[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
the middle; no matter who lost, they won, and lives were sacrificed on both sides.
The greed of the “English” financiers had brought on the American Revolution, and it was money
changers in other quarters who facilitated the financing. We see how the international money power
was expanded in the American Revolution. This is related not to disparage the American Colonists.
They were forced to revolt against the tyranny of “London” bankers. These facts are stated to show that
the greed of international money was rampant then, as now. They created the trouble between the
Colonies and the British Empire by their greed, and then profited from the trouble created.
The entire attempt to usurp the rights of the Colonists was laid along such lines as would serve the
banking interests, by at last bringing the Americans economically to their knees.
High prices were placed upon British manufactures sent to the Colonists, though there was “over-
production” at home. This drained the Colonists of the specie (coins) obtained by trade with other
nations. An embargo was laid upon commerce with other nations than England, which then made it
impossible for the Americans to obtain the specie with which to pay English manufacturers, who were
already by this time mere factory managers for the bankers, as many of our “princes of industry” are in
the present day. This forced American borrowing from the bank overseas, and the building up of bonds
and interest in acknowledgment thereof.
The money of the Colonial Governments was abolished by laws passed in violation of the American
charters by the English Parliament. The bankers did not even want the Colonists to be able to trade
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/coogan_g/coogan_11.html (5 of 35)5.4.2006 9:09:05
Gertrude Coogan, Money Creators, ch 11
among themselves without paying tribute across the Atlantic in interest on the promises of the Bank “of
England,” which they were thus forcing the Americans to borrow for home use in trading.
The Stamp Act of March 22, 1765, was not only taxation without representation, which the Colonists
could have borne with nothing but a loss of dignity; but its terms demanded that stamps must be paid
for in specie, which they did not have and were not allowed to obtain by trading with alien nations. The
trap was set so that they would have to borrow from the Bank “of England” at interest in order to pay
the tax. Do our school histories explain this ?
The objective was to force tribute by the Americans on the Bank “of England’s” ficticious and dishonest
money creations. Franklin shows how it required 20 years to corrupt sufficiently the House of
Commons to cause the passage of the laws desired by the Bank “of England,” which were a direct
usurpation of the rights granted by the Crown to the Colonial assemblies. Willing Kings had granted
those rights a hundred years before — several generations before the money creators usurped money
powers in England.
The first attempt to “slip over” a clause which would pave the way for later aggression, failed. This
failure made it necessary to change the complexion of the House of Commons. The House of Lords
was already on the side of the money creators, all the Lords being wealthy men, or having formerly
been wealthy but now indebted to the Bank “of England” for the maintenance of their own positions.
Franklin’s writings indicate the existence of corruption in the British Parliament :
To Joseph Galloway, Dated London, Feb. 17, 1768 :
“Mr. Beckford has brought in a bill for preventing bribery and corruption in elections, wherein was a
clause to oblige every member to swear, on his admission into the House, that he had not directly or
indirectly given any bribe to any elector; but this was so universally exclaimed against, as
answering no end but perjuring the members, that he has been obliged to withdraw that clause. It
was indeed a cruel contrivance of his, worse than the gunpowder plot; for that was only to blow the
Parliament up to heaven, this to sink them all down to ——. Mr. Thurlow opposed his bill by a long
speech. Beckford, in reply, gave a dry hit to the house, that is repeated everywhere. ‘The honorable
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]