6139008-History-of-Money

William Findley explained the problem this way: "This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will neverbe varied in its object... to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state.” Plutocracy, once established, willcorrupt the legislature so that laws will be made in its favour, and the administration of justice will favour the rich only.”The men behind the Bank of North America-Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris, and the Bank's President, Thomas Willingdidnot give up. Only six years later, Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, and his mentor, Morris, rammed a newprivately owned central bank, the First Bank of the United States, through the new Congress. Thomas Willing again servedas the bank's president. The players were the same, only the name of the bank was changed. It worked once, it will workagain. It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, theFirst Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away fromthe real first bank which had been shut down. Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once againbeing taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the name of the investors was never revealed. Although it was calledthe First Bank of the U.S., it was not the first attempt at a privately-owned central bank in this country. As with the firsttwo, the Bank of England and the Bank of North America, the government put up the cash to get this private bank going,then the bankers loaned that money to each other to buy the remaining stock in the bank, i.e. the stockholders never paidthe full amount for their shares. The U.S. government put up their initial $2,000,000 in cash, then the Bank through theold magic of fractional reserve lending, made loans to its charter investors so they could come up with the remaining$8,000,000 in capital needed for this risk-free investment. Like the Bank of England, the name of the Bank of the UnitedStates was deliberately chosen to hide the fact that it was privately controlled. And like the Bank of England, the names ofthe investors in the Bank were never revealed.1790: Amshal (Amschel) Mayer Rothschild “Let me issue & control a nation’s money…”"Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law recordsshow that they were the power in the old Bank of the United States" - Myers, History of the Great AmericanFortunes. Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amshall Rothschild had picked adifferent time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt. "Let me issue and control a nation’smoney and I care not who writes the laws." Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changers had learnedtheir lesson they had guaranteed a twenty year charter. The president Thomas Jefferson, who could see an everincreasing debt, with no chance of ever paying back, had this to say: "I wish it were possible to obtain a singleamendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing." We should remember thewords of Thomas Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency…thebanks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake uphomeless on the continent their fathers conquered." While the independent press, who had not been bought off yet, calledthe scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra." As with the real first bank, the government had been the onlydepositor to put up any real money, with the remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, usingthe magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter, the Bankers were warning of badtimes ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed. Five month later Britain had attackedAmerica and started the war of 1812. In 1787, colonial leaders assembled in Philadelphia to replace the ailing Articles ofConfederation. As we saw earlier, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were unalterably opposed to a privatelyowned central bank. They had seen the problems caused by the Bank of England. They wanted nothing of it.Many believed that the Tenth Amendment, which reserved powers to the states which were not delegated to the federalgovernment by the Constitution, made the issuance of paper money by the federal government unconstitutional, since thepower to issue paper money was not specifically delegated to the federal Government in the Constitution. The Constitutionis silent on this point. However, the Constitution specifically forbade the individual States to "emit bills of credit" (papermoney). Most of the framers intended the Constitution's silence to keep the new federal government from having thepower to authorize paper money creation. Indeed, the Journal of the Convention for 16 August reads as follows:“It was moved and seconded to strike out the words 'and emit bills of credit and the motion... passed in the affirmative.”But Hamilton and his banker friends saw this silence as an opportunity for keeping the government out of paper moneycreation which they hoped to monopolise privately. So both bankers and anti-banking delegates, for opposing motives,supported leaving any federal government authority for paper money creation out of the Constitution, by a four-to-onemargin. This ambiguity left the door open for the Money Changers-just as they had planned. Of course, paper money wasnot itself the main problem. Fractional reserve lending was the greater problem, since it multiplied any inflationcaused by excessive paper currency issuance by several times. But this was not understood by many, whereas the evils ofexcessive paper currency issuance were. In their belief that prohibiting paper currency was a good end, the framers werewell advised. Prohibiting all paper currency would have severely limited the fractional reserve banking then practised,since the use of checks was minimal and arguably would have been prohibited as well. But bank loans, created as bookentries, were not addressed and so were not prohibited. As it happened, the federal and state governments were widelyregarded as prohibited from paper money creation, whereas private banks were not-it being argued that this power, bynot being specifically prohibited, was reserved for the people (including legal persons, such as incorporated banks). In1790, less than three years after the Constitution had been signed, the Money Changers struck again. The newlyappointed first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to the Congress, calling for a new privatelyowned central bank. Coincidentally, 1790 was the very year that Mayer Rothschild made his pronouncementfrom his flagship bank in Frankfurt: "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes its laws."The Hidden History Of Money & New World Order Usury Secrets Revealed at last! Page 248