Who do you think was the last honest, decent President of the United States?

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
krogoth's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 576
Who do you think was the last honest, decent President of the United States?

Who do you think was the last honest, decent President in the US?-

Please give a brief description on why you think this president was decent by accomplishments or actions they took.






brandenism's picture
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 14 2008
Posts: 21
Re: Who do you think was the last honest, decent President of th

I would say Teddy Roosevelt personally for a couple things..


He actually advocated health care for everyone, broke up monopolies because of their inherent corruption, although he did negotiate control of the Panama Canal which was a pretty crap deal for them.


Maybe Andrew Jackson because of his abolishment of the central bank at the time and his quote made about them:

“The bold efforts the present bank has made to control theGovernment… are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American peopleshould they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution, or theestablishment of another like it.” Andrew Jackson


I think being opposed to a national bank was pretty significant.  Plenty of presidents did good things, but I pretty much discount every president since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 because I believe it has created many problems and contribued to a polarizing distribution of wealth.

Then again, I majored in business--not history.


asragov's picture
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1

Truman managed the transition of a war economy back to a civilian economy, no mean feat.

He also dealt with the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, recognition of Israel and Pakistan, the Berlin airlift, civil rights, a new PRC, and McCarthy.

Today's presidents seem so small in comparison ...

JMCSwan's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 19 2008
Posts: 40
Honest, decent President of the United States??? Hmmmm...


I don't think many people REALLY WANT AN HONEST PRESIDENT...

 They only want an 'honest' and 'ethical' President, who says what they want to hear; not one who challenges them to really grow and be citizens of a REpublic.

Most citizens want to be citizens of a 'democracy' and most citizens don't know THE TRUTH ABOUT 'DEMOCRACY'.

DEMOCKERY: a small group or class of oligarchs...., who provide them with either a corporate and/or individual welfare BIG BROTHER STATE.....

Now take for example Barry Goldwater; think about why he said any of the following:

The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.

You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.  

If everybody in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you would have no government.

It's a great country, where anybody can grow up to be president... except me.

It's political Daddyism and it's as old as demagogues and despotism.

Unlike nearly every other politician who ever lived, anywhere in the world, Barry Goldwater always said exactly what was on his mind. He spared his listeners nothing.
Lloyd Grove inThe Washington Post (30 May 1998)  


But I imagine JFK's quotes on Secret Societies being the real controlling forces behind the Presidency, may come close; and it certainly came at a price...



mainecooncat's picture
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 7 2008
Posts: 488
Surely that's impossible

Well, by definition a US president cannot be honest or decent simply because of the multi-headed beast of an apparatus that they are at the helm of. The US military and economic juggernaut are essentially tools of oppression.

But how about Carter for one reason alone. That he told Americans that they couldn't consume endlessly with no regard to the environment, future generations, or their own integrity. He really sounded the alarm about what I guess you could call pre-Peak Oil.

I always get a kick out of "quality of life" advocates who excoriate Carter for his "put on a sweater" comment. I imagine the aggrieved party bellowing, "I am an American who takes what he wants when he wants it. If I'm cold I want more oil pumped half-way around the world to the furnace in my basement, so I can wear a t-shirt and shorts with the thermostat on 72 in the middle of January."

Putting on more clothing when one is cold. Real radical notion.


Ray Hewitt's picture
Ray Hewitt
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2008
Posts: 458
Who do you think was the last honest, decent President of the US

There aren't any. Period!!!

Every one, more or less, contributed to the expansion of the crime syndicate otherwise known as the government of the USA. It lived off of the productive sector like a parasite, until it sucked all the blood out of it. Now as it's fighting for its life, it's going to bring everything down with it.

Roysyl's picture
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 21 2008
Posts: 6
Re: Who do you think was the last honest, decent President .
I think Carter was the last honest, decent President. The fact that he was not allowed to speak at Obamas corination because of his politically incorrect, but true, comments about Isreal says it all. 
tom.'s picture
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
Honesty and decency

It's impossible to transfer honesty and decency to past presidents, because there was not enough information, except from bias historians.

I will say Andrew Jackson cared more about the path of the country than any other.

The one who would have been the most honest as well as most decent would have been Ron Paul.

Pandabonium's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 30 2008
Posts: 88
Re: Who do you think was the last honest, decent Pres?

I don't know about honest or decent, but I like the Presidency of  William Henry Harrison - he caught cold at his inaugeration and died of pneumonia one month after taking office, before he could do any harm.



rlee's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 18 2008
Posts: 148
Re: Who do you think was the last honest, decent President of th

This is an interesting question as it could only be answered honestly based on two sources of information.  The first of course is ones personal knowledge.  But then, the list of candidates becomes quite small.  The second being history books.  While it would be wonderful to say that text books are fact-filled cornucopias of knowledge, anyone who has been given a research project knows this to be way off base.

With that said, I will choose as a group the founders of this nation, who envisioned a land of liberties born of freedom and truth.  While one could argue that these folks had an agenda of there own, their goals were noble.  But with the growth of any establishment comes the growing potential for power and its abuse.  "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Just a note:  As for the current guy, he's a boob,  and I'm less than impressed with his successor - whoever it may be.  But speaking from a 'guys' viewpoint, if John were in, and something happened to him, Sarah would be hands-down the hottest world leader ever (come-on now, you know it's true!)


rlee's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 18 2008
Posts: 148
Re: Who do you think was the last honest, decent President .

Some interesting facts about your pick - not a slam on you, just some information:

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20

Jimmy Carterbecame our 39th president at the young age of 52. He was a one-term governorfrom Plains, GA, where he managed the family peanut farm and taught Sundayschool.

He was also agraduate of the Naval Academy and served sevenyears in the Navy, leaving as a lieutenant, which is hardly a stellar recordbut more typical of lackluster performance in the military.

He came to powerin the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the resignation of President Nixon. Thepublic wanted change and someone new, and Carter was an ambitious, hands-onpolitician who promised better days. As good as his intentions were, however,the things he tried were not successful. In fact, he created far more seriousproblems than he ever solved.

The centerpiece ofCarter's foreign policy was human rights, and he did achieve one noble success;a peace treaty between Egypt's Anwar Sadat andIsrael's Menachem Begin.

Unfortunately,that later led to Sadat's assassination at the hands of Muslim radicals.

Many people feltCarter was a good man who worked hard and meant well. But he was naive andincompetent in handling the enormous burdens and complex challenges of beingpresident.

He wronglybelieved Americans had an "inordinate fear of communism," so he liftedtravel bans to Cuba, North Vietnam and Cambodia and pardoneddraft evaders. He also stopped B-1 bomber production and gave away ourstrategically located Panama Canal.

His most damagingmiscalculation was the withdrawal of U.S. support for theShah of Iran, a strong and longtime military ally. Carter objected to theShah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies who were working tooverthrow Iran's government. Hethought the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini, being a religious man, would make afairer leader.

Having lost U.S. support, the Shahwas overthrown, the Ayatollah returned, Iran was declared anIslamic nation and Palestinian hit men were hired to eliminate opposition.

The Ayatollah thenintroduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine LiberationOrganization, paying $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashedto kill as many Israelis as possible by blowing themselves up in crowdedshopping areas.

Next, theAyatollah used Iran's oil wealth tocreate, train and finance a new terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which laterwould attack Israel in 2006.

In November 1979,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranians stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 52Americans hostage for 444 days.

Not until sixmonths into the ordeal did Carter attempt a rescue. But the mission, using justsix Navy helicopters, was poorly executed. Three of the copters were disabledor lost in sandstorms. (Pilots weren't allowed to meet with weather forecastersbecause someone in authority worried about security.) Five airmen and threeMarines lost their lives.

So, due to overconfidence,inexperience and poor judgment, Carter undermined and lost a strong ally, Iran, that todayaggressively threatens the U.S., Israel and the rest ofthe world with nuclear weapons.

But that's notall.

After Carter metfor the first time with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, the USSR promptly invaded Afghanistan. Carter, ever thenaive appeaser, was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied tome," he said.

The invasionattracted a 23-year-old Saudi named Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan to recruit Muslimfighters and raise money for an anti-Soviet jihad. Part of that groupeventually became al-Qaida, a terrorist organization that would declare war on America several timesbetween 1996 and 1998 before attacking us on 9/11, killing more Americans thanthe Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

On Carter's watch,the Soviet Union went on an unrestrained rampage in which it tookover not only Afghanistan, but also Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua.

In spite of this,Carter's last defense budget proposed spending 45% below pre-Vietnam levels forfighter aircraft, 75% for ships, 83% for attack submarines and 90% forhelicopters.

Years later, as acivilian, Carter negotiated a peace agreement with North Korea to keep thatcommunist country from developing nuclear weapons. He also convinced PresidentClinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to go along with it. But thesigned piece of paper proved worthless. The North Koreans deceived Carter andinstead used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclearweapons and pose the threat we face today.

Thus did Carterunwittingly become our Neville Chamberlain, creating with his well-intended butinept, unrealistic and gullible actions the very conditions that led to thethree most dangerous security threats we face today: Iran, al-Qaida and North Korea.

On the domesticside, Carter gave us inflation of 15%, the highest in 34 years; interest ratesof 21%, the highest in 115 years; and a severe energy crisis with lines aroundthe block at gas stations nationwide.

In 1977, Carter,along with a Democrat Congress, created a worthy project with noble intentionsthe Community Reinvestment Act. Over strong industry objections, it mandatedthat all banks meet the credit needs of their entire communities.

In 1995, PresidentClinton imposed even stronger regulations and performance tests that coercedbanks to substantially increase loans to low-income, poverty-area borrowers orface fines or possible restrictions on expansion.  These revisions allowed for securitization ofCRA loans containing subprime mortgages.

By 1997, goodloans were bundled with poor ones and sold as prime packages to institutions hereand abroad. That shifted risk from the loan originators, freeing banks to beginpyramiding and make more of these profitable subprime products.

Under two young,well-intended presidents, therefore, big-government plans and mandates played asignificant role in the current subprime mortgage mess and its catastrophicconsequences for the U.S. and internationaleconomies.

Hardest-hit by themortgage foreclosures have been the citizens that Democrats always claim tohelp most-inner-city residents who fell victim to low or no down paymentschemes, unexpected adjustable rates, deceptive loan applications and commission-hungrysalespeople.

Now we have tobail out at huge cost Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the very agencies that weresupposed to stabilize the system. In time, this should improve the situation. 

GDon's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 2 2008
Posts: 86
Re: Who was the last honest, decent President?

Discounting the American Presidents from 1945 on (all of which have operated under the umbrella of a burgeoning, and freedom-encroaching Federal state, with none attempting to reverse course), I'd nominate the opinion of Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Franklin D. Roosevelt -    "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president."

Little is taught or understood today, about President Andrew Jackson.  However, the parallels between the issues today, surrounding the collusion between the US Government and private Central Banks (like the Federal Reserve today), is an uncanny repitition of the passionate confrontation of the US Government and a private Central Bank during the administraiton of Andrew Jackson.

A read of the history, life and times of Andrew Jackson is highly recommended, and will lend much in the way of insight into the present financial state of the USA.

Already a general and war hero from the Battle of New Orleans (a conflict between the USA and Britian/Spain, and the attempts to control the financing of the USA), Jackson eventually became the last American President to battle against fiat currency and the international Banking and financing efforts of the 2nd US Bank (a privately-financed "central bank"), a concept much-warned about by the Founding Fathers.

Led by Nicholas Biddle, and a number of international "investors", the 2nd US Bank had established on their "payroll", many of the US Congress and government, with profligate insider-trading, corruption and bribery.

Andrew Jackson, based upon his philosophy in concert with the writings and statements of Jefferson, Adams and other Founding Fathers, believed that a private Central Bank, issuing paper money (fiat currency) as the "official" currency of the nation (sound much like the Federal Reserve of today???), would eventually deprive the populus of their savings and potential for prosperity, through "untoward usury" and inflation/deflation cycles (again - timely???)

To return the USA to a sound monetary basis, in keeping with the US CONSTITUTION (Article I Sections 8 & 10), he battled for the annulment of the charter of the 2nd US Bank, and insured that the US Currency was backed by gold and silver.

Surviving an assasination attempt on his life, he eventually was buried and entombed peacefully at the "Hermitage".

However, he was so passionate that sound monetary policy was the basis for a free, peaceful and prosperous United States, that his tombstone was engraved with  "I Beat The Bank!"

Other quotes from President Andrew Jackson:

Andrew Jackson - "The paper-money system and its natural associations—monopoly and exclusive privileges—have already struck their roots too deep in the soil, and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil."

Andrew Jackson - (in reference to the destructive "teeth" of the US Central Bank) - "I am ready with the screws to draw eery tooth and then the stumps"

Andrew Jackson - "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."

Andrew Jackson - "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank (US Central Bank) to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin!  Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out." "

Andrew Jackson - "If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."

Andrew Jackson - "I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."

JMCSwan's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 19 2008
Posts: 40
Re: Who was the last honest, decent President? Andrew Jackson!
GDon, You convinced me! Andrew Jackson, Wow, thanks for those quotes... A real firebrand incorruptible!! And followed by him Goldwater, and wouldn't it be something to get Ron Paul in as Secretary of the Treasury... Thanks for the info... great!
GDon's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 2 2008
Posts: 86
Re: Last honest President - Andrew Jackson's Farewell Address

JMCSwan -

Yes - it is both fascinating, and a bit frightening, to see how little knowledge gets passed along from generation to generation, resulting in a repitition of the same difficulties.   Whether this is an intentional facet of our educational system, I'll leave to speculation.

Anyway, while a bit long, I'll paste here, an excerpt from Andrew Jackson's farewell address - if you have the time to read it, it will be hard to not be struck with the parallels of today, and the passion in Jackson's address on the subject of fiat currency, monetary policy, and the intertwinings between monetary policy and political freedom.

Finally, this excerpt dovetails with much of Chris Martenson's teachings on fiat currency and money supply, and is a great read:


President Andrew Jackson - March 4, 1837:

"In reviewing the conflicts which have taken place between different interests in the United States and the policy pursued since the adoption of our present form of Government, we find nothing that has produced such deep-seated evil as the course of legislation in relation to the currency. The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver. But the establishment of a national bank by Congress, with the privilege of issuing paper money receivable in the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several States upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the constitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its place.

It was not easy for men engaged in the ordinary pursuits of business, whose attention had not been particularly drawn to the subject, to foresee all the consequences of a currency exclusively of paper, and we ought not on that account to be surprised at the facility with which laws were obtained to carry into effect the paper system. Honest and even enlightened men are sometimes misled by the specious and plausible statements of the designing. But experience has now proved the mischiefs and dangers of a paper currency, and it rests with you to determine whether the proper remedy shall be applied.

The paper system being founded on public confidence and having of itself no intrinsic value, it is liable to great and sudden fluctuations, thereby rendering property insecure and the wages of labor unsteady and uncertain. The corporations which create the paper money can not be relied upon to keep the circulating medium uniform in amount. In times of prosperity, when confidence is high, they are tempted by the prospect of gain or by the influence of those who hope to profit by it to extend their issues of paper beyond the bounds of discretion and the reasonable demands of business; and when these issues have been pushed on from day to day, until public confidence is at length shaken, then a reaction takes place, and they immediately withdraw the credits they have given, suddenly curtail their issues, and produce an unexpected and ruinous contraction of the circulating medium, which is felt by the whole community. The banks by this means save themselves, and the mischievous consequences of their imprudence or cupidity are visited upon the public. Nor does the evil stop here. These ebbs and flows in the currency and these indiscreet extensions of credit naturally engender a spirit of speculation injurious to the habits and character of the people. We have already seen its effects in the wild spirit of speculation in the public lands and various kinds of stock which within the last year or two seized upon such a multitude of our citizens and threatened to pervade all classes of society and to withdraw their attention from the sober pursuits of honest industry. It is not by encouraging this spirit that we shall best preserve public virtue and promote the true interests of our country; but if your currency continues as exclusively paper as it now is, it will foster this eager desire to amass wealth without labor; it will multiply the number of dependents on bank accommodations and bank favors; the temptation to obtain money at any sacrifice will become stronger and stronger, and inevitably lead to corruption, which will find its way into your public councils and destroy at no distant day the purity of your Government. Some of the evils which arise from this system of paper press with peculiar hardship upon the class of society least able to bear it. A portion of this currency frequently becomes depreciated or worthless, and all of it is easily counterfeited in such a manner as to require peculiar skill and much experience to distinguish the counterfeit from the genuine note. These frauds are most generally perpetrated in the smaller notes, which are used in the daily transactions of ordinary business, and the losses occasioned by them are commonly thrown upon the laboring classes of society, whose situation and pursuits put it out of their power to guard themselves from these impositions, and whose daily wages are necessary for their subsistence. It is the duty of every government so to regulate its currency as to protect this numerous class, as far as practicable, from the impositions of avarice and fraud. It is more especially the duty of the United States, where the Government is emphatically the Government of the people, and where this respectable portion of our citizens are so proudly distinguished from the laboring classes of all other nations by their independent spirit, their love of liberty, their intelligence, and their high tone of moral character. Their industry in peace is the source of our wealth and their bravery in war has covered us with glory; and the Government of the United States will but ill discharge its duties if it leaves them a prey to such dishonest impositions. Yet it is evident that their interests can not be effectually protected unless silver and gold are restored to circulation.

These views alone of the paper currency are sufficient to call for immediate reform; but there is another consideration which should still more strongly press it upon your attention.

Recent events have proved that the paper-money system of this country may be used as an engine to undermine your free institutions, and that those who desire to engross all power in the hands of the few and to govern by corruption or force are aware of its power and prepared to employ it. Your banks now furnish your only circulating medium, and money is plenty or scarce according to the quantity of notes issued by them. While they have capitals not greatly disproportioned to each other, they are competitors in business, and no one of them can exercise dominion over the rest; and although in the present state of the currency these banks may and do operate injuriously upon the habits of business, the pecuniary concerns, and the moral tone of society, yet, from their number and dispersed situation, they can not combine for the purposes of political influence, and whatever may be the dispositions of some of them their power of mischief must necessarily be confined to a narrow space and felt only in their immediate neighborhoods.

But when the charter for the Bank of the United States was obtained from Congress it perfected the schemes of the paper system and gave to its advocates the position they have struggled to obtain from the commencement of the Federal Government to the present hour. The immense capital and peculiar privileges bestowed upon it enabled it to exercise despotic sway over the other banks in every part of the country. From its superior strength it could seriously injure, if not destroy, the business of any one of them which might incur its resentment; and it openly claimed for itself the power of regulating the currency throughout the United States. In other words, it asserted (and it undoubtedly possessed) the power to make money plenty or scarce at its pleasure, at any time and in any quarter of the Union, by controlling the issues of other banks and permitting an expansion or compelling a general contraction of the circulating medium, according to its own will. The other banking institutions were sensible of its strength, and they soon generally became its obedient instruments, ready at all times to execute its mandates; and with the banks necessarily went also that numerous class of persons in our commercial cities who depend altogether on bank credits for their solvency and means of business, and who are therefore obliged, for their own safety, to propitiate the favor of the money power by distinguished zeal and devotion in its service. The result of the ill-advised legislation which established this great monopoly was to concentrate the whole moneyed power of the Union, with its boundless means of corruption and its numerous dependents, under the direction and command of one acknowledged head, thus organizing this particular interest as one body and securing to it unity and concert of action throughout the United States, and enabling it to bring forward upon any occasion its entire and undivided strength to support or defeat any measure of the Government. In the hands of this formidable power, thus perfectly organized, was also placed unlimited dominion over the amount of the circulating medium, giving it the power to regulate the value of property and the fruits of labor in every quarter of the Union, and to bestow prosperity or bring ruin upon any city or section of the country as might best comport with its own interest or policy.

We are not left to conjecture how the moneyed power, thus organized and with such a weapon in its hands, would be likely to use it. The distress and alarm which pervaded and agitated the whole country when the Bank of the United States waged war upon the people in order to compel them to submit to its demands can not yet be forgotten. The ruthless and unsparing temper with which whole cities and communities were oppressed, individuals impoverished and ruined, and a scene of cheerful prosperity suddenly changed into one of gloom and despondency ought to be indelibly impressed on the memory of the people of the United States. If such was its power in a time of peace, what would it not have been in a season of war, with an enemy at your doors? No nation but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest; yet, if you had not conquered, the Government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few, and this organized money power from its secret conclave would have dictated the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war, as best suited their own wishes. The forms of your Government might for a time have remained, but its living spirit would have departed from it.

The distress and sufferings inflicted on the people by the bank are some of the fruits of that system of policy which is continually striving to enlarge the authority of the Federal Government beyond the limits fixed by the Constitution. The powers enumerated in that instrument do not confer on Congress the right to establish such a corporation as the Bank of the United States, and the evil consequences which followed may warn us of the danger of departing from the true rule of construction and of permitting temporary circumstances or the hope of better promoting the public welfare to influence in any degree our decisions upon the extent of the authority of the General Government. Let us abide by the Constitution as it is written, or amend it in the constitutional mode if it is found to be defective.

The severe lessons of experience will, I doubt not, be sufficient to prevent Congress from again chartering such a monopoly, even if the Constitution did not present an insuperable objection to it. But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government. The power which the moneyed interest can exercise, when concentrated under a single head and with our present system of currency, was sufficiently demonstrated in the struggle made by the Bank of the United States. Defeated in the General Government, tho same class of intriguers and politicians will now resort to the States and endeavor to obtain there the same organization which they failed to perpetuate in the Union; and with specious and deceitful plans of public advantages and State interests and State pride they will endeavor to establish in the different States one moneyed institution with overgrown capital and exclusive privileges sufficient to enable it to control the operations of the other banks. Such an institution will be pregnant with the same evils produced by the Bank of the United States, although its sphere of action is more confined, and in the State in which it is chartered the money power will be able to embody its whole strength and to move together with undivided force to accomplish any object it may wish to attain. You have already had abundant evidence of its power to inflict injury upon the agricultural, mechanical, and laboring classes of society, and over those whose engagements in trade or speculation render them dependent on bank facilities the dominion of the State monopoly will be absolute and their obedience unlimited. With such a bank and a paper currency the money power would in a few years govern the State and control its measures, and if a sufficient number of States can be induced to create such establishments the time will soon come when it will again take the field against the United States and succeed in perfecting and perpetuating its organization by a charter from Congress.

It is one of the serious evils of our present system of banking that it enables one class of society--and that by no means a numerous one--by its control over the currency, to act injuriously upon the interests of all the others and to exercise more than its just proportion of influence in political affairs. The agricultural, the mechanical, and the laboring classes have little or no share in the direction of the great moneyed corporations, and from their habits and the nature of their pursuits they are incapable of forming extensive combinations to act together with united force. Such concert of action may sometimes be produced in a single city or in a small district of country by means of personal communications with each other, but they have no regular or active correspondence with those who are engaged in similar pursuits in distant places; they have but little patronage to give to the press, and exercise but a small share of influence over it; they have no crowd of dependents about them who hope to grow rich without labor by their countenance and favor, and who are therefore always ready to execute their wishes. The planter, the farmer, the mechanic, and the laborer all know that their success depends upon their own industry and economy, and that they must not expect to become suddenly rich by the fruits of their toil. Yet these classes of society form the great body of the people of the United States; they are the bone and sinew of the country--men who love liberty and desire nothing but equal rights and equal laws, and who, moreover, hold the great mass of our national wealth, although it is distributed in moderate amounts among the millions of freemen who possess it. But with overwhelming numbers and wealth on their side they are in constant danger of losing their fair influence in the Government, and with difficulty maintain their just rights against the incessant efforts daily made to encroach upon them. The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining in the different States, and which are employed altogether for their benefit; and unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations.

The paper-money system and its natural associations--monopoly and exclusive privileges--have already struck their roots too deep in the soil, and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil. The men who profit by the abuses and desire to perpetuate them will continue to besiege the halls of legislation in the General Government as well as in the States, and will seek by every artifice to mislead and deceive the public servants. It is to yourselves that you must look for safety and the means of guarding and perpetuating your free institutions. In your hands is rightfully placed the sovereignty of the country, and to you everyone placed in authority is ultimately responsible. It is always in your power to see that the wishes of the people are carried into faithful execution, and their will, when once made known, must sooner or later be obeyed; and while the people remain, as I trust they ever will, uncorrupted and incorruptible, and continue watchful and jealous of their rights, the Government is safe, and the cause of freedom will continue to triumph over all its enemies.

But it will require steady and persevering exertions on your part to rid yourselves of the iniquities and mischiefs of the paper system and to check the spirit of monopoly and other abuses which have sprung up with it, and of which it is the main support. So many interests are united to resist all reform on this subject that you must not hope the conflict will be a short one nor success easy. My humble efforts have not been spared during my administration of the Government to restore the constitutional currency of gold and silver, and something, I trust, has been done toward the accomplishment of this most desirable object; but enough yet remains to require all your energy and perseverance. The power, however, is in your hands, and the remedy must and will be applied if you determine upon it...."





jockum's picture
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 20 2008
Posts: 1
Re: Last honest President - Andrew Jackson's Farewell Address

John Hanson,

US first president. 

Under the first constitution.

krogoth's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 576
Re: Honest, decent President of the United States??? Hmmmm...
Barry Goldwater was awesome, and was too advanced for his time. I have read quite a bit about him.
krogoth's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 576
Re: Last honest President - Andrew Jackson's Farewell Address

Just awesome posts everyone, really good comments! OK I am stuck between Andrew Jackson and Jimmy Carter. My belief is generally anyone who rocks the boat too much from the norm will be taken out or made a fool of. Carter was made a fool of.

I believe we are quite firmly stuck in a system that is so corrupt and greedy, that if we all knew the truth we would riot.

I respect Jimmy Carter because I can't ignore his humanitarian efforts, world policy (doing practically the impossible sometimes) and his continued work to help communities as well as nations. He was more honest than any other president in recent history, and that was his downfall. I think a lot of the issues with Carter listed in another post here had to do with that he simply trusted in a common human decency across the world similar to his good old boy Southern upbringing, and the world does not work like that. He was never hard enough.

I think a good president is one who can be both. Hard as necessary (Truman) and a humanitarian as well. Of course Harry Truman had a pit-bull called Douglas MacArthur, who at one time wanted to nuke half the world.

The truth is usually not popular, and most Americans don't care for the truth. They would rather have the rose colored glasses on and are only concerned with what directly effects them now, and not in the future. It's very short sighted.

As for Andrew Jackson, wow, what can I say about such an honest president who wrote about conditions at the time, and was practically predicting our future. Just a great, great president.

Also, it was mentioned that enough is not taught about Jackson, and that is correct because they don't want to teach about someone who wrote so truthfully about the economy at the time, or the future based on the conditions he faced. The government would rather avoid these teachings, so our generations now and coming will slowly forget these important people of our past, the true hero's.

The dumbing down continues, and now all we have for election choices is the same old record playing over and over, with the same old issues, and with candidates and VP choices that don't deserve to even tie the shoes of Andrew Jackson.

Ignorance is bliss- This should be the new American motto.












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