skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Epochs of American History: Division and Reunion, 1829-1889 By Woodrow Wilson: 
I was just reading this section of Division and Reunion, which Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1892. I was researching for an article I'm writing for Suite101.com about some of the early legislation of the Wilson Administration, and what gets me is that, 115 years later, the complaints about central banking are exactly the same.
Don't believe me? Go ahead and see what Ron Paul has to say about the subject.
I think it's kind of funny, though, that most of his arguments are those that Wilson successfully debates in his book - chief among them, the constitutionality (is that a word, or did I just totally make that up?) of the Federal Reserve.
What should be noted when considering whether or not the Federal Reserve is constitutional is that George Washington himself weighed the matter, and consulted both Jefferson and Madison on the legality of it. Ultimately, he and Madison decided that the Constitution's wording that "all laws which should be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers;" allowed Congress sufficient room to grant a charter, thus creating a central bank.
In furtherance of that, the Supreme Court then ruled in 1819, in McCulloch vs. Maryland, that Congress chartering a national bank was constitutional.
I think Ron Paul also fails to consider that maybe the Federal Reserve isn't actually the problem - maybe the problem is in the specifics of it...or maybe the problem is in the business sector and how they handle their investing, or perhaps in non-centralized banks that don't know how to handle themselves.
When Andrew Jackson refused to grant the national banks' charters again and we returned to the period of no central banking, financial disaster after financial disaster occurred, which is what led Wilson back to the concept of central banking and the Federal Reserve.
Wilson's formative years were spent living in the post-Civil War South under a corrupt Federal government (Grant's Administration), with a nation where States printed their own money - money which might (or might not) be of use from one place to the next. Is it any wonder that he sought to standardize and centralize the currency, as he'd spent so much ink writing about, and that he sought to limit the powers of Congress while expanding the Executive powers?
This last is not necessarily an argument that the expansion of Executive powers is the way to go, merely a psychological insight into a complex man, who made lasting changes to our government.
Despite unceasing comparisons to FDR, I find that the Obamas remind me a lot more of the Kennedys than the Roosevelts. It's not that President Obama doesn't have his FDR-ish political traits, he does, but in terms of mainstream, pop culture marketing, I'm forcibly reminded of the Kennedys.
I have to confess, it creeps me out a little to walk through Wal-Mart and see a score of Obama books and memoriabilia staring me in the face. Although I've seen plenty of books about President Bush, I can't recall encountering a commemorative plate sporting his visage while walking through a megastore. Maybe that's just me...?
I think the key to this is 'pop culture'. I know it's not unusual for Franklin Mint-style items to be issued and sold during a presidency - coins, plates, etc. In fact, I imagine there must be an enthusiastic market for them (says the girl who owns enough Woodrow Wilson and FDR goods to sink a small tanker), but I think this kind of mass-marketing issuance is comparitively rare.
When I was a teenager, I was helping my step-dad with something out in our garage and we somehow came upon a JFK coloring book of his, which fascinated me. I couldn't recall ever seeing or owning a Ronald Reagan coloring book, not George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton, either. What was so special about JFK that he rated a kids' coloring book and Reagan memorbilia extended mostly to the usual Halloween mask, or Christmas ornament, or the occasional trading card? By contrast, Kennedy had a couple sets of trading cards devoted to him, not to mention the faboo coloring book.
There is a popular perception of the Obamas as glamorous and elegant, and I think it's that perception which gives them their pop culture success, a la the Camelot era Kennedys. They're young, well-to-do, hip and stylish: Barack uses Twitter, Michelle was on The View.
This is not to say that the Roosevelts didn't have their own brand of mainstream fame - the public reveled in their private lives as much as the public revels in the private lives of any of today's big stars, but I really think that, for the Obamas, the tone of that public infatuation is closer to the Kennedys.
I know, I know...this one is probably too short, but it really drives me crazy when Conservatives do this crap. Take a moment (if you can stomach it) and go read this in another window. Go ahead, I'll wait: Liberty and Tyranny II, by Mike Adams.
OK, now what's wrong with this picture? It's pretty easy, and I can tell you right away - yes, FDR raised income taxes A LOT, but who ended up paying out most of it? The very wealthy. Your Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers...and your Roosevelts.
It's funny, FDR's own adoring mother was so aghast by some of his policies that even she refused to pay out, like with Social Security, for instance. When alerted by his offices that Sara Delano Roosevelt wasn't paying her share of SS, FDR just smiled, told them not to bother her, and he paid everything she back-owed, and then went on paying his own dues, too. But that's just the kind of person he was: very sunny and laid-back, and he liked to share things...including his own wealth.
Now keep in mind I'm not saying that the Fed is perfect and couldn't use a review and an overhaul...it totally could. I just wanted to point out that it isn't necessary to hate it with the blind and mistrustful loathing the general public seems to have for it.Four reasons to support the Federal Reserve System: 1) Despite people's fears and misgivings, the Federal Reserve Bank is not a completely independent entity. It is still responsible to Congress, so even though it's 'private', it's only partially private. Congress writes all its rules, so to speak, and the Senate approves all heads of the Fed. 2) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1907? The very basics: the Panic was caused by a lot of brand new businesses popping up (think 'dot.com bubble' and the internet) to take advantage of the blossoming railroad industry: everyone was looking to make their dime. This put a strain on the economy and caused corrupt behavior, such as people buying shares of their own stock to boost prices. That, in turn, led to bank failures - where people pulled out more money than banks had. 3) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1893? Basically, a drop in gold, which backed currency at that time, and mishandling of silver, set off an economic depression. That caused people to panic and try to withdraw more money than what the banks had on hand. Between the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, these sorts of failures have not happened again. 4) There were, quite literally, THOUSANDS of different types of currencies during the 'free banking era', which everyone here seems to want to return to. These were state run banks and free banks, and often, money that was good in one state was worthless in another. In this day and age of frequent and far-reaching travel, would you really want your New York currency to be worthless in Florida...and on the gold standard when your bank is on the silver standard?I repeat - this is not a praise of the Federal Reserve System. The current set-up has a lot of problems and could use a good tweaking. This entry is just meant to be food for thought on a subject that takes a lot of hard (and sometimes unnecessary) hits. Considering that the Fed doesn't even have a full 100 years under its belt yet, it's not doing as badly as it might.
As for President Wilson's mandating it into existence, I know a lot of average Joes really hate him for it, but given the circumstances in the 30 years preceding the Federal Reserve Act, I can't say that I blame him for at least giving it a try.
