What would Andrew Jackson and Davey Crocket have to say?

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Came across some posts today in another forum that included some nice quotes from Andrew Jackson and Davey Crocket. I'd like to share them here as food for thought and discussion; as they are very relevant today.

Have we come a long way or gone a long way?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Matt Hawes on 10/17/08 source: campaignforliberty.com;

Andrew Jackson Comments on the Economic Crisis and Ending the Fed

Matt Hawes: Well, not quite, but the warnings against the paper money system made in his 1837 farewell address can be directly transferred to our day.

"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 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."

Matt Hawes: An ominous task nowadays to be sure, but one which Jackson was confident the people could win if they stuck at it.

"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."

(Source for Jackson's Address: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=67087)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Davy Crocket...NOT YOURS TO GIVE...regarding Bailouts in the early 1800's
source: http://www.constitutionparty.com/doc...ett_CPweb_.pdf

Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet.

“Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes.

The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he had spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:

Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, “I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again.”

Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, “You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions.”

“I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”

“The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People.”

“I could not answer him,” said Crockett. “I was so fully convinced that he was right.” I said to him, “Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.”

After finishing the story, Crockett said, “Now sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And one more Thomas Jefferson quote:

"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."

 
You gotta love Andy Jackson. His greatest accomplishment, carved onto his tombstone reads: "I Killed The Bank!"

On his fucking tombstone!
 
[quote name='evanft']They'd probably tell you to stop posting.[/QUOTE]

Did you have something constructive to object to in the content of the post or did you just want to post a troll remark to cover for the fact that it was too long for your ADD tolerances?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Did you have something constructive to object to in the content of the post or did you just want to post a troll remark to cover for the fact that it was too long for your ADD tolerances?[/quote]

:whistle2:?

Humor me, thrustbucket. How is evanft's remark any worse than your constant antagonization of posters in other 'PoliCAG' threads?
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']:whistle2:?

Humor me, thrustbucket. How is evanft's remark any worse than your constant antagonization of posters in other 'PoliCAG' threads?[/QUOTE]

let this be the first, and last, time we ever use the term "PoliCAG" ;)
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']:whistle2:?

Humor me, thrustbucket. How is evanft's remark any worse than your constant antagonization of posters in other 'PoliCAG' threads?[/QUOTE]

Find me a quote of me making antagonizing remarks about anyone's post without also attempting to directly address the issues brought up in the post, except towards msut77 (an exception I'll admit to since it's too tempting to lower to his level in responses).

You may not like my posts, or disagree with them, but at least they are more substantive than the equivalent of walking into a room, flashing someone my balls tied up with elastic, and walking off.
 
You're missing the point entirely but I guess I'll play along.

The Palin/Biden debate thread is a pretty good one. You waltzed into the thread and loudly proclaimed you hadn't read the thread or watched the full debate yet started slinging shit. Substantive or not it was needless, childish provocation.

Here's a fine example of you needlessly derailing a thread in order to express your distaste with California. Talk about substance. Looks like rain!

I'm not going to fuel your ego by searching through your post history any more but you're kidding yourself if you think you're not a incessant troll. Just because you brush upon an OP before derailing a thread or needlessly blending completely unrelated nonsense into a thread doesn't make you any better than evanft.
 
OT but I do not rag on thrust for his trolling but for his ignorant BS.

He must be delusional if he thinks his posts are "substantial".
 
Based on the information provided in the opening post, I think it's pretty obvious what Crockett and Jackson would have to say about the Banker Takeover Bill, the privately held Federal Reserve, and the bought off Congress.

I remember learning about folks like Crockett and Jackson in high school history class, but i just wish our teacher had done a better job in showing our class how to connect the dots between the events from the past and what's going on today.

Our teacher, like most teachers i've had, was an asshole who looked down on his students. And on top of that, it was one of those Honors/AP History courses, not one of those boom-boom remedial classes taught on the outskirts of the campus in a portable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cochesecochese']You're missing the point entirely but I guess I'll play along.

The Palin/Biden debate thread is a pretty good one. You waltzed into the thread and loudly proclaimed you hadn't read the thread or watched the full debate yet started slinging shit. Substantive or not it was needless, childish provocation.

Here's a fine example of you needlessly derailing a thread in order to express your distaste with California. Talk about substance. Looks like rain!

I'm not going to fuel your ego by searching through your post history any more but you're kidding yourself if you think you're not a incessant troll. Just because you brush upon an OP before derailing a thread or needlessly blending completely unrelated nonsense into a thread doesn't make you any better than evanft.[/QUOTE]

Well thanks for taking the time to find those examples. But my "ego" still insists that you failed at providing examples as equally unsabstantive and trolling as evanft's above.

To take it even further, my OP is in no way flame bait of any kind. It's just quotes. Which makes trolling it even more ridiculous.

No other regular poster here is any different. You just happen to agree with them more, so you single me out. I would prefer that forum members with such a finicky palette and decidedly refined tastes such as yourself just put me on ignore instead of lamenting about the suffering my posts cause them.
 
Single you out? Don't flatter yourself. I call it as I see it.

You troll endlessly so you receive the same in return. You know damn well what you're doing and yet when you get called out on it you play the innocent victim. A touch of class.

Much as you'd love otherwise I can't be bothered to throw you on my ignore list. This is the internet, after all, and I really don't have enough heart and soul invested in it to get hurt or offended by peoples' posts.
 
bread's done
Back
Top