Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 79

Thread: Abraham Lincoln's National Bank

  1. #1

    Default Abraham Lincoln's National Bank

    IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 20, 1839.

    FELLOW-CITIZENS:--It is peculiarly embarrassing to me to attempt a continuance of the discussion, on this evening, which has been conducted in this hall on several preceding ones. It is so because on each of those evenings there was a much fuller attendance than now, without any reason for its being so, except the greater interest the community feel in the speakers who addressed them then than they do in him who is to do so now. I am, indeed, apprehensive that the few who have attended have done so more to spare me mortification than in the hope of being interested in anything I may be able to say. This circumstance casts a damp upon my spirits, which I am sure I shall be unable to overcome during the evening. But enough of preface.

    The subject heretofore and now to be discussed is the subtreasury scheme of the present administration, as a means of collecting, safe-keeping, transferring, and disbursing, the revenues of the nation, as contrasted with a national bank for the same purposes. Mr. Douglas has said that we (the Whigs) have not dared to meet them (the Locos) in argument on this question. I protest against this assertion. I assert that we have again and again, during this discussion, urged facts and arguments against the subtreasury which they have neither dared to deny nor attempted to answer. But lest some may be led to believe that we really wish to avoid the question, I now propose, in my humble way, to urge those arguments again; at the same time begging the audience to mark well the positions I shall take and the proof I shall offer to sustain them, and that they will not again permit Mr. Douglas or his friends to escape the force of them by a round and groundless assertion that we "dare not meet them in argument."

    Of the subtreasury, then, as contrasted with a national bank for the before-enumerated purposes, I lay down the following propositions, to wit: (1) It will injuriously affect the community by its operation on the circulating medium. (2) It will be a more expensive fiscal agent. (3) It will be a less secure depository of the public money. To show the truth of the first proposition, let us take a short review of our condition under the operation of a national bank. It was the depository of the public revenues. Between the collection of those revenues and the disbursement of them by the government, the bank was permitted to and did actually loan them out to individuals, and hence the large amount of money actually collected for revenue purposes, which by any other plan would have been idle a great portion of the time, was kept almost constantly in circulation. Any person who will reflect that money is only valuable while in circulation will readily perceive that any device which will keep the government revenues in constant circulation, instead of being locked up in idleness, is no inconsiderable advantage. By the subtreasury the revenue is to be collected and kept in iron boxes until the government wants it for disbursement; thus robbing the people of the use of it, while the government does not itself need it, and while the money is performing no nobler office than that of rusting in iron boxes. The natural effect of this change of policy, every one will see, is to reduce the quantity of money in circulation. But, again, by the subtreasury scheme the revenue is to be collected in specie. I anticipate that this will be disputed. I expect to hear it said that it is not the policy of the administration to collect the revenue in specie. If it shall, I reply that Mr. Van Buren, in his message recommending the subtreasury, expended nearly a column of that document in an attempt to persuade Congress to provide for the collection of the revenue in specie exclusively; and he concludes with these words:

    "It may be safely assumed that no motive of convenience to the citizens requires the reception of bank paper." In addition to this, Mr. Silas Wright, Senator from New York, and the political, personal and confidential friend of Mr. Van Buren, drafted and introduced into the Senate the first subtreasury bill, and that bill provided for ultimately collecting the revenue in specie. It is true, I know, that that clause was stricken from the bill, but it was done by the votes of the Whigs, aided by a portion only of the Van Buren senators. No subtreasury bill has yet become a law, though two or three have been considered by Congress, some with and some without the specie clause; so that I admit there is room for quibbling upon the question of whether the administration favor the exclusive specie doctrine or not; but I take it that the fact that the President at first urged the specie doctrine, and that under his recommendation the first bill introduced embraced it, warrants us in charging it as the policy of the party until their head as publicly recants it as he at first espoused it. I repeat, then, that by the subtreasury the revenue is to be collected in specie. Now mark what the effect of this must be. By all estimates ever made there are but between sixty and eighty millions of specie in the United States. The expenditures of the Government for the year 1838--the last for which we have had the report--were forty millions. Thus it is seen that if the whole revenue be collected in specie, it will take more than half of all the specie in the nation to do it. By this means more than half of all the specie belonging to the fifteen millions of souls who compose the whole population of the country is thrown into the hands of the public office-holders, and other public creditors comprising in number perhaps not more than one quarter of a million, leaving the other fourteen millions and three quarters to get along as they best can, with less than one half of the specie of the country, and whatever rags and shinplasters they may be able to put, and keep, in circulation. By this means, every office-holder and other public creditor may, and most likely will, set up shaver; and a most glorious harvest will the specie-men have of it,--each specie-man, upon a fair division, having to his share the fleecing of about fifty-nine rag-men. In all candor let me ask, was such a system for benefiting the few at the expense of the many ever before devised? And was the sacred name of Democracy ever before made to indorse such an enormity against the rights of the people?

    I have already said that the subtreasury will reduce the quantity of money in circulation. This position is strengthened by the recollection that the revenue is to be collected in Specie, so that the mere amount of revenue is not all that is withdrawn, but the amount of paper circulation that the forty millions would serve as a basis to is withdrawn, which would be in a sound state at least one hundred millions. When one hundred millions, or more, of the circulation we now have shall be withdrawn, who can contemplate without terror the distress, ruin, bankruptcy, and beggary that must follow? The man who has purchased any article--say a horse--on credit, at one hundred dollars, when there are two hundred millions circulating in the country, if the quantity be reduced to one hundred millions by the arrival of pay-day, will find the horse but sufficient to pay half the debt; and the other half must either be paid out of his other means, and thereby become a clear loss to him, or go unpaid, and thereby become a clear loss to his creditor. What I have here said of a single case of the purchase of a horse will hold good in every case of a debt existing at the time a reduction in the quantity of money occurs, by whomsoever, and for whatsoever, it may have been contracted. It may be said that what the debtor loses the creditor gains by this operation; but on examination this will be found true only to a very limited extent. It is more generally true that all lose by it--the creditor by losing more of his debts than he gains by the increased value of those he collects; the debtor by either parting with more of his property to pay his debts than he received in contracting them, or by entirely breaking up his business, and thereby being thrown upon the world in idleness.

    The general distress thus created will, to be sure, be temporary, because, whatever change may occur in the quantity of money in any community, time will adjust the derangement produced; but while that adjustment is progressing, all suffer more or less, and very many lose everything that renders life desirable. Why, then, shall we suffer a severe difficulty, even though it be but temporary, unless we receive some equivalent for it?

    What I have been saying as to the effect produced by a reduction of the quantity of money relates to the whole country. I now propose to show that it would produce a peculiar and permanent hardship upon the citizens of those States and Territories in which the public lands lie. The land-offices in those States and Territories, as all know, form the great gulf by which all, or nearly all, the money in them is swallowed up. When the quantity of money shall be reduced, and consequently everything under individual control brought down in proportion, the price of those lands, being fixed by law, will remain as now. Of necessity it will follow that the produce or labor that now raises money sufficient to purchase eighty acres will then raise but sufficient to purchase forty, or perhaps not that much; and this difficulty and hardship will last as long, in some degree, as any portion of these lands shall remain undisposed of. Knowing, as I well do, the difficulty that poor people now encounter in procuring homes, I hesitate not to say that when the price of the public lands shall be doubled or trebled, or, which is the same thing, produce and labor cut down to one half or one third of their present prices, it will be little less than impossible for them to procure those homes at all....

    Well, then, what did become of him? (Postmaster General Barry) Why, the President immediately expressed his high disapprobation of his almost unequaled incapacity and corruption by appointing him to a foreign mission, with a salary and outfit of $18,000 a year! The party now attempt to throw Barry off, and to avoid the responsibility of his sins. Did not the President indorse those sins when, on the very heel of their commission, he appointed their author to the very highest and most honorable office in his gift, and which is but a single step behind the very goal of American political ambition?

    I return to another of Mr. Douglas's excuses for the expenditures of 1838, at the same time announcing the pleasing intelligence that this is the last one. He says that ten millions of that year's expenditure was a contingent appropriation, to prosecute an anticipated war with Great Britain on the Maine boundary question. Few words will settle this. First, that the ten millions appropriated was not made till 1839, and consequently could not have been expended in 1838; second, although it was appropriated, it has never been expended at all. Those who heard Mr. Douglas recollect that he indulged himself in a contemptuous expression of pity for me. "Now he's got me," thought I. But when he went on to say that five millions of the expenditure of 1838 were payments of the French indemnities, which I knew to be untrue; that five millions had been for the post-office, which I knew to be untrue; that ten millions had been for the Maine boundary war, which I not only knew to be untrue, but supremely ridiculous also; and when I saw that he was stupid enough to hope that I would permit such groundless and audacious assertions to go unexposed,--I readily consented that, on the score both of veracity and sagacity, the audience should judge whether he or I were the more deserving of the world's contempt.

    Mr. Lamborn insists that the difference between the Van Buren party and the Whigs is that, although the former sometimes err in practice, they are always correct in principle, whereas the latter are wrong in principle; and, better to impress this proposition, he uses a figurative expression in these words: "The Democrats are vulnerable in the heel, but they are sound in the head and the heart." The first branch of the figure--that is, that the Democrats are vulnerable in the heel--I admit is not merely figuratively, but literally true. Who that looks but for a moment at their Swartwouts, their Prices, their Harringtons, and their hundreds of others, scampering away with the public money to Texas, to Europe, and to every spot of the earth where a villain may hope to find refuge from justice, can at all doubt that they are most distressingly affected in their heels with a species of "running itch"? It seems that this malady of their heels operates on these sound-headed and honest-hearted creatures very much like the cork leg in the comic song did on its owner: which, when he had once got started on it, the more he tried to stop it, the more it would run away. At the hazard of wearing this point threadbare, I will relate an anecdote which seems too strikingly in point to be omitted. A witty Irish soldier, who was always boasting of his bravery when no danger was near, but who invariably retreated without orders at the first charge of an engagement, being asked by his captain why he did so, replied: "Captain, I have as brave a heart as Julius Caesar ever had; but, somehow or other, whenever danger approaches, my cowardly legs will run away with it." So with Mr. Lamborn's party. They take the public money into their hand for the most laudable purpose that wise heads and honest hearts can dictate; but before they can possibly get it out again, their rascally "vulnerable heels" will run away with them.

    Seriously this proposition of Mr. Lamborn is nothing more or less than a request that his party may be tried by their professions instead of their practices. Perhaps no position that the party assumes is more liable to or more deserving of exposure than this very modest request; and nothing but the unwarrantable length to which I have already extended these remarks forbids me now attempting to expose it. For the reason given, I pass it by.

    I shall advert to but one more point. Mr. Lamborn refers to the late elections in the States, and from their results confidently predicts that every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the next Presidential election. Address that argument to cowards and to knaves; with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; if it must, let it. Many free countries have lost their liberty, and ours may lose hers; but if she shall, be it my proudest plume, not that I was the last to desert, but that I never deserted her. I know that the great volcano at Washington, aroused and directed by the evil spirit that reigns there, is belching forth the lava of political corruption in a current broad and deep, which is sweeping with frightful velocity over the whole length and breadth of the land, bidding fair to leave unscathed no green spot or living thing; while on its bosom are riding, like demons on the waves of hell, the imps of that evil spirit, and fiendishly taunting all those who dare resist its destroying course with the hopelessness of their effort; and, knowing this, I cannot deny that all may be swept away. Broken by it I, too, may be; bow to it I never will. The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me. If ever I feel the soul within me elevate and expand to those dimensions not wholly unworthy of its almighty Architect, it is when I contemplate the cause of my country deserted by all the world beside, and I standing up boldly and alone, and hurling defiance at her victorious oppressors. Here, without contemplating consequences, before high heaven and in the face of the world, I swear eternal fidelity to the just cause, as I deem it, of the land of my life, my liberty, and my love. And who that thinks with me will not fearlessly adopt the oath that I take? Let none falter who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if, after all, we shall fail, be it so. We still shall have the proud consolation of saying to our consciences, and to the departed shade of our country's freedom, that the cause approved of our judgment, and adored of our hearts, in disaster, in chains, in torture, in death, we never faltered in defending.
    When you read DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", DiLorenzo would have you believe that Lincoln, Clay, and Hamilton's "National Bank" is the same as "The Federal Reserve System." It's not. Read the above speech to learn what Lincoln was proposing. Right or wrong? I don't know. But I do know that the "Federal Reserve System" is an international banking system of counterfeiting money and debasing currency and not at all like what Lincoln proposed above.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    While the national bank Lincoln wanted is not compatible with the laissez faire system described by Ludwig von Mises, it is also not anything like the elastic money of the international banker's "Federal Reserve System" of counterfeit money and debased currency. Lincoln presents a good strong argument for the national bank.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    When you read DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", DiLorenzo would have you believe that Lincoln, Clay, and Hamilton's "National Bank" is the same as "The Federal Reserve System." It's not. Read the above speech to learn what Lincoln was proposing. Right or wrong? I don't know. But I do know that the "Federal Reserve System" is an international banking system of counterfeiting money and debasing currency and not at all like what Lincoln proposed above.
    I've read some of DiLorenzo's work on this subject, and he's never made the claim that the National Bank and the FED are the same thing. Quite the contrary, in fact. Care to quote DiLorenzo on this or are you just slandering people you don't agree with again?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I've read some of DiLorenzo's work on this subject, and he's never made the claim that the National Bank and the FED are the same thing. Quite the contrary, in fact. Care to quote DiLorenzo on this or are you just slandering people you don't agree with again?
    Have you read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo? That is his fundamental argument. Lincoln came to the presidency to install his real agenda... "The American System" as described by Henry Clay. A system of internal improvements, protective tariffs, and a national bank.

    "Lincoln will forever be known as the Great Emancipator. But to understand the real Lincoln one must realize that during his twenty eight years (whoops... I think DiLorenzo meant) twelve years (because that is the truth) in politics before becoming president, he was almost single-mindedly devoted to an economic agenda that Henry Clay label "the American System." "The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today." - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    Does anyone actually believe that? We should be so lucky as to live with a government limited to internal improvements and protective tariffs with an audited national bank. The international banker's "Federal Reserve System" of power and control by counterfeiting money and debasing currency is the funding for the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    When you read DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", DiLorenzo would have you believe that Lincoln, Clay, and Hamilton's "National Bank" is the same as "The Federal Reserve System." It's not. Read the above speech to learn what Lincoln was proposing. Right or wrong? I don't know. But I do know that the "Federal Reserve System" is an international banking system of counterfeiting money and debasing currency and not at all like what Lincoln proposed above.
    Thomas J. DiLorenzo says that Lincoln supported having a National Bank (which is a central bank) and Lincoln was anti-Gold/Silver standard.

    What's the issue?



    Lincoln, Gold, and Greenbacks

    Thomas J. DiLorenzo | September 24, 2002


    When Abraham Lincoln first entered politics in 1832 he announced to Illinois voters that "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." These three things — central banking, protectionism, and what we today call corporate welfare (for the railroad and road-building industries) are what Lincoln would devote the next twenty-eight years to achieving, working tirelessly in the political trenches of the Whig and Republican parties. In doing so he became a master politician, a designation that the founding fathers warned all citizens to be fearful of.
    ...

    Lincoln the Bank Whig

    Abraham Lincoln was fiercely opposed to the Independent Treasury System. On December 26, 1839, he gave a speech in opposition to it and in support of central banking in Springfield, Illinois. The speech was Clintonian in length and charged that the system would generate economic instability, be extremely expensive to operate, would be an insecure depository of money, and would "reduce the quantity of money in circulation." These turned out to be red herring arguments.

    Lincoln's speech was quite extreme and even bizarre in some respects. He quite hysterically claimed, for instance, that under a gold and silver standard "All [will] suffer more or less, and very many will lose everything that renders life desirable."
    ...

    Lincoln's Banking Legislation

    As soon as Lincoln took office the old Whig coalition finally controlled the entire government. It immediately tripled the average tariff rate, began subsidizing the building of a transcontinental railroad in California even though a desperate war was being waged, and on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to issue paper money ("greenbacks") that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver. The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of nationally chartered banks that could issue bank notes supplied to them by the new Comptroller of the Currency, and a 10 percent tax was placed on state bank notes to drive them out of business and establish a federal monetary monopoly. The government's paper money flooded the banks so that by July 1864 greenback dollars were worth a mere 35 cents in gold.

    Ever since the days of Andrew Jackson American presidents had opposed a fiat money system. The Jacksonian opposition to central banking was ended, literally, at gunpoint. Lincoln's main role was to avoid doing what presidents had done for the previous three decades: veto central banking legislation. There was no chance of that since Lincoln, unlike Jackson and President John Tyler, was a career-long advocate of central banking and fiat money.
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Have you read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo? That is his fundamental argument. Lincoln came to the presidency to install his real agenda... "The American System" as described by Henry Clay. A system of internal improvements, protective tariffs, and a national bank.
    No, but I've read his essays. Apparently you haven't read the book either because you can't quote it and cite a page number.
    "Lincoln will forever be known as the Great Emancipator. But to understand the real Lincoln one must realize that during his twenty eight years (whoops... I think DiLorenzo meant) twelve years (because that is the truth) in politics before becoming president, he was almost single-mindedly devoted to an economic agenda that Henry Clay label "the American System." "The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today." - Thomas J. DiLorenzo

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Does anyone actually believe that? We should be so lucky as to live with a government limited to internal improvements and protective tariffs with an audited national bank. The international banker's "Federal Reserve System" of power and control by counterfeiting money and debasing currency is the funding for the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today.
    1) DiLorenzo's number there is accurate. He was in electoral politics as a Whig in 1834 (Illinois state legislature). (1834-1860=~28 years. DiLorenzo probably got his exact figure by including previous activities I don't know of. You don't give enough context for me to tell)
    2)You've decided we would be "lucky" to have a national bank? I thought it was your position used to be that central banking was criminal. They debase currency just as easily as the FED does. That's why Jackson didn't renew the national bank's charter. You really can't be anti-FED and pro-central bank at the same time unless you enjoy cognitive dissonance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  8. #7

    Default

    +rep for FrankRep.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  9. #8

    Default

    For all intents and purposes it doesn't matter whether a central bank is run by international bankers or government buearocrats. It has the same effect.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    No, but I've read his essays. Apparently you haven't read the book either because you can't quote it and cite a page number.
    "Lincoln will forever be known as the Great Emancipator. But to understand the real Lincoln one must realize that during his twenty eight years (whoops... I think DiLorenzo meant) twelve years (because that is the truth) in politics before becoming president, he was almost single-mindedly devoted to an economic agenda that Henry Clay label "the American System." "The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today." - Thomas J. DiLorenzo


    1) DiLorenzo's number there is accurate. He was in electoral politics as a Whig in 1834 (Illinois state legislature). (1834-1860=~28 years. DiLorenzo probably got his exact figure by including previous activities I don't know of. You don't give enough context for me to tell)
    2)You've decided we would be "lucky" to have a national bank? I thought it was your position used to be that central banking was criminal. They debase currency just as easily as the FED does. That's why Jackson didn't renew the national bank's charter. You really can't be anti-FED and pro-central bank at the same time unless you enjoy cognitive dissonance.
    First of all I read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. I do not have it in front of me because I read the reviews on Amazon.com and decided to not buy the book because I did not want to compensate DiLorenzo in any way for his propaganda. I borrowed it from the library and had to return it already. Therefore, I can not exactly say what page that direct quote came from. However I think it might be page 2.

    Lincoln served five terms in the Illinois State Legislature and one term in the U.S. House of Representatives for a total of 12 year political career prior to becoming president. That is public record documented for anyone to research for themselves.

    I suspect that you are unable to read Lincoln's own words and understand what he is saying in the OP and that is where your confusion comes from.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpreadOfLiberty View Post
    For all intents and purposes it doesn't matter whether a central bank is run by international bankers or government buearocrats. It has the same effect.
    Except International Bankers can manipulate other countries into war, fund both sides of the war, and put them all into debt.
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    Thomas J. DiLorenzo says that Lincoln supported having a National Bank (which is a central bank) and Lincoln was anti-Gold/Silver standard.

    What's the issue?
    I think the speech DiLorenzo is referring to is the OP. When you read Lincoln's own words in the OP do you understand it to mean that Lincoln intended to counterfeit money and debase currency? I don't get that out of that speech. I understand it to mean redeemable currency using an audited national bank. Also of note, is that in order to win a war, debasement of currency such as "Greenbacks" is virtually required if your opponent is debasing their currency. People simply will not put up with paying for war if they have to pay for it directly.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    Except International Bankers can manipulate other countries into war, fund both sides of the war, and put them all into debt.
    Truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    Except International Bankers can manipulate other countries into war, fund both sides of the war, and put them all into debt.
    Yeah, this is the big difference. An audited national bank, as advocated by Lincoln, would be a major improvement over letting international bankers print money at will without any scrutiny as we do today.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    But to understand the real Lincoln one must realize that during his twenty eight years (whoops... I think DiLorenzo meant) twelve years (because that is the truth) in politics before becoming president
    Lincoln was sworn in as President in 1861. 1861-28=1833. Lincoln began politics in 1832.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Lincoln was sworn in as President in 1861. 1861-28=1833. Lincoln began politics in 1832.
    He only held political office for 12 years before becoming president. That is documented in the public records. He was interested in politics when he was a teen age boy, so using that logic his political career was 38 years before he became president.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    He only held political office for 12 years before becoming president. That is documented in the public records. He was interested in politics when he was a teen age boy, so using that logic his political career was 38 years before he became president.
    Follow the link erowe posted. He's correct, and you're not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Follow the link erowe posted. He's correct, and you're not.
    What public office did he hold for 28 years?

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    He only held political office for 12 years before becoming president. That is documented in the public records. He was interested in politics when he was a teen age boy, so using that logic his political career was 38 years before he became president.
    But the quote you pretended to correct didn't claim he held political office for 28 years. It said he was in politics for 28 years before becoming president.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    But the quote you pretended to correct didn't claim he held political office for 28 years. It said he was in politics for 28 years before becoming president.
    Lol. Come on folks. He was elected to five terms in the Illinois State Legislature. He was elected to one term in the House of Representatives. That totals a 12 year political career. That is documented in fact. He voted for 28 years from 1832 until 1860 before he became president. Are you guys seriously claiming that voting = political career?

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Lol. Come on folks. He was elected to five terms in the Illinois State Legislature. He was elected to one term in the House of Representatives. That totals a 12 political career. He voted for 28 years from 1832 until 1860 before he became president. Are you guys seriously claiming that voting = political career?
    That depends what DiLorenzo meant. Let's look at what he said. Did he say "held political office" or "in politics"? He said "in politics."

    What did he say about this period of time Lincoln was in politics? He said he advocated the agenda of Clay. Should we not think that DiLorenzo means to include things Lincoln said and did in other capacities than simply legislation he voted for? Things like campaigning for Clay, for example? Since DiLorenzo said 28 years, and not 12 years, I tend to think that he did mean to include such things.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    That depends what DiLorenzo meant. Let's look at what he said. Did he say "held political office" or "in politics"? He said "in politics."

    What did he say about this period of time Lincoln was in politics? He said he advocated the agenda of Clay. Should we not think that DiLorenzo means to include things Lincoln said and did in other capacities than simply legislation he voted for? Things like campaigning for Clay, for example? Since DiLorenzo said 28 years, and not 12 years, I tend to think that he did mean to include such things.
    You boys can believe whatever you want to believe. I'm going to do my own research and I'm not going to believe anything Thomas J. DiLorenzo says anymore. He is a known liar.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post

    As soon as Lincoln took office the old Whig coalition finally controlled the entire government. It immediately tripled the average tariff rate, began subsidizing the building of a transcontinental railroad in California even though a desperate war was being waged, and on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to issue paper money ("greenbacks") that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver. The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of nationally chartered banks that could issue bank notes supplied to them by the new Comptroller of the Currency, and a 10 percent tax was placed on state bank notes to drive them out of business and establish a federal monetary monopoly. The government's paper money flooded the banks so that by July 1864 greenback dollars were worth a mere 35 cents in gold.
    Is that true? Did Lincoln advocate for fiat money before he became president? Is that what Lincoln was saying in the OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    Ever since the days of Andrew Jackson American presidents had opposed a fiat money system. The Jacksonian opposition to central banking was ended, literally, at gunpoint. Lincoln's main role was to avoid doing what presidents had done for the previous three decades: veto central banking legislation. There was no chance of that since Lincoln, unlike Jackson and President John Tyler, was a career-long advocate of central banking and fiat money.
    Is that true? Is Lincoln advocating for fiat money in the OP? Is that the way you read it?

    As far as DiLorenzo's claim about the transcontinental railroad, the Republicans and Democrats both advocated for it in 1860. DiLorenzo would have you believe that Lincoln was alone in that endeavor. Baloney. Read the 1860 Republican Party Platform for yourself, and read the 1860 Democratic Party Platform for yourself as well. Everyone wanted internal improvements by the central government in 1860.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    As far as DiLorenzo's claim about the transcontinental railroad, the Republicans and Democrats both advocated for it in 1860. DiLorenzo would have you believe that Lincoln was alone in that endeavor. Baloney. Read the 1860 Republican Party Platform for yourself, and read the 1860 Democratic Party Platform for yourself as well. Everyone wanted internal improvements by the central government in 1860.
    What makes you think that? The focus of his piece was Lincoln-why expand the scope so broadly when unnecessary? You find that technique used in biographies and encyclopedias as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    What makes you think that? The focus of his piece was Lincoln-why expand the scope so broadly when unnecessary? You find that technique used in biographies and encyclopedias as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Have you read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo?
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    No, but I've read his essays.
    Maybe you should try reading his book if you can.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Maybe you should try reading his book if you can.
    I intend to. I don't have extra money for books right now.
    Why did you bother quoting this-
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    What makes you think that? The focus of his piece was Lincoln-why expand the scope so broadly when unnecessary? You find that technique used in biographies and encyclopedias as well.
    without answering the question? Was there a point you were trying to make? It seems you're dodging my questions.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-23-2012 at 07:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I intend to. I don't have extra money for books right now.
    Why did you bother quoting this-
    without answering the question? Was there a point you were trying to make? It seems you're dodging my questions.
    Because if you haven't read the book, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not dodging your questions. I wish to debate informed individuals. Thanks to Benjamin Franklin, library books will let you read for free. Or you can find $9 and pay Thomas J. DiLorenzo for his propaganda. Until you read his book, you will not know what is in it.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Thomas J. DiLorenzo for his propaganda.
    So your problem with DiLorenzo is that:

    * Abraham Lincoln started his political carrier in 1832.


    Wikipedia: Abraham Lincoln > Early career and militia service

    In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln and a partner bought a small general store on credit in New Salem, Illinois. Although the economy was booming in the region, the business struggled and Lincoln eventually sold his share. That March he began his political career with his first campaign for the Illinois General Assembly.


    * DiLorenzo called the Greenbacks a Fiat Currency


    Wikipedia: United States Note (Greenback)

    A United States Note, also known as a Legal Tender Note, is a type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the U.S. Having been current for over 100 years, they were issued for longer than any other form of U.S. paper money. They were known popularly as "greenbacks" in their heyday, a name inherited from the Demand Notes that they replaced in 1862. Often called Legal Tender Notes, they were called United States Notes by the First Legal Tender Act, which authorized them as a form of fiat currency.


    Correct?
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    So your problem with DiLorenzo is that:

    * Abraham Lincoln started his political carrier in 1832.


    Wikipedia: Abraham Lincoln > Early career and militia service

    In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln and a partner bought a small general store on credit in New Salem, Illinois. Although the economy was booming in the region, the business struggled and Lincoln eventually sold his share. That March he began his political career with his first campaign for the Illinois General Assembly.


    * DiLorenzo called the Greenbacks a Fiat Currency


    Wikipedia: United States Note (Greenback)

    A United States Note, also known as a Legal Tender Note, is a type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the U.S. Having been current for over 100 years, they were issued for longer than any other form of U.S. paper money. They were known popularly as "greenbacks" in their heyday, a name inherited from the Demand Notes that they replaced in 1862. Often called Legal Tender Notes, they were called United States Notes by the First Legal Tender Act, which authorized them as a form of fiat currency.


    Correct?
    No, that is not correct at all. My challenge to you is: Can you read Lincoln's speech in the OP of this thread and understand it? I believe that is the speech that DiLorenzo claimed that Lincoln was extreme and even bizarre, "Lincoln's speech was quite extreme and even bizarre in some respects. He quite hysterically claimed, for instance, that under a gold and silver standard "All [will] suffer more or less, and very many will lose everything that renders life desirable." Can you quantify what DiLorenzo meant by that?

    Lincoln claimed himself uneducated. Are you more uneducated than he was? Can you understand what Lincoln wrote? If so, then please share with the rest of us. I consider myself an educated man and I have a hard time understanding exactly what the uneducated Lincoln wrote.

    My problem with DiLorenzo is that he lies about Lincoln in his biography of Lincoln. That is an unforgivable sin. If one is to write a biography about another, then at least... tell the truth. I mean if one wishes to denigrate another, then don't call it a biography in the 21st century. We have the truth machine at our fingertips. DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" is full of falsehoods, distortions of the truth, quotes out-of-context, and outright lies. William H. Herndon, Lincoln's 20+ year partner, wrote a biography of Lincoln. He said, paraphrasing, people like DiLorenzo are going to come along and distort the truth. Herndon felt a duty to write Lincoln's biography in order to counteract liars such as DiLorenzo with the facts. DiLorenzo is full of crap. If you believe what he writes, then believe it at your own peril.
    Last edited by Travlyr; 12-23-2012 at 08:24 PM.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Because if you haven't read the book, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not dodging your questions. I wish to debate informed individuals. Thanks to Benjamin Franklin, library books will let you read for free. Or you can find $9 and pay Thomas J. DiLorenzo for his propaganda. Until you read his book, you will not know what is in it.
    You think libraries are free? LOL They're on the public dole. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul...aries-20100706

    And why are DiLorenzo's writings anymore propagandistic than yours? Just about everything you've written could have been penned by the same State-sponsored "historians" who write the government schools' "history" books.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    My problem with DiLorenzo is that he lies about Lincoln in his biography of Lincoln. That is an unforgivable sin.
    Now you think Tom's books are biographies? Do you even know what that word means? I get the feeling that either you don't or you're deliberately misusing it. Tom's books are history, not biography.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •