Chapter 7: The Banker’s War on America & the Original 13th Amendment

    Attempts had been made by the bankers to bring a central bank into America since the earliest time. The first central bank in America was not the Federal Reserve in 1913 but the Bank of North America in 1781. This was officially America’s first IPO, or Initial Public Offering. This was followed by the Bank of the United States, in 1791-1811. The bank was given a twenty-year charter. Alexander Hamilton was a large proponent of this bank with the idea in mind to use the Bank to alleviate the debts of the several states incurred by the Revolution. The theory that Hamilton married into the Rothschild’s family has no basis in fact though in all likelihood, the Rothschilds did have a financial interest in the Bank of the United States since close to seventy percent was owned by foreigners and Great Britain was a primary investor. (1) Add to this that Nathan Rothschild became a freemason of the Emulation Lodge, No. 12, of the Premier Grand Lodge of England on 24 October 1802, in London. We still do not have a working Rothschild conspiracy as far as the banking system in America. As far as I have been able to tell, the Rothschild’s banking conspiracy is actually a Jewish Banking Conspiracy theory promulgated by the English Freemasons, to shift the focus away from their own dirty dealings.
    In 1811, when the Bank’s charter came up for renewal, the state banks fought against it and the bank of the United States went out of business. The reasons given were the disastrous effects on the economy resulting from a bank panic in 1811. United States Senator Benton, in a speech in the Senate made the following statement: “All of the machinery of alarm and distress was in as full activity at the time as at present, and with the same identical effect – town meetings, memorials, resolutions, deputations to congress, alarming speeches in congress. The price of all property was shown to be depressed. Hemp sunk in Philadelphia from $350 to $250 per ton; flour sunk from $11.00 a barrel to $7.75; all real estate fell thirty percent; five hundred houses were suspended in their erection; the rent of money rose to one and a half per month on the best paper; confidence destroyed; manufactories stopped; workmen dismissed and the ruin of the country confidently predicted.” (2)

   Following the failure to renew the banks charter, the War of 1812 broke out.
   In a letter dated Sept. 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:
   “The question will be asked, and ought to be looked at. What is to be the course if loans cannot be obtained?” There is but one – “Carthago delenda est.” Bank paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs. It is the only fund on which they can rely for loans; it is the only resource which can never fail them, and it is an abundant one for every necessary purpose. Treasury bills, bottomed on taxes, bearing or not bearing interest, as may be found necessary, thrown into circulation will take the place of so much gold and silver, which last, when crowded, will find an efflux into other countries, and thus keep the quantum of medium at its salutary level. Let the banks continue, if they please, but let them discount for cash alone or for treasury notes.” (3)
    Then on March 2, 1815, Jefferson had written another letter to a celebrated French author, in which he states: “The government is now issuing treasury notes for circulation, bottomed on solid funds and bearing interest. The banking confederacy (and the merchants bound to them by their debts) will endeavor to crush the credit of these notes; but the country is eager for them as something they can trust to, and so soon as a convenient quantity of them can get into circulation the bank notes die.” (4)
    On Jan 13, 1816, a celebrated English writer and economist by the name of William Cobbett, addressed a letter to Mr. Dallas, Secretary of the treasury under President Madison, in which he warned about the influence of the Bank of England:
    “The fact is, that the Bank of England, by means of its power of granting or withholding discounts, has been, and is one of the most potent instruments of political corruption, on the one hand, and of political vengeance on the other hand.” (5)

(1) Dr. Thayer Watkins of San Jose State University –
(2) The Coming Battle: A Complete History of the National Banking Power in the United States, M.W. Walbert, Chicago, W.B. Conkey Company, 1899, p. 5
(3) ibid, p. 7
(4) Coming Battle p. 6
(5) ibid, p. 9

    In a letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
    “The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions which, if not covered; will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. Funding I consider as limited rightfully to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally by the laws of the Creator of the world to the free possession of the earth He made for their subsistence unencumbered by their predecessors. And I sincerely believe with you that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” (6)

    Now, it should be realized that the Constitution prohibited standing armies in peacetime, so for Jefferson to compare the banks to standing armies is highly significant here.
    In 1816 another twenty-year charter was granted, this time to the United States Bank and designated it to be the Treasury Department of the government by receiving and disbursing the public revenues of the nation. (7)
    In 1828, Andrew Jackson was elected President and in his first annual message to Congress on Dec. 8, 1829, he announced that he was opposed to the bank and would not renew its charter. But by this time, the nation he become so indebted to the banks that many of the debtor citizens were pleading to renew the charter to save their struggling businesses. At the same time, through its own channels the bank was threatening to case a panic like the one which occurred in 1811. The bank went so far as to compel its borrowers to sign distress petitions to the President requesting that he renew the charter.

    In a message to congress, President Jackson, speaking of the banking power said:
    “In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented, whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages, or whether the power and money of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions.”
    According to M. W. Walbert in his book from 1899, titled The Coming Battle: A Complete History of the National Banking Power in the United States:
    “When the bank ascertained beyond any doubt that President Jackson was firmly opposed to its further continuance, it began calling in its loans rapidly, the volume of currency was contracted greatly by the bank and its branches, merchants were mercilessly driven to the wall, mills and factories closed down everywhere, and tens of thousands of skilled workmen were thrown out of employment, and their families felt the pangs of hunger, notwithstanding there was abundance in the country.” (8)
    On July 10, 1832, Jackson vetoed the bill with good reason. Following pressure from select members of Congress who sought to protect the banks the President did the reverse and Jackson ordered an investigation into the bank’s assets and expenditures, which was subsequently denied, the President ordered the deposits of the bank to be placed in the state banks which upset members of the bank party in Congress. The bankers at this time were still in power due to the loans that they were still holding on the American people and businesses and were able to successfully lobby congress, some of whom themselves were beholden to loans from the central bank. (9)
    In 1841, the bank again failed to obtain its charter. An investigation into its management during 1830-1836, instituted by the stockholders unveiled a large amount of corruption. It was discovered that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by the bank President Biddle, in influencing elections, subsidizing the press, and bribing members of Congress. Loans in excess of 30 million had been made by the bank to members of Congress, editors of newspapers, politicians, mostly without any security.

(6) ibid, p. 6
(7) ibid,p. 9
(8) Coming Battle p. 15
(9) ibid, p. 16-22

    When President Jackson left office, on March 3, 1837, he made a very powerful speech. I reproduce the majority of it here due to its extreme importance and relevance to our situation in America both then and now: 
    “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.”
    In 1836, Martin Van Buren became President and the Independent Treasury Bill became law, sealing for a time, the separation of the banks and the Congress. We will explore the original 13th Amendment now and then return to the banking takeover afterwards.

The Original 13th Amendment

     I give credit for this next section to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Barefoot Bob, for doing the research and making it available around 1993-97.
    As we have been able to see, Great Britain attempted to retain America as a colony after the Revolutionary War and on into the early constitutional period. But what happened right after this was an even bigger conspiracy. In an upcoming chapter, I will get a little bit more into the lawyers and judges, but I will begin to touch on it here because of the timeline of the book and the importance of this mostly unknown topic. “The Original 13th Amendment” — Everyone is familiar with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which prohibits slavery. In case you’re not familiar with this Amendment, it reads as follows:
    “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
     Now, what if that wasn’t the “real” 13th Amendment? How would we know and how could we prove it? Here is the text from Barefoot Bob:
     “In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a Thirteenth Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized that the principal intent of this ‘missing’ Thirteenth Amendment was to prohibit attorneys of the Bar Associations from serving in government as an ‘elite’ class, i.e., lawyers holding membership in a society with a charter that creates special privileges for them. The Founders’ experience was that such men always have divided loyalties and a conflict of interest.

    “What is interesting is that there is this same prohibition in the original Articles of Confederation. Perhaps that is the real reason for scrapping them, as well. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the ‘missing’ Thirteenth Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing Thirteenth Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a Thirteenth Amendment restricting attorneys at the Bar from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the law today. The implications are enormous.”

     Here is the text of the Original 13th Amendment:    
    “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”  
     ‘Titles of nobility’ were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777-1781) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional ‘title of nobility’ amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in ‘titles of nobility’ and ‘honors’ that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited ‘titles of nobility’ several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though ‘titles of nobility’ were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.

 Con’t: “Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as ‘legitimate businessmen.’ As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them ‘titles of nobility.’ Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as ‘Squires’ and to those who bore the knight’s shields as ‘Esquires.’ As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was ‘Esquire’ (used, even today, by some lawyers).”
    “In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no ‘title of nobility’ or ‘honor.’  There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen’s ‘counsel of choice’ was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations.  The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank ‘Esquire’ — a ‘title of nobility.’  ‘Esquire’ was the principle title of nobility which the Thirteenth Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? This is because the loyalty of ‘Esquire’ lawyers was suspect.  Bankers and lawyers with an ‘Esquire’ behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
     “Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a

‘title of nobility’ amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.”
    In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights.  The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a ‘title of Nobility’ (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn’t passed, this was the first time a ‘title of nobility’ amendment was proposed.

     “Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another ‘Title of Nobility’ Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this Thirteenth Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification:

     “If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

     “The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the ‘Title of Nobility’ Amendment in 1810, there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification:  Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811; Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812; New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812; Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. 

Con’t – “By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed ‘title of nobility’ amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

     “Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature’s position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified.  However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).

     “On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams.  (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams’ letter.)

     “Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.  However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, “misc.’ file, p. 299 for micro-film):  “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto…”  This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day — the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted.  Therefore, the Thirteenth Amendment’s official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

    “The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)

    “In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

    “There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this Thirteenth Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed, period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments.

    “Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right to announce their own and the nation’s ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.

Pages 51, 52 Not Included in Free Edition – To Order the FULL Version in either Softcover or E-Book, Please Visit the Store.

Chapter 8