109 votes

Vets attacked in D.C.

Never saw this in history class!

1932: Tens of thousands of WWI Vets are attacked, gassed and possessions burned to the ground right in the middle of Washington D.C. by President Hoover's "Orders."


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Piss on DC

Piss on DC

henry9's picture

So what has changed?

The outrage changed!

There are more sheeps than ever. There are not enough saying "NO".

All for a banksters war.

All for a banksters war.

Barking the wrong tree, pal

1) USA Socialist parties and trade unions were the major force lobbying for WWI and banning Chinese immigration. The Left understood well how non-bid contracts and government regulations work.

2) This tent camp of so called Bonus Army demandad payments which were NOT promised to be paid at the time. In fact, the protesters wanted the government to print paper money and give them before inflation sets in.

You are being ridiculous;

You are being ridiculous; with both of your comments on this thread.

They went to DC to get their Bonus check redeemed early even at the level of appreciation for that year; meaning that they wouldn't have gotten the value printed on the check. When congress and the president denied payment, the Bonus Army wanted to have the checks payable to bearer upon exchange; meaning that the Vets wanted to be able to sell the checks to people for money, and those people would be able to cash the checks in 1940 when they were fully matured. The government said no. That is some great government; wouldn't you agree?

Also, do you disapprove of any other of the ten amendments or do you just have a problem with the 1st amendment recognizing the right of the people to peaceably assemble?

Also, the banking interest got Wilson elected on the terms that the US would enter into WWI. You should really learn the history of that time.

Why that complicated?

Government did not have any money (not then, not today.) The protesters (like trade union thugs) wanted to intimidate the government into stealing money from others (via taxes or inflation) and give to them. Sure, populist retoric can bring tears even to people like you. So the masses elected socialist-progressives for 3 terms after that. Gold was confiscated, prices fixed, taxes raised, printing began. Thanks to people like you and the protesters.

Wikipedia: "Congress established a trust fund to receive 20 annual payments of $112 million that, with interest, would finance the 1945 disbursement of the $3.638 billion due the veterans. Meanwhile, veterans could borrow up to 22.5% of the certificate's face value from the fund; but in 1931, because of the Great Depression, Congress increased the maximum value of such loans to 50% of the certificate's face value."

Why wouldn't the government

Why wouldn't the government just let them sell the certificates and agree to exchange the value in money for the certificate no matter who the bearer was? That is not very difficult; now is it?

Also, to guarantee X amount of dollars to somebody -at some point in the future by an organization which doesn't actually produce anything to make money legitimately- for something beyond their original pay would require the taxing of somebody above what is already taxed. Hell, just fighting a war requires taxing somebody. So, I think it is kind of impossible to be for WWI and complain about the government needed to tax people to redeem the certificates. Personally I wouldn't have got involved with WWI, and I certainly wouldn't have tried to bribe the people by offering a Certificate redeemable in twenty years or so; that is of itself is a Statist move.

That is the first time, I have every heard that they could borrow 50% of the value, since I first began looking into the Bonus Army several years ago.

Wikipedia can be changed by nearly anybody, which is why it is not considered a reputable source for citations.

Like Hoover didn't push along the Banking Cartel's agenda? What president do you think operated against the interest of the Fed/Banking Cartel since 1913?

As Ron Paul said repeatedly

the FED is just facilitator, not the problem. Populists who came to the Libertarian movement from Alex Jones or via youtube clips misunderstood the FED as they misunderstood these protesters.

Regarding why the government cannot accommodate demands from the thugs? Because the government only supposed to protect individual rights and private property, not pressure groups of various collectives. Since you did not study Any Rand (like most populists here), you have no idea that individual rights do not extend to public property by default.

You are kidding right? you

You are kidding right?

you have no idea that individual rights do not extend to public property by default.

1) There shouldn't even be 'Public Property.' It would have obviously had to have been forced off of the Market by a government, creating a market distortion of local property values.

2) The 1st Amendment is actually only applicable on 'Public Property.' As the 1st Amendment recognizes the 'People's' right to peaceably organize, protest, or assemble; the government cannot protect that right for an individual(s) to do that on somebody else's Private Property.

To not be able to assemble on 'Public Property,' how could they ever force government to address their grievances; or are the people not to have grievances against their government?

I know enough of Rand to know

I know enough of Rand to know that by 1980 she was supporting the government confiscating of taxes for the purposes of the Apollo moon missions; I think that says plenty about who she really was. Boy how she changed over the years.

Edit: meaning that in 1980 she was glad that the US confiscated that money throughout the 1960's for the purposes of the Apollo missions. She either was always, or over the years became a Technocrat.

Context should not be overlooked

While Rothbard joined a socialist party to campaign against Barry Goldwater and USSR boasted a SUPERIOR H-bomb than we had, Ayn Rand rightly supported the space program as much as a military benefit as a civilian. Libertarians at the time simply wanted liberty for sex and drugs. Rolling in the mud at Woodstock being high was their ultimate liberation. Progressives went a step further to eat sh{i}t in gay bathhouses.

As a "libertarian" at the time

As a "libertarian at the time" I can assure you that we were at LEAST as much anarcho/minarcho-capitalists as the current crop of FED-bashers.

In fact, it was the big differentiator between us and the other opponents of the Vietnam (un)War and especially the military draft.

(For instance, David Friedman - Milton's son - went around wearing a gold-colored, pseudo-coin medallion, about 9 inches across, with "TANSTAAFL" on it in big raised letters.)

Note the small-l: I never actually joined the party, due to an issue with the wording of the non-aggression pledge. We were also at least as much nit-picky, faction-prone, ideologues then as now.

The "drugs and free love" thing was no more important then than now: Just another, relatively minor, aspect of being free to control our own bodies.

About the only thing different was that, for us at the time, about the highest priority was ending draft slavery and its use for "channeling" the bulk of the boomer population into central-planner-approved occupations. Thankfully, that battle was won, and has stayed won for decades (with only occasional brushfires to stomp out.)

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

So, how is it that stealing

So, how is it that stealing money for Apollo is ok, but not for Healthcare? The way I see it, the government shouldn't be stealing money out of people's pockets for anything; nor should government be directing technological advancements, because there will always be the flaws of central planning embedded within the results.

You can complain all you want about Woodstock; however, a spontaneous Free Market arose at Woodstock -whether one likes what was being made available or not doesn't matter. What kind of Free Market arose at NASA or even after the initial theft of money? No Free Market ever arose from the entire Space thing, only Corporatist Fascism; is that what you truly believe is right?

Also, you say Rothbard joined the socialist party in or around 1968. In the 1970's he created the Libertarian Party, and in the later 70's he -for the most part- created Anarcho-Capitalism. He went from Statist, to little Statist, to Anarchist; over time his trajectory has him supporting less and less government and more and more Freedom. Rand over time supported more government and less Freedom; by starting off supporting no taxes at all, and then by 1980 supporting taxes -even if it was just for Space exploration. What else would she have supported the government stealing money out of our pockets for, had she lived longer?

Well, here you go

Since anarchism cannot withstand rational criticism, Rothbard went from promoting von Mises to plagiarizing Rand to be irrelevant as Anarchist. The main mistake of Rothbardians is to treat non-agression principle as the cognitive tool without a context. Thus, it becomes self-serving tool detached from reality. Reality cannot be caged into a simple slogan. Principles without context become shallow dogmas. Yes, those who do not advocate anarchism DO face a problem how to finance a small government. That is for new clever men to come up with the best approach. But for now, 10% flat tax & balanced budget will be a big leap for capitalism, freedom and prosperity rather than idle talk for ideological purity.

There you go, making

There you go, making assumptions about people. If I'm not a Rand cultist then I must be a Rothbardian. Also, you didn't actually refute anything which has been stated earlier; just thought you might want to know.

Yes, you face a problem with financing your STATE; and the only way in which you would ever be able to do it -on any kind of continuous basis- would be to steal it from the people.

All that a 10% flat tax and a Balance Budget would do, is to have law makers created and increase different taxes as to not violate the 10% flat income tax. It will accomplish nothing. If they could only charge a 10% flat tax, then they would definitely pass a VAT. Who really gets decimated with a VAT? Certainly not the wealthy; while they may be paying more than they were accustomed to, they will not be going bankrupt just providing for their basic needs, like the middle class and the poor will be. Also, a VAT is just one possible way for the STATE to increase their theft while not violating the 10% flat income tax or the balanced budget.

NO.... Ron has said that the

NO.... Ron has said that the FED is the problem. Stop the FED and printing of money to finance this crap and it stops.

The Fed facilitates the problem.

You can't solve a problem when you don't even know what the problem is. Does Ron Paul understand the problem or not?

Why do people want to be able to call "nothing" money? What problem does The Federal Reserve facilitate?

If Bernake stops printing,

Americans start riots and protests. Pentagon will be nothing. Dollar collapse, China will walk over. I thought you learned something from the video above. You did not... Sad

It is not enough to stop printing money. People should be willing to work hard as Chinese today. Most Americans (including Alex Jones and Tarpley) do not. Just ask if Affirmative-action recipients (75% of voters if you count women and gays) want to close that program. Or trade unions to lose their perks. Or veterans to lose their fake stress syndrome disability benefits.

Whatever you do

Don't ever count women and gays.

Ha, I wasn't really even following your discussion thread. I just couldn't resist taking advantage of the easy set up.


never count the majority. clever.

Patton's response to Joe Angelo

(at least according to wikipedia):

"I do not know this man. Take him away and under no circumstances permit him to return." After this he explained to his fellow officers that Angelo had "dragged me from a shell hole under fire. I got him a decoration for it. Since the war, my mother and I have more than supported him. We have given him money. We have set him up in business several times. Can you imagine the headlines if the papers got word of our meeting here this morning. Of course, we'll take care of him anyway."


I can only hope that one person's exceptional courage, righteous and brave enough to say NO, will spread to the next and to the next giving them all the courage to stand up and say NO and on and on until it is an army of voices saying NO!

Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Glad You Noticed :

The Fed Gov has shafted its Veterans since day one. They don't pay their promised pensions or injury amounts. You don't find much on this history web wise.

Fortunately I have 2 desktop encyclopaedia sets published shortly after the so called “Civil War”. One from a Northern perspective and one from a Southern. Juxtaposition comparing the two was an interesting study.

The Feds ran out of New York and Philadelphia when confronted by essentially peaceful Veterans demanding their contracted payments.

In DC, Vets of the 1812 conflict camped out ( On the Capitol or maybe White House grounds , can't remember ) The Prez had the Army garrison trample their camp and run them across the river, to Arlington as I recall. The Commander came back and asked the Prez to issue Orders to cross the river in order to “Finnish off these rabble once and for all”. Survivors were exhausted from flight and simply stopped in a heap after crossing.

The Prez responded “Do what? And have the Virginia Militia come in and kill us all!!”

Union Civil War Vets were similarly short changed, and on and on.

To put it in current scorn, they have continually written oral checks their sorry asses can't cover.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

Often Youtube clips make people even more

dumb than progressive schools. Assortment of footage, narrative and music can present history at any angle.

To me, the tent camp was another Occupy Wall Street movement. Because of the compulsary draft at the time, all socialists were veteran as well. Some footage was from a parade as you can see pedestrians were waving hands.

Most of populists among todays Libertarians would whine under free-market capitalism no less than they whine now. I wonder what are they doing here? Why not to join OWS?

Actually, OWS was a great

Actually, OWS was a great recruiting ground for Ron Paul. B-)

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Yet less than a decade later,

even after this treatment of veterans, recruiting centers were jammed with volunteers ready to enlist - some who would even serve under those (MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower) who played roles in suppressing the Bonus Army.

But, but, the troops will

But, but, the troops will disobey an order to attack US citizens. I wish people would realize, that the military -as a whole; with some possible exceptions- will not disobey direct orders, no matter what those orders happen to be.

It's time to play "You Bet Your Life".

It's time to play "You Bet Your Life".

Also your family's lives.

Also the lives of the rest of us.

Trust me: While we may get a LOT of support from members of the military, it's not something to count on. (Especially with the current purging of pro-Constitution personnel from the officer corps.)

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

I stated that the military

I stated that the military -as a whole- will not disobey orders. My first sentence was sarcastic; or, at least, I was trying to make it a sarcastic sentence.

Look up Prescott Bush in this context....

Interesting stuff.

The Bush family has been on a mission for generations to turn this country into a fascist state.



These people really do need to DIE. Hell is not hot enough for this family of Devil worshipers.

What would the Founders do?