Very underwhelming comment here, void of context and nuance.
The creation and maintenance of a national bank by the federal government, is Constitutional (affirmed in McCulloch v. Maryland). Even Madison would charter the 2nd National Bank, after originally opposing the initial chartering of the 1st National Bank. Moreover, it is far wiser policy than the alternatives of the federal government dealing with state or private banks, which are far more prone to abuse and exploitation. Jackson was against renewing the charter of the 2nd National Bank because the people administrating it became corrupt, so instead of having to get rid of all of them, the easier solution was to just eliminate the charter. We can both agree with Hamilton's principles and policy (and the Constitution) AND with Jackson's policy to end the corruption.
Look at the shitshow that we have been dealing with since 1913 with the FED, which isn't actually a central bank in the same sense as the 1st and 2nd National Banks... alas, we learned nothing from history. Instead of fixing the problem, we replaced it with an even bigger problem.
Andrew Jackson would certainly advocate for ending the FED, due to the massively corrupt system it has become, which has enslaved the American people to private international banking cartels. I agree with Andy here. End the FED. Reestablish the 3rd National Bank of the USA.
Struggling here with wanting to not like you for calling me out and at the same time agreeing with what you’ve stated ( ;
You are correct, the First & Second bank we’re not structured or operated in the same manner as what we see today. That’s said, Jackson seemed to have enough insight to understand the “pit vipers”, as he called them, would screw us all at some point if we allowed for the existence of National Banks.
(McCulloch v. Maryland) Seemed to have good intentions, but like many of the SC’s rulings, it ended up screwing us in the end.
*I’d like to believe they had no idea that they’re ruling would led to the disastrous act of 1913, but I definitely believe the Rothschild family saw that decision and immediately started salivating.
Since I will never trust the government, nor should we, I’m not sure on how this should all shake out. If I had to choose between what we have now, that’s assuming the central banks are still operating in the same nefarious ways, or have something similar to the First and Second National Bank I’d chose the latter, even there I’d be EXTREMELY uneasy.
Maybe something that allowed only private, single ownership, no corporate vail, with low caps on revenue and VERY HIGH PUBLIC OVERSIGHT might work. They would need to be structured in a way that they would have to hold in reserve enough fluidity to take care of local/regional needs and at the same time be able to support governmental loans. At least this way we have an actual person to hold responsible for any fuckery that might occur.
You still run into the issue of creating new money, but I believe that should be solely the duty of the Federal Government, so we’re still going to be opened to getting screwed one way or the other. At least if we fix the elections we can vote the ppl out that screw us and if banks are private single ownerships we can go directly after the owner if he/she screws us.
Stephen Gerard was the sole owner of a bank that funded the war of 1812 and other things for the federal government. From what I’ve seen the structure of his bank being single ownership caused him to hold higher accountability. There’s obviously more to that and a lot more that would need to be added to make it work today, but his accountability looks to have been held in the public eye and on some levels worked.
His bank was the original 1st National Bank, which he acquired after the charter expired. He was also French born and sympathetic to the Jacobin revolution. Financing America's war against the British certainly benefited his pro-French sentiments... Ulterior motives eh?
Very underwhelming comment here, void of context and nuance.
The creation and maintenance of a national bank by the federal government, is Constitutional (affirmed in McCulloch v. Maryland). Even Madison would charter the 2nd National Bank, after originally opposing the initial chartering of the 1st National Bank. Moreover, it is far wiser policy than the alternatives of the federal government dealing with state or private banks, which are far more prone to abuse and exploitation. Jackson was against renewing the charter of the 2nd National Bank because the people administrating it became corrupt, so instead of having to get rid of all of them, the easier solution was to just eliminate the charter. We can both agree with Hamilton's principles and policy (and the Constitution) AND with Jackson's policy to end the corruption.
Look at the shitshow that we have been dealing with since 1913 with the FED, which isn't actually a central bank in the same sense as the 1st and 2nd National Banks... alas, we learned nothing from history. Instead of fixing the problem, we replaced it with an even bigger problem.
Andrew Jackson would certainly advocate for ending the FED, due to the massively corrupt system it has become, which has enslaved the American people to private international banking cartels. I agree with Andy here. End the FED. Reestablish the 3rd National Bank of the USA.
Struggling here with wanting to not like you for calling me out and at the same time agreeing with what you’ve stated ( ;
You are correct, the First & Second bank we’re not structured or operated in the same manner as what we see today. That’s said, Jackson seemed to have enough insight to understand the “pit vipers”, as he called them, would screw us all at some point if we allowed for the existence of National Banks.
(McCulloch v. Maryland) Seemed to have good intentions, but like many of the SC’s rulings, it ended up screwing us in the end.
*I’d like to believe they had no idea that they’re ruling would led to the disastrous act of 1913, but I definitely believe the Rothschild family saw that decision and immediately started salivating.
Indeed, conniving men will jump on any opportunity to bend the world to their own benefit.
Since I will never trust the government, nor should we, I’m not sure on how this should all shake out. If I had to choose between what we have now, that’s assuming the central banks are still operating in the same nefarious ways, or have something similar to the First and Second National Bank I’d chose the latter, even there I’d be EXTREMELY uneasy.
Maybe something that allowed only private, single ownership, no corporate vail, with low caps on revenue and VERY HIGH PUBLIC OVERSIGHT might work. They would need to be structured in a way that they would have to hold in reserve enough fluidity to take care of local/regional needs and at the same time be able to support governmental loans. At least this way we have an actual person to hold responsible for any fuckery that might occur. You still run into the issue of creating new money, but I believe that should be solely the duty of the Federal Government, so we’re still going to be opened to getting screwed one way or the other. At least if we fix the elections we can vote the ppl out that screw us and if banks are private single ownerships we can go directly after the owner if he/she screws us.
Stephen Gerard was the sole owner of a bank that funded the war of 1812 and other things for the federal government. From what I’ve seen the structure of his bank being single ownership caused him to hold higher accountability. There’s obviously more to that and a lot more that would need to be added to make it work today, but his accountability looks to have been held in the public eye and on some levels worked.
His bank was the original 1st National Bank, which he acquired after the charter expired. He was also French born and sympathetic to the Jacobin revolution. Financing America's war against the British certainly benefited his pro-French sentiments... Ulterior motives eh?