Andrew Jackson on Repealing a Central Bank

rcwhalen's picture

Comment viewing options

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

that response makes it sound like he actually read the bill.

I thought you had to sign them first before you were allowed to find out what is in them.

and since when could a president refuse to sign. I thought blindly approving things was a job requirement?


Zero Govt's picture

Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress


Big Govt and Big Corps

Put Govt to the sword and you remove the parasites ratchet over a free society and free markets

Game Over 

snowball777's picture

So how do conservatives reconcile the arguments Jackson put forth about foreign control of the banks with their position on the Citizen's United decision?

To a man, every con I've asked has defended the SCOTUS decision on the basis of corporate persons free speech (a dubious proposition at best, in my opinion).

Our money should be under American control, but our elections are fair game?!

Rockford's picture

This is the first time I have read the document penned by Pres. Jackson. Glad that I did. 

falak pema's picture

It changes my perception of quidditch!

tgatliff's picture

Volatility is not a natural part of a free market system.   It is a side affect of a fractional reserve banking system, and should be considered fraud.  Yes, additional money needs to be injected into a system as the birth rate goes higher, but this should be a discussion on its own rather than picking a system that primarily profits the banking sector.  Also, interest on loans need to be investigated as well.  I mean since the federal reserve has so effectively demonstrated that there really is no need for interest rates on loans, why they might has also just solved the long time issue.... Usury might be bad after all..

Husk-Erzulie's picture

If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.

Thank you.  If there is one congress critter who is capable of reading and understanding these words I would like to know who he or she is.  I have no doubt that this is quite beyond the teleprompter, the chimp, the crooked homey from Arkansas and his crooked wife.

dark pools of soros's picture

i wonder if old hickory had twitter how he would of summed it all up

ebworthen's picture

usury=evil, debt=slavery, phys GLD bitchez!

snowball777's picture

@Biddle: wll kll 2nd fed bank, gld iz mny

Hulk's picture

Caught you interviewed on Brinker and thought you had excellent, practical ideas on removing the Fed. Greatly enjoyed your schooling of Brinker on the Fed. We need to start implementing your ideas before the fed destroys us...

Sean7k's picture

Enslavement in an atmosphere of liberty requires bonds that are invisible and dismissive. There are no crueller manacles then those secured by the charter of the central bank. When our currency is owned by and manipulated by an elite that has no reason to be responsive to the needs of the people, it is a tyranny most foul and repulsive. Just as the elites whom wield its power and control.

Economy and trade are the very basis of life and liberty. They are the tools we use to build our society, towns and families. They provide for our best defenses and determine the quality of our futures. 

Placed in the hands of those whom can choose to eschew it's responsibilty, whom profit with no regard for the costs placed upon our nation is the height of political recklessness. It is national suicide. 

Unlike Jackson, whom understood it's pernicious destruction, our leaders stand ready to feed at the trough, thankful for the opportunity to profit off the backs of the taxpayer. Our government is a compendium of whores. As they have failed to represent us, they have failed in their Constitutional responsibilities. Therefore, they retain no right to expect our obedience nor support nor favor. They are nothing more than the guards of our peculiar gulag and worthy of nothing more than the heel of our boots on their faces forever.

The right's of men include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All held in mortgage by the central bankers of the world.


Jonathan North's picture

"increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders."

Sound familiar folks?!  The more things change the more they stay the same.

topcallingtroll's picture

When you read this you realize our ethnic cleanser in chief really was a smart man.

GoinFawr's picture

Which, of course, only makes his genocidal tendencies all the more egregious.

Favourite quote:

 "...They (Congress) may properly use the discretion vested in them, but they may not limit the discretion of their successors."

Current politicians can't legislate away the power of tomorrow's leaders. Oh sure, they can try...


topcallingtroll's picture

He really thought the only way to keep the peace was to separate the Injuns from the whities.  He grew up during the Indian wars and lost several distant family members in the wars.  He also spent a lot of time among the Indians as their friend and supporter before he became president.  His intent was not genocide.  He really thought we could give them a big piece of the west, some welfare, and that they would thrive.

snowball777's picture

Sure....a land speculator was more interested in peace than profit. Pull the other one.

GoinFawr's picture


 "Andrew Jackson, founder of the modern Democratic Party and greatest(sic)Indian(sic)killer of all American Presidents, urged United States troops " root out from their 'dens' and kill Indian women and their 'whelps'" (Stannard, p. 240). Jackson was so effective at rooting women and "whelps" from their "dens," he adopted the habit of cutting off his victims' noses as trophies to commemorate his exploits. He earned the name "Sharp Knife" from Creek Indians for his penchant for skinning victims and using the cured and braided tissue as reins for his ponies (Takaki, 1994)."

 A first nation's person saved AJ's life once too, and when the same man went to see him (now President) to make a plea for his people Jackson told him he couldn't help him.

Hardly altruistic. You can't simultaneously be someone's friend and then murder his wife and children. "With friends like these..." and all that cal.



akak's picture

"First nations"?

I detect some typically Canadian hyper-political-correctness here.

Native Americans (and Canadians) NEVER constituted "nations" in any modern sense of the word, nor do any do so today.

GoinFawr's picture

<Rolls eyes>

Since when do you have to be a <snort> 'hyper sensitive Canadian blah blah Politcally Correct blah blah'  to understand that any person who was directly involved in mass murdering women and children and fashioning their body parts into trophies/livery is hardly worthy of veneration? Did you lunch with J Dahmer or something?

I certainly didn't realize it was worthy of disdain to recognize the fact that there were large numbers of peoples of many different languages and cultures that lived and thrived in NA 'first' for a long, long time before Europeans cared to widely settle across that continent.

You must know something I don't, perhaps you're a Mormon? Please enlighten me with your 'new information', or would you prefer to keep your points completely irrelevant by focusing them on little ol' me?

IMO it appears that you're the one that requires some semantic updating when it comes to defining 'nation', not me. It may surprise you to know that America took a helluva lot in the birth of her first government from the way the nations (and I use that word entirely correctly) that were in NA first (I think I can safely say I use that word correctly too) ran their interactions. Are you saying, then, that America isn't a nation in your 'modern' sense of the word?


Not that this has anything to do with the sociopathic demeanor of Andrew Jackson...

akak's picture

GF, I was actually not trying to slam you personally, merely pointing out the success of political correctness in North America (and particularly in Canada) in its attempts to subvert discourse and the English language.  The Canadian hypersensitivity towards racial issues is exemplied by their refusal to even use the accepted word "natives" towards NA aboriginal peoples.

And yes, I repeat the commonsense assertion that there were NO North American "nations" prior to the establishment of the United States, contrary to the politically-correct redefinition of the term.  That acknowledgement of reality, however, takes nothing away from the fact that hundreds of societies and distinct cultures existed prior to European arrival, as the word "nation" is understood (or WAS understood until recently, apparently); even the unified Iroquois and Cherokee Nations postdate the European invasion.  By way of analogy, My own ancestral land of Poland is not and properly was not recognized as a nation until the unification of the various Polish tribes under Mieszko I in 966 AD.   

GoinFawr's picture

"Recognized" by who? The Catholic Church? That's your requirement for 'Nationhood'?

Well, if all we have is a semantic difference in opinion I got news for ya:

Languages evolve, please try to keep up.

But out of curiosity let's examine this: tell me, using the definition derived from your version of 'common sense', what was it that the, uh... let's call them 'first peoples of NA' so that I may remain 'politically correct' in your worldview... first peoples of NA were lacking so as to exempt them from being defined as 'nations'?

topcallingtroll's picture

I hate the captchas when it is three digits and a minus sign, because it always comes back incorrect saying that the answer can't be four digits long.

Seasmoke's picture

thats why i love my $20 bills !

gwar5's picture

The history of our Republic has been a history of struggle against economic slavery from the Central Banks.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Too bad people don't think, speak, or write like this anymore.

sensei's picture

Exactly!!!  Most people in Congress and the White House couldn't even follow this level of thought and reason, much less come up with it themselves. 

Tedster's picture

Isn't it truly amazing how intelligent an uneducated backwoods hick was in those days? Several paragraphs could stand in for current events verbatim, as an aside.

It is terrifying how stupid/evil our "betters" are these days. They are sociopaths, no question.

Sean7k's picture

A backwoods, hick attorney and land developer. Well educated and part of the state aristocracy.

snowball777's picture

You do know they had speechwriters even in those days, right?  There were many monied interests at the state levels who would have provided 'assistance' in this regard. Do not overlook the possibility that people decrying a monopoly are merely looking for a piece of their pie.


rcwhalen's picture

The state chartered banks were definitely pro-Jackson!  Good comment.


Tedster's picture

Agreed, point taken. But that just means the speech writers were that much better, then. Having a more than passing interest in that time period
I was just speaking to the general elevated level of discourse that was evident, present in all sorts of correspondence, not simply speeches prepared for congress. Interestingly spelling was not yet standardized in those days, nor other rules for puctuation and grammar. So we read today things like "Musquitors Vurry Trubbelsum" in the journals of Lewis and Clark, but they understood how to shoot a bearing and use a compass and sextant. There were VERY intelligent individuals despite not having what we would today call a formal education. Today all too often an education is confused with intelligence.

fragrantdingleberry's picture

I was just speaking to the general elevated level of discourse that was evident, present in all sorts of correspondence, not simply speeches prepared for congress...

Very well said. Unlike much of the crap spewed on this site by my fellow trolls and me.

snowball777's picture

Agreed, on the level of discourse; at the very least they attempted to address the actual issues with the legislation (even if it was, for the most part, a front for their ulterior motives).

English is a messy amalgam and has been since the Norman conquest.


Rick64's picture

 I think he would have sided with the bankers if his motives were monetary or for power. It would have been a far easier path for him.

H. Perowne's picture

"The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it."

Or should that be bankstas?

LowProfile's picture

I challenge anyone to name a president since Cleveland who could have written that, both on principle and brains.

Rick64's picture

George Bush. Just joking. Andrew Jackson was one in a million. He had the banking game pegged and there was no way to fool him. Maybe thats why there was an assassination attempt on his life yet they didn't deter him. He set the central banking scam back 80 years. Have you ever heard of a president participating in a duel? This guy was the real deal.