had withdrawn her silver from circulation and adopted a single gold standard. France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, and Greece followed by first restricting the coinage of silver and then eliminating it altogether. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden adopted the single gold standard, making silver subsidiary by 1875.

—–“In that year, the government of Holland closed its mints to the coinage of silver. A year later, the Russian government suspended the coinage of silver except for use in the Chinese trade. In 1879, Austria-Hungary ceased to coin silver for individuals, except for a special trade coin. This rapid worldwide transition from silver to gold prompted the United States Treasury Department in 1879 to note that ” since the monetary disturbance of 1873-78 not a mint ‘of Europe has been open to the coinage of silver for individuals.” 6 Yet the United States government, at a time when the value of silver was falling dramatically and when the nation’s trading partners were abandoning the white metal, stepped in to promote silver against gold at the unrealistic ratio of 16 to 1!

[Not quite the truth. But the details here are too complicated to explain just yet.]

—“In an article entitled ” Thou Shalt Not Steal,” Isaac L. Rice penned an eloquent repudiation of the government’s silver coinage policy. His argument evoked the moral side of the question and eighty years later is still a forceful indictment of monetary dishonesty:-

—–“Of the various classes of crime that come under the category of theft none is more odious and despicable than the use of false weights and measures. Stamping a coin containing 371¹/4 grains of silver as of the weight of one hundred cents, while in truth it is of the weight of fifty-three cents, is a falsification of weights morally not distinguishable from stamping any other kind of weight as of two pounds which in truth is only of one pound. Only the methods by which fraud is to be made are different. The thievish individual depends upon secret deceit, the qualities of the sneak thief; the Government on coercion, the qualities of the highwayman. “

[How about the odious crime of manipulating the currency to such an extant people one day are prosperous and the next poverty stricken, when bankers retire circulating notes to reward themselves with Bond profits? Silver coins were reduced by grain to keep them from being sold by speculators in Europe. But once again, the deeper reasons are not brought to the front of the argument to clarify the “why” such actions were taken as a response not just will-nilly reductions.]

—“In accordance with inexorable economic law, the Bland-Allison Law and Sherman Acts caused a drain of gold from the Treasury and an inflow of silver. This tampering with the fixity of the standard threatened the Treasury’s declared policy of redeeming greenbacks and other government obligations in gold. And, the disappearance of gold from circulation and from the reserves of the nation’s banks threatened the sanctity of all contracts made in gold. Professor Laughlin observed that no producer ” could feel so entirely sure of the standard of payments that he could, without fear or hesitation, make his estimates a few years ahead.” 9http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-silver-panic#axzz2UGNF5bm9

[Some truth mixed with bold assertions and some peculiar Ad Hoc reasoning on that fixity issue. ]

—“§ 3. In advocacy of the purchase of 4,500,000 ounces of silver by the Act of 1890, its supporters strongly urged that this would raise the price of silver to par ($1.29 per fine ounce) with gold. There is good reason to believe that some of those engaged in pushing the measure through Congress were acting with knowledge of the operations of the most gigantic combination to speculate in silver of which we have any record.

—“The passage of the “Sherman Act” was probably part of the scheme. At any rate, immediately upon its passage a combination of owners of silver in New York, London, and on the Continent began a speculative attempt to raise the price of silver all over the world, and its operations extended even as far as India.*75

—“This succeeded for a brief period, and August 19, 1890, silver reached $1.21 per ounce fine. Immense amounts of capital must have been required to carry this silver.*76 But the Baring failure punctured the speculation, making it impossible to carry such large sums, and the price of silver came down with most astonishing rapidity. This was the period just before the greatest fall in the par value of silver ever known. (See Chart XVII, Chapter XIV.) That is, the United States, wholly without regard to what was going on in the countries of Europe and Asia, rashly started on an additional purchase of silver.

—“It was not statesmanship; there can hardly be any other explanation than that speculators had hoodwinked Congress and made it play a part in their game to raise the price of silver. In view of the situation in the rest of the world, there seems to be hardly any other conclusion. The outcome, moreover, did not meet expectations. Not only did the price of silver not go to par as a result of the Act of 1890, but never in the history of the precious metals has it fallen so low as in the years following 1890. Even during the continuance of the act, silver lead dropped from 17.26:1 (August, 1890) to 28.20:1 (July, 1893). http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Laughlin/lghHBM16.html

The tie-in with the OZ story:

—“It is commonly known in economics academia that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz written by L. Frank Baum in 1900 is loaded with powerful symbols of monetary reform which were the core of the Populist movement and the 1896 and 1900 presidential bids of Populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan.

—–“The yellow brick road (gold standard), the Scarecrow (farmers), the Tin Man (industrial workers), the Wicked Witch of the West (Cleveland banker J.D. Rockefeller) and the Wicked Witch of the East (NY banker J.P.Morgan), the Emerald City of Oz (greenback money), the illusory power of the Wizard in the capitol city (who monopolized power through deceit), even Dorothy’s silver slippers (changed to ruby slippers for the color movie version -symbols of Baum’s and Bryan’s belief that adding silver coin to gold coin would provide much needed money to a depression-strapped, 1890s America). 

—–“Oz is a virtual forest of monetary reform symbolism, done by someone extremely well versed in the Populist monetary reform goals of the period (Baum was a newspaperman and author) – goals which have never changed – they are still valid today, they are needed now more than then. http://www.themoneymasters.com/mm/

The Bank barons held the Nations purse strings:

—“Any mention of his name provokes howls of disdain. Much of the country is convinced he is single-handedly responsible for thwarting a weakening of the dollar. (This theme would be taken up by William Jennings Bryan a year later in his “cross of gold” speech.) Cleveland knows Morgan could help resolve the crisis, but fears public backlash, so tries to keep him out of the crisis negotiations.

—“Cleveland contacts financier Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild in England. Rothschild immediately calls Walter Hayes Burns, another banker, who cables Morgan, his brother-in-law.

—“He reasons that he could probably corral a group of international bankers to buy out a new bond issue, but the government would have to back it in gold or sterling. But the problem again: Congress must authorize all gold bond issues, and many Representatives believe the “emergency” has been trumped up by eastern plutocrats.

—“Thirty-three years ago, in the throes of the Civil War, Congress had authorized Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase to issue bonds that could be offered for coin. If the gold bailout Morgan was proposing could be considered a bailout in coin, it would not require Congressional approval. Stetson had checked, and the statute appeared to still be valid.

—“The government will buy 3.5 million ounces of gold coin from the bailout team at $17.80 per ounce, in exchange for $62.3 million worth of 30 year bonds paying 4%. The price of gold is actually $18.60, so the government ends up paying for $65.1 million in gold in exchange for $62.3 million in bonds — paying a $3 million premium. The syndicate would have six months to complete the contact, and would procure half the new gold abroad at a rate not exceeding 300,000 ounces a month.

—“After four and a half hours, Morgan has bailed out the United States.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-1895-crisis-and-1862-gold-loophole-2013-1?op=1#ixzz2UGfhLEjR

And that is how J. P. Morgan saved the day and kept America from being flushed down the black-hole of debt. How coincidental he had just the right connections back to the Bank of England’s most powerful men. Meanwhile the public credit was saved and the rope of debt was fastened around the wage earners neck like a steel rod.

Another investigative writer of that  period, wrote quite specifically of all these events with critical details no longer found today:

“This colossal robbery of the nation, and consequently of the people, was planned and matured by the national banking money power. It is true that the idea of this system of banking had its origin in England, and it is also a fact that the scheme of legislating increased value into the bonded debt was suggested by the influential bankers of London.

“Each one of the series of enactments which legally confiscated billions of property of the tax-payers, and which handed it over to a few individuals, was placed upon the statute-books under the false and misleading plea of maintaining the “Credit of the nation untarnished.” 

“That distinguished historian, Prof. J. C. Ridpath, eloquently described the legislative process by which the value of the public debt was vastly increased. He said: – 

—–“It is the hardship of war that brings debt upon the country which engages in it. In our own case we piled up a debt mountain-wise. The prodigious pile reached the clouds. In any old nation there would have remained no hope at all of paying it. It would simply have been laid upon posterity as an everlasting tax.

—–The principal question, however, with Congress and with the people of the United States, was how they should measure and manage this debt. Gold and silver had disappeared. Paper money prevailed and abounded. The premium on coin arose to almost two hundred per cent. The dollar of the law and the contract became a paper dollar, which, as measured by the standard of gold, was, for a considerable period, worth less than fifty cents.

—–“But what was the equity of this situation? One class of statesmen, backed up and instigated by the creditor classes, held that the dollar was always the gold and silver dollar. Practically this was not so. Theoretically and even constitutionally it was probably so. For many years together the dollar of the law and the contract was, to all intents and purposes, a dollar of paper. During the same period the modicum of gold and silver remaining in the country – though it was stamped and branded with the names of coins – was really merchandise. At length the bottom was reached – or the top, as the case may be – and the readjustment became necessary.” 

——“Then came on the warfare between the advocates of the so-called ‘honest dollar’ and the paper dollar with which, and on the basis of which, the business of the country had been so long transacted. The advocates of high payment took the ‘honest dollar’ as their catch-word, and, to make a long narrative brief, they won with it, and by a series of legislative enactments, entailing the greatest hardships on the producing interests of the country, succeeded in twisting up, turn by turn, the standard unit in the financial mill, until the so-called resumption of specie payment was annually, after fourteen years from Appomattox, effected. “

—–“Thus the value of the national debt was augmented from year to year as rapidly as it was paid away. As fast as payment was made the value of the dollar in which it was expressed was increased. To the debtor class all this was the labor of Sisyphus. The toiler laboriously rolled the stone to the top of the hill; but ever, when near the crest, it got away with him and returned with thundering and the roar of bankruptcy to the bottom. To the present day the process has been kept up, and, notwithstanding the multiplied billions upon billions which the American people have paid in principal and interest upon that patriotic war debt, which expressed their devotion and sacrifice, it is the truth of history, that the debt itself, is at the present time, worth virtually as much to the holders as it was when it reached its nominal maximum – in August, 1865.”

“In his effort to convey an adequate idea of the nature of that legislation, which had plundered the American people of billions of dollars, this renowned scholar and writer had recourse to the sublime imagery of Homer. Prof. Ridpath demonstrates that the public debt was not decreased at all, although billions had been applied to its payment.  Not only is this true of the public debt, but the same process of depreciating the value of property has likewise enhanced the value of private debts.

The amount of property that has been transferred from debtors to creditors, as a necessary result of the enormous appreciation of money brought about by contraction of its volume, is beyond computation.”

The Coming Battle Copyright 1899 By M. W. Walbert provides the historical perspective and numerous facts to explain the why and the what which is missing from current economic dogma:

“In a message to Congress, President Jackson, in speaking of the banking power, said: –

“In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented, whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages, or whether the power and money of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions.”

The President says: –

“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.”

—–“He produced figures demonstrating the sectional character of the bank, that out of $35,000,000  of stock, $8,405,500 were held chiefly by Great Britain; only $140,200 were held by the nine great western states; $3,455,598 in the four southern states, and $13,522,000 in the eastern and middle states.

—–“That in 1831, the profits of the bank were $3,455,598 of this amount the western states contributed $1,640,048; the four southern states $352,507, and the middle and eastern states $1,463,041.

“It will be ascertained that under the operations of this banking monopoly, the agricultural states of the West were paying heavy tribute to the East.”

“It was further pointed out by the President, that the principle of taxation involved in the bill was radically Wrong in this: that only the stock could be taxed where held. Therefore, while the nine western states paid $1,640,048 in profits to the bank, only $140,200 of its stock was held there subject to taxation; that, in the year 1831, the branch bank at Mobile earned dividends of $95,140, yet the state of Alabama could not tax the property of the bank, because net a single share of its stock was owned in its jurisdiction.”

“The foreign stock holders could not be taxed a single penny on their holdings, as they were  beyond the taxing power of the United States. The foreign stock holder would be drawing large dividends from the America people without bearing any of the burdens of government. This would tend to alien ownership of this bank, non-contribution to the burdens of Government creating this valuable privilege, and a continued drainage of specie to foreign nations.”

[The actual reason not a coin was to be found?]

—“The bank again failed to obtain a charter in 1841.

“The rottenness of the bank then became known, and a complete investigation into its  management from 1830 to 1836, instituted by the stockholders, developed an astonishing degree of villainy, corruption, and rascality that was appalling, and the results of which more than sustained the charges brought against it by President Jackson and his supporters.”

“It was discovered that hundreds of thousands of dollars were expended by President Biddle in  influencing elections, subsidizing the press, and bribing members of Congress.”

“The stockholders, on the completion of this investigation, instituted a suit against President  Biddle in the United States circuit court at Philadelphia, for the sum of $1,018,000 expended by him for which no vouchers could be found.”

“It was further demonstrated that, from 1830 to 1836, during the struggle of the bank for a new  lease of corporate life, loans, aggregating more than $30,000,000, were, made by its president to members of Congress, editors of newspapers, politicians of all grades, jobbers and brokers,  mostly without security.”

“Perhaps all the facts connected with its management were never made known, on the ground of  public policy, as the reputations of many eminent men, not excepting presidential candidates, would have been utterly ruined.”

“In 1861, the money in circulation in the United States consisted of gold and silver coins, and state bank currency. As the expenses of the Government in 1861-62 were many millions of dollars in excess of its income, and as but little money could be had by the sale of its bonds, recourse was had to issuing paper money.”

“By the acts of July myth, and August g, 1861, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to issue demand notes to the amount of fifty millions of dollars, and these notes were made full legal tender for all debts and demands, both public and private. This was not the first time that the Federal Government had issued its notes to circulate as money. It will be remembered that  during the war of 1812, the Government had resorted to this means, a precedent followed by the administrations of Van Buren, Polk, and Buchanan.”

“These notes so issued at these various times were maintained at a parity with gold and silver coin, and were a favorite money of the people. History records the fact that no less than twenty issues of paper money were emitted by the general Government prior to the year 1862; that the people never questioned its value and efficiency as a medium of exchange. These various issues  of currency were uniformly receivable by the government in payment of its taxes and revenues.”

“During the perilous times of the nation, when bankers and financiers refused to loan money to it, the issue of full legal tender paper money never failed to come to the rescue, while cowardly gold fled to the rear.”

“Therefore, the fifty millions of demand notes issued under the authority of the acts of July 17th and August 5, 1861, having unlimited legal tender power for the payment of all demands, never depreciated a farthing.”

“Subsequent to the passage of this act, a bill was introduced in Congress providing for the issue of non-interest bearing treasury notes to the amount of $150,000,000 with full legal tender power for the payment of all debts and demands, public and private.”

“Immediately, from the leading cities of the country, a horde of bankers, or as Hon. Thaddeus Stevens aptly termed them, “A delegation of bankers and coin vender’s,” hastened to Washington, organized themselves, and requested the Committee on Ways and Means of the House, and the Finance Committee of the Senate to meet with them at the office of the Secretary of the Treasury. Their request was complied with on the 11th day of February, 1862.”

“Owing to some peculiar and powerful influence, then and there exerted by these organized bankers on these committees, the legal tender clause was modified to read as follows: –

—–“That the amount of the two kinds of notes together shall at no time exceed the sum of $150,000,000, and such notes herein authorized shall be receivable in payment of taxes, internal duties, excises, debts, and demand of every kind due to the United States, except duties on imports, and of all claims and demands against the United States of every kind whatsoever, except for interest upon bonds and notes which shall be paid in coin, and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender in the payment of  all debts, public and private, within the United States, except duties on imports and interest as aforesaid.”

“In denouncing the amendment striking out the legal tender clause. Senator John Sherman spoke  as follows; –

—–“If you strike out this legal tender clause you do it with the knowledge that these notes will fall  dead upon the money market of the world; that they will be refused by the banks; that they will be a disgraced currency that will not pass from hand to hand; that they will have no legal sanction; that any man may decline to receive them, and thus discredit the obligations of the Government. I ask again if that is just to the men to whom you have contracted to pay debts?  When you issue demand notes and announce your purpose not to pay any more gold and silver coin, you tender to these who have furnished provisions and services this paper money. What can they do? They can not pay their debts with it, they can not support their families with it,  without a depreciation.

The bankers thus succeeded in limiting the legal tender power of the Treasury note, or as it is  commonly called, the greenback, and from this time on the bankers, brokers, and speculators have, with few exceptions, dictated the financial legislation in the United States.” 

“This amendment, by which the debt paying power of the Treasury note was restricted within such narrow limits, was a most dishonest act on the part of the government. It drew distinctions between the various kinds of money issued by the United States. It made the  bankers and bond holders a privileged class, and it inflicted a wound upon the nation from which it has not yet recovered. It made gold and silver coin the money of the privileged classes, who composed that traitorous element so justly denounced by Jefferson.”

By force of this amendment, coin went to a premium, thereby greatly enhancing the wealth of  the bankers and bullion brokers.  Moreover, the principle involved in that act greatly weakened the most powerful element of sovereignty that can reside in a nation, by placing the control of the value of money in the hands  of organized greed, in this case the gold gamblers of Wall street.  It laid the foundation of a stupendous public debt, which the holders thereof would strive to  perpetuate by every means in their power, and it was the first step to fasten on the people the  most powerful and merciless tyranny that ever cursed a free people the centralized money power known as the national banking system.”

“Yet, in time of the greatest need of the nation, when everything most valuable to man was at  stake, this necessary power of Government was delegated to the most traitorous and rapacious system of corporations that ever cursed the people.  By this transfer of sovereign power to the national banking system, the Federal Government divested itself of that never failing resource which  secured the independence of the colonies, and which successfully enabled the administration of James Madison to chastise the overweening pride of Great Britain in 1812.  The alienation of this highest function of the nation to the national banking money power was a high crime against the welfare of the country, and it created a powerful moneyed interest  antagonistic to the United States.”

“The principal excuse offered by those who procured the passage of this law was, that it would create a market for bonds, and would aid in the maintenance of the public credit; that, for the consideration of receiving these circulating notes to loan out at interest as money, the bankers, who were the beneficiaries of this law, would lend their assistance to the Government by aiding  it to maintain a high price for its obligations.”

“The very reason advanced by the originators of that system of banking and currency for its  creation, became the strongest reason why the Government credit sunk to its lowest point, because, the national bankers, to obtain these bonds as low as possible, would combine to depress the market value of the United States bonds which formed the basis of bank currency.”

“In fact, the market price of Government bonds rapidly fell to the lowest mark ever known, after  the passage of this act, and the national banking money power consequently reaped a harvest reaching into scores of millions.”

“Not satisfied with the immense advantages thus obtained from the Government, during the most  critical period of the war, the money power, on the 17th day of March, 1864, succeeded in securing the passage of a resolution through Congress, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the interest upon bonds, in advance, not exceeding one year, either with or without rebate  for such prepayment, according to his discretion.”

“The bond holders and bankers were thus enabled to draw their interest in gold one year in  advance, dispose of it at a high premium to the government and to those who paid duties on imported merchandise.”

“In July, 1864, gold rose to a premium of $2.85, and the bond holder, national banker, and gold  gamblers fleeced the people out of millions; while the soldier, who was sacrificing his life for his country, was paid in greenbacks purposely depreciated by the government for whose  existence he fought.

“Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be and is hereby directed to report to this house whether he has at any time anticipated the payment of interest on the public debt; if so, how  much has been paid in advance, and to whom.”

The Secretary, in reply, stated: –

—–“That there was no public document that would give the information required. The department  has been in the habit for five years of paying the interest in advance without charging anything.”

“This remarkable admission will attract attention for the reason, that the head of the Treasury  Department distinctly states that interest had been paid in advance to the bond holders and bankers without any deduction for the use of the money, and that there was no public document that would give the information required.”

“The obvious reason why there were no public documents in the treasury department, containing a record of the interest on bonds paid in  advance was this, that it would show a gigantic robbery of the government by the banks and bond holders, and that it would awaken the just wrath of the people at the subservience of congress to the demands of the gold gambling money power.”

“The truth is, that no safe system of bank currency has ever yet been devised by the wit of man,  but that its credit is based upon that of the Government, and the credit of a government rests upon its taxing power, which is its means of self-preservation.”

“To give an excuse for his change of front from an advocate of a legal tender Government  currency, to a champion of the national banking system, the senator uses the following  language: –

—–“It is asked, why look at all to the interests of the banks; why not directly issue the notes of the  Government, and thus save the people the interest on the debt represented by the circulation?  The only answer to this question is that history teaches us that the public faith of the nation alone is not sufficient to maintain a paper currency. There must be a combination between the interests of individuals and the Government.”

“This astonishing declaration of Senator Sherman is proven absolutely false by the provisions of  his own act, the national banking law, which makes United States bonds the sole security for national bank notes, and compels the Government to act as a redemption agency for the notes of insolvent banks.”

“To destroy the state banks as banks of issue, and to drive out of circulation that species of paper  money, the national banking money power prevailed upon congress to call into requisition the taxing power of the nation to clear the field of these competitors.” In compliance with their demands, Congress enacted the following law, viz; –

—–“That every national banking association, state bank, or state banking association, shall pay a tax of ten per centum on the amount of notes of any person, or of any state bank or state banking association used for circulation and paid by them.” 

“This great tax thus imposed by Congress upon the issues of state bank currency was effectual in  successfully accomplishing its purpose. The state banks, therefore, were driven to the necessity of organizing themselves into national banks, and this tended to a further consolidation of the money lending interests of the country.”

“During the early part of the year 1864, after the organized banks had secured the passage of the law depriving greenbacks of their legal tender  power, and after the passage of the national banking law, one James Buell, secretary of the New York bankers’ committee, issued the following circular to the bankers of the country at large: –

——“Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such daily and prominent weekly  newspapers, especially the agricultural and religious press, as will oppose the issuing of greenback money, and that you withhold patronage and favor from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money, let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country, for we can better protect each other. To repeal the  law creating national banks or to restore to circulation the Government issue of money will be to provide the people with money, and will therefore seriously affect your individual profit as banker or lender. See your member of Congress at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation.”

“The evidence is positive that this circular was issued with the approval, and by the orders of the  associated banks of New York City. In the first place, the advice tendered to the various banks of the country was in complete harmony with the intentions of the money power, and secondly, the national banks, from that day to this, have carried into execution the baleful plan outlined in  that document, as the various acts of congress and subsequent history abundantly prove. 

“It was during the corrupt period of the war that immense grants of public lands were made to railway corporations, that donations of United States bonds, amounting to nearly one hundred million of  dollars were made to the Pacific railway companies, and this was done during a time when the government was in need of funds to suppress the rebellion.”

“It was during this period that Congress passed the notorious foreign contract labor law, through the operation of which, the mills, factories and mines of the United States were flooded with the Slavs, Huns, Bohemians, Poles, and various other nationalities of Europe, thereby laying the foundation for the countless race and labor riots, that have disgraced and cursed the manufacturing and mining states of the Union.”

“After the suppression of the state banks of issue, the next step of the national bank was directed  toward the destruction of the greenbacks and United States notes, and, therefore, on the 12th of April,  1866, an act of Congress was duly signed by the President providing for the withdrawal and cancellation of the United States notes and treasury notes.”

“This act provided that, within six months after the passage thereof, the Secretary of the Treasury  was authorized to retire from circulation United States notes to the amount of ten million dollars, and for every month thereafter a sum not to exceed four million dollars.”

“At, the time of the passage of the act of April 12, 1866, Hon. Hugh McCulloch, a national  banker, and a bitter opponent of the legal tender currency, was Secretary of the Treasury. He had gone so far in his opposition to the United States notes and treasury notes as to denounce them as “disreputable, dishonorable money.

“Step by step, the national banking money power was gradually succeeding in driving the legal  tender currency oat of circulation, in perpetuating the public debt by the issue of long time bonds, and usurping the functions of government by the issue of bank notes.”

On the 18th of Match, 1869, a bill entitled, “An Act to Strengthen the Public Credit,” was  signed by President Grant.”

“The provisions of the Credit Strengthening Act declared that the public faith is solemnly  pledged to the payment of the interest and non-interest bearing obligations of the government in coin or its equivalent, except where the law authorizing the issue of such obligations has expressly provided that the same may be paid in lawful money, or other currency than gold and  silver. Furthermore, the United States solemnly pledged its faith to make provisions at the  earliest practical period for the redemption of the United States notes in coin.”

“This so-called Credit Strengthening Act, by force of its provisions, made every dollar of the bonded debt of the United States payable in gold and silver coin. It was estimated by the ablest public men of the day that this rascally piece of legislation added  six hundred million dollars to the wealth of the national banks and bond holders.

“Let it be remembered that this bonded debt was purchased, to a very large extent, with treasury notes purposely depreciated by act of Congress, and that a very large portion of these bonds  were bought with greenbacks when the latter were worth but forty cents on the dollar in gold.”

“It should further be borne in mind, that for more than three years prior to the passage of this act,  peace had be in restored, the Federal authority was re-established over the South, slavery, the  cause of the war, was abolished, the treasury notes and United States notes were appreciating in value every day since the establishment of peace, which, it was admitted, were continually adding wealth to the holders of United States bonds, therefore, those members of Congress who voted for that measure could not even urge necessity – the last plea of tyrants – as an excuse for voting hundreds of millions of dollars to the least patriotic of American citizens.”

“During the war heavy duties were laid upon imported goods, taxes were levied on incomes,  railway companies, insurance companies, manufacturers, and excises were collected on tobacco and spirituous liquors.”

“The manufacturing interests of the country were protected from the competition of foreign  goods, wares, and merchandise by a very high tariff, while at the same time they were enabled, under the provisions of the foreign contract labor law of July 4, 1 864, to import cheap labor by the wholesale from China, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Russia, Austria, and other foreign nations.  It was a matter of prime interest to the manufacturers to maintain the present high rate of duties on imports, and at the same time secure the removal of the taxes on incomes, manufactures, and various other forms of internal revenue.

“Moreover, the manufacturers desired the perpetuation of a huge public debt which would necessitate the raising of large revenues to meet the interest charged thereon. Furthermore, it would be to the interest of the national banks and manufacturers that Congress should make extravagant appropriations for the support of the Government.

As early as 1867, Mr. Cooke declared that the income tax should “Be scornfully abandoned and  that right speedily. “

“He laid down the following monstrous principle: –

—–“We lay down the proposition that our national debt, made permanent and rightfully managed, will be a national blessing.

—–“The funded debt of the United States is the addition of $3,000,000,000 to the previously realized wealth of the nation. It is three thousand millions added to the available active capital.  To pay this debt would be to extinguish this capital and lose this wealth. To extinguish this capital and lose this wealth would be an inconceivably great national misfortune.”

“We can easily conceive why Jay Cooke, the alleged great financier, should give utterance to  such an absurd statement. Mr. Cooke is an interested witness in the support of the ridiculous maxim “That a public debt is a public blessing.” He was realizing millions in the way of  commissions by negotiating the sale of bonds.”

“On the first day of the session of Congress in 1867, Representative Kelley, known as “Pig Iron”  Kelley, introduced the following resolution in the House: –
 —–“Resolved, That the war debt of the country should be extinguished by the generation that  contracted it, is not sustained by sound principles of national economy, and does not meet the approval of this house. “

This resolution was adopted.

“As a result of the combined influence of the national banking money power and the manufacturing interests, congress eventually repealed the tax on incomes, manufactures, railroads, insurance companies, and the tax on perfumes, bank checks, and reduced the excise tax on whiskey and tobacco.”

“In all, the total taxation remitted by the general government, at the behest of the sordid wealth of the country, amounted to $227,000,000 per annum.”

“Such was the process by which ill-gotten accumulated wealth escaped taxation. The national  banking money power was not yet satisfied; its greed was in-satiate; the more it received frown the hands of the government the more ravenous its demands; and on the 14th of July, 1870, it procured the passage of the Funding Act through a venal and corrupt congress.”

“The outrageous legislation embodied in this Funding Act becomes apparent to the reader.”

“In the first place, the 5-20 bonds, to the amount of $722,205,500, purchased with treasury notes, purposely depreciated by the Government at the demand of the gold gamblers of Wall Street, were made redeemable in coin.

This resulted in a gratuity of many millions of dollars to the holders of these bonds, which was  nothing more nor less than robbery under form of law.

“Second, it created a vast debt, making an annual charge upon the industries of the people of  $6,500,000 all of which, both principal and interest, was exempt from taxation, national, state, county, and municipal, creating a special privileged class who could not be compelled to contribute a farthing toward  the expenses of that Government which gave them protection.”

“Not only were these bond holders expressly exempted from taxes, but these non-taxable bonds opened a wide door for extensive frauds upon the revenues of state and municipal authorities.”

“The process by which states, cities, counties, town-ships, and school districts were swindled out of taxes and revenues was by the shifting of the ownership, nominally at least, of these bonds around the various banks and capitalists who returned them as non-taxable.”

“For instance, banks and capitalists, when the time came for them to return their assessments of  personal property, would report large holdings of these nontaxable bonds, which were obtained  for the occasion, and since    1870, this resulted in swindling the various local governments out of  countless millions of dollars in taxes.” 

“The same process by which non-taxable greenbacks were shifted from hand to hand, to avoid the payment of taxes during the period required by law for the return of assessment lists for taxation, was adopted on a larger scale in the case of these non-taxable bonds. It set a premium  on perjury.”

“Notwithstanding the fierce opposition displayed by the national banks against the United States notes and treasury notes, in spite of the efforts of Congress to withdraw from circulation the war money of the country by funding this currency into interest-bearing, nontaxable, long-time bonds, this paper money directly issued by the United States was so popular with the people that a very large amount remained in the channels of trade.

“The people revered the greenback and United States note, as that money which came forward in  time of deadliest peril; which armed, equipped and paid more than two million patriots, whose  magnificent bravery won the greatest battles of modern times, and whose heroism secured the perpetuity of American institutions; while gold, the money of kings, the loaded dice of stock  gamblers, fled at the first approach of danger; gold, whose value appreciated with every defeat of the Union cause; gold, that vulture which fattened and thrived upon the carnage of the great civil war, laughed the appeals of the nation to scorn.”

“During this period, the national banking money power began to advance the argument that the  character and, volume of money should be determined, not by the legislative power of the nation, but by what was called the “Business interests of the country.”

“It sought to educate the people to accept the doctrine, that it was dangerous to permit congress  “To interfere with the dearest interests of the country,” and that the solution of the money question must be settled by the national bankers, who assumed to hold the key to all monetary science.

“President Grant was wonderfully impressed with this great discovery of the bankers and, in his  message to congress, December 3, 1874, he gave utterance to this Statement: –

—–“The experience and judgment of the people can best decide how much currency is required for  the transaction of the business of the country. It is unsafe to leave the settlement of this question to Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury or the Executive. “

“The President, therefore, as far as lay in his power, tacitly surrendered the constitutional power of Congress and of the Executive to deal with questions of finance, and conferred it upon the national banks.”

The people to whom reference is made in this quotation from the President, were the national  bankers, and the chief executive was willing to transfer the power of issuing and controlling money to that class of men, whose sole ambition was the extortion of the highest rates of interest, and who loved to shave notes and bonds when they purchased, and exact a premium when they sold.”

“On the 24th of January, 1875, after the congressional election of 1874, which returned a great  Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, the specie resumption act became a law.”

“The enactment of this measure carried into execution that part of the Credit Strengthening Act  where the United States solemnly pledged its faith to make provisions for the redemption of the United States notes in coin, which now legally meant gold.”

“One section of this law provided for the substitution of fractional silver coins for the fractional  currency; a subsequent section abolished the charge of one sixth of one per cent for converting gold bullion  into coin, thereby providing for the free coinage of gold at every United States mint.”

“A critical examination of the Resumption Act will disclose the sinister purpose of the organized national banking money power to carry into execution, to the letter, the instructions couched in the Hazard circular. One of the strange features of this act which assumes to restore specie payments, is found in the express language of this statute. While Congress, by its solemn legislative decree, provided for the redemption of United States non-interest legal tender notes in gold, it did not require the national banks to redeem their circulating notes in anywise whatever.

“On the contrary, the so-called Resumption Act provided for the substitution of national bank notes  for the non-interest-bearing legal tenders issued by the government, although the national banking law made the United States notes a fund to redeem national bank notes.

“Again: it was a contraction of non-interest-bearing legal tender notes, and expansion by the  additional issue of national bank notes, which were mere promissory notes of the banks, the latter to be loaned by the bankers at a high rate of interest to the business men of the country.” 

“These circulating bank notes cost the bankers one cent on the dollar, and the Government was  the redeemer of this currency. It was gold redemption of the greenbacks by the nation, an  inflation of paper money by the banks at a cost to them of one cent on the dollar. It was a shrewd scheme to discredit the legal tender currency of the country, that the national banking money power might inherit that rich estate of issuing paper money.”

“The domicile of the bond holder determined the location of the national bank, and the location of the national bank fixed the point at which the currency of the country could only be obtained, and therefore, the productive energies of the West and South were at the mercy of the national banks. The two places fixed by this act for the redemption of legal tender notes were in New York City – the arena, of gold gamblers, stock speculators, railroad wreckers – and San Francisco. No sum less than fifty dollars in United States notes would be redeemed.”

“By hoarding the legal tender notes received in the ordinary course of business, the banks of New York City were enabled to accumulate many millions of United States notes, and present them for redemption at the sub-treasury; but the  plain citizen who could not command fifty dollars of these notes was barred from the benefits of the Resumption Act!”

“The United States presented the key of the National Treasury to the national banks, with an  implied invitation to help themselves to every thing in sight. It was a Government of national banks, for the national banks, and by the national banks.”

“Provision was made for the issue of bonds to obtain gold to redeem these legal tenders, and this  was a part of the scheme to perpetuate the national debt, and as Jefferson said: “To swindle futurity on a large scale.”

“At the time of the passage of the laws upon which comment is made. General Grant was  President of the United States.”

“Yet this distinguished man of iron nerve became as plastic as wax in the hands of those to whom he attached himself, and his confidence in his trusted advisers was shockingly abused for the furtherance of many selfish and dishonest schemes. It is this latter fact that gave birth to those shameless abuses and scandals which have sullied the pages of political history.”

Many eminent public men are of the opinion that his administration of civil affairs did not tend to the enhancement of his fame. A summary of the war legislation, in so far as it relates to the finances of the Government, exhibits these remarkable facts as to the existence of a remorseless money power:

First, Congress at the demand of the bullion brokers and gold gamblers of New York City and  Boston, purposely depreciated the currency issued by the government by striking out its legal tender qualities, by refusing to receive its own money in payment of its taxes. It was high priced gold for the bond holder, and depreciated greenbacks for the patriotic soldier who offered up his  life for his country.

“Second, the passage of the national banking law, by which the government delegated its highest  sovereign power – that of issuing money – to private corporations for private gain, resulting in a privileged class of capitalists, whose interests were wholly antagonistic to the welfare of the United States, thereby making a permanent creditor and debtor class, one the master, the other the servant.

“Third, an alliance, offensive and defensive, of the national banking money power and the manufacturers, whose combined interests have dominated the legislation of Congress, by which the banks have practically secured a monopoly of the medium of exchange, and by which the manufacturers  have secured a high protective tariff for their immediate benefit, and at the same time flooded their mills and factories with cheap foreign labor.”

“Fourth, the passage of laws, the effect of which was to enormously increase the untaxed wealth  of a privileged class, who in turn extort heavy tribute from the productive energy of the American people.”

“Fifth, The creation of a money power, foretold by Andrew Jackson, whose unlimited greed has  appropriated to its own use the greatest portion of the wealth of the United States.”

Sixth, A matured plan to perpetuate the public debt of the United States for the purpose of  holding the people in subjection to the money power.”

“Seventh, An enormously extravagant administration of the Federal Government, as a part of the  plan to fix a permanent debt on the nation.”

“Eighth, Senator Sherman, during all this period, was the chairman of the Finance Committee of  the Senate, and he was the influential agent of the money power who shaped and molded that legislation, upon which was reared that imperial combination of moneyed influence which, to a very large extent, rules the press, the pulpit, the legislative bodies, and the courts of the country.

“In view of the various financial measures enacted by Congress from 1865, to the passage of the  Resumption Act of 1875, all of which tended to greatly appreciate stocks and bonds, and to divest the Government of its undoubted power to issue full legal tender United States notes, or greenbacks, the following significant extract from the most influential journal of Great Britain, the London Times, is hereby subjoined.

In 1865 the Times editorially stated: –

—–“If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American republic during the late war in that country should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its money without cost. It will have all the money that is necessary to carry on its trade and commerce.  It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized nations of the world.  The brain and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That Government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on this globe.

“Under the workings of the national, bank system, all circulating bank notes, before they would  reach the hands of the mass of the people and thus be thrown into the channels of trade, must first pass through the toll gates erected over the counters of the bankers, making them at once the lenders of money, and the great majority of our citizens, borrowers of that currency,  gratuitously bestowed by the government upon the wealthiest moneyed corporations of the United States.

“All the industries were compelled to pay usury to the most traitorous class of our citizens. The  banks were enabled to lay the foundations of that colossal structure of credit, which has plunged the people into an abyss of indebtedness from whence they will not emerge for generations.”

“Up to the time of the passage of the Resumption Act, the banking monopoly saw no difficulty standing in its way to keep it from being the master of all the property and industry. While corrupt congresses, notorious for the infamous scandals which smirched the reputations of some of the foremost men of the Republican party, bartered away the most precious rights of the people, nature came to the rescue by affording a great supply of that most precious metal – silver.”

“The bank monopoly at once caught the alarm, and the plan was matured in London and Wall street to assassinate the silver dollar.”

“Under the free coinage of gold and silver, the national banks could not control the volume of  money, and, therefore, the position taken by this monopoly was an essential part of that gigantic conspiracy to demonetize silver, and thus maintain its grasp on the property of the people; furthermore, a fight must be waged against the standard silver dollar as a part of the scheme to  sustain the supremacy of New York City as the great money center of the country.

“Moreover, an adequate supply of silver meant the freedom of the agricultural districts of the  West and South from the Financial domination of the cent per cent, men of the East.”

“The national bank autocrats saw, in the rich deposits of silver in the Western States, the danger  that menaced their power, and they made haste to strike down the silver dollar, which, in their fears,  would become the re-generator of the financial condition of the people.  Silver dollars meant cash, national bank notes meant credit, and therefore the bond-holders and bankers of London and New York City decreed that silver must die.”

“The absurd theory of our modern statesmen that commerce, and not law, fixes the value of  money has never been recognized as sound doctrine until the national banking monopoly demanded the power of issuing currency as a vested right.”

It is an absolute falsehood to assert that the single standard of gold was adopted by this nation in  1834, for the plain reason that the mints of the United States remained open to the free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver, and the law made these coins full legal tender for the payment of all debts and demands, both public and private.

The silver dollar still remained the unit of account.

“For all sums whatever the double eagle shall be a legal tender for twenty dollars, and the gold dollar shall be a legal tender for one dollar.”

“This statute explicitly recognizes a unit, and that unit of the exchange value of money was the  silver dollar, the coinage of which was provided for by the act of April 2, 1792. The value of these gold pieces were respectively fixed by referring them to a unit, and up to this time the sole unit of account in the United States from which calculations were made was the silver dollar.”

“At the time of the passage of this act of Congress, the bullion in the silver was more valuable as  a commodity than the bullion in the gold dollar, consequently the silver dollars were withdrawn from circulation and sold as bullion in the European markets at a profit. To remedy this. Congress reduced the weight of the fractional silver coins, and limited their legal tender debt-paying power, but left the coinage of the silver dollar free and unlimited.”

“Congress correctly foresaw that the owners of silver bullion, from motives of self interest,  would not coin their bullion into silver dollars, when they would be gainers by its coinage into light weight fractional coins.”

“The limitation of legal tender power of the fractional silver coins under the act of 1853, was embodied in that law for the express purpose of preventing their exportation to foreign countries.

“Another reason for the enactment of this statute arose from the fact that the miners of California and Australia were pouring hundreds of millions of dollars of gold into the arteries of  commerce, and a number of leading financial writers of France and Germany urged their respective countries to demonetize gold, for the express purpose of increasing the value of bonds and annuities.”

“The former acts of Congress, authorizing the circulation of foreign gold and silver coins, and declaring the same a legal tender for the payment of debts, were repealed.”

“The reason for the repeal of former laws declaring foreign gold and silver coins legal tender was based on the following facts: first, the United States had become, with the discovery of the rich gold mines of California, the greatest producer of gold in the world, ‘and it endeavored to supply the people with a volume of coins stamped in American mints; second, nearly sixty years had elapsed since the passage of the first coinage law, and the capacity of the United States mints being greatly increased. Congress, by said repeal, aimed at a re-coinage of the foreign gold and silver coins into American coins, and  by this means supply a homogeneous circulation of gold and silver.

“From 1859 to 1873 but few changes were made in the coinage laws, and these were  comparatively unimportant in their nature.”

“Prior to 1861, the annual production of silver in the United States never exceeded the value of  $100,000, on the other hand, the amount of gold produced in the mines of California, from 1848 to the outbreak of the war, amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. The greatest amount of gold produced from American mines in any one year was in 1853, when it reached the enormous sum of $65,000,000. The total product of gold from the mines of the United States, from 1848 to 1861 inclusive, reached the grand total of $700,000,000.”

“In the year 1859, that great deposit of silver, the  Comstock Lode, was discovered in Nevada, and from this period the United States is reckoned among the greatest producers of silver in the world. In 1860 the production of silver had risen to $150,000, which, up to this period, was the greatest amount produced in the United States in any one year. In the same year the production of gold in California alone was $45,000,000 in value.”

“In 1863, the value of the product of silver had risen to $8,500,000.”

“In 1867, silver to the amount of $13,500,000 was produced from the mines of the west – chiefly  in Nevada.”

“The production of gold for the same year was $51,725,000.”

“At this period, the national debt had reached the enormous sum of $2,700,000,000 the interest  of which was payable in coin.

“The whole annual product of the gold mines in the United States would scarcely sufficient to pay one-half of the annual interest charge upon the national debt held by the national banking money power.”

Therefore, the control of the gold supply of the country was in the firm grasp of the national  banks and bond holders.

“Again, gold bullion is converted into coins of large denominations, chiefly ten and twenty dollar  gold pieces; while silver is coined into dollars and fractional parts thereof.”

“From the foregoing facts, gold is the money of the wealthy, while silver is the money of the  laborer. It is the small coins that most actively circulate in the channels of trade; it is gold that is  hoarded by the miser and the capitalist.”

“The small coins that are in active circulation have always eluded every effort to hoard them in large quantities.”

“The rapid increase in the production of silver in the United States meant the financial liberation of the people from the money power of the East. The prospects for an enormous supply of silver from the western mines threatened the supremacy of New York City and London as the money markets of the world.”

“The owner of silver could take his bullion to the mint, have it coined into standard silver dollars of full legal tender debt, paying power, receive them after their mintage, and transact business by their means; he was not under the necessity, when in need of money, to make application to a national bank for a loan of its circulating notes, whose sole credit rested on the solvency of the United States. He was not compelled to pay toll to the national banks for the use of their debts as money.”

“The national banking money power could not control the silver dollar, as long as the law authorized its free coinage, and consequently, a gigantic conspiracy was formed in London and New York City to demonetize silver.”

“This great money power whose almost absolute control of the currency was surely driving all  business to a credit basis, deliberately planned the destruction of that precious metal whose value has been far more stable than that of gold.”

“While in England Mr. Sherman was evidently ascertaining the views of influential persons and  bodies upon this proposed change of the coinage laws. We quote further from his letter to Mr. Ruggles in which he says:

—–“In England many persons of influence and different chambers are earnestly in favor of the  proposed change in the coinage. The change is so slight with them that an enlightened self-interest will soon induce them to make it, especially if we make the greater change in our coinage.”

“This letter is an important link in the chain of evidence that tends to prove a concerted plan on  the part of British and American financiers to effect a momentous change in the coinage laws of the United States, a change that resulted in the demonetization of silver.”

“This was the first effort ever attempted to fasten a single gold standard upon the American  people, and the declaration of Senator Sherman that, “The single standard of gold is an American idea,” was misleading, as he well knew at the time when he use a this language in the report quoted.”

“The single gold standard is of British origin, as the parliamentary acts of 1816 and 1844  conclusively prove beyond any doubt whatever.”

“On April 25, 1870, this bill, prepared by the Treasury clique, was transmitted by Secretary  Boutwell to John Sherman, chairman of the Finance Committee, with a recommendation that it be adopted by Congress.”

“Nowhere in the report of Secretary Boutwell, which accompanied this bill, was any mention made of any change in the system of coinage, but he called it, “A bill revising the laws relative to the mint, assay office, and coinage of the United States.”

“This proposed measure, which purported to be a mere codification of the mint laws, in reality provided for the demonetization of the silver dollar.”

“The Congressional Record from which he have quoted is proof that it was a cunning move on the part of Mr. Hooper to push a measure through the House during the closing hours of its session, and that he sought to do this during the temporary absence of those members who were aware of his plan, and who were opposed to the consummation of the scheme. This
unscrupulous tool of the money power did not even want this bill read so that its contents would  become known, as that would defeat its passage.

In a speech in the United States Senate, Mr. Sherman attempted the following explanation of his  coarse which led to the demonetization of the silver dollar, he says: –

—–“The old silver dollar was dropped out, in the revision, and why? Simply because it was not in use. No law repealed the silver dollar; it was simply dropped out – there was no such coin in use.  It could not circulate because, in 1872 and 1873, the silver dollar was worth more than the gold dollar.  As it had not been coined for twenty years it was dropped out from among the coins of  the United States.”

With his consistent and usual disregard of facts, Senator Sherman avers that no silver dollars  had been coined for the period of twenty years prior to the demonetization act of February 12, 1873. This statement was made in the face of the official report of the director of the United States mint for the year 1873, in which it is shown that 1,117,136 standard silver dollars were coined in the calendar year of 1871, that 1,118,600 were coined in the year 1872, and in the one month and twelve days from January 1, 1873, to February 12, 1873, 296,000 of standard silver dollars were coined.”

“The excuse tendered by Mr. Sherman for the passage of the act of February 12, 1 873, is that the  silver dollar was worth more than the gold dollar. The silver dollar so “dropped out” contained 412 1/2 grains of silver. Now, if the reasons stated by Mr.  Sherman for the omission of the coinage of the silver dollar by that act were valid and controlled his action, why did the honorable Senator amend that act in committee by increasing the number of grains in the silver dollar to 420, thus making its bullion value greater than before the passage of this act?”

“His strange logic is as follows: First, prior to its demonetization, the silver dollar was more valuable than that of gold, hence it would not circulate; therefore, as a remedy to increase its circulation, the value of the bullion in the silver dollar must be made greater?”

“In other words, the silver dollar was worth three and one-fourth cents more than that of gold and the former was hoarded or sold abroad; therefore, to obviate this difficulty in the way of increasing the circulation of that dollar, the weight was increased from 412 1/2 to 420 grains, and its over-valuation went from three and one-fourth cents to five cents.”

With such sophistry as the above, Mr. Sherman sought to delude the American people. The manner in which the act of February 12 1873, was slipped through both Houses of  Congress has excited endless controversies which rage even to this day.”

“Senator Sherman, in his speech of August 30, 1893, made a labored defense of his conduct  during the passage of the bill demonetizing silver. He asserts that the measure was fully and thoroughly debated, but the Congressional Globe of that period conclusively proves that such was not the fact.”

On the other hand, many Senators and Representatives of long service in Congress, including the sessions of 1870-71-72-73, renowned for their ability and integrity, have declared time and  again that false statements were made by those having charge of the bill, that these statements were relied on by the various members, and that those who voted for the measure never knew or even suspected that silver would be demonetized by its passage.”

“One exceedingly strong circumstance that adds great weight to the charge of fraud in the  passage of the act of February 12, 1 873, lies in the fact that Senators Nye and Stewart, who represented the state of Nevada – the greatest silver producing territory in America – voted in favor of the bill.”

“Will any sane person suppose that these two Senators would knowingly vote for a measure  which would ruin the immensely rich silver mines of that state that had honored then by an election to the United States Senators?

Mr. Cannon, a republican member of Congress from the same state, in a speech on July 13,  1876, said:

—–“This legislation was had in the Forty-second Congress, February 12, 1873, lay a bill to regulate  the mints of the United States, and practically abolish silver as money by failing to provide for the coinage of the silver dollar. It was not discussed, as shown by the Record, and neither members of Congress nor the people understood the scope of the legislation.” – (Same Cong. Record, Appendix, Page 197.)

“Mr. Bright, of Tennessee, said of this law: –

—–“It passed by fraud in the House, never having been printed in advance, being a substitute for  the printed bill; never having been read at the Clerk’s desk, the reading having been dispensed with by an impression that the bill made no material alteration in the coinage laws; it was passed without discussion, debate being cut off by operation of the previous question. It was passed to my certain information, under such circumstances that the fraud escaped the attention of some  of the most watchful as well as the ablest statesmen in Congress at that time.… Aye, sir, it was a fraud that smells to heaven. It was a fraud that will stink in the nose of posterity, and for which some persons must give account in the day of retribution,” – (Cong. Record, Vol. VII, Part 1, Page 584, 2d Sess. 45th Congress.)”

“Senator Howe, in a speech delivered in the Senate on February 5, 1878, said:- “Mr. President, I do not regard the demonetization of silver as an attempt to wrench from the people more than they agree to pay. That is not the crime of which I accuse the act of 1873. I charge it with guilt compared with which the robbery of two hundred millions is venial. “- (Cong. Record, Vol. VII, Part 1, Page 754, 2d Sess., 45th Congress)

Senator Thurman, on the 15th of February, 1878, in debate said: -“I cannot say what took place in the House, but know when the bill was pending in the Senate we thought it was simply a bill to reform the mint, regulate coinage, and fix up one thing and another, and there is not a single man in the Senate, I think, unless a member of the committee from which the bill came, who had the slightest idea that it was even a squint toward demonetization.” – (Cong. Record, Vol. VII, Part 2, Page 1,064 2d Sess., 45th Congress.)

Mr. Kelley, a republican member of Congress from Pennsylvania, in a speech delivered in the  House in 1879, in speaking of the act of February 12,1873, said: –

—–“All I can say is that the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, who reported the  original bill, were faithful and able, and scanned its provisions closely; that as their organ I reported it; that it contained provision for both the standard silver dollar and the trade dollar.  Never having heard until a long time after its enactment into law of the substitution in the Senate of the section which dropped the standard dollar, I profess to know nothing of its history; but I am prepared to say that in all the legislation of this country there is no mystery equal to the demonetization of the standard silver dollar of the United States. I have never found a man who could tell just how it came about or why.” – (Cong. Record, Vol. IX, Part 1, Page 1,231, 1st Sess., 46th Congress,)

It has been charged time and again, that Ernest Seyd, the emissary of the London money power,  was in this country at the time of the demonetization of silver, and that he used the vast sum of  $5oo,ooo with which to corrupt Congress and to secure its demonetization.”

“But as evidence that some mysterious influence was brought to bear upon certain members of  Congress, we produce the following language taken from the report upon the bill which demonetized silver. This report was written by Mr. Hooper who was in charge of that bill, and who was so persistent in engineering its passage through the Forty-Second Congress.”

That report contains the following statement; via: –

—–“The bill was prepared two years ago, and has been submitted to careful and deliberate  examination. Ernest Seyd, of London, a distinguished writer and bullionist, is  now here, and has given great attention to the subject of mints and coinage, and after examining the first draft of the bill made various sensible suggestions, which the committee accepted and embodied in the bill. While the committee takes no credit to themselves for the original preparation of this bill, they have no hesitation in unanimously recommending its passage as  necessary and expedient.

Here is a direct admission that Ernest Seyd, a citizen of England, was in this country at the time  that the first steps were taken in the drafting of that bill which aimed at the striking down of the time-honored silver dollar, and the passage of which meant the destruction of the valuable silver mines of the United States, together with those of Mexico and South America.

Mr. Seyd was not here merely as a spectator, as the language of Mr. Hooper shows, for he says  that this Englishman, “After examining the first draft of the bill made various sensible suggestions, which the committee accepted and embodied in the bill.

It will strike the average American citizen as singular that public men of the prominence of Samuel Hooper and John Sherman, members of the National Congress, should submit a great measure of such importance as this bill to the inspection and for the correction of its provisions by an alien who owed allegiance to Great Britain. It is a remarkable coincidence that foreign nations, especially England, should exert such influence in the preparation and enactment of financial measures that came solely within the constitutional powers of an American Congress.”

These striking coincidences of the constant meetings and consultations of Senator Sherman with  the financiers of Great Britain, from the time of his visit to London, in 1867, down to the passage of that infamous act demonetizing silver, were not the results of mere accident.

During the time covered by these years, the Federal, legislature gave away more than  200,000,000 acres of the public domain to great railway corporations, in addition to a gratuity of United States bonds to the amount of $65, 000,000; the Credit Mobilier rascality resulted from an exposure of the corruption of many distinguished members of Congress who sold their votes outright; the great whiskey ring was all-powerful, and, in collusion with the treasury officials and revenue officers, swindled the government out of untold millions; the President, it is true, ordered Secretary Bristol “To let no guilty man escape,” and then he nullified all prosecutions of the scoundrels by the exercise of his pardoning power; Boss Shepherd reigned supreme at Washington; the “Salary Grab” and “Back Pay” schemes of plunder were brazenly pushed through  Congress, while the Freedman’s Bureau robbed the Negro of his savings.

It would require pages to briefly summarize the history of the congressional and departmental  scandals rife at the national capital.”

“The Washington correspondent of that leading republican journal, the Chicago Tribune, of the  date of February 21, 1873, thus described the corruption prevalent at Washington. He says:- “Turkish corruption under the pashas and beys, or Russian official rottenness, could scarcely be  worse than it is here.”

“The public conscience was so aroused by these exposures and proofs of the boundless official  corruption and debauchery, that, in the congressional elections of 1874 the republican party met with an overwhelming defeat, and the democracy carried the House of Representatives by a  great majority.”

Immediately after the demonetization of silver by the United States, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark closed their mints to silver and adopted the gold standard.”

During the years of 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, and 1873, the production of silver in the  United States rapidly increased, while that of gold largely diminished. In the last named year the production of silver reached the great sum of $35,75o,ooo, to the use  of which as money was destroyed by the act of February 12, 1873.

Shortly after the demonetization of silver in the United States, a distinguished political  economist of Europe urged this country to readopt the bi-metallic law, and he forcibly stated that it would, “Not only save the world at large from an abyss, and prevent the accomplishment of a stupid general crime, whose authors humanity would some day learn to curse, but that she would advance her own material interests more than may be supposed possible, and that she may perchance take the lead in the intelligent and prudent organization of firm monetary systems.

The destructive effects of the demonetizing act of 1 873 upon the value of property was so great,  that Hon. Alexander Stephens, one of the ablest and most conservative of American statesmen, declared that it was more disastrous to the American people than the total cost and destruction of that bloody and protracted war between the North and the South. 

     He said: – “A careful calculator told me the other day that shrinkage of values in this country after the fatal act was more than the whole expense of our war. That fatality was worse than war. There is no remedy for us now except in re-establishing the value of silver and its free coinage. We want $900,000,000 in circulation, at least. We have now only fourteen dollars per capita in circulation, including all the hoarded gold and silver. We want at least twenty-five dollars per capita, or as much as we had before the crash of 1873. People fear the silver flood; I would let it come from all the world until we have a thousand millions in circulation.

The enormity of this crime, as stated by Mr. Stephens, can only be adequately gauged when it is  borne in mind that the cost of the war of the Rebellion up to the time that he made that statement aggregated $8,000,000,000.Mr. Robertson says:

—–“While it would take too much space to enter into details regarding the practical effects of this  appreciation of gold, it will suffice to give some indication of the enormous injury it has inflicted, if it is stated that the transfer of wealth from the landed and propertied classes and from the mercantile, manufacturing, and producing classes generally in the United Kingdom to the holders of securities, mortgages, annuities, etc., can not be less than L 2,000,000,000, due solely to the appreciation of gold.

—–“It is already a question how much further the holders of securities are to receive the assistance  of a continually contracting currency to enable them to go on absorbing further and further the wealth of the producing classes. If no other relief can be obtained, it may be necessary to fix a commodity standard instead of a money standard for long-dated payments, as has been recommended by the principal economists of the last hundred years. Such a colossal unearned  increment as has accrued to the holders of securities valued in gold during the last twenty years in Europe and the United States, amounting to not less than from L 7,000-000,000 to L 9,000,000,000, is entirely unparalleled in the history of the world, and all other public questions sink into utter insignificance compared with it.

“Think of it!  The demonetization of silver by the United States and Europe so enhanced the  exchange value of gold over other forms of property that it added $10,ooo,ooo,ooo to the wealth of the creditor classes of England; and from $35,ooo,ooo,ooo to $45,ooo,ooo,ooo to the accumulations  of the creditor classes of Europe and the United States.

The aggravation of the burdens of taxation induced by this so-called “appreciation of gold,”  which is no natural appreciation, but has been brought about by class legislation to increase the value of gold which is in few hands, requires but to be explained to an enfranchised democracy,  which will know how to protect itself against further attempts to contract the currency and force down prices to the confusion of every existing contract.

Of all classes of middle-men, bankers have been by far the most successful in intercepting and appropriating an undue share of produced wealth. While the modern system of banking and credit may be said to be even yet in its infancy, that portion of the assets of the community which is to-day in the strong boxes of the bankers, would, if declared, be an astounding revelation of the recent profits of this particular business; and not only has the business itself become a most profitable monopoly, but its interests in a very few hands are diametrically opposed to the interests of the majority. By legislation intended to contract the currency and force down all prices, including wages, the price paid for labor, the money owner has been able to increase the purchase power of his sovereign dollar by the direct diminution of the price of every kind of property measured in money.”

According to my viewers of the subject, the conspiracy which seems to have been formed here and in Europe, to destroy by legislation and otherwise, from three-sevenths to one-half, of the metallic money of the world, is the most gigantic crime of this or any other age.” – John G. Carlisle, in 1878.

It is the monometallists who are the authors of the depreciation which they point to as a proof  of the unworthiness of the metal they cry down. They resemble the people who, having tied the logs of a horse, call out for him to be killed because he does not gallop.” – Henri Cernushi.

After the demonetization of silver in 1873, the most disastrous panic ever known in history up  to that time, swept over this country, tens of thousands of failures occurred, entailing losses of hundreds of millions of dollars of capital. The extent of the loss wrought by that great crash cannot be described by the language of man. Resource must be had to figures to convey an adequate idea of the magnitude of the disaster flowing from this wide spread ruin and wreckage of values.”

“In 1873, the number of failures was 5,183, with liabilities of $228,500,000 In 1874,the failures  were 5,830, and the liabilities, $155,239,000; in 1875 the failures were 7,740, and liabilities of $201,000,000; in 1876, the number of failures was 9,092 with a loss of $191,000,-000; in 1877, the failures were 8,872 and liabilities were $190,669,000; in 1878, the failures reached 10,478  with the vast aggregate of $234,383,000 in liabilities – a total of failures numbering 45,195, with liabilities of $1,110,906,000 – exceeding the enormous war indemnity paid by France to Germany.”

Exclusive of this immense loss to business, the amount of suffering borne by the people will  never be known to the historian. Hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workmen were thrown out of employment,  although the crops were abundant, and the number of consumers was larger than ever before known. Then, for the first time in the history of the United States, appeared that phenomenon – the  American tramp – whose appearance and permanency, as an established institution in civil society, is a problem that must be solved some time in the near future.

Then occurred an universal reduction of wages in all the leading industries throughout the  United States, and in many eases skilled workmen received a wage of less than one dollar per day. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens, the flower of the industrial class, struck against these starvation wages, and these strikes spread all over the United States, resulting in tumults, riots, and bloodshed, assuming the proportions of a civil war.

The United States troops were called out to put down the workingmen at the point of the  bayonet, and their just grievances were quenched by the regular army.

The New York Times, a republican journal, said: –

—–“There seems to be but one remedy, and it must come – a change of ownership of the soil and  the creation of a class of land-owners on the one hand and of tenant farmers on the other – something similar to what long existed in the older copuntrieps of Europe.”

“Hon. J. C. Burrows, a republican member of Congress from Michigan, gave utterance to the  following language in a speech delivered by him on the question of finance: –

—–“To-day, the best that could happen to the financial interests and the business interests would be  for Congress to pass a law, at its very next session, to punish with death any member of Congress that would make a speech on finance for the next twenty years. What we want is to be let alone, and we are on the high road to prosperity.”

“Rev. Joseph Cook, of Boston, a divine and public lecturer, used this remarkable language in a  speech delivered by him: –

—–“The strongest of this generation wants a dictator. I say come on with your schemes of  confiscation and forced loans, and graded income taxes, and irredeemable currency, under universal suffrage, and if you are sufficiently frank in proclaiming the doctrines of your ringleaders, then, under military necessity, and even here in the United States, we must get rid of universal suffrage, and we shall. Rather than allow these things we will have one of the fiercest of civil  wars.

These are but a few of the many expressions of the sentiments entertained by a corrupt and  subsidized press, clerical hypocrites, and gigantic knaves.”

United States Senator Sharon was one of the most notorious corruptionists and libertines that  ever disgraced the name of man.”

“This panic hung over the people like a pall for seven long years. The extent of the suffering throughout the duration of this panic is eloquently expressed by Colonel Ingersoll, who said: –

“No man can imagine, all the languages of the’ world can not express what the people of the  United States suffered from 1873 to 1879. Men who considered themselves millionaires found that they were beggars; men living in palaces, supposing they had enough to give sunshine to the winter of their age, supposing that they had enough to have all they loved in affluence and comfort, suddenly found that they were mendicants with bonds, stocks, mortgages, all turned to  ashes in their hands. The chimneys grew cold, the fires in furnaces went out, the poor families were turned adrift, and the highways of the United States mere crowded with tramps.”

In their learned dissertations on the origin of this financial breakdown, they asserted that over production was the moving cause that so fearfully multiplied failures, threw workmen out of employment, and made hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children feel the pangs of hunger and starvation.”

“The reasoning of these financial wiseacres took the form of the following syllogism: Panics, want and starvation are results of the production of large quantities of wheat, corn, and others  state the American people produced immense crops of farm products; therefore, these immense crops were the cause of panics, bankruptcies, loss of employment, hunger, and starvation. Such was the theory  gravely announced by so-called learned professors of political economy.”

This doctrine was taken up and echoed in the halls of Congress by alleged statesmen, reiterated  in the press, and formed the burden of the stump speeches of designing politicians who sought political preferment. This absurd, sophistical argument had some weight-with the unthinking. Ordinarily, instances of such suffering that were prevalent during the panic of 1873, usually  proceeded from failures of crops.

The national banks desired that all business should be done upon credit; that this credit should  be given to them by the government in the form of national bank notes, the latter form of currency to be loaned by the banks to the business interest of the country. The continued efforts of the Senate to retire permanently the government legal tender notes were a part of the plan of the national banking money power to force the business of the country to be transacted by a credit money.”

“The report sets out the reason why silver was demonetized in 1873. It says: —–“Manifestly the real reason for the demonetization of silver was the apprehension of the creditor classes (money lending classes) that the combined production of the two metals would raise prices and cheapen money unless one of them was shorn of the money function. In Europe this
reason was distinctly avowed.”

From 1862 up to 1875, the legislation of Congress tended wholly for the benefit of the East.  Almost every law was enacted with the view of giving the New England states, New York, and Pennsylvania a great preponderance over the rest of the nation; exorbitant tariffs were levied on imported goods for the benefit of Eastern manufacturers, the burdens of which fell upon the consumer; foreign contract labor laws were adopted to afford these highly-protected  manufacturers an abundant supply of cheap labor as a means for crushing the various labor organizations; out of the billions of money appropriated by Congress during that period, by far the greater portion was expended in those few states lying along the Atlantic; Eastern corporations received subsidies of public money to the amount of millions; the great railway corporations, burdened with liabilities far exceeding their assets, robbed the west and south of hundreds of millions of dollars by the imposition of heavy transportation charges, and these railways were owned by Eastern capitalist; while the rich silver mines of the West mere practically rendered valueless by the demonetization of silver.

During the debate in the Senate on this silver bill, Hon. John J. Ingalls, a republican Senator  from Kansas, in a speech delivered on the 14th of February, 1877, used the following strong language: – “If by any process all business were compelled to be transacted on a coin basis, and actual specie payments should be enforced, the whole civilized world would be bankrupt before  sunset. There is not coin enough in existence to meet in specie the one-thousandth part of the commercial obligations of mankind. Specie payments, as an actual fact, will never be resumed, neither in gold nor silver in January, 1879, nor at any other date, here nor elsewhere. The pretense that they will be is either dishonest or delusive.

It is the east against the west and south combined. It is the corn and wheat and beef and cotton  of the country against its bonds and its gold; its productive industry against its accumulations. It is the men who own the public debt against those who are  to pay it, if it is to be paid at all. If the bonds of this government are ever paid, they will be paid by the labor of the country, and not by its capital. They are exempt from taxation and bear none of the burdens of society.”

The characteristics which he attributes to gold in this beautiful figure of speech, were those which belonged to its owners, and thus he scathingly denounced the greed of the gold gamblers and bullion brokers of the East, who, during the war, rejoiced at every reverse of the northern armies, for, with the sinking of the fortunes of the Union cause, the more valuable became gold proportionately.

The silver bill as amended by the Senate was returned to the House for concurrence and  passage. The manner in which the House bill was mutilated by the Senate aroused the anger of the House, and a fierce debate arose between the friends of silver and its opponents. Some of those who most strongly opposed the bill as a concession to the West and South were men who men notorious for the scandals that blackened their reputations as public men.  Those members of Congress, who opposed the remonetization of silver in any form whatever, had, in their past careers, shown a remarkable inclination for Credit Mobilier stock, and other corrupt deals which had so deeply disgraced preceding Congresses.”

“Yet these Credit Mobilier statesmen were the ones who prated the loudest for the “public  credit,” “the public faith,” and “honest money.” It was Satan preaching against sin.”

Among other powerful advocates of the coinage of silver me John G. Carlisle, who was  recognized on the floor of the House as its ablest logician. Mr. Carlisle charged that the demonetization of silver was brought about by a conspiracy of the money power.  He said: – “According to my views of the subject, the conspiracy which seems to have been  formed here and in Europe to destroy by legislation and otherwise from three-sevenths to one- half of the metallic money of the world is the most gigantic crime of this or any other age. The consummation of such a scheme would ultimately entail more misery upon the human race than all the wars, pestilences, and famines that ever occurred in the history of the world.

The absolute and instantaneous destruction of half the entire movable property of the world,  including houses, ships, railroads and other appliances for carrying on commerce, while it would be felt more sensibly at the moment, would not produce anything like a prolonged distress and disorganization of society that must inevitably result from the permanent
annihilation of one-half the metallic money of the world.”

“In his veto message, the President states that one of the reasons why the bill does not meet hie  approval arose from the fact that the proposed dollar would be worth but ninety or ninety-two cents, as compared with the standard gold dollar.”

“It will be remembered that the sole reason advanced by John Sherman, at this time Secretary of  the Treasury, for the demonetization of the silver dollar in 1868 and subsequent years, was, that  the silver dollar was more valuable than the gold dollar.  President Hayes, and presumably his Secretary of the Treasury, urged as a reason for the veto of  this bill providing for the coinage of silver, that it was worth less than the gold dollar.”

“By the Bland-Allison law the coinage of silver dollars was limited, and that coinage was on Government account alone. At the time of the passage of the Bland- Allison law, the production of silver from the mines of  the United States amounted to more than $45,000,000 for that year. Since the demonetization of silver in 1873, its total production in the United States amounted to  $210,000,000. This law provided for the purchase of not less than $2,000,000 of silver nor more than  $4,000,000 per month.”

“The bullion so bought by the Government was to be coined into dollars as fast as purchased, and the gain or seigniorage arising from this coinage was to be paid into the Treasury. It will be seen that the Secretary of the Treasury was not legally compelled to purchase more  silver per month than the minimum amount ($2,000,000).”

“A purchase of the minimum amount of silver would afford a market for only one-half of the  yearly production, and this could result in an accumulation of a large surplus for which there would be no demand. This surplus would fix the price of every ounce of silver mined in the United States, causing a fall in its bullion value.”

“This result would afford an opportunity for the national banking money power to point to the  silver dollar as a “dishonest dollar,” a “90-cent dollar.”

“Mr. Sherman held the Treasury portfolio, and it was averred that he would use all the influence of his once to discredit the new coinage. He was known to be an unrelenting enemy of the free coinage of silver, and his subsequent speeches and writings gave abundant proofs of that fact.

“It was further provided in that act, that the amount of money at any one time invested in such  silver bullion, exclusive of such resulting coin, should not exceed $5,000,000. By this restriction the Secretary of the Treasury could limit the annual purchase of silver to  $29,000,000. He was not compelled to purchase silver exceeding $2,000,000 per month, or $24,000,000 per annum, and this policy which was carried out by the Secretary, made the Government a “bear” in the silver market.”

“This law gave rise to a net form of contracts based upon the legal tender clause which contained  the following language, “Except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract.”

“This exception was the most absurd provision ever embodied in a monetary law. It declared the  silver dollar to be legal tender, yet it conferred upon money lenders the power to demonetize it by private contract. It made the mere will of an individual superior to the collective will of the nation. It placed the greed of the Shylock above the power of the constitution. Every usurer was permitted to constitute himself a Congress and a President to demonetize silver at will.” 

“While the powerful Government of the United States was compelled to receive these silver dollars far debts and demands due it, the holders of mortgages could exact gold obligations. It transferred to the  hands of the national banking money power the right to loan Government credit in the form of bank notes, costing it one cent on the dollar, at a high rate of interest, exact a note payable in gold, with the “vested privilege” of making war against the currency of the United States.”

“The policy of France, which has the most scientific system of money in the world, makes it a crime for any one of its citizens to attempt to demonetize its money by private contract.”

“Not a single United States bond expressed an agreement to pay in gold, and yet the  Government turned the great majority of its citizens over to the tender mercies of the money- lenders of the East and Great Britain, by authorizing them to exact gold payments.”

“The legality of contracting against any part of the legal tender money of the nation is extremely  doubtful; and it scorns that, on the plainest principles of justice, and on the highest grounds of public policy, a contract in which it is sought to demonetize legal tender money is utterly void, and is therefore unconstitutional.

“One singularity which will attract the attention of the reader is, that every measure adopted by  the House providing for the restoration of silver, was, on reaching the Senate, uniformly referred to the Finance Committee, from whence it never returned. As it was then constituted, the Finance Committee was composed largely of Eastern Senators,  and this fact affords an explanation of the wonderful facility with which this committee nullified all efforts of the House for remedial legislation.”

“In the meantime Secretary Sherman was administering the Treasury Department with a view of  throwing discredit upon the silver coinage, and he persisted in the policy of refusing to pay out silver dollars, except where specific demands were made for that money. His object in following out this line of policy, aimed at a large accumulation of silver dollars in the Treasury, and this  condition would supply him with arguments to convince Congress, if possible, that no one desired silver as money. This intention was evidenced by a communication to Congress by him, in which he requested an appropriation for the construction of additional vaults for the storage of standard silver dollars.”

“When this three per cent funding bill was before the House, the greatest pressure was brought to bear upon that body by the combined efforts of the national banks to secure the defeat of the measure. The halls of Congress swarmed with the agents, lobbyists, and attorneys of the money power who attempted to intimidate Congress and defeat the bill. Threats were openly made by these venal scoundrels, that, unless the measure was withdrawn, the national banking money power would punish the country by indicting a monetary panic upon it.

“The New York Tribune, the leading organ of this money power, thus described the vast power of  the banks of the East, and hinted at its possible exercise. It said: –

—–“The time is near when they (the banks) will feel compelled to act strongly. Meanwhile a very  good thing has been done. The machinery is now furnished by which, in any emergency, the financial corporations of the East can act together on a single day’s notice with such power that no act of Congress can overcome or resist their decision.”

“In its zeal to serve the purpose of the financial corporations of the East, it exposed the traitorous sentiments of the financial magnates of New York City. It said: – “It is astonishing, yea, startling, the extent to which faith prevails in money circles in New York that we ought to have a king.”

“The banks of the East, in their efforts to coerce Congress into submission, at once commenced a  rapid contraction of the currency during the time the bill was under consideration by the House. In the short period of thirteen days, the banks of New York City surrendered their circulating  notes to the extent of $18,722,340 and conspired to precipitate a panic upon the country, with its accompaniments of bankruptcy, financial ruin, and suffering.  This concerted action of the New York banks produced such a flurry in the money market, that  prices fell five, ten, and fifteen per cent in a fear moments; and interest at the rate of 472 per cent per annum was exacted for the use of money by these infamous conspirators against the human race.”

 “It is understood that there is to be an amendment offered in the House to the bill providing for the issue of greenbacks to take the place of bank circulation that may be withdrawn. If this sensible precaution is taken it will instantly restore confidence and take permanently away from the banks this fearful power to withdraw in one day all their bills from circulation, or, what is worse, lock op an equal amount of gold and legal tenders and leave the street utterly without means of doing business. Such terrible power no set of men should for one instant possess. “- New York Graphic.

“It is a dangerous thing for the tail to attempt to wag the dog, for if the dog gets angry he can  switch the tail about in a very unpleasant may for the tail. The truth is, that in matters of national interest there is no set of le as stupid as the Wall street financiers. Absorbed in the business of buying and selling stocks and lending money, they only consider what immediately effects today’s markets, without a foresight of the future or regard for what is going on elsewhere. In the  present case they are evidently in blissful ignorance of the general hostility of the people of the West and Southwest to the national bank system and the slender thread of toleration on which it hangs. It needs only a good pretext to secure the sweeping of the whole thing out of existence,and the substitution for it of any exclusive national currency. That pretext all the Wall street bankers seem bent on furnishing, and Washington will, we fear, be only too glad to seize upon it.” – New York Sun.

The act of January, 1875, clothed the national banks with the power of unlimited and unrestricted contraction and expansion of the currency. It gave them absolute control over the  volume of money, and consequently over the market value of labor and all kinds of property. It gave them power to inflate the currency when they could make money through the inflation of prices, and when their interests could be better served by panic, depressed prices and general  business stagnation and bankruptcy, they had power to accomplish their end through the contraction of their circulating notes. “

“The provisions of the new funding bill materially interfere with their nicely-planned scheme, and deprive them of nearly all their power over sudden contractions and inflation. It puts a limit to their privileges, and bounds to their unwarranted powers.”

“The childish spite exhibited by Secretary Sherman against silver, his petty slanders against the standard dollar, and his slavish devotion to the traitorous money power, disgusted many of the best men of the party to which he belonged; and, on March 30,  1880, the Chicago Tribune administered a stinging rebuke to his policy. It said: –  “Since the passage of the silver law Mr. Sherman has done everything to disparage silver; he has limited the coinage to the minimum; he refused to exercise the  Government’s option to pay out  silver in any considerable amounts; he has restricted the issue of silver certificates; he made the Treasury Department a member of the New York Clearing House, from which silver is excluded; and has by word and letter and act done all in his power to discourage the use of silver in the United States.”

The entire property of the nation, both real and personal, is at the absolute mercy of these  national bank money kings. The men, or combination of men, who control the volume of money of a nation are its masters, whether it is an absolute, or a constitutional monarchy, or a republic.”

The time covered by “Philosophy of Price” is July 1, 1866, up to and including 1885. “Philosophy of Price” says: –

“Here is a table showing the debt of the United  States on the 1st of July, 1866 and 1885, including non-interest bearing greenbacks, expressed in dollars, and also in the things working folks have to produce in order to get the dollars with which to pay debts and interest: –

“Almost every product of labor shows the same result. We paid from 1866 to 1884 the public  debt: Interest, $1,870,000,000 and principal about $1,200,000,000; yet we find that what there is left of it when measured labor, or the product of labor, is fifty per cent greater than the original debt.”

“This colossal robbery of the nation, and consequently of the people, was planned and matured  by the national banking money power. It is true that the idea of this system of banking had its origin in England, and it is also a fact that the scheme of legislating increased value into the bonded debt was suggested by the influential bankers of London.”

“Each one of the series of enactments which legally confiscated billions of property of the tax- payers, and which handed it over to a few individuals, was placed upon the statute-boots under the false and misleading plea of maintaining the “Credit of the nation untarnished.”

[Now having gained a greater understanding of the WHY people of that time, of the labor classes were worse off, in a Nation of plenty, than ever before and that the reasons for the extreme disparities in “Wealth” were solely the product of a criminal syndicate foisting upon the people a system of fiat-credit money, of such venal qualities only the other criminal class had a chance of success.

The banking syndicate run out of the bank of England, destroyed the Nations non-credit money supply, loaded the public with debt and by every crooked trick so endeavored ruined any chance that the natural wealth so mined or produced, might benefit the people by their own honest labors. A credit note as money racket was set upon the people with no defense of their Rights, Civil or Property stood in the way of them being robbed blind by such predatory scams laid against them.

The People were wholly at the mercy of their hidden enemies, who being the cowards that they have always been, hid themselves behind the false platitudes of their bought money men, who gladly turned their fellow man into debt slaves while trumpeting the policies of their crooked masters. Or why hide the schemes so expertly where few knew to look?]

Going back to the historical commentary so edified, as to the cause of such wealth “inequalities” now born up by the commoners while the privileged class feeling quite superior by wealth alone, fulfills the goals of the money powers without a pea of conscience between them:

“This was an era of Congressional supremacy. The Republican party dominated the Presidency and the Congress for most of these years. Both houses of Congress were full of representatives owned by big business.”

Laws regulating campaigns were minimal and big money bought a government that would not interfere. Similar conditions existed in the states. City governments were dominated by political machines. Members of a small network gained power and used the public treasury to stay in power — and grow fabulously rich in the process.

“Not until the dawn of the 20th century would serious attempts be made to correct the abuses of Gilded Age government.”

[Who are these people kidding? I guess a serious attempt is like trying to swat a fly with an ink-pen.]

“Most Americans living in the Gilded Age knew nothing of the millions of Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan. They worked 10 hour shifts, 6 days a week, for wages barely enough to survive. Children as young as eight years old worked hours that kept them out of school. Men and women worked until their bodies could stand no more, only to be released from employment without retirement benefits. Medical coverage did not exist. Women who became pregnant were often fired. Compensation for being hurt while on the job was zero.”

“Slowly but surely unions did grow. Efforts to form nationwide organizations faced even greater difficulties. Federal troops were sometimes called to block their efforts. Judges almost always ruled in favor of the bosses.”

“The workers often could not agree on common goals. Some flirted with extreme ideas like Marxism. Others simply wanted a nickel more per hour. Fights erupted over whether or not to admit women or African Americans. Immigrants were often viewed with hostile eyes. Most did agree on one major issue — the eight-hour day. But even that agreement was often not strong enough glue to hold the group together.”

“The Martinsburg strike might have gone down in history as one of many small local strikes put down by force, but this time the strike spread. Soon other B & O units joined the Martinsburg strike. The movement spread into Pennsylvania, when workers on the Pennsylvania and Reading Railroads joined their compatriots. Pittsburgh is the gateway to the Midwest, and so the strike widened to that region.”

“The police, the National Guard, and the United States Army clashed with angry mobs throughout America. Throughout the land, wealthy individuals feared that the worst had finally come. A violent revolution seemed to be sweeping the nation.”

“But then it stopped. In some cases the strikes were ended by force. In others, the strikers simply gave up. After all, most workers were not trying to overthrow the government or the social order. They simply wanted higher wages and more time to spend with their families. The Great Upheaval was not the first strike in American History; it was the first mass strike to involve so many different workers separated by so much space.”

“The Great Upheaval was spontaneous. There was absolutely no advanced planning, showing how many rank and file workers had the same concerns about quality of life, as well as the same anger at those who controlled the wealth. More than 100,000 workers had gone on strike, shutting down nearly half of the nation’s rail systems.”

“When the strike ended in the first week in August, over 100 people were killed and a thousand more were imprisoned. Untold millions of dollars of damage was caused to rail lines, cars, and roundhouses. The fight was over, but America had not seen the last of the mass strike.”

Prior to the 20th century the government never sided with the union in a labor dispute. Bosses persuaded the courts to issue injunctions to declare a strike illegal. If the strike continued, the participants would be thrown into prison. When all these efforts failed to break a strike, the government at all levels would be willing to send a militia to regulate as in the case of the Great Upheaval.”

“What were the employees demanding? In the entire history of labor strife, most goals of labor can be reduced to two overarching issues: higher wages and better working conditions. In the beginning, management would have the upper hand. But the sheer numbers of the American workforce was gaining momentum as the century neared its conclusion.”

“By 1900, the ranks of the A.F. of L. swelled to over 500,000 tradespeople. Gompers was seen as the unofficial leader of the labor world in America.”

“Simplicity worked. Although the bosses still had the upper hand with the government, unions were growing in size and status. There were over 20,000 strikes in America in the last two decades of the 19th century. Workers lost about half, but in many cases their demands were completely or partially met. The A.F. of L. served as the preeminent national labor organization until the Great Depression when unskilled workers finally came together. Smart leadership, patience, and realistic goals made life better for the hundreds of thousands of working Americans it served.”

“American socialists based their beliefs on the writings of Karl Marx, the German philosopher. Many asked why so many working Americans should have so little while a few owners grew incredibly wealthy. No wealth could exist without the sweat and blood of its workforce. They suggested that the government should own all industries and divide the profits among those who actually created the products. While the current management class would stand to lose, many more people would gain. These radicals grew in number as industries spread. But their enemies were legion.”

[These Marx inspired socialists as always were fighting the wrong war for the wrong reasons. The social ideal is infantile… big daddy government is never going to fulfill the mandate of profit for a simple reason… the actual generating force is not the credit fiat-money… the mis-identification of the proper structure commits the conclusion to a fallacy of circular reasoning. People will get more profit, if the government owns the factory— the profit is an illusion— like a carrot on a stick— those men of that time threw around these huge numbers as part of the confidence game they were experts at playing. They purchased the “labor credit-dollar” as cheap as the scam allowed and realized their gains in another form of money.

Changing ownership to the government only opens the door to yet another kind of confidence scam, played by the same crooks, only the rules will change to modify the returns of the capital to diminish any profit by the increase of debts. People will find themselves chasing a smaller wage than ever before as the debt servicing on the loans will make the widgets to costly to be profitable. To hide this fact a legion of paper-pushers will absorb great amounts of time and expense further exasperating the ability of the men who labor to maintain minimal cost effective production. A man low down on the money rights pole cannot obtain the same kind of money— a FACT which is ignored, denied and removed from public understanding. To know what the scam is also proves why socialism cannot win a game already rigged. If the game was not rigged socialism, oddly enough ceases to be needed at all.

Socialism does not produce wealth, it only pushes around the Right to have a share of whatever form of wealth is available. When the wealth is gone socialism fails soon thereafter as there is nothing left to to prop up the illusions.  Socialism simply masks civil disparities it does not cure them of their defects. All of these defects arise from the same root. The destruction of real tangible money and the system it was based on— to fasten down on people a CREDIT fiat-money system that is venal in its purpose—robs all people so dependent on its falsehoods to the exclusions of genuine social progress. The American people knew that a war was being waged upon them, but they had no means to defend themselves from the severity of its attacks. They were looted of their freedoms, right along with their gold and silver, thus so deprived of being able to choose a better way of living… socialism does not bring back those choices— it only severs the real solution even further from the problem and places the wrong authority in the State— where it does not belong— and produces a false sense of equality to smother any possibility of genuine progress back to real freedom.

Marx was no champion of the commoners he was their pied-piper of death. He lured them in with false solutions to real problems he had no intentions of solving.  Communism is a farce, a contrivance to reel in the disillusioned, the intellectually dis-honest and promulgate class hatred, which is to be solved by a mass dictatorship, of the lowest common denominator, divorced of all morals, to ensure the mass-conformity, of brainless existence.  Where is equality in the mindless pursuit of mediocrity? Mass tribalism is a dead-end with no escaping the end result— death of inspiration— death of the very individuals who do not conform— iconoclasts—writers, poets, artists and other free souls who follow their muse wherever it may lead them.

Without property right protected by Law and made firm by social conventions no man is going to work very long for nothing— unless of course he is a slave— how odd that the goal of Marxist tripe is mindless slavery to the State of dictators, too lazy to lift a finger in any labor capacity period, which is just the mirror opposite of slavery as demanded by the same class of slime-balls working the creditor class side of the political aisle.  Seems to me that the goals of both are one and the same. To make people become or accept they are nothing but mindless slaves, mechanical trans-humanism… soulless automatons with no more rights than a pencil on a desk. This is the promised dream of a classless utopia? My bet is the ultra-rich hired Mr. Marx and others of his ilk to foment the very wars they needed to carry out the latest plans of world domination. Given the number of people who were murdered after communism was un-leashed, the purpose fits the glove.

Show me a Nation where all men are free to work and pursue their livelihoods un-encumbered by false debts, secured in their Rights of property and I will show you a Nation of bustling people hard at work to make for themselves a life of their own choosing. This nation is not a utopia and far from perfect, but it is vital in its energies and prosperous in its intentions. The money slime-balls reaped for themselves like vultures the Right to the fruits of the labor class, only because they bought the nations politicians like so many fools on a Hill. Only by every rotten trick of financial piracy were they able to “Legislate” the rules they needed into actionable cause and thereby, skim the fortunes of the People by relieving them of their sovereign coin money, the national interest-free notes and the gains such money as earned. Incomes which were Rightfully theirs by Law and moral reason.

The crooks basically took over the hen house— the egg of wealth was acted upon— to the crooks went the yolk of credit and to the people was dumped the egg-shells of debt. This nifty little arrangement privatized the gain of profits and dumped the debt, as a waste product on the people at interest– the higher the better. Credit notes which cannot be cashed into coin are no better than an empty promise, which the people pay twice for… just for the privilege of having any money at all. The modern American was turned into a debt slave without so much as a bullet fired upon them. And no wiser for the effort as the Nation entered the period of the roaring twenties.]

“The modern American city was truly born in the Gilded Age. The bright lights, tall buildings, material goods, and fast pace of urban life emerged as America moved into the 20th century. However, the marvelous horizon of urban opportunity was not accessible to all. Beneath the glamor and glitz lay social problems previously unseen in the United States.”

“Much of the urban poor, including a majority of incoming immigrants, lived in tenement housing. If the skyscraper was the jewel of the American city, the tenement was its boil. In 1878, a publication offered $500 to the architect who could provide the best design for mass-housing. James E. Ware won the contest with his plan for a dumbbell tenement. This structure was thinner in the center than on its extremes to allow light to enter the building, no matter how tightly packed the tenements may be. Unfortunately, these “vents” were often filled with garbage. The air that managed to penetrate also allowed a fire to spread from one tenement to the next more easily.”

[Housed like slaves with no means of escaping?]

“Because of the massive overcrowding, disease was widespread. Cholera and yellow-fever epidemics swept through the slums on a regular basis. Tuberculosis was a huge killer. Infants suffered the most. Almost 25% of babies born in late-19th century cities died before reaching the age of one. The Stench of Waste, the Stench of Crime.  The cities stank. The air stank, the rivers stank, the people stank. Although public sewers were improving, disposing of human waste was increasingly a problem. People used private cesspools, which overflowed with a long, hard rain. Old sewage pipes dumped the waste directly into the rivers or bays. These rivers were often the very same used as water sources.”

“Trash collection had not yet been systematized. Trash was dumped in the streets or in the waterways. Better sewers, water purification, and trash removal were some of the most pressing problems for city leadership. As the 20th century dawned, many improvements were made, but the cities were far from sanitary.”

“The new groups arriving by the boatload in the Gilded Age were characterized by few of these traits. Their nationalities included Greek, Italian, Polish, Slovak, Serb, Russian, Croat, and others. Until cut off by federal decree, Japanese and Chinese settlers relocated to the American West Coast. None of these groups were predominantly Protestant.”

“The vast majority were Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. However, due to increased persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, many Jewish immigrants sought freedom from torment. Very few newcomers spoke any English, and large numbers were illiterate in their native tongues. None of these groups hailed from democratic regimes. The American form of government was as foreign as its culture.”

“The most notorious political boss of the age was William “Boss” Tweed of New York’s Tammany Hall. For twelve years, Tweed ruled New York. He gave generously to the poor and authorized the handouts of Christmas turkeys and winter coal to prospective supporters. In the process he fleeced the public out of millions of taxpayer money, which went into the coffers of Tweed and his associates.”

Men like Tweed appeared all over America. Some not nearly as successful in bilking millions out of taxpayers, while doing the managerial work obviously needed to keep the cities functioning to their intended purpose. Meanwhile, the bankers were ever busy in the high towers of finance looking to increase their financial control by every means possible. The previous banking syndicates were given a fresh-coat of paint and re-born as the federal reserve board banks. That gap of wealth inequality was never even close to being closed, or arrested from its engineered course. The American people would go through the same cycles again and again as they were now taught and expected. The nation enjoyed a false quality of prosperity only so long as the money masters allowed them. The great depression once again severed the people from the mild accumulations of lands or financial wealth they had earned by sweat and ingenuity. Then the president simply declared the money of people belonged to the treasury. A perfect example of socialism at work. A mans property was simply decreed by fiat to be no more.

A better example of the logic here is simple. If gold was no longer any good as money, the paper credit dollar would have made it almost impossible for people to get rid of gold at the same value it was obtained. Why bother to call in something that no longer has any profit value to be gained as sold? If that credit dollar, was actually superior as money than gold, paper dollars would have been sold for greater investment profit not gold. Silver by these claimed conditions would have circulated for exchange as the less valuable form of money. The government by the fraud so claimed would have had no reason to recall gold as its price dropped to near nothing and people would have used gold like a brick as a door stop to this day. Once again, the country was looted of its money and the wealth inequality gap was widened by another country mile. Without the criminals stealing the nations wealth by the boatload, there would still be a modest wealth gap, but nothing like it is today. The curse of the money-lenders would not be the norm and prosperity would still be the virtue of hard work and wise financial planning.

There are very few options left for this Nation or any other seeking to un-wind the crimes and it will never happen so long as people do not give damn about the truth. There is a logical, deductive method to beat the money lenders at their own game. And funny enough it starts right back at that dollar printing press. Circulation of non-interest Notes by State banks is the key to the answer. The Sovereign Right of the States trumps the corporations of the money lenders. If and when the People are actually serious about stopping this crime in progress— permanently— that is where it has to start.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: