Comment: A Enemy of my Enemy is not always My Friend

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Andrew Jackson's portrait (see in situ)

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.