4 votes

Journey to Jekyll Island Part IV The Rothschild

Knowing how the stage was set for what became the Federal Reserve gives you the narrative you need to make a decision for yourself as to what to believe. There are so many stories out there that are based on nothing more the ambiguity, but told with authority that it is hard to dispel. Let’s look at a few of the innuendos.

What about the Rothschild being in control of the banking interest and taking over this country. Well to believe this you would have to establish the connection between the interested parties.

1. The way the story is told the true demon of the Federal Reserve is the Mandrake Mechanism for which the USG goes deeper in debt to feed the beast of free money and wealth generation of a private bank. But the reality is the beast that is the basis of the Federal Reserve was created by the Lincoln Administration to fund the War Between the States. The Mandrake Mechanism was in place for close to 50 years before the Federal Reserve existed. The thing that the Federal Reserve Act did…… finally was to socialization the losses while the gains remained private…..exactly what a cartel would want. But the general partner of the cartel, The USG, was more than happy to engage in this symbiotic relationship as a means to an end.... which is Imperial Control.
2. The relationships between the Rothschild (BTW the Rothschild closed its only bank in Germany in 1901 a full decade before the train trip to Jekyll Island) and the agents in this country can be narrowed to one person, Jacob Schiff. His father was a successful broker for the Rothschild’s and Jacob Schiff once worked for his father. But in his mid-twenties Jacob Schiff, no longer wanting to live is his father’s shadow came to America and became very successful on his own. Jacob Schiff personal drive towards a central bank was one of association rather than intermediation. Jacob Schiff’s close associate Paul Warburg, who is thought to be the real architect of the Federal Reserve System, is who boarded that train in Hoboken. His main contribution were more mechanical then theoretical on two major points, the discounting of paper and the appearance of centralization. When Nelson Aldridge took his trips to study, what was thought to be at the time the Great Central Banks of Europe, Aldridge returned believing that the system should be just as the Reichbank and made no apologies for it, with no attempt to cloak it in a decentralized manner. Warburg was more of an astute Politian then the Politian and convinced the group on the train to go with the more decentralize appearance with real control centered at the New York Fed were the big banks were located. The other major point was the discounting of paper. The group argued between the commercial paper arrangement that currently existed and a more European style of a bankers acceptance formula. The Aldridge Bill that was the result of the Jekyll Island trip included the acceptance paper system, but it was all for naught because the bill that passed was the Glass Owen Bill contained neither system…..they revised the bill and created the open market operations. So to my point if the Rothschild were behind the creation of the Fed…..how did they do it?
3. The Rothschild’s were merchant bankers (Loan) and not commercial bankers (Deposit). To understand the difference you need to know that loan banking…. investment banks, finance companies,are just some of the institutions that have engaged in loan banking. In the ancient world, and in medieval and pre-modern Europe, most of these institutions were forms of “moneylending proper,” in which owners loaned out their own saved money. Loan banks, in the sense of intermediaries, borrowing from savers to lend to borrowers, began only in Venice in the late Middle Ages. Deposit banking began as a totally different institution from loan banking. Hence it was unfortunate that the same name, bank, became attached to both. If loan banking was a way of channeling savings into productive loans to earn interest, deposit banking arose to serve the convenience of the holders of gold and silver. These deposit banks functioned very much as safe-deposit boxes do today: as safe “money warehouses.” All men are subject to the temptation to commit theft or fraud, and the warehousing profession is no exception. In warehousing, one form of this temptation is to steal the stored products outright— to skip the country, so to speak, with the stored gold and jewels. Short of this thievery, the warehouse man is subject to a more subtle form of the same temptation: to steal or “borrow” the valuables “temporarily” and to profit by speculation or whatever, returning the valuables before they are redeemed so that no one will be the wiser. This form of theft is known as embezzlement, which the dictionary defines as “appropriating fraudulently to one’s own use, as money or property entrusted to one’s care.” Why, then, were the banks and goldsmiths not cracked down on as defrauders and embezzlers? Because deposit banking law was in even worse shape than overall warehouse law and moved in the opposite direction to declare money deposits not a bailment but a debt. The carte blanche for deposit banks to issue counterfeit warehouse receipts for gold had many fateful consequences. Thus, fractional reserve banking, like government fiat paper or technical counterfeiting, is inflationary, and aids some at the expense of others. But there are even more problems here. Because unlike government paper and unlike counterfeiting (unless the counterfeit is detected), the bank credit is subject to contraction as well as expansion. Throughout the centuries, there have been two basic forms of money warehouse receipts. The first, the most obvious, is the written receipt, a piece of paper on which the deposit bank promises to pay to the bearer a certain amount of cash in gold or silver (or in government paper money). This written form of warehouse receipt is called the bank note. Thus, in the United States before the Civil War, hundreds if not thousands of banks issued their own notes, some in response to gold deposited, others in the course of extending fractional reserve loans. The bank note has always been the basic form of warehouse receipt used by the mass of the public. Later, however, there emerged another form of warehouse receipt used by large merchants and other sophisticated depositors. Instead of a tangible receipt, the bank simply opened a deposit account on its books. Confusingly, these open book accounts came to be called demand deposits, even though the tangible bank note was just as much a demand deposit from an economic or a legal point of view. When used in exchange, instead of being transferred physically as in the case of a bank note, the depositor would write out an order, directing the bank to transfer his book to another person or account. This written instrument is, of course, called a check. Note that the check itself is not functioning as a money surrogate here. The check is simply a written order transferring the demand deposit from one person to another. The demand deposit, not the check, functions as money, for the former is a warehouse receipt (albeit unwritten) for money or cash. In the case of bank credit, what comes up, can later come down, and generally does. The expansion of bank credit makes the banks shaky and leaves them open, in various ways, to a contraction of their credit.

In the real world, as fractional reserve banking was allowed to develop, the rigid separation between deposit banking and loan banking was no longer maintained in what came to be known as commercial banks. The bank accepted deposits, loaned out its equity and the money it borrowed, and also created notes or deposits out of thin air which it loaned out to its own borrowers. But the Merchant bank ( or investment bank) did stay separate from this process and maintained its principal of underwriting the business ventures of the world, which is where the Rothscild’s remained in business. There were two primary functions of a merchant banker, underwriting the debt of governments and providing a service for international business. Both of these functions would require a stable or deflationary manner to remain profitable. When purchasing bonds from the government you are becoming a creditor…..inflation favors the debtor, conversely a creditor would prefer stable or deflationary policies. In the process of providing the service as a risk-taker in international business you would also be an advocate for sound money. Think of it this way, A farmer in Georgia grows cotton and a clothing manufacturer in Europe needs cotton, but doesn’t like the uncertainty of his deliveries. Rothschild learns of this and goes to the manufacturer and says he can deliver X amount of cotton but for a premium…..he goes to the farmer in Georgia and says I will buy your entire crop at a discount…..farmer says ….done. The farmer benefits because he knows exactly how much he will get and that he will not have to wait for his crop to sell and settle upon delivery in the open market. The manufacturer will benefit because he know exactly how much and when his raw material will arrive……reduces the uncertainly to both parties….and the Rothschild will make a nice profit……sounds like good business to me.

The Rothschild were accordingly fanatical devotees of deflation (which they called “sound money” from its close associations with high interest rates and a high value of money) and of the gold standard, which symbolized and ensured value.

By now you must at least have some serious questions regarding the Rothschild role in the “International Banking Conspiracy”…..I would say if you don’t than objectivity isn’t your motive. Here is an excerpt from a book that describes some fallacies that the conspiracies theorist espouse.The fallacy is represented in a batch of fairy tales that three generations have been repeated over and over about the Rothschilds:

It was their guess about Napoleon that set them on their unique pedestal. The five brothers were clever enough to realize that for all his genius, for all his victories, Napoleon could not last. On that intuition they staked every penny. Nathan's fabled advance news of the Battle of Waterloo gave the Rothschild’s an opportunity to buy depressed securities in London. Even without that coup the day after Waterloo was tofind all the established governments of Europe deeply in their debt.

They, especially Solomon Rothschild, guessed right about railroads, became the railroad builders of Europe. While Calvinist clergymen thundered against the steam engine and country squires complained that the filthy little teakettles on wheels were ruining the countryside, the Rothschild’s
and their sons were pouring out gold to lay tracks.

It would be difficult to find anywhere in history so many insupportable statements packed into so few sentences. Literally every statement is wrong. Yet the writer can hardly be censured since he was repeating what is to be found in innumerable biographies, histories, and essays, having their origin at least in part in the industry of inspired writers beginning with Gentz. The Rothschild’s did not realize that Napoleon could not last and did not stake their all on this conviction. On the contrary, they took excellent care to protect themselves against any eventuality.

Nathan in England worked with the English ministry, but Anselm and Solomon in Frankfort worked on equally friendly terms with Napoleon's rulers in Germany. They loaned nothing to the English government. They did make loans to Dalberg, head of Napoleon's Confederation of the Rhine, both personally and to his state. James went to Paris where, while operating in collusion with Nathan, he maintained the friendliest relations with Count Mollien, Napoleon's finance minister, and established
an excellent reputation as a banker. Nathan, in London, observed the greatest caution in keeping under cover so that his activities would not injure his brothers on the Continent. They played game safe and were in a position to capitalize on victory for either side. It was not until after the disaster at Leipzig and when Napoleon's star was definitely setting and all Europe was betting against
him that the Rothschilds became openly opposed.

Of course the story of Nathan's Waterloo coup is pure fiction. And equally fictitious is the statement that the day after Waterloo found all the governments of Europe deeply in debt to the Rothschilds.

No government owed them anything, unless perhaps the small government of Denmark, which is doubtful. Up to the defeat of Napoleon they played no part in the flotation of loans by European states.

I encourage everyone to read the chapter regarding the Rothschild’s from Men of Wealth.

http://mises.org/

Comment viewing options

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

Nice post

What's this from, or did you write this?

That book by John Flynn (1941) is a good read-
http://mises.org/books/menofwealth.pdf

EDIT- Just saw your comment below. It'd be cool if some of this was reposted, sourced and discussed. It challenges a lot of widely held beliefs around here.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Thanks

this particular part is from a collection of articles and yes the book you mentioned, Wealth of Men.

and yes i should have sourced it, I wasn't planning on doing this, there was just so much of it i couldn't fit it all on here...so this is how it turned out.

I am think about added just two more parts, the mercantilist and the Constitution.

Bump

An outstanding education. Thanks goldspan for providing this for us. We are in your debt and owe at least, to read your post in its entirety.

Séamusín

Hey thanks Sea

It mostly all Rothbard,Anthony Sutton and different articles. I wanted to leave something behind to help steer the newbies.

LOL

It's becoming obvious that half at least that post here have NO clue about what this site is all about. Carry on. I'm not the only one that has figured this out. When this shit deception comes apart ...

What is this site all about?

We've never had negative engagements before Base. I know you dont like goldspan because he disagrees that we should get sidetracked with the examples of corruption, and purely wants to focus on the systemic corruption inherent in the system.

I know he gets you all spun up because he calls you degrading names and talks about how foolish you are. But this is no reason to attack this post. Goldspan has used how time in a much more effective and much less aggressive way in writing these posts. This isn't a rebuttal to one of your comments, but yet another alternate account of what's really going on.

What makes his account any less valid than yours. We are not the government. There are no official versions of history. We are individuals who make up our own minds.

But really I'm curious, what is this site all about? Was there something you had in mind when you made that comment?

Séamusín

Andrew Jackson's portrait

>>>>>> The relationships between the Rothschild and the agents in this country can be narrowed to one person, Jacob Schiff.
You must mean, at the time of the organization of the Federal Reserve.

The Frankfurt circle of friends (and their American branches) that became prominent in the United States during Lincoln's war, and following:
Lazard Speyer-Ellissen & Co. ---- Speyer & Co.
Seligmann & Stettheimer ---- J.&W. Seligmann
Deutsche bank ---- Speyer & Co.
Disconto Gesellschaft ---- Kuhn Loeb & Co.
Darmstaedter Bank ---- Hallgarten & Co.
Bleichroeder ---- Landeburg, Thalmann & Co.
add to this the Dresdner Bank ---- J.P. Morgan & Co.

These friends were also dominant at the time of the formation of the Fed.
http://name789.wordpress.com/lincoln-larouche/

>>>>>>> In an amusing twist of fate the bankers were the more politically astute the politician Aldrich. Aldrich attempting to hold out for a straightforward central bank on the European model, while Warburg and the other bankers insisted that the reality of central control be cloaked in the politically palatable camouflage of “decentralization.” Warburg and the bankers won out, and the final draft was basically the Warburg plan with a decentralize system.

Which would mean that there were some people (or forces) who had to be led in circles while being neutralized. The Aldrich commission ended up being just a government-paid cruise-trip with plenty of train-rides and on-shore dinners.
The only thing we, the people, got for the money, is that the Aldrich commission published, re-published, a bunch of good books on the history of banking.

The plan had to have been, from the very beginning, to reorganize the National currency Banks into a new system; adjust the 25% greenback reserve requirement, and the note-issue limitation --that was what they were referring to when they talked about elasticity.

Much earlier, NMR were involved in the United States (and must have been involved in Jackson's war against the 2nd Bank)
Before Belmont washed on the shores of the United States, J.L. & S. Joseph & Co. of New York, and J.I. Cohen, jr. & Brothers, of Baltimore, were visible representavies of NMR in America.

"From the Rothschild Bank's accounts it is clear that by the end of the 1830s substantial and wide-ranging investments had been made in municipal and State stock, in canal and mining shares and in finance houses. The main activities carried on through the agents were in the fields of bullion and bills of exchange.

"In 1834 NMR succeeded in obtaining the business of undertaking the United States Government's banking interests in Europe, hitherto in the hands of Barings. The Rothschilds represented the U.S. Government until 1843. When John Tyler became President, Barings' ally, Daniel Webster, was appointed Secretary of State, and he restored the accounts from Rothschilds to Barings."

NMR were no friends of the Bank of U.S., there is every reason to suggest that NMR representatives supported Representatives and Senators who opposed the re-newal.

To this day, the portrait of Andrew Jackson hangs in the London office of NMR.

A Enemy of my Enemy is not always My Friend

Here what I mean by this, there are those that believe Liberty is above all else. Because we believe we would never impose our will on others for gain. We have a live and let live mentality. Even when it comes to worship, fighting someone else for moral superiority is in direct contradiction to the concept of Liberty. I could not or would not ever back any political movement based upon any religious doctrine. That doesn’t mean I do not have a spiritual doctrine it just means that my spiritual doctrine basic concept begins with Liberty, every person has the right to their own personal choice.

Why did I state this…because I am about to trample on the political doctrine of my enemies. If Liberty is the base of “my” everything, political if I deviate from this core belief, I am not being true to myself…and I don’t do that.

Just because someone speaks out against the Federal Reserve System does not make them my friend. I want to know why they speak out against it; I want to know if their doctrine is the same as mine.
The reason I am against the Fed is the same reason I am against EVERY type of government intervention in the “free market”. The free market is a place of Liberty (BTW I always capitalize Liberty, it’s that important to me).

Milton Friedman defines corruption as “the intrusion in the free market through government regulation”.

The Fed is an intrusion in to the free market, but not in the printing currency but in the financing irresponsible government behavior, by running huge deficits and funding them through an intergenerational tax. How is this done, by a private bank. It does not concern me that a private banks issues currency, it bothers me a whole lot that they are given special privilege at the expense of their competitors and customers (me) for the service of financing irresponsible government behavior.

So the enemy of my enemy

After reading and untangling the links and information in your response what we have here are two parties but both are my enemy……an enemy to Liberty.

The Mercantilist vs the Greenbackers

The Mercantilists considered the benefit of the State as the end and object of economic activities, in their view the interests of the State had always to take precedence to the interests of the individual. The aim of all mercantilistic doctrines is to increase the economic power of the State. Moreover, the interests of the state were, in their eyes, by no means necessarily in harmony with the activities of the individual.

The Greenback movement is tied to the old Populist hatred of the Semitism, since the “International Jewish Banking Conspiracy” is always just around the corner. Roman Catholics (Coogan, Coughlin, Father Denis Fahey) have been prominent in the movement, although Protestant fundamentalists are just as numerous, but they are seldom the “intellectual” leaders.

One wants to be the deficit lender to an irresponsible government and one wants to give an irresponsible government the ability to do it on their own. Both are my enemy because neither concerns themselves with the individual or with Liberty.

In your link (although long it was interesting) the writer makes it clear that his opinion of Lincoln is he is a mercantilist…..rightly so. Lincoln was and had always been a student of Henry Clay, who worshipped at the feet of Alexander Hamilton. In the article the writer excoriates the Lyndon Larouche crowd for being ….well basically mercantilist:

On July 20, 1790, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, submitted to Congress his plan of disposing of the public lands. This hero of LaRouche, this alleged champion of nationalism, proposed to alienate the land from the people of the United States –the people who actually live there and work the land, and prosper by what they harvest–, and hand it to land-grabbers, speculators, absentees….

In 1838, in opposition to the Independent Treasury system, Henry Clay (nationalist hero of the LaRouche crew) explained what would be the best, always-convertible, paper currency –a Treasury-issued draft, representing (always) specie on hand, and backed by the resources and taxing power of the government; of course, Mr. Clay and his co-horts did not like this sort of national currency, they wanted the notes of a privately-owned central bank.

If you wish to read more about Lincoln the mercantilist read a post I put on here “Lincoln before you see the movie”.

But the writer then exposes his true colors as a Greenbacker.

This was the Independent Treasury system which segregated the Government from banks and decreed that lawful money alone may be received in payment to and from the Federal Government, bank notes may not….. Lincoln and the LaRouche crew are opposed to this concept.

In his 1869 book on the history of the legal-tender U.S. notes, Gerry Elbridge Spaulding (one of the fathers of greenbacks) frankly told anyone who cared to read his book that in 1861 a plan was formulated to establish a national currency bank system, make the notes of these banks legal-tender, have these banks issue $300million of their notes, and finance the war using these notes.
By the end of 1861 it became clear to the fathers of this plan (Gerry Spaulding, Portland Chase, Samuel Hooper, John Sherman) that this package cannot be passed in Congress in time to finance the war; so a two-stage plan was adopted: first they issued legal-tender U.S. notes and a year later passed the National currency Bank Act, then re-placed US notes with national bank notes.
In December 1861, Secretary Chase requested Gerry Spaulding to prepare a national currency bank bill as soon as possible. The texts of the bills that became the legal-tender act and the national bank act, were composed by Elbridge Spaulding and Portland Chase; the bills were guided through the House of Representatives by Spaulding and Samuel Hooper, and through the Senate by John Sherman.

In the National Banking Acts lay the roots of the Federal Reserve.

If you wish to know more about the Greenbackers.
http://mises.org/document/5812/

With that being said I think there is an important distinction that has to be made about the banking business. And that is the difference between Deposit banking and Investment banking. There is no distinction today, but there was significant difference in the days we are discussing. This is where the Greenbackeer are so much more disingenuous then the Mercantilist. The writer once again excoriates the Lyndon Larouche crowd for not being honest when the writer is either ignorant to the difference in banking concepts or he is lying…..you tell me? I made the distinction perfectly clear in the OP.

At the lower portion of your link is where you pulled the bankers names and made the connection to the Rothschild’s….well attempted too. You have to understand the relationship between investment bankers. When they talk about the “Rothschild’s Syndicate” they are talking about a syndicate of underwriters in the marketing of stock or bond to the market. How investment banking works (and its very profitable) is when a company wants to go public or float a bond issue the underwriters get a cut of the deal. If the deal is too large the lead underwriter will ask other investment bankers to join the syndicate. This is the reason what looks like a conspiracy in reality it just business. Back in the time frame we are discussing almost all underwritings were government bonds……some railroads some canals….but mostly government bonds. I am not absolving the Rothschild’s of who they were…..i am just trying to put them in the proper context of history.

You really should read the chapter on the Rothschild’s in this book Men of Wealth. It’s a free PDF

http://mises.org/document/3120/

I goggled the names of the firms and here is some information on each:
The firm was founded by Joseph Seligman and his brother James Seligman in New York in 1846 as an importing house with their younger brothers, William, Jesse, Henry and Leopold also participating in the venture. Later, two other brothers, Abraham and Isaac would also join the firm. The brothers were all born in Baiersdorf, Germany to David Seligman and Fannie Steinhart. In 1850, William, Jesse, Henry and Leopold moved to San Francisco, California, where they set up store in 1851. After eight years, Jesse and William returned to New York and opened a dry goods store in the city. Through William's efforts, the store received government contracts to supply soldier's uniforms. These contracts amounted to several millions of dollars.
After the American Civil War ended, the eight Seligman brothers decided to go into the banking business and a year later, Jesse Seligman went to Frankfurt, Germany, to open a bank, where they were the first American banking firm to sell United States Government bonds in Europe. The firm became fiscal agent for the conversion of existing war bonds to new ones and acted for years as fiscal agents for the Department of State and Department of the Navy. Soon after, Abraham Seligman opened a bank in New York City, followed by the London branch, established by Isaac and Leopold Seligman, and the Paris branch, established by William Seligman.

Speyers

In the late eighteenth century the Speyers were the wealthiest Jewish family in Frankfurt, well above the Rothschilds. Early to realize potential in America, by the 1870s they were one of the top five issuers of American and Mexican railroad securities, their nearest rivals being Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and J.P. Morgan.

http://www.leannelangley.co.uk/documents/BankerBaronetSaviou...

Seligmann & Stettheimer

American Jewish family having its origin in Baiersdorf, Bavaria. The eight sons of David Seligman have formed merchantile establishments spread throughout the chief commercial centers of the United States. The eldest, Joseph, went to the United States in 1837; he was followed by his two brothers William and James in 1839, and by Jesse in 1841. These established a small clothing business at Lancaster, Pa. They then removed to Selma, Ala., and from there opened branch stores at Greensboro, Eutaw, and Clinton. In 1848 the Seligmans, who had been joined by their younger brothers Henry and Leopold, determined on settling in the North. Accordingly Henry and Jesse established themselves in Watertown, N. Y., where the latter became acquainted with Lieutenant (afterward General) Grant. In 1850, at the outbreak of the gold-fever in California, Jesse established a store in San Francisco, in the only brick building then existing, which escaped the fire of 1851.
Dealings with United States Government.
In 1857 the clothing business had become so lucrative that it was decided to supplement it by a banking business, Joseph Seligman, the head of the firm, going to Europe and establishing relations with German bankers, at the same time placing United States bonds on the Frankfort Stock Exchange; since that period the firm of Seligman Brothers has been concerned with every issue of United States bonds.
In 1862 Joseph Seligman established the firms of J. & W. Seligman & Co., New York; Abraham Seligman & Co., San Francisco (subsequently merged with the Anglo-Californian Bank); Seligman Brothers, London; Seligman Frères et Cie., Paris; and Seligman & Stettheimer, Frankfort-on-the-Main.
An interesting feature about the formation of these firms was that the profits and losses of all of them were divided equally among the eight brothers, who thus followed the business policy established by the Rothschilds and pursued by that family for many years. In 1879 the Seligmans, with the Rothschilds, took over the whole of the $150,000,000 bonded loan of the United States. They have been financial agents for the Navy and the State Department of the United States since 1876, and are the accredited agents of that government both abroad and at home. Besides their interests in United States bonds, the firm of J. & W. Seligman is connected with many railway companies, especially in the Southwest.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13403-seligman

Deutsche Bank was founded in Berlin in 1870 as a specialist bank for foreign trade. The bank's statute was adopted on 22 January 1870, and on 10 March 1870 the Prussian government granted it a banking license. Previous to the founding of Deutsche Bank, German importers and exporters were dependent upon English and French banking institutions in the world markets—a serious handicap in that German bills were almost unknown in international commerce, generally disliked and subject to a higher rate of discount than English or French bills.

Disconto Gesellschaft
It was founded in 1851 as a “credit partnership,” and in 1856 was changed into a Limited Liability , Joint stock, company under the name of “Direktion der Disconto-Gesellschaft,” with a capital of 30,000,000 marks. Its founder was David Hansemann, later Prussian Minister of Finance. Its purpose and earliest activities were in the fostering of current account business and the underwriting of German state and local loans and railway shares. In 1890, a branch was opened in London, from which time dated the institution's activities in overseas matters. In 1901, on the liquidation of the house of M.A. Rothschild & Sons of Frankfurt am Main, a branch was established in that city, connection being made with the Rothschild Syndicate, with which it has since been largely identified.

Bleichroeder

Bleichröder was born in Berlin. He was the eldest son of Samuel Bleichroder who founded the banking firm of S. Bleichröder in 1803 in Berlin. Gerson first joined the family business in 1839. In 1855 upon the death of his father, Gerson became the head of the banking firm. The bank maintained close contacts with theRothschild family; the banking house of Bleichröder acted as a branch office in Berlin of the Rothschilds' bank.

Traditionally, the Rothschilds represented the banking interests of the Austrian-controlled German Confederation in Europe. In the conflict between the rapidly rising and expanding nation of Prussia and the "pro-Austrian" German Confederation, the Rothschild Bank was largely caught in an uncomfortable position in the middle of the conflict.
Since 1851, Otto Bismarck had been serving as Prussian ambassador to the German Confederation headquartered in Frankfort-am Main in western Germany. However, in March 1858, Bismarck was appointed ambassador to the Russian Empire. In one of his last actions before leaving Frankfort for St. Petersburg, Russia, Bismarck consulted Baron Carl Mayer von Rothschild for the name of a banker in Berlin to whom he could turn for personal as well as Prussian state business. Just why Bismarck would turn to the Rothschild Bank to supply him with the name of a competing bank to whom Bismarck and the Prussian nation could turn may not be as hard to understand as first thought. Everyone in Frankfort knew that the Prussian nation would have to distance themselves from the Rothschild Bank given the Rothschilds' close diplomatic relations with Prussia's main rival—Austria. Yet neither Bismarck nor the Prussian nation wanted to burn their bridges and totally alienate the Rothschild’s. What better way to avoid this fissure with the Rothschilds than to ask the Rothschilds to provide the name of an alternative bank.
Meyer Carl Rothschild provided Bismarck with the name of Gerson Bleichröder. Bleichröder was concerned with the private banking transactions of Otto von Bismarck and with the transfer of credits and/or placing of loans on behalf of the Prussia state and the German Empire. Thus, Bleichröder became intimately involved with not only Otto von Bismarck but also with the inner dynamics of the unification of Germany.

OK with all the being said…..here is what I think it the best way to go…..Free banking …..and not the free banking the Greenbackers are talking about….somehow I don’t think they get the whole concept of money.
“Free” banking can only refer to a system in which banks are treated as any other business, and that therefore failure to obey contractual obligations—in this case, prompt redemption of notes and deposits in specie—must incur immediate insolvency and liquidation. Burdened by the tradition of allowing general suspensions on species on demand in the banking system is what creates the problem, not the issue per say of private bank notes.

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_4_2.PDF

The one area I disagree with the standard “free banking” concept is in the ability of bank credit. I believe that if a banker (as most business men do) will act prudently if it’s his own money on the line. This is where I tend to lean to the old British Banking School Theory as opposed to the Old British Currency School Theory. The Currency School Theory is basically a 100% species reserve system. The Banking School Theory provides for the bank to extend credit but would never break the “redeemability” of their note or deposits. I think the “Real Bills Doctrine”, which can be discounted back into the market if a banker finds himself short of species on demand is the difference between me and the old school free banking advocates.

The real bills doctrine has a legal dimension to it in as much that real bills are related to but separated from real - that is, tangible - goods and the contractual relations flowing from the consensual agreements made, which separates forward sales contracts from real bills. Forward contracts are settled on a future date and real bills are discounted in the present. Legal remedies and exceptions are possible between buyer and seller of the goods, but these remedies and exceptions would hamper the circulation of the real bill. Subsequently, the Merchant Law worked out an unconditional full liability for the drawer. This completes the abstraction of the goods from the underlying contractual liabilities.

The real bills doctrine sometimes called the Quality Theory of Money. First described by Adam Smith, real bills are a form of circulation credit collateralized by lower-order goods in the final stages of being brought to market. Self-liquidating, short-dated commercial paper on goods in most urgent demand by consumers should form the flexible portion of a money supply whose other component is a stable store of value. A gold-coin standard with real bills and claims that these parts cooperate to act as both media of exchange and stores of value.

Mr. Greenspan

Been following Karen Hudes lately.

Tell me how YOUR manifoso BS is different that what she is exploring and and sharing.

It's about TRUTH brother, for one an all.

If you don't get it, I you probably support corruption everywhere.

YOU SIR, are the problem. You are over educated, in corruption. ;)

http://www.dailypaul.com/user/17174

You guys kill me. LOL

Goldspan RESPONDING to this is an act of desperation.

Can't make this up, out of this world.

Alex Jones is gay

----This here your response was a very long one

This is my attempt of showing the LaRouche crew's blatant colours:--
http://name789.wordpress.com/lincoln-larouche/
it is my 'blog', as you see a collection of 150 year old articles, in response to present-day popular concepts (credit system, competing currencies.....)
I only linked to to the article for more details on the Frankfurt friends

I think you mis-read this--
"This was the Independent Treasury system which segregated the Government from banks and decreed that lawful money alone may be received in payment to and from the Federal Government, bank notes may not….. Lincoln and the LaRouche crew are opposed to this concept."
In 1840 "lawful money" was gold/silver coin, and the act stipulated the coin alone may be received; the 1846 act decreed that coin and Treasury notes may be received

The LaRouche crew IS opposed to this separation of bank and state; in the 30-page essay that is their main point, and that was Lincoln's view, too, in 1839, in 1843 --- so I was not lying

(I think I know more about the 19th century greenbackers than anyone else; this is my website www.yamaguchy.com , the e-text there is my handywork; present-day greenbackers are NOT greenbackers, they are just here to discredit the concept of government-issued currency; Gary the Y2K and Tom Wood is happy to play along; in 150 years I was the first one who bothered to read the history of greenbacks, and to compile the legislative history of the United States notes, act of February 25, 1862.)

The 1862 US notes --aka greenbacks-- were given to the people not by greenbackers, but by bankers, bankers who were Frankfurt friends

>>>>>and not the free banking the Greenbackers are talking about
Clarify, because Peter Cooper, Fenton Cary, James Weaver did not advocate free-banking

You must be referring to NOT the free-banking system that started in New York in 1838 and 25 years later became the National banking system, which 50 years later became the Fed.

Hopefully you mean people with actual capital opening up a discount house, but are not allowed to issue notes (we want to trample on their freedom, just as the loco-focos and the agrarians wanted)

19th century greenbackers wanted gold/silver and treasury notes
Please read their party platforms:
http://www.yamaguchy.com/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

ok....i think....I don't understand your title on the last post

...do you know Alex Jones personally?

Inferring to me being some AJ……I don’t know shrill…..yeah you are way off base. I wouldn’t call AJ gay, because I wouldn’t want to lump in and insult gay people by associating them with AJ, but I damn sure would call him an idiot. I don’t know who “down voted” your response, maybe AJ BF, but it wasn’t me, I welcome intelligent dialogue.

Thank you for compiling that information and putting it on one site. Since you directed me to the platform Let’s just start there. BTW any disagreement I may have is not an indictment upon you personally.

Platform of the Greenback Labor Party,
Adopted at the National Convention, held in Chicago, June 9 and 10, 1880.

1. That the right to make and issue money is a sovereign power to be maintained by the people for the common benefit. The delegation of this right to corporations is a surrender of the central attribute of sovereignty, void of constitutional sanction, conferring upon a subordinate irresponsible power, and absolute dominion over industry and commerce. All money, whether metallic or paper, should be issued and its volume controlled by the Government and not by or through banking corporations, and when so issued should be a full legal tender for all debts, public and private.
See right off the bat …..I disagree with this. What is to be used as money should be determined by the “free market” if you believe in Liberty. Only a Statist would make such a statement.

As Ludwig von Mises conclusively demonstrated in 1912, money does not and cannot originate by order of the State or by some sort of social contract agreed upon by all citizens; it must always originate in the processes of the free market. Before coinage, there was barter. Goods were produced by those who were good at it, and their surpluses were exchanged for the products of others. Every product had its barter price in terms of all other products, and every person gained by exchanging something he needed less for a product he needed more. The voluntary market economy became a latticework of mutually beneficial exchanges.

This crucial element in barter is what is called the double
coincidence of wants. A second problem is one of indivisibilities. Another problem with the barter system is what would happen to business calculation. But man is ingenious. He managed to find a way to overcome these obstacles and transcend the limiting system of barter. Trying to overcome the limitations of barter, he arrived, step by step, at one of man’s most ingenious, important and productive inventions:
money.

Once a commodity begins to be used as a medium of exchange, when the word gets out it generates even further use of the commodity as a medium. In this way, a commodity used as a medium feeds upon itself and its use spirals upward, until before long the commodity is in general use throughout the society or country as a medium of exchange. But when a commodity is used as a medium for most or all exchanges, that commodity is defined as being a money.

Money used as a medium of exchange, as an instrument of indirect exchange, as well as being purchased directly for its own sake. In this way money enters the free market, as market participants begin to select suitable commodities for use as the medium of exchange, with that use rapidly escalating until a general medium of exchange, or money, becomes established in the market.

Money was a leap forward in the history of civilization and in man’s economic progress. Money—as an element in every exchange—permits man to overcome all the immense difficulties of barter.

“should be issued and its volume controlled by the Government and not by or through banking corporations”

This is a statement in the left/right paradigm and is a complete contradiction of the concept of Liberty. You are not making an argument for Liberty….you are making a argument that you would be a better choice of as the RULER.

If you want me to continue with the rest of the platform I will.
I think I addressed you question regarding the Germans and the banking interest. BTW German unification didn’t happen until after 1871, so in the future please let me know when you say German are you speaking about the Austrian German Political region or the Prussian region. Thanks.

And sorry for the length of the last post, but it was in proportion to the information you provided.

Alex Jones is gay

As per your instruction, the title has nothing to do with anything
=======================

re: Greenback Party platforms
I expected that you would dis-agree with those platforms; the reason for directing you towards them was to show what the 19th century platforms were; to show that the 19th century greenbacks parties had nothing in common with those whom Gary y2k and Tom Wood designates as greenbackers; to show that the greenback parties considered gold/silver coin the money of the constitution

(if you argue with the platforms, you are not arguing with me, you are argueing with dead people)

>>>>> money should be determined by the "free market"
But didn't the U.S. constitution decree that the Federal Mint should produce coins, as per instruction by Congress ?
Do the banking corporations know about your concept that the "market" and not they should issue circulating medium ? :-)

>>>>BTW German unification didn’t happen until after 1871,
You referring to what exactly ? (that I may correct it if in error)

Amazing story

It is too bad that greed grips some people so completely that they see no way out and care not to find a way out. Once a man has gained and is satisfied with all the material possessions one could ever hope to have in a lifetime, then he is never happy and must go straight into the evil eye of power!

Like any sin, it grips the mind relentlessly, and there is really never any end to feeling satisfied. The elites try to be happy with all that they have, and on the surface it seems like they are, but they really are not deep down inside. Deep down inside they feel guilty for what they have done, and they try to not think about it by attempting to gain more and more and more power. They become insatiable but they never really look happy.

Can anyone see any happiness in Diane Feinstein's face or Boehner or Obama or any of the rest? No, quite the opposite, as they all look strained. They will never be happy. They will never find true happiness....no matter what they do.

I agree with cepivon

Just look at all the children music and child stars that lose it or lottery winners. But you have to admit it doesn’t happen to everyone.