PDA

View Full Version : What The Founding Fathers Thought Re: Corporations



DiabloViejo
07-14-2012, 01:05 AM
What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
July 10, 2012
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/10/founding-fathers/

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/founding-fathers.178162122_std-300x225.jpg

Citizens United. This is the 2010 Supreme Court case that shocked America, influenced an election, and reversed over 100 years of campaign finance laws. In this case, corporations were declared as people and as such declared to have the same rights as people do. It also opened the doors for corporations to pour unprecedented amounts of campaign donations into elections, and what’s more, these donations can be totally secret. Corporations can now literally and legally buy elections and shape the government like never before in our nation’s history.

The economic world we live in today is dominated by corporations. Huge corporations that boast massive profits and span continents. But corporations also wield political power and are lobbying heavily to be free from any and all government regulations that would make them responsible and liable. Republicans have been defending corporations since the late 1800′s and have literally gone on a history revising crusade to show that even the founding fathers supported corporations. But is this the case? What did the founders really think about corporations?

The origin of modern corporations can be traced all the way back to 17th century England when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. At first, corporations were small, quasi government institutions that were chartered by the crown for a specific purpose. If corporations stepped out of line, the crown did not hesitate to revoke their charters. Corporations generated so much revenue that they even began taking on increased political power. Corporations were also organized to finance large projects such as exploration, which leads us to the American colonies.

To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.

But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founders supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America’s corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.

For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founders themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Jefferson wasn’t the only founding father to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.

“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.”

These statements make it pretty clear that corporations were not trusted by the founders. The founders knew that huge corporations only preyed upon the people. But as the founding generation began to fade away, corporations began using their power to gain political favor and eventually that political favor would turn into political power. And corporations would take advantage of a war to do it. As the Civil War raged across the land, corporations made an effort to take advantage of the situation, selling products at high prices, especially to the government. Corporations even sold to both sides throughout the war. Basically, corporations proved even then that they had no allegiance to any country when great profits were at stake. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”

And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s suspicions were anything but groundless. They were in fact, prophetic. After the Civil War, corporations began aligning themselves with Republican politicians, who proved themselves to be up to the task of helping corporations gain more power. Corporations had free reign and total power over its workforce and could sell virtually anything they wanted even if the product was a bad one. Corporations treated workers like slaves. Wages were extremely low. Workers received no benefits, no vacation days, no health insurance, no workers compensation. President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”

To put it bluntly, corporations didn’t care about its workers or the people who bought their products. The only rule of the game was to make as much profit as possible, no matter what. As the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, corporations were getting bigger and bigger. Many began buying up smaller companies, becoming monopolies that controlled whole industries. This practice eliminated competition and as a result, prices had skyrocketed and no one could challenge them. That was, until Theodore Roosevelt became the President. Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,

“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

To that end he fought for corporate regulation, he fought for fair wages for workers, he fought for safe and healthy work environments, and he fought to protect consumers. And the people loved him for it. Roosevelt’s policies toward corporations were immensely popular. He busted up so many giant corporations that he became known as a “trust buster”. The busting up of these corporations created a lot more competition for customers and for employees, resulting in higher wages and lower prices and more jobs. And you know what? Corporate profits did just fine.

Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,

“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”

Roosevelt didn’t win the presidency in 1912, although he most certainly would have if the Republican ticket hadn’t been split. But Woodrow Wilson would continue the fight for workers and consumers. As America entered the 1920′s, corporations began to gain political favors once again as business minded Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Regulations were being stripped away and banks as large entities were on the rise. These banks and corporations abused the stock market which would lead to the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. Corporate profits had surged throughout the decade and unfair speculation had caused economic bubbles that had to burst.
Corporate bosses also flexed their muscles over America’s legal system, spending great deals of money to get away with nearly anything. In a statement of sarcasm that speaks to this despicable practice, Senator George Norris, after an industrialist was acquitted of charges of corruption, said that “We ought to pass a law that no man worth $100,000,000 should be tried for a crime.”

The Franklin Roosevelt era would bring new calls for corporate regulation and corporate tax hikes. These new regulations once again kept corporations honest and protected consumers. Workers also benefited from these new regulations, getting fair wages, pensions, and safe working conditions. Corporations were taxed at a rate of 91% and even with all of that, corporations still made huge profits. Life changed dramatically for the middle class. People had jobs with livable wages and promise for the future. Corporations once again served a purpose as consumers were treated fairly and the economy soared. Unemployment was also very low. But these trends did not last long as corporate greed would once again fuel another grab for political power. Corporations began aligning themselves more and more with the Republican Party, and as this relationship grew, corporations found a way to make record profits. Throughout the 1980′s up to today, corporations have outsourced millions of American jobs to cheap labor overseas. As a result of this, corporate profits have broke record after record, while the unemployment rate has jumped higher and higher. Corporate tax rates began getting lower and lower, while more tax loopholes were created to help corporations evade most of them altogether. When the Republican Party took control of government in 2001, they went on a crusade on behalf of corporations (how could they refuse, they were on the payroll), to blame workers for economic downturns and outsourcing. Corporations also decided to take advantage of a national tragedy. After 9/11, there was an understandable push to go to war against terrorists hiding in Afghanistan. But corporations, as in other times of war and tragedy, began pushing for a war against Iraq. And they got their wish. Corporations have since made billions in war profits off of the War in Iraq and have proven once again that profit is far more important than the lives of soldiers. Lincoln was right. This is yet another reason why corporations need to be put in their place. As Henry Ford once said, “Do you want to know the cause of war? It is capitalism, greed, the dirty hunger for dollars. Take away the capitalist and you will sweep war from the earth.”

Republicans are now on the verge of stripping away all corporate regulations and worker’s rights. But it was the 2010 Citizens United decision that really made corporations into political powers. Not only were corporations declared to be people but corporations also now have the power to buy elections at will. The problem with this Supreme Court decision is that it goes against everything the founding fathers believed in. In the Constitution, it says “We the people…”, not “We the corporations…”. The founding fathers never addressed corporations in the Constitution because it never occurred to them that corporations would be perceived as people. And why would they have? Corporations don’t eat, they don’t breathe, they don’t vote, they don’t fight battles in wars. Remember all the limitations the founders placed on corporations mentioned earlier? In the Constitution, the founders speak only of the people. The founders did not limit lifetimes of people, nor did they outlaw a persons right to donate to political campaigns. They also did not limit people to specific life goals like they did with corporations. This should make it absolutely clear that the founders never intended for corporations to be people. The decision by the clearly activist, conservative majority of the court is an abomination that can never be Constitutionally justified. Now it is our duty to call on Congress to bring forward a Constitutional Amendment that bans corporate personhood and bans corporations from interfering with government and legal elections that only real people have the right to donate to and vote in. Because whatever these greedy, arrogant CEO’s and Republicans think, its the opinion of the founding generation that matters most. Corporations are not people. People are people.

These statements make it pretty clear that corporations were not trusted by the founders. The founders knew that huge corporations only preyed upon the people. But as the founding generation began to fade away, corporations began using their power to gain political favor and eventually that political favor would turn into political power. And corporations would take advantage of a war to do it. As the Civil War raged across the land, corporations made an effort to take advantage of the situation, selling products at high prices, especially to the government. Corporations even sold to both sides throughout the war.

Basically, corporations proved even then that they had no allegiance to any country when great profits were at stake. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”

And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s suspicions were anything but groundless. They were in fact, prophetic. After the Civil War, corporations began aligning themselves with Republican politicians, who proved themselves to be up to the task of helping corporations gain more power. Corporations had free reign and total power over its workforce and could sell virtually anything they wanted even if the product was a bad one. Corporations treated workers like slaves. Wages were extremely low. Workers received no benefits, no vacation days, no health insurance, no workers compensation. President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”

To put it bluntly, corporations didn’t care about its workers or the people who bought their products. The only rule of the game was to make as much profit as possible, no matter what. As the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, corporations were getting bigger and bigger. Many began buying up smaller companies, becoming monopolies that controlled whole industries. This practice eliminated competition and as a result, prices had skyrocketed and no one could challenge them. That was, until Theodore Roosevelt became the President. Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,

“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

To that end he fought for corporate regulation, he fought for fair wages for workers, he fought for safe and healthy work environments, and he fought to protect consumers. And the people loved him for it. Roosevelt’s policies toward corporations were immensely popular. He busted up so many giant corporations that he became known as a “trust buster”. The busting up of these corporations created a lot more competition for customers and for employees, resulting in higher wages and lower prices and more jobs. And you know what? Corporate profits did just fine.

Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,

“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”

Roosevelt didn’t win the presidency in 1912, although he most certainly would have if the Republican ticket hadn’t been split. But Woodrow Wilson would continue the fight for workers and consumers. As America entered the 1920′s, corporations began to gain political favors once again as business minded Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Regulations were being stripped away and banks as large entities were on the rise. These banks and corporations abused the stock market which would lead to the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. Corporate profits had surged throughout the decade and unfair speculation had caused economic bubbles that had to burst.

Corporate bosses also flexed their muscles over America’s legal system, spending great deals of money to get away with nearly anything. In a statement of sarcasm that speaks to this despicable practice, Senator George Norris, after an industrialist was acquitted of charges of corruption, said that “We ought to pass a law that no man worth $100,000,000 should be tried for a crime.”

The Franklin Roosevelt era would bring new calls for corporate regulation and corporate tax hikes. These new regulations once again kept corporations honest and protected consumers. Workers also benefited from these new regulations, getting fair wages, pensions, and safe working conditions. Corporations were taxed at a rate of 91% and even with all of that, corporations still made huge profits. Life changed dramatically for the middle class. People had jobs with livable wages and promise for the future. Corporations once again served a purpose as consumers were treated fairly and the economy soared. Unemployment was also very low. But these trends did not last long as corporate greed would once again fuel another grab for political power. Corporations began aligning themselves more and more with the Republican Party, and as this relationship grew, corporations found a way to make record profits. Throughout the 1980′s up to today, corporations have outsourced millions of American jobs to cheap labor overseas. As a result of this, corporate profits have broke record after record, while the unemployment rate has jumped higher and higher. Corporate tax rates began getting lower and lower, while more tax loopholes were created to help corporations evade most of them altogether. When the Republican Party took control of government in 2001, they went on a crusade on behalf of corporations (how could they refuse, they were on the payroll), to blame workers for economic downturns and outsourcing. Corporations also decided to take advantage of a national tragedy. After 9/11, there was an understandable push to go to war against terrorists hiding in Afghanistan. But corporations, as in other times of war and tragedy, began pushing for a war against Iraq. And they got their wish. Corporations have since made billions in war profits off of the War in Iraq and have proven once again that profit is far more important than the lives of soldiers. Lincoln was right. This is yet another reason why corporations need to be put in their place. As Henry Ford once said, “Do you want to know the cause of war? It is capitalism, greed, the dirty hunger for dollars. Take away the capitalist and you will sweep war from the earth.”

Republicans are now on the verge of stripping away all corporate regulations and worker’s rights. But it was the 2010 Citizens United decision that really made corporations into political powers. Not only were corporations declared to be people but corporations also now have the power to buy elections at will. The problem with this Supreme Court decision is that it goes against everything the founding fathers believed in. In the Constitution, it says “We the people…”, not “We the corporations…”. The founding fathers never addressed corporations in the Constitution because it never occurred to them that corporations would be perceived as people. And why would they have? Corporations don’t eat, they don’t breathe, they don’t vote, they don’t fight battles in wars. Remember all the limitations the founders placed on corporations mentioned earlier? In the Constitution, the founders speak only of the people. The founders did not limit lifetimes of people, nor did they outlaw a persons right to donate to political campaigns. They also did not limit people to specific life goals like they did with corporations. This should make it absolutely clear that the founders never intended for corporations to be people. The decision by the clearly activist, conservative majority of the court is an abomination that can never be Constitutionally justified. Now it is our duty to call on Congress to bring forward a Constitutional Amendment that bans corporate personhood and bans corporations from interfering with government and legal elections that only real people have the right to donate to and vote in. Because whatever these greedy, arrogant CEO’s and Republicans think, its the opinion of the founding generation that matters most. <span style="color: #CC0000">Corporations are not people. People are people.</span>

LWW
07-14-2012, 03:54 AM
You poor thing.

What they were condemning was the existence of a central bank ... such a that established by the demokrooks roughly one century ago.

It has in fact been shon to bea true po upon the nation ... and an entity the left is determined to defend.

LWW
07-14-2012, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816, </div></div>

ACTUALLY (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp) he said no such thing.

This article is yet another example of a moonbat crazy leftist rewriting history through a series of misquotes, out of context statements, misdirections, deceit and outright lies in order to pimp you with the lie that you want to here.

That you so slavishly accept the party mythology only confirm everything I have said about dembots.

What leftist myth would you next like to see me slay on the blade of truth?

LWW
07-14-2012, 04:25 AM
DRIVING A STAKE IN THE HEART OF YOUR MYTH ... (http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/will/text.html) we find tat General Washington so hated banks and corporations that he disbursed his bank stock, and other stock, holdings in his will.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Item. To the Trustees (&lt;Go&gt;vernors, or by whatsoever other name they may be designated) of the Academy in the Town of Alexandria, I give and bequeath, in Trust, four thousand dollars, or in other words twenty of the shares which I hold in the Bank of Alexandria/quote]

[quote]Item I give and bequeath in perpetuity the fifty shares which I hold in the Potomac Company </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Item The hundred shares which I held in the James River Company, I have given, and now confirm in perpetuity to</div></div>

LWW
07-14-2012, 04:38 AM
As the Third Reich's proagandsts said, the best lie must contain single kernel lf irrefutable truth.

From your link:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The origin of modern corporations can be traced all the way back to 17th century England when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. At first, corporations were small, quasi government institutions that were chartered by the crown for a specific purpose. If corporations stepped out of line, the crown did not hesitate to revoke their charters. Corporations generated so much revenue that they even began taking on increased political power. Corporations were also organized to finance large projects such as exploration, which leads us to the American colonies.

To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founders and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.</div></div>

So, what do we learn from this.

Not that the founders objected to corporations, but tat they objectedvto fascism such as state controlled corpratios.

Now, fast forward to the present ... and who is it that demands and defends state controlled corporations.

What's that? The Obama regime and their mindless followers? Obviously.

And who opposes such economic fascism?

What's that? The tea party type libertarians? Obviously.

Soflasnapper
07-14-2012, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816, </div></div>

ACTUALLY (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp) he said no such thing.

This article is yet another example of a moonbat crazy leftist rewriting history through a series of misquotes, out of context statements, misdirections, deceit and outright lies in order to pimp you with the lie that you want to here.

That you so slavishly accept the party mythology only confirm everything I have said about dembots.

What leftist myth would you next like to see me slay on the blade of truth? </div></div>

Yes, that ONE quote is apocryphal.

The rest of the quotes are real, though.

Including what came immediately after your cropping of that one false quotation:

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

As he said THIS, it shows what he thought of the Money Power in all its forms, not just banking.

Your claims of a SERIES of misquote<u>s</u>, out of context statement<u>S</u>, misdirection<u>S</u>, ... <u>lieS</u>, etc., is lacking in even a second example to be the plural number you claim. Got another one, or do you admit the rest are real?

You have hardly made a dent in the piece by showing one quote is spurious.

And your distinction between corporations or the wealthy in general, and the banks?

Irrelevant. It was understood that the Money Power not only was deeply involved in banking, but all other corporate activities, since they were they people with large wealth. And it went the other way, as when titanic extractive industrialist John D. Rockefeller married his family into City National Bank, mainly used that bank for his oil business profits' deposits, and put the Rockefellers squarely in the banking business along with their oil concerns.

LWW
07-14-2012, 04:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816, </div></div>

ACTUALLY (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp) he said no such thing.

This article is yet another example of a moonbat crazy leftist rewriting history through a series of misquotes, out of context statements, misdirections, deceit and outright lies in order to pimp you with the lie that you want to here.

That you so slavishly accept the party mythology only confirm everything I have said about dembots.

What leftist myth would you next like to see me slay on the blade of truth? </div></div>

Yes, that ONE quote is apocryphal.

The rest of the quotes are real, though.

Including what came immediately after your cropping of that one false quotation:

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the <span style='font-size: 17pt'>aristocracy</span> of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” ...</div></div>

From Wiki:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos "excellent," and κράτος kratos "power"), is a form of government in which a few elite citizens rule.[</div></div>

So, as I explaied clearly, the linked article was in fact showing tht the founders opposed economic fascism nd not capitalism.

That the two f you support Obamanomics ... which isbeconomic fascism behind some smoe ad mirrors ... shows that you are either deceitful or clueless.

I'll let you each decide which title you prefer.

Soflasnapper
07-14-2012, 04:58 PM
Your inaccurate historical comments omit that the FFs were afraid that PEOPLE WITH BIG MONEY, whether in corporations or not, would set themselves against the government and the interests of the people, for their private gain.

TJ said it was already starting to happen in 1816, within the lifetime of some of the FFs, about a generation after the federal government was formed by the COTUS.

It's true, they could do so by buying the government for themselves. It's equally true that they could do it simply by crippling the government, to allow them to work their will outside the governmental structure, by weakening the restraints government would otherwise impose.

The dominant underlying dynamic of the right in this country today is to allow corporations to run amok, under the banner of personal freedom (and corporations are people, too, my friend!).

For them, limited (and small enough to drown in a bathtub) government is the means that allows the result of corporate malfeasance to attain higher profits by harming the public good.

Qtec
07-15-2012, 02:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, as I explaied clearly, the linked article was in fact showing tht the founders opposed economic fascism nd not capitalism. </div></div>

Don't you read the news? There is no free market and no real capitalism. The market is rigged, the interest rates are fixed, energy prices are fixed, etc etc......

Q

LWW
07-15-2012, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your inaccurate historical comments omit that the FFs were afraid that PEOPLE WITH BIG MONEY, whether in corporations or not, would set themselves against the government and the interests of the people, for their private gain. </div></div>

It should be a crime to do what public education did to you.

The FF <span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>WERE THE PEOPLE WITH BIG MONEY</u> </span> ... the revolution was against a fascist system being imposed upon them from afar by acrapacious tate unaccountable to anyone ... much like thevsystem you adore today.

The truth s that you and your friends ere are nothing mre than modern day Torries ... willing and obedent serfs of the state, unwilling to risk the few scraps your king allows you to maintain, and afraid to stand up as free men.

Now ... ramble some more risibly false claims for me.

LWW
07-15-2012, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, as I explaied clearly, the linked article was in fact showing tht the founders opposed economic fascism nd not capitalism. </div></div>

Don't you read the news? There is no free market and no real capitalism. The market is rigged, the interest rates are fixed, energy prices are fixed, etc etc......

Q </div></div>

You are confusing then with now.

True, there is no true free maret today ... and, true, we have a fascist economy today.

The difference between us is that I oppose those imposing it pon us while you beg to kiss the state's ring.

Soflasnapper
07-15-2012, 01:30 PM
It should be a crime to do what public education did to you.

The FF WERE THE PEOPLE WITH BIG MONEY ... the revolution was against a fascist system being imposed upon them from afar by acrapacious tate unaccountable to anyone ... much like thevsystem you adore today.

I'm surprised you agree with the Marxist historian Charles Beard, who was the first to claim the American revolution was on behalf of the richest people in the country.

Really? What corporate holdings did any of the FFs have? Certainly they were not industrialists, and the wealthy among them chiefly had agricultural holdings and earnings from crops on their lands, as sole proprietors.

Ben Franklin was a publisher. Samuel Adams and friends were smugglers. What in the world are you talking about, if you know?

LWW
07-15-2012, 07:08 PM
I apologize that I am unable to dumb it don enough for this forum's cabal ... but understanding it all requires at least a ruimentary understanding of the isues.

That being said, I'll try one more time.

In the eighteenth century, British corporations were fascist entities. They operated under charter of the crown, and if they didn't do as they were told that chrter was pulled and a new puppet installed. Private citizens cound not found a coporation at will.

A classic exmple of this was the Massachusets Bay Company which rn a tract of land larger than present day Massachusetts.

The American version of a corporation was an entirely different animal due to the absence of the state running stooge corporations.

So, yes, they were anti coprtion as it had been practiced by the British. That desn't mean they were anti corporation as this hack piece claims ... it meant they favored citizens being able to pool capital, as many of the founders did, at will and being able to do so without the state dictating ad nauseum to them.

It's actually very easy to wrap your head around ... assuming you have the courage to do so.

If, OTOH, you prefer to believe junk hstory, so long as it fits the agenda, you have found the lie you were seeking.

Soflasnapper
07-16-2012, 10:21 AM
The states chartered corporations, for a definite period of time and for a definite stated purpose.

They couldn't do things other than the chartered purpose, and had to end what they were doing as of the end of the chartered time, unless they sought an extension.

So corporations had most limited scopes in this country early on, under state charter, and the wealthy plied their influence outside of corporate structures.

The FFs weren't much concerned with corporations doing harm, as they were in their infancy and well regulated here. They were concerned about the wealthy people and private interests set against the public good.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q: The corporations of the early days of the republic were very different beasts than those of today. They seem to have been creatures of government — or at least of politicians — right?

A: That's right. Americans inherited the legal form of the corporation from Britain, where it was bestowed as a royal privilege on certain institutions or, more often, used to organize municipal governments. Just after the Revolution, new state legislators had to decide what to do about these charters. They could abolish them entirely, or find a way to democratize them and make them compatible with the spirit of independence and the structure of the federal republic. They chose the latter. So the first American corporations end up being cities and schools, along with some charitable organizations.

We don't really begin to see economic enterprises chartered as corporations until the 1790s. Some are banks, others are companies that were going to build canals, turnpikes, and bridges — infrastructure projects that states did not have the money to build themselves. Citizens petitioned legislators for a corporate charter, and if a critical mass of political pressure could build in a capital, they got an act of incorporation. It specified their capitalization limitations, limited their lifespan, and dictated the boundaries of their operations and functions. </div></div>

From the Harvard Business Review, (http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/04/what-the-founding-fathers-real.html) from Brian Murphy, professor of history specializing in early America, from Baruch College in NY.

So ours, like Britain's, were formed by the state (here, the crown, there), and eventuated into state-granted monopoly concerns by the end of the 18th century.

LWW
07-16-2012, 10:35 AM
Much to my dismay, I can't dumb it down enough for you.

But, in a never ending attempt ... ALL private corporations are incorporated under the laws of te indiviual sates, and ALL of them are inporated for a specific purpose.

LWW
07-16-2012, 10:36 AM
Diablow ... tell us again about how the founders were proto-Marxists.

Soflasnapper
07-16-2012, 12:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much to my dismay, I can't dumb it down enough for you.

But, in a never ending attempt ... ALL private corporations are incorporated under the laws of te indiviual sates, and ALL of them are inporated for a specific purpose. </div></div>

They no longer require a specific state grant in the legislature. They used to. (Nowadays, anyone can incorporate for any reason by simply filing the paperwork.)

They no longer have an expiration date of their charter. They used to.

Their charters used to be revoked and the corporation dissolved if engaged in pursuits beyond their charters, or if having engaged in criminality. That is no longer the case, either.

They now commonly use a universal purpose clause in their foundational documents, which goes something like 'and all other legal activities they may choose to engage in.' And they never could have such a universal purpose before-- it was strictly limited.

They never were considered 'people' back in the day. They are now, under SCOTUS dicta that came about 100 years after the founding of this nation under the COTUS.

So, except for ALL THESE THINGS, exactly the same, as you mention, except for the specific purpose, if the 'any and all legal activities' clauses that are typically put in as the purpose.

LWW
07-17-2012, 03:14 AM
Might I suggest you actually try to LEARN (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-10/-fortune-500-of-1812-shows-u-s-banks-early-influence.html) something.

America was designed to be a nation where private capital could easily incorporate, allowing all to prosper ... as opposed to the Euro standard which maintained state control via a fascist economic system
.
Why do you support a fascist economic system?

Qtec
07-17-2012, 03:42 AM
Before you start lecturing, you might want to take a basic ENGLISH class.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">America was designed to be. </div></div>..is not a sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even by the remotest chance that it can be argued as a legitimate sentence, it doesn't make sense.


Q

LWW
07-17-2012, 05:11 AM
It would if you read it ... and possessed an above room temp IQ.

Soflasnapper
07-17-2012, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Might I suggest you actually try to LEARN (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-10/-fortune-500-of-1812-shows-u-s-banks-early-influence.html) something.

America was designed to be a nation where private capital could easily incorporate, allowing all to prosper ... as opposed to the Euro standard which maintained state control via a fascist economic system
.
Why do you support a fascist economic system? </div></div>

There was nothing easy about getting the state legislature to grant a corporate charter. It's cumbersome, and was only open to powerful financial groups or persons.

You are describing what happened a generation after the founding (1812), not the original design.

As fascism IS corporatism, according to no less an authority than Mussolini, your corporate paradise is the very fascist system you complain about me supposedly supporting (without evidence for that, I may add).

LWW
07-17-2012, 01:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As fascism IS corporatism, according to no less an authority than Mussolini, your corporate paradise is the very fascist system you complain about me supposedly supporting (. </div></div>

So, after years of arguing to the contrary, you run to Mussolini's definition of fascism being corporatism?

Well ... sadly you play from the weak hand again.

What Benito actually said was that fascism should actually be called corpoatism as it was the merger of state and corporate power.

The American corporate was never intendedto be fascst, while the royal Euro system was fascist from the start.

Words mean things.

Soflasnapper
07-17-2012, 05:10 PM
So, after years of arguing to the contrary, you run to Mussolini's definition of fascism being corporatism?


I've always AGREED with that definition, as I've seen others here also agree. You are more than slightly mistaken in your statement above.