Money. Part 3.

William Jennings Bryan, 1860-1925
William Jennings Bryan, 1860-1925 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

June 9, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

We move forward to 1861 and the 16th President Abraham Lincoln. France stationed troops in Mexico and England stationed them in Canada. The American civil war was about to begin with France and England ready to feed on the remains. Lincoln had been forced into war by the financial houses of Europe. The European financial houses’ plan was to split the United States in two. Divide and conquer.

President Lincoln went to the New York banks for loans to fight the war. The New York banks offered deals for loans with interest rates ranging from 24-36%. Lincoln walked away dejected. Congressman E.G. Spaulding, in a speech to Congress, said in 1862:

“Why then should we go into Wall Street, State Street, Chestnut Street, or any other street, begging for money? Their money (private banks) is not as secure as government money… I am unwilling that this government should be left in the hands of any class of men, bankers or moneylenders, however respectable or patriotic they may be. The government is much stronger than any of them.”

But then President Lincoln decided the government would print $450,000,000 worth of “greenbacks” which the government proceeded to do. These were United States notes; all created with no interest for the federal government to have to pay to anyone. Debt-free money which Lincoln successfully used to pay the troops, buy supplies etc. The New York banks wanted to charge the high interest rates to the government for the financing of the civil war. The government found the solution with the printing of the greenbacks.

In 1902 M.I.T. Economics Professor David Rich Dewey wrote on the greenbacks:

“The underlying idea in the greenback philosophy… Is that the issue of currency is a function of the government, a sovereign right which ought not to be delegated to corporations.”

A sovereign right?… The definition of sovereign: (n, 1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit). Folks, there would be no national debt if the United States government and people had chosen to issue their own currency from the beginning. All countries on Earth would have no national debt if the governments and the people of each country had chosen to issue their own currency from their beginnings.

To illustrate the international nature of the monetary issue, Lincoln found an ally in Russia. Alexander II, Tsar of Russia (1855-1881) was having his own problems with the banks of Rothschild. The Rothschilds wanted to set up central banks in Russia. Alexander II refused them. The Tsar delivered orders to the effect that if England or France intervened in the American civil war for the southern state that Russia would consider the actions a declaration of war on Russia and would side with President Lincoln. The Tsar sent a fleet to America to show he was not bluffing.

In 1865, very near to the time when the civil war ended, President Lincoln died the victim of assassination. He was 56 years old. Can we imagine what more this great leader could have accomplished if not gunned down? Can we fathom a guess for the motive? It is one of the great mysteries of life when those who make the greatest effort to help their fellow-man get killed for their efforts.

The American people were getting accustomed to the use of the “greenbacks”, the debt-free money which President Lincoln initiated. In 1866 after Lincoln’s assassination a money contraction began and Congress began taking the “greenbacks” out of circulation. There then began a series of recessions.

Here is a quote from the 1980 “The Truth in Money Book” by Theodore Thoren. It reads:

“The hard times which occurred after the civil war could have been avoided if the greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead there was a series of “money panics”, what we call recessions-which put pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under centralized control”.

We move on to the year 1873 and what monetary experts call the Crime of 1873. Around the year of 1873 silver had been removed as a form of money. The American people were angry about this and riots resulted. Minnesota Congressman Charles Lindbergh wrote a book in 1913 titled Banking and Currency and the Money Trust. It deals with the bankers of 1873 efforts to stop the return of the greenbacks. The following excerpt from Lindbergh’s book is a 1877 letter by James Buel, then secretary of the American Bankers Association, to the country’s association bankers.

The excerpt reads (Buel to member bankers):

“It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the agricultural and religious press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money… To repeal the act creating banknotes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders… See your Congressman at once and engage him to support our interests that we may control legislation.”

Today’s equivalent would be the internal e-mail. Lindbergh’s writing is very revealing.

Whoever controls the quantity of money… How about the United States sovereign government for a change; debt free with no interest for a change? How about the end of national debt for a change? Our guess is that you answered the previous three questions with a yes. It is coming. Do not doubt. Given the economic crisis of the late 2000’s, there are increasing calls from the public for change. Folks simply know in their guts that there is something crooked going on in the financial sector of this country as well as the entire world.

The next period of American history we will look at is during the years 1880-1900. We will begin with William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), a Nebraska Congressman, free silver advocate and three-time Presidential candidate. He was widely known as “the lion of the free silver movement”. His speech at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1896 titled “Crown of Thorns, Cross of Gold” is considered by many political scientists as the most powerful political speech ever delivered. The following is the full text of William Jennings Bryan’s powerful convention speech of 1896. The speech propelled him to the Democratic nomination for President of the United States at the age of 36.

The Democratic Party in 1896 had its gold proponents and its silver proponents. A majority of the delegates to the 1896 Democratic convention were proponents of silver. Up to the point where Bryan delivered his famous speech no-one had effectively spoken for the silver cause, which the delegation overwhelmingly supported. The silver men knew they would be victorious in this fight. They just needed someone to tell them and the gold men why they must put silver at the heart of the platform. Before Bryan took the podium the pump was not just primed, but ready for an explosion. There was the highest form of anticipation in the convention hall as Bryan stepped up to the podium…

What follows is the most famous speech in American political history. William Jennings Bryan on July 9, 1896 at the Democratic national convention in Chicago.

The Cross of Gold.

“It would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were but a measuring of ability; but this is not a contest among persons. The humblest citizen in all the land when clad in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the whole hosts of error that they can bring. I come to speak to you in the defense of a cause as Holy as the cause of liberty-the cause of humanity. When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration and also the resolution in condemnation of the administration. I shall object to bringing this question down to a level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest of principle…”

“…Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been by the voters themselves…”

“…On the 4th of March, 1895, a few democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the democrats of the nation asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; asserting also the right of a majority of the Democratic party to control the position of the party on this paramount issue; concluding with the request that all believers in the free coinage of silver in the Democratic party should organize and take charge of and control the policy of the Democratic party…”

“…Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver democrats went forth openly and boldly and courageously proclaiming their belief and declaring that if successful they would crystallize in a platform the declaration which they had made; and then  began the conflict with a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit. Our silver democrats went forth from victory to victory, until they are assembled now, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment rendered by the plain people of this country…”

“…But in this contest, brother has been arrayed against brother, and father against son. The warmest ties of Love and acquaintance and association have been disregarded. Old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of freedom. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever fastened upon the representatives of a people…”

“…We do not come as individuals. Why, as individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we knew that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle; and it is not with gladness my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side. The gentleman who just preceded me [Governor Russell] spoke of the old state of Massachusetts. Let me assure him that not one person in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the state of Massachusetts…”

“…But we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law of the largest cities in the state of Massachusetts. When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman…”

“…The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads street is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the Earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessman as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world…”

“…We come to speak for this broader class of businessmen. Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic coast; but those hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose-those pioneers away out there, rearing their children near to nature’s heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds-out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead-are as deserving of the consideration of this party as any people in this country…”

“…It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned. We have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them! The gentleman from Wisconsin has said he fears a Robespierre. My friend, in this land of the free you need fear no tyrant who will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth…”

“…They say that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen and we are attempting to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that is not a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have made no criticism. We have simply called attention to what you know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the court. That will give you criticisms…”

“…They say we passed an unconstitutional law. I deny it. The income tax was not unconstitutional when it was passed. It was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time. It did not become unconstitutional until one judge changed his mind; and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind. The income tax is a just law. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to pay his fair share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours…”

“…He says that we are opposing the national bank currency. It is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find that he said that in searching history he could find but one parallel for Andrew Jackson. That was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracies of Cataline and saved Rome. He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America. We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation…”

“…Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should get out of the governing business…”

“…They complain about the plank which declares against the life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we oppose in that plank is the life tenure that is being built up in Washington which establishes an office-holding class and excludes from participation in the benefits the humbler members of our society. Let me call attention to two or three great things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment providing that this change in our law shall not effect contracts which, according to the present laws, are made payable in gold…”

“…If he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I want to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find authority for not protecting the debtors when the Act of 1873 was passed when he now insists that we must protect the creditor. He says he also wants to amend this platform so as to provide that if we fail to maintain the parity within a year that we will then suspend the coinage of silver. We reply that when we advocate a thing which we believe will be successful we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by trying to show what we will do if we are wrong…”

“…I ask him, if he will apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself? He says that he wants this country to secure an international agreement. Why doesn’t he tell us what he is going to do if they fail to secure an international agreement? There is more reason for him to do that than for us to expect to fail to maintain the parity. They have tried for thirty years-thirty years-to secure an international agreement, and those who are waiting for it most patiently who don’t want it at all…”

“…Now, my friends, let me come to the great paramount issue. If they ask us here why it is we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we did not embody all these things in our platform which we believe, we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished…”

“…Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the sentiments of the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believed in the gold standard would frame our platforms and nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a President; but they had good reasons for the suspicion, because there is scarcely a state here today asking for the gold standard that is not within the absolute control of the republican party…”

“…But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform that declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it should be changed into bimetallism by an international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the republicans; and everybody three months ago in the republican party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, that man who used to boast that he looked like Napoleon, that man shudders today when he thinks that he was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena…”

“…Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the change evident to anyone who will look at the matter? It is because no private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people the man who will either declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this people, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place legislative control in the hands of foreign potentates and powers…”

“…We go forward confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue in this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. Why, if they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of a gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? If the gold standard, and I might call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and tell you that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism and thereby declare that the gold standard is wrong and that the principles of bimetallism are better-these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard and telling us that we could not legislate two metals together even with all the world…”

“…I want to suggest this truth, that if the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing, why should we wait until some other nations are willing to help us let it go? Here is the line of battle. We care not upon which issue they force the fight. We are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all nations of the Earth, has never declared for a gold standard, and both the parties this year are declaring against it…”

“…If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? So if they come to meet us on that, we can present the history of our nation. More than that, we can tell them this, that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance in which the common people of any land ever declared themselves in favor of a gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have…”

“…Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic party fight; upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it…”

“…You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave your farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country. My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on Earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the union…”

“…I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, ‘Is this nation able to attend to its own business?’-I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those States will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon Earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has…”

“…If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a Cross of Gold!”