Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the real reason for the Revolutionary War has been hid from you

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the real reason for the Revolutionary War has been hid from you

American history has been a compendium of our ongoing battle with the privately controlled Bank of England, beginning with the revolutionary war.  To understand our history, we need to go back to Benjamin Franklin who is often called the "father of paper money" though it been used thousands of years earlier (more accurately, he was the father of colonial American paper money).

Franklin's paper money was a primary reason for fighting America's War for Independence.  But first, let's explore colonial scrip money... 

In 1729 he wrote “A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency.” 

"This pamphlet, a brilliant tour de force, was well received by the common people. The rich, however, hate it, but they have no writers among them able to answer it. Franklin’s arguments carry the day, and the paper money bill gains a majority in the [Pennsylvania] assembly."  - link

Colonial srip was very succesful:

There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every border. It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort was prevailing in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread.”  - Benjamin Franklin

No doubt, many of the colonies were doing very well, especially Pennsylvania and Massachusetts where the amount of new paper money was controlled.  But not all the colonies had the same success as earlier attempts in South Carolina resulted in a currency deprecation. A system was clearly needed and Franklin forged that system with his - "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency.”

Franklin begins his pamphlet by noting that a lack of money to transact trade within the province carries a heavy cost because the alternative to paper money is not gold and silver coins, which through trade have all been shipped off to England, but barter.  Barter, in turn, increases the cost of local exchange and so lowers wages, employment, and immigration.  Money scarcity also causes high local interest rates, which reduces investment and slows development.  Paper money will solve these problems.

But what gives paper money its value?  Here Franklin is clear throughout his career: It is not legal tender laws or fixed exchange rates between paper money and gold and silver coins but the quantity of paper money relative to the volume of internal trade within the colony that governs the value of paper money.  An excess of paper money relative to the volume of internal trade causes it to lose value (depreciate).  

First, Franklin points out that gold and silver are of no permanent value and so paper monies linked to or backed by gold and silver, as with bank paper money in Europe, are of no permanent value.  Everyone knew that over the previous 100 years the labor value of gold and silver had fallen because new discoveries had expanded supplies faster than demand.  The spot value of gold and silver could fluctuate just like that of any other commodity and could be acutely affected by unexpected trade disruptions.  Franklin observes in 1729 that “we [Pennsylvanians] have already parted with our silver and gold” in trade with England, and the difference between the value of paper money and that of silver is due to “the scarcity of the latter.”

Second, Franklin notes that land is a more certain and steady asset with which to back paper money.  For a given colony, its supply will not fluctuate with trade as much as gold and silver do, nor will its supply be subject to long-run expansion as New World gold and silver had been. Finally, and most important, land cannot be exported from the province as gold and silver can.  He then points out that Pennsylvania’s paper money will be backed by land; that is, it will be issued by the legislature through a loan office, and subjects will pledge their lands as collateral for loans of paper money.

Finally, Franklin argues that “coined land” or a properly run land bank will automatically stabilize the quantity of paper money issued — never too much and never too little to carry on the province’s internal trade.  If there is too little paper money, the barter cost of trade will be high, and people will borrow more money on their landed security to reap the gains of the lowered costs that result when money is used to make transactions.  A properly run land bank will never loan more paper money than the landed security available to back it, and so the value of paper money, through this limit on its quantity, will never fall below that of land. 

If, by chance, too much paper money were issued relative to what was necessary to carry on internal trade such that the paper money started to lose its value, people would snap up this depreciated paper money to pay off their mortgaged lands in order to clear away the mortgage lender’s legal claims to the land.  So people could potentially sell the land to capture its real value.  This process of paying paper money back into the government would reduce the quantity of paper money in circulation and so return paper money’s value to its former level.

Automatic stabilization or a natural equilibrium of the amount of paper money within the province results from decentralized market competition within this monetary institutional setting.  - link 

When the colonies united to fight for their freedom, congress issued Continental dollars (redeemable in silver and gold) to pay for the war.  Unfortunately, the U.S. had no gold or silver and promised to pay later.  The value of the currency deprecated since many knew that it was unlikely that they would ever be able to redeem the obligation.  And England printed large amounts of counterfeit Continentals to devalue the currency.

In a letter to Joseph Quincy in 1783, Franklin claims that he predicted this outcome and had proposed a better paper money plan, but that Congress had rejected it...around 1781 Franklin writes a tract called “Of the Paper Money of America.”  In it he argues that the depreciation of the Continental dollar operated as an inflation tax or a tax on money itself.  As such, this tax fell more equally across the citizenry than most other taxes.  - link 

The term "fiat" money is very misleading, as you can see the colonial scrip was backed by the collateral of land.  And so it is today, as private Federal Reserve notes are backed by the people and property of the United States.  The banks may profitably create it for virtually free but it is backed by us; so why does our nation pay others for money that we alone secure?

On to the Revolutionary War....

Before the war, the colonies sent Benjamin Franklin to England to represent their interests.  Franklin was greatly surprised by the amount of poverty and high unemployment.  It just didn't make sense, England was the richest country in the world but the working class was impoverished, he wrote “The streets are covered with beggars and tramps.”  

It is said that he asked his friends in England how this could be so, they replied that they had too many workers.  Many believed, along with Mathus, that wars and plague were necessary to rid the country from man-power surpluses.

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”  - Benjamin Franklin

He was asked why the working class in the colonies were so prosperous.

“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.”  - Benjamin Franklin

Soon afterward, the English bankers demanded that the King and Parliament pass a law that prohibited the colonies from using their scrip money.  Only gold and silver could be used which would be provided by the English bankers.  This began the plague of debt based money in the colonies that had cursed the English working class.

The first law was passed in 1751, and then a harsher law was passed in 1763.  Franklin claimed that within one year, the colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars, just like in England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and work. The money supply had been cut in half.

Franklin, who was one of the chief architects of the American independence, wrote:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.”  - Benjamin Franklin

This opinion was confirmed by great statesmen of his era: 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."  - Thomas Jefferson

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.  - James Madison

“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”  - John Adams

English historian, John Twells, wrote about the money of the colonies, the colonial Scrip:

“It was the monetary system under which America’s Colonies flourished to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them: ‘Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people.

In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial energies of the people.  Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and assets its rights.”

Peter Cooper, industrialist and statesman wrote:

“After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act.”

Our Founding Fathers knew that without financial independence and sovereignty there could be no other lasting freedoms.  Our freedoms and national sovereignty are being lost because most people do not understand our money system.

All the perplexities confusion and distress in America arise not from defects of the Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.  -John Adams

Larry

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1444
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

Larry, thanks for bringing this up!  I did a paper on BenF. in high school (way back when), and needless to say, this info was not available to put into the paper. 

History is written by the victors.....and those "victors" are a very evil group!

Keep it coming!

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

 

Fascinating piece, Larry. Like Logan, I've never heard of this aspect of American history. Quite illuminating.

Thanks.

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

WOW! You mean to say the banking families that plague us today in their ownership of our Federal Reserve banking system are the very same ones who plagued our Founders? That's like 300 years of a concerted effort to steal our hard earned wages. It's like slavery of a sort or usury on an unfathomable scale.

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...
Tycer wrote:

WOW! You mean to say the banking families that plague us today in their ownership of our Federal Reserve banking system are the very same ones who plagued our Founders? That's like 300 years of a concerted effort to steal our hard earned wages. It's like slavery of a sort or usury on an unfathomable scale.

Tycer you have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek I take it.

Larry 

Once again you have brought the issue to the table that is the key to the 3 E's. I think I am going to give you a new name " Fess" ( short for Professor)

V

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

I think it's about time we quit screwing around and get down to business what needs to be done.  The end debt money and the begining of freedom.  300 years is far to long a free ride for these guys.

Christopher H's picture
Christopher H
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 29 2009
Posts: 148
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

Larry -- a most intriguing and illuminating piece with regards to the history of paper money in the colonies, as well as Benjamin Franklin's role in it.  However, I still think that it comes across as much too single-minded with a focus on paper money alone, without fully exploring how other factors both influenced and were influenced by that history.  Note -- I do not take issue with your narrative regarding paper money in its own sense, as I find it to be very cogent.  I just think that looking at it in the absence of certain intertwined factors makes it out to be more of a singular factor when it was, in reality, one of many.  These factors are: demographic shifts in England fueling its colonial expansion (compared to wholly different demographics in the colonies), the role of the commons in the colonies and the enclosure movement in England, the beginnings of the industrial revolution in England, and the Seven Years' War ending Britain's policy of benign neglect toward the colonies.

1. The reasons for poverty in England went back to the original founding of the Virginia colony -- that is, a population that had bounced back from the Black Death combined with the enclosure movement that literally shut the majority of people out of the commons that they had depended upon since the Middle Ages.  It was no accident that a good many of the people shipped to the colonies as indentures were either in debtors' prisons or sentenced for the strict vagrancy laws of the time.  This demographic shift of a larger population occupying a static area of land actually helped fuel England's expansionism as much as a desire to keep up with the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and French did.  It helped relieve growing social unrest at home in the face of growing inequality (that later skyrocketed with the onset of the industrial revolution and all the centralization of wealth and resources that accompanied it).

2.  The demographics in the colonies were almost opposite those in Mother England.  Land was not even an issue -- so long as the Natives occupying it could be pushed off in one way or another.  Expansionism provided the ultimate safety valve for social unrest in the colonies -- as evidenced both by the result of an early attempt to block it in Bacon's Rebellion, as well as Fredrick Jackson Turner's "The Significance of the Frontier in American History."  There was no "enclosure" movement in the Americas and the concept of a commons held for use by all was still socially enforced.  It was still vibrant in the American South even in the years right before the Civil War (a core part of the yeoman's sense of political rights).

3.  The timing of the shift in British policy toward colonial scrip (1763) also encompasses an event that you neglected to mention -- the end of the Seven Years' War, better known in the United States as the French and Indian War.  William Pitt's prosecution of the war was conducted by running up government debt, and the settlement of this debt after the war's conclusion required the raising of taxes by Parliament.  Since, from Britain's view, the war had been fought in order to protect its colonies, it felt that it was only fair that the colonies bore some of the financial burden.  Colonial scrip was useless to Parliament in this regard, as was barter.  The repayment of British lenders to the Crown could only be done in specie.  The colonies, as you correctly pointed out, did not have this in any significant quantity, although in the view of British authorities this was the colonies' problem and not theirs.  This policy also came on the heels of the approach of benign neglect conducted by Robert Walpole as Prime Minister, under which the colonies were allowed to do pretty much as they pleased so long as their activities generally benefitted the British Crown.  It should also be noted here that demands of payment of taxes in hard currency is a common tactic for colonial powers to undermine local economies and customs.  It played that role in fomenting the American Revolution as well as the Whiskey Rebellion of the new Constitutional republic, not to mention how it was used in South Africa to compel natives participating in a traditional economy to abandon their lands and take up work as laborers in the gold mines.

Note -- I still find the idea of land-based paper currency to be compelling.  I have read over the past few years of other ideas for paper currency, especially local ones, that are based upon actual productive assets such as grain.  Many of these currencies are set up to also decline in value the longer they are held, thus encouraging the re-introduction of them into the economy (and preventing the skewing of wealth that historically occurs under precious metal standards).

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

It is great to be with people that look at history as a continuation of the past rather than simply a record of events.

Tycer - love those zingers that cut to the point! 

V - you have a full quill and shoot at the mark.

Musings_from_th... wrote:

"...much too single-minded with a focus on paper money alone, without fully exploring how other factors both influenced and were influenced by that history."

I concede the point...thanks for adding an important caveat to my OP.  Your argument is sound and well supported; there were other factors.  Maybe I should amend my OP from the "real reason" to the "primary cause" of the revolution from the viewpoint of the colonies? 

Prior to being revolutionaries, many of our founding fathers were loyal to England as the empire helped establish prosperity and “civilization.”  Eventually, the interests of the empire became counterproductive to the interests of the American colonies. 

In large measure, this may be attributed to the privately owned East India Trading Company.  They filled their coffers while taking power from the monarch and parliament.  They exploited reign resources, chattel slavery, debt slavery and drug trafficking (opium wars) while inflaming unnecessary wars for profit.

In my opinion, the East India Trading Company was the precursor, or modern entry point (it goes back much further) of the international bank cartel which rules the modern western world.  The issue has not changed; the interests of the privately owned financial empire subjugate the interests, lives and well being of the working people.

Larry

Christopher H's picture
Christopher H
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 29 2009
Posts: 148
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

DrKrbyLuv wrote:

It is great to be with people that look at history as a continuation of the past rather than simply a record of events.

I agree wholeheartedly!  Unfortunately, this is hardly a typical American POV.  I think that too many others subscribe to Henry Ford's "History is bunk" dictum.

It is interesting that you bring up the role of the East India Company.  It is a prime example of the precursor not just to the banking cartel, but to the modern corporation itself -- brought into being through a synergy of government AND business.  Juergen Habermas discussed this phenomena at length is The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.  According to his analysis, the modern state is, at its essence, a treasury bureaucracy -- every other part of government exists to serve the treasury and extract rents for its use.  Likewise, the corporation (owing its mere existence to legal, or at that time, royal charter) was formed to serve both the interests of the state AND its shareholders.  The modern bureaucratic state and modern bureaucratic corporation evolved not as competitors, but as reflections of one another.  I think that this is a point that those who cling to stale, outmoded political ideologies of the left and right often miss, instead only focusing on one side of the equation while ignoring the other.

And as anyone who has done any kind of mathematics from algebra on up should know, you can't figure anything out unless you look at the WHOLE equation, not just one side of it.

Thanks again for a great piece and some thought-provoking exchange.  Cheers!

Southerner's picture
Southerner
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 7 2009
Posts: 36
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

Musings, that was my take on the east india trading company as well.  The EITC represents the multinational corporations which have developed since.  The global corporations are cousins to the banksters, and will be until there is an end to the central banking system and nation states claim their sovereignity from the vampire squids and their malevolent cousins.

One can hope and educate, a few at a time!

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

Here is an interesting take on national sovereignty from Murray Rothbard.  I had never thought about it like this...

In the modern world, each land area is ruled over by a State organization, but there are a number of States scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of violence over its own territory. No super-State exists with a monopoly of violence over the entire world; and so a state of "anarchy" exists between the several States. (It has always been a source of wonder, incidentally, to this writer how the same conservatives who denounce as lunatic any proposal for eliminating a monopoly of violence over a given territory and thus leaving private individuals without an overlord, should be equally insistent upon leaving States without an overlord to settle disputes between them. The former is always denounced as "crackpot anarchism"; the latter is hailed as preserving independence and "national sovereignty" from "world government.") And so, except for revolutions, which occur only sporadically, the open violence and two-sided conflict in the world takes place between two or more States, that is, in what is called "international war" (or "horizontal violence").

Musings,

Thanks for the added perspective in this thread.  Things are never quite that simple.

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 208
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

 

A worldwide government could reduce the conflict between national governments, and might seem to hold a lot of efficiency benefits for corporations as conceptually everyone would fall under the same rules.

The added levels of hierarchy/complexity to run a worldwide government would be mind blowing, I expect.

Doubt this could ever happen in an world that is teetering on the edge of Peak Energy.

 

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...
jturbo68 wrote:

A worldwide government could reduce the conflict between national governments, and might seem to hold a lot of efficiency benefits for corporations as conceptually everyone would fall under the same rules.

The added levels of hierarchy/complexity to run a worldwide government would be mind blowing, I expect.

Doubt this could ever happen in an world that is teetering on the edge of Peak Energy.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by the Rothbard quote.  Neither Rothbard ( nor I ) are advocating for a world government.  What he is pointing out is that conservatives seem comfortable with anarchy at a nation state level ( no single central authority ) but claim it would not work within a nation state.

Many liberals/statists want a single central world government and most anarchists believe in sovereignty at the individal level without a central state control.  At least these two positions are somewhat consistent.  It is the conservatives that don't what an central world government but that claim the requirement for sovereign states that seem to be inconsistent.

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 208
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

 

Goes,

I think I understand the dichotomy you are presenting and find it interesting.

I was simply adding (my opinion) that whether anyone wanted it or not, a world govrnment is probably not in our future even tho we will have entites that strive for it and think it would be worth the costs.

John

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

A few more references....

American historian Alexander Del Mar wrote(1895):

[T]he creation and circulation of bills of credit by revolutionary assemblies...coming as they did upon the heels of the strenuous efforts made by the Crown to suppress paper money in America [were] acts of defiance so contemptuous and insulting to the Crown that forgiveness was thereafter impossible . . . [T]here was but one course for the crown to pursue and that was to suppress and punish these acts of rebellion...Thus the Bills of Credit of this era, which ignorance and prejudice have attempted to belittle into the mere instruments of a reckless financial policy were really the standards of the Revolution. They were more than this: they were the Revolution itself!

Ellen Brown made an interesting point about the credit money (paper) used by the colonies:

"Americans ignored the British ban on American currency, and succeeded in financing a war against a major power, with virtually no 'hard' currency of their own, without taxing the people."

In my OP, I mentioned that Benjamin Franklin distanced himself from the Continental dollar, claiming he had a better idea - to issue credit money rather than PM backed money, but congress wouldn't listen to him.  Later he defended the deprecation of the Continental in Of the Paper Money of America.  "The Continental dollar operated as an inflation tax or a tax on money itself. As such, this tax fell more equally across the citizenry than most other taxes."  While Brown reminds that the war was fought without taxing the people, Francklin's quote is important as he saw the deprecation as a tax. 

In a letter to Abbé Reynal, Thomas Paine described how important paper money was leading up to, and winning the Revolutionary War.  And, he defends the fact that the Continentals were never to be redeemed:

"Every stone in the bridge that has carried us over seems to have a claim upon our esteem. But this was the corner-stone, and its usefulness cannot be forgotten.

...But to suppose as some did, that, at the end of the war, it was to grow into gold or silver, or become equal thereto, was to suppose that we were to get 200 millions of dollars by going to war, instead of paying the cost of carrying it on.”

It is hard to defend a broken promise; but I think his observation supports Benjamin Franklin's "credit money" (paper) system.  In a way, modern banks profit from war in the same illogical way as pointed out by Paine.

Larry

Crash's picture
Crash
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 26 2008
Posts: 171
Re: Hidden History: According to Benjamin Franklin, the ...

A great thread, thanks Larry,

I see a paper-based money system based on a mutual credit system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_credit) as a good way to unshackle from the current debt-based system and anarchise / democratise the money supply,

soulfulpsy's picture
soulfulpsy
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 28 2013
Posts: 1
Helpful History - How to Apply This Today?

I had heard some of this before but without the details this essay provides.  While my expertise is elsewhere, and this may be simplistic, it would seem that the Bank of England in Franklin's era and the Bank of the US -- aka the Federal Reserve -- perform the same function and serve the same interests, the banks and the financial industry they feed into and from.  If that is the case, then what would happen if alternative currencies became a major force for states or regions?  At least Parliment couldn't make a law against them.  I'm sure this topic has been considered but I am curious why this is not something being done on a large scale.

 
 
 
PiGuy's picture
PiGuy
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 12 2014
Posts: 1
Be Careful

Some the the latter part of this article appears to be of dubious origin(After 'On to the Revolutionary War....').  Congressmen Charles Binderup of Nebraska, in a radio address from 1941, attributes these quotes/this story to Franklin, yet there is no known record of this before the broadcast.  I have seen people use these quotes before, but never properly cited.  Some parts also contradict reality, for example there were poor houses in the colonies(even Philadelphia itself).

GregO8's picture
GregO8
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2015
Posts: 2
Benjamin Franklin quotes

Larry,

I like your post above about Benjamin Franklin.  Could you give precise source documents for the quotes from Benjamin Franklin?   I'm trying to fact check the quotes on the internet, since some claim we don't have the source documents to verify what Benjamin Franklin said.  Can you help?

 

 

GregO8's picture
GregO8
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2015
Posts: 2
Benjamin Franklin quotes

Larry,

I like your post above about Benjamin Franklin.  Could you give precise source documents for the quotes from Benjamin Franklin?   I'm trying to fact check the quotes on the internet, since some claim we don't have the source documents to verify what Benjamin Franklin said.  Can you help?

 

 

Jim Hogue's picture
Jim Hogue
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 20 2015
Posts: 2
Land Bank

Please note that the governor (the crown) shut down the Massachusetts Land Bank in 1739, so the monetary attack on the independent well-being and prosperity of the colonies began long before 1763.

Thanks for the scrip policy date of 1763.

Franklin wrote a great satire called "Rules By Which A great Empire May Be Reduced To A Small One" in 1773 without even mentioning the monetary (money creation/seigniorage) side of it. It rather surprised me that he (of all people) would leave that out.

Jim Hogue's picture
Jim Hogue
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 20 2015
Posts: 2
redemption of the Continental

The bankers made out just fine on that one.  It was the poor sods that got paid in them who were stuck for 5 cents on the dollar (as I recall).

usssaratoga2's picture
usssaratoga2
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 5 2016
Posts: 1
Debt-free money creation

Ben Franklin's colonial scrip and continental were such a success that they had to be stopped by the then sovereign, debt-based monetarists in Europe, lest prosperity would ruin the monarchies there, so the British declared war on the emerging sovereignty of the American colonies, which was the real reason for our revolution.

ANKH-JAVEL's picture
ANKH-JAVEL
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2017
Posts: 1
enlighting! - suspicions, hints..but your article brings clarity

Thank you very much for the contribution to a clearer view* - crucial to get anywhere near the promises in the constitution. Do you have the links or references to the sources? I would be very thankful - and I think it is important to get the point widely and well received. Coincidence - just a few days ago I wondered how the revolutionary war was financed** - do you know of any information to this regard?

*in management, the body of literature says that you need decent unbiased information to steer a company well - what the people in democracies have, to inform their steering is an overload of news and biased opinion instead of information. The result time and again is steering in the fog - no, smoke-guns that is - today's PR is in fact just courtly intriguing developed further.

**there are lots of hints that interests (maintain the dollar as lead-currency, keep oil-prices in the profit zone, sell and test weapons, infiltrate all organizations capable to resist corporate interests) of finances and the military-industrial complex are behind the trouble in Lybia, Syria and many others - Iran is on the list of US-UK secret services to induce trouble there too (finance and train terrorists to destabilize - divide and rule).

 

Lucas Carlton's picture
Lucas Carlton
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 29 2016
Posts: 4
Thanks for sharing

It’s really a great and helpful piece of information. I am happy that you just shared this useful information with us. Please keep us informed like this.

 

1936ryer's picture
1936ryer
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 25 2017
Posts: 1
Ben Franklin

For those of you interested you should read history of the US written by Charles and Mary Ritter Beard.  They were foremost historians back in the beginning of the 20th century - Rockefeller and cronies had their versions of history repressed when they refused to follow suit (like most university deans - who where rewarded) and join his education foundation.  Beard writes about the constitution as seen from and economical standpoint rather than one of liberty.  The United States was founded as a business and has been a business ever since -- once you look at our country  from this perspective it makes a lot more sense.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments