
              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 8  Num. 16
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
CLASH OF THE TITANS
===================
(From Feb. 1996 Conspiracy Nation Newsletter)
 
 
    Two  "titans",  Congress  and  the President, have clashed in
Washington, DC, during late  1995  and  into 1996.  To understand
the epic confrontation, let's go back several centuries and  look
for antecedents.
 
    Henry II was king of England  from  1154 A.D. to 1189 A.D. He
was "lord of an empire stretching from the Scottish border to the
Pyrenees [northern border of Spain.]" [Morgan, 122] Henry  helped
raise  Thomas Becket to Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162.  But to
the  king's  surprise,  Becket   began   to   oppose  him  and  a
Church-State battle ensued -- a clash of titans.
 
    In  January  of  1164,  King  Henry  summoned  a  council  to
Clarendon.   He  presented  the bishops with a clear statement of
the king's customary rights  over  the Church -- The Constitution
of Clarendon.  At first, Becket gave in and accepted this  kingly
decree,  but  he  later changed his mind.  Conflicts between King
Henry II and Thomas  Becket  finally  led to the assassination of
Becket by four of the king's knights.
 
    Richard I (1189-1199) was Henry's son.   His  brother,  John,
was  lord of Ireland.  In November of 1187, Saladin had a victory
at Hattin.  Richard rushed  to  assist  the kingdom of Jerusalem.
The outcome of King Richard's crusade was the Treaty of Jaffa  in
1192.   During  Richard's  absence  from  England  there had been
disturbances in that "emerald isle",  but  on his return they got
straightened out.
 
    Richard the First's death in  1199  left  the  succession  in
dispute.   The  battle  was  between John, Richard's brother, and
Arthur, son of Geoffrey (brother of Henry II) and nephew of John.
But Arthur at that time was  just 12 years old.  John won control
of the kingdom and was probably responsible  for  the  murder  of
young Arthur in April of 1203.  [130]
 
    But John as king "constantly suspected that men were plotting
against  him."   [ibid.]  High  inflation put many into financial
trouble.  The king was  blamed.   (After  all,  if there is a bad
harvest, who is to blame?  The  king.   Ditto  with  financials.)
The  economic  inflation also eroded the value of royal revenues.
King  John  "levied  frequent  taxes  and  tightened  up the laws
governing the forest (a profitable but highly unpopular source of
income)."  [ibid.]
 
    July 1214 saw the start  of rebellion.  Rebels would normally
have a leader who was a member of the royal family around whom to
rally, but no good candidate was  available  to  them.   "So  the
rebels  devised  a  new kind of focus for revolt:  a programme of
reform.  In June 1215, after they had captured London, the rebels
forced John to accept the terms  laid  out in a document later to
be known as Magna Carta.  In essence it was a hostile  commentary
on  some  of  the  more  objectionable features of the last sixty
years of [English] rule."  [131]
 
    Richard II was king from  1377  to 1399.  In 1397-8 he exiled
the earl of Warwick, executed the earl of Arundel,  murdered  the
duke  of  Gloucester,  and  then exiled the earl of Derby.  [192]
King Richard II  "demanded  oaths  of loyalty... placed subjects'
lands  and  property  at  his  mercy...  and   terrorized   [the]
population with [a] private army."  [Haigh, 109] But when Richard
visited  Ireland in 1399, this gave Henry Bolingbroke, the exiled
earl of Derby, the chance  to  slip back into England and recover
the duchy of Lancaster estates  and  his  position.   Bolingbroke
landed  at  Ravenspur,  gained the support of the northern lords,
and eventually captured Richard II.  [ibid.] Richard was deposed,
imprisoned  in  the  Tower  of  London  and  soon  thereafter was
secretly put to death.  [Weir, 14]
 
    Henry IV (i.e.  Henry Bolingbroke) had dubious title  to  the
throne,  but  held onto it just the same.  His son and successor,
Henry V, was ruling well, but  he died unexpectedly in 1422.  His
heir, Henry VI, was just a baby  at  the  time.   When  Henry  VI
finally  reached  adulthood, he proved to be a weak ruler; he may
even have been mentally defective.  [ibid.]
 
    The father of Richard, Duke of  York, was executed in 1415 by
Henry V (father of Henry  VI)  when  Richard  was  4  years  old.
Richard  of  York  was  restored  to  his  inheritance  in  1425.
"Faction  feuds"  --  a.k.a.   "the clashes of titans" -- led, in
1450, to the eruption of the  30-year "War of the Roses".  Two of
the factions were the Houses of Lancaster,  including  the  inept
Henry VI, and York.  In September 1460 Richard of York marched on
London  and  claimed  the  crown.   Queen  Margaret,  wife of the
simple-minded Henry  VI,  incensed  at  Richard,  sent her forces
against him and his allies and on December 30, 1460 "[Richard of]
York, his  son  Edmund,  Earl  of  Rutland,  and  [the  Earl  of]
Salisbury were slain at the battle of Wakefield."  [17]
 
    Vengeful,  Richard's  19-year-old  son Edward captured London
and had himself proclaimed king on March 4, 1461.  Henry VI was a
fugitive until he  was  finally  captured  and  imprisoned in the
Tower of London in 1465.  Edward was formally crowned King Edward
IV on June 28, 1465.  [ibid.]
 
    On May 21, 1471 Henry VI was secretly murdered.   Officially,
it  was  given out that Henry VI "had taken 'to so great despite,
ire and indignation that,  of  pure displeasure and melancholy he
died.' This fooled no  one."   [27]  Centuries  later,  when  the
remains  of  Henry VI were examined, the medical report confirmed
his violent death.  [ibid.]
 
    Earlier, Edward IV had  secretly  married someone beneath his
station, Elizabeth Wydville.  He had been "led into  wedlock  'by
blind  affection and not by the rule of reason.'" [21] The secret
marriage,  when  revealed,  was   not  well-received  and  caused
divisions within the royal family -- i.e. factions.
 
    George, Duke of Clarence, was Edward's  brother.   He  had  a
"weak,   discontented  and  vicious  character."   [23]  Clarence
"burned with resentment because [Richard, Duke of] Gloucester had
received so much of the Warwick inheritance."  [43]
 
    Elizabeth Wydville -- Queen  Elizabeth -- headed the Wydville
faction.  On November 2, 1470 she gave birth to the future Edward
V. Prince Edward was raised by the Wydville faction.   On  August
17, 1473 was born her second son, Richard, Duke of York.
 
    Richard, Duke of Gloucester, brother of Edward IV, held power
in  the  north  of  England.   [43] "At court, the Wydvilles held
sway, and  in  Wales,  that  other  potential  power  base, their
influence was paramount."  [ibid.] But Clarence, though  wealthy,
was  isolated  from power.  Not liking this, he struck out at the
Queen by,  without  any  warrant,  arresting  one  of the Queen's
servants, seizing her valuables, and  jailing  her.   Three  days
later,  after having been found guilty by an intimidated court of
poisoning and  witchcraft,  the  servant  was  hung.  [43-44] The
Wydvilles retaliated with a charge of sorcery  against  Clarence.
Two  persons  linked  to  Clarence,  Dr.  John  Stacey and Thomas
Burdett, were executed on May 20th, 1477.
 
    The feud escalated.  Clarence  publicly denounced King Edward
IV as a bastard  and  a  necromancer.   [45]  But  Edward  showed
tolerance.   However  a  final  act  of lese-majeste was the last
straw.  Clarence was  arrested  and  imprisoned  in  the Tower of
London.  Indicted for high treason, Clarence was found guilty and
executed on February 18, 1478.  Richard  of  Gloucester  secretly
blamed the Wydvilles for Clarence's death.  [51]
 
    From  1472  through 1483 Gloucester governed England north of
the River Trent for his  brother  Edward.  [56] In the South, and
at court, the Wydvilles dominated.  [57] Edward's heir was  being
raised  by  the  Wydvilles.   "It  was...  Edward IV's failure to
envisage what the consequences  would  be  to his kingdom and his
heir if he were to die young and leave a minor on the throne that
led directly to the tragedy of the Princes in the Tower."  [58]
 
    How's this for a war?  Mary, Duchess of Burgundy and wife  of
Maximilian  of  Austria,  is  thrown  from a horse and dies.  She
leaves behind  two  children:   Philip,  her  heir, and Margaret.
Louis XI of France then concludes a new treaty whereby  Elizabeth
of  York  is  dumped  as future match for the Dauphin in favor of
Margaret.  Edward IV "hits the  ceiling" when he learns that "his
daughter had been ignominiously jilted"  and  he  has  Parliament
declare war on France.  [60] The King did not get to see, though,
how his war might turn out:  he died shortly thereafter, on April
9, 1483.  [62]  So the stage is set.  Richard of Gloucester rules
the  North  and  is  at  odds with the Wydvilles, powerful in the
South.
 
    Edward V was proclaimed king  on  April 11, 1483.  Richard of
Gloucester had been named Protector of the Realm by Edward IV  in
a  deathbed  ordinance.   "It  appears  that Edward intended that
Gloucester should govern the kingdom while the king was a minor."
[63] But the  Wydville  faction  was  determined to resist Edward
IV's deathbed ordinance.  They  wanted  to  use  Edward  V  as  a
puppet, with them pulling the strings.
 
    It  was  argued  that  if  Edward  V  were to be crowned king
immediately, this would cause  Gloucester's  role of Protector to
expire.  Yet Edward V was not then in London.  At this point, the
young prince was the key to power.  Whoever  possessed  Edward  V
would control England.
 
    Both  sides  feared  and  hated  each other.  If the Wydville
clique ruled,  Richard  of  Gloucester's  very  life  would be in
danger.  Gloucester, argues Weir, "had no choice but  to  act  to
bring about the overthrow of the Wydvilles and seize the reins of
government  himself."   [70]  Gloucester and his forces caught up
with Edward V fifty  miles  north  of  London  and took the young
prince in their charge.  Edward V was  then  separated  from  his
ministers, his escort, his attendants and servants.  [81]
 
    By  May  of that year (1483), 12-year-old Edward V was lodged
in  the  Tower  of  London.   Basically  a  prisoner  therein, he
underwent increasing isolation.  In June, his 9-year-old  brother
and also possible heir to the throne was brought to the Tower and
"...day by day [they] began to be seen more rarely..."  [112]
 
    There  now  occurred  other judicial-type murders of powerful
allies of the Wydvilles.  Richard of Gloucester, by now in actual
power, began  acting  more  and  more  as  if  he  were king.  He
postponed the scheduled  coronation  of  Edward  V  indefinitely.
[115]  By  June  26th,  1483,  Richard III had succeeded in being
proclaimed king.  He was crowned on July 6th, 1483.
 
    But the Princes  in  the  Tower  yet  lived  and  stood as "a
potential focus for rebellion..."  [142] So Richard III had  them
murdered as they slept, on or about September 3rd, 1483.  [157]
 
    Two  factions, two "titans", clashed -- the Wydvilles and the
allies of Richard III -- and "sparks" flew -- many were murdered.
Those who allied with Richard found themselves well-rewarded.....
or at least they stayed alive.
 
    We have had to step down, as time has gone by, in our opinion
of ourselves.  Finding out that it was not the sun which revolved
around the earth, but the  other  way  around, was more than some
people could deal with.  Then, when it was found that we  weren't
much different from apes, that too was hard to face.  So too with
our  rulers:   The pharoahs were not just rulers, they were gods.
Centuries passed, and the rulers,  though not gods exactly, still
were God's chosen ones -- they ruled  by  the  so-called  "divine
right  of  kings."  Then, here in America, it went a step further
and power was said to  emanate  from the people, from the consent
of the governed.
 
    Samuel F.B. Morse, the recognized inventor of  the  telegraph
in America and pioneer in the use of Morse code, took a hard look
at  the titanic power known as the Catholic church.  In his book,
Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States, he
argued that there was  a  "Holy  Alliance,  a 'union of Christian
princes'", determined to extinguish the good example  of  liberty
here in the U.S. [Morse, 18] He claimed that Austria, through its
secret  funding of the St. Leopold Foundation, was sending Jesuit
emissaries, "organizing themselves  in  all our borders, actively
passing and re-passing between Europe and America."  [22-23]
 
    While cautioning that he  has  no  quarrel  with  the  purely
religious  aspects of Roman Catholicism, he yet warns that "every
religious sect has certain  principles  of government growing out
of its particular religious belief, and which will  be  found  to
agree  or disagree with the principles of any given form of civil
government."  [33-34] Although Austria,  the Catholic Church, and
America all agree, says  Morse,  that  the  authority  to  govern
derives  from  God,  opposition occurs regarding to whom on earth
this authority is  delegated.   Austria,  then subscribing to the
concept of the divine right of  kings,  would  say  authority  on
earth  is delegated to the Emperor.  The Catholic Church, arguing
from its  own  version  of  divine  right,  claims  the authority
belongs to the Pope.   But  the  United  States  holds  that  the
Sovereign  power  resides in the people themselves.  And so, says
Morse, the Catholic Church, in its civil aspect, is inimicable to
that of the United States.
 
    Says Morse:  "This  is  the  slavish  doctrine  taught to the
Catholics...  The people, instead of having power or rights,  are
according  to  this catechism mere passive slaves, born for their
masters, taught by a  perversion  of the threatenings of religion
to obey without murmuring, or questioning,  or  examination,  the
mandates  of  their  human deity, bid to cringe and fawn and kiss
the very  feet  of  majesty,  and  deem  themselves  happy  to be
whipped,  to  be  kicked,   or   to   die   in   his   service...
Protestantism,  on  the  contrary,  at its birth, while yet bound
with many of the  shackles  of  Popery, attacked, in its earliest
lispings of freedom, this very doctrine of divine right.  It  was
Luther,  and  by a singular coincidence of day too, on the fourth
of July, who first in  a  public  disputation at Leipsic with his
Popish antagonist, called in question the  divine  right  of  the
Pope."  [39-40]
 
    You  see,  it  was a clash of titans from whence we can trace
American anti-Papism.   The  Pope  and  his  agents, one faction,
versus Martin Luther, having on his own side  nothing  more  than
the power of an idea.  So too in the clash between Henry VIII and
the Catholic Church can be seen the roots of American distrust of
"Popery."   These misgivings extended right up to the 1960s, when
it was questioned whether John  F.  Kennedy, a Catholic, ought to
be President of the United States.
 
    Charles I was King of England from 1625 until 1649.   Charles
faced  strong  opposition  from  his  Parliaments.   In 1628, the
Parliament "complained  about  forced  loans,  illegal levying of
customs duties (known as  "tunnage  and  poundage"),  and  forced
billeting   of   soldiers  in  households.   In  particular  they
protested that the King  had  no  right  to imprison his subjects
without showing cause why he did so.  The [House of] Commons  set
out  their  various grievances in a constitutional document known
as the Petition of Right, to  which  the King was obliged to give
his assent..."  [Encyclopedia Americana, 301]
 
    In  1628,  King  Charles  tried  to  adjourn   the   upcoming
Parliament,  but  this  was  prevented  by  members who "held the
speaker of the House  of  Commons  down  in  his chair while they
voted three resolutions condemning the actions of the monarchy as
illegal.  Charles retaliated by dissolving  Parliament,  and  for
the  next  11  years  he  governed  without calling another one."
[ibid.]
 
    Putting the conflict between the King and the Parliament into
the context of our current  clash  between "King Clinton" and the
Congress, I can give  no  better  analysis  than  the  following,
offered by one of Conspiracy Nation's many readers in response to
speculation  put forward by Mr. Sherman Skolnick of the Citizens'
Committee to  Clean  Up  The  Courts.   [See  CN  6.91, "Sinister
Consequences"]
 
  "Much as I  affectionately  respect  Sherman Skolnick, I must
  confess that I found his  speculations  concerning  Clinton's
  presumed  power  to  prorogue Congress because of a sovereign
  'right' inherited  from  England's  King  Charles  I somewhat
  'exotic' to say the  least.   I  also  found  it  disturbing,
  because  Clinton may actually be persuaded that he has such a
  right, based on  precedent,  or  --  just  as  bad -- seek to
  persuade others to believe at some future time  that  he  has
  such  a  right.  So before this becomes a full-fledged rumour
  or a 'fact' by default,  I  hope  you'll permit me to apply a
  corrective."
 
  "The power to prorogue, as a residual  power  vested  in  the
  Crown  (or  its  representative  Governor-Generals in the old
  Dominions) now  only  permits  the  dissolution of Parliament
  because   the   government   is   acting   ultra   vires   or
  unconstitutionally.  (As, for example, in  Australia  in  the
  1970s, when the Governor-General dismissed Parliament because
  the  then-government  flouted  the Constitution by continuing
  operation without  a  necessary  money  bill  being passed by
  Parliament to fund it.)  The Crown may then only issue a writ
  for a new election and appoint an interim administration.  It
  may not govern directly, suspend Parliament indefinitely,  or
  impose  by fiat a permanent replacement Administration of its
  choice."
 
  "Quoting  Charles  I's  conflicts  with  Parliament  and  his
  proroguing of it (and extending this by historical descent as
  a precedent for  American  Presidents)  is  fallacious in the
  extreme.  Charles wished to govern as an  absolute  autocrat;
  he  made  free  use  of the Star Chamber to ruin and imprison
  those who opposed  him;  he  sought  to replace Parliamentary
  money bills with innovations like 'ship money'; he personally
  interfered in political debate in Parliament; and he  finally
  sought  to arrest forcibly six leaders of the Commons, in the
  Commons, on charges of 'treason.'"
 
  "Charles had  previously  dismissed  Parliament several times
  because they wouldn't give him what he wanted:  he then had a
  problem, because without Parliament's  approval  of  a  money
  bill  he  had  no  funds  with  which to govern or pursue his
  policies.  The only  two  options  were to recall Parliament,
  which he did on each  occasion,  or  to  make  war  upon  it.
  Ultimately, he did make war upon it, and lost."
 
  "The  principle  was well understood then, however:  the King
  has the power to  dismiss,  but  not to govern dictatorially.
  If he wished to execute his purposes,  he  had  to  gain  the
  consent  of  Parliament,  which was elected by the people who
  paid  the  bills  --   the   original  'no  taxation  without
  representation.' No Parliament, no money!"
 
  "Now, interestingly enough and directly to  the  point  here,
  Charles  had already been compelled by Parliament to agree to
  regular triennial Parliaments.   In  January  1641, a private
  member's Bill was introduced  'to  prevent  the  dangers  and
  inconveniences   happening   by   the  long  intermission  of
  Parliaments.'  The   House,   in   committee,  directed  that
  triennial Parliaments be held; to guard against  the  statute
  becoming  a  dead-letter,  they  directed that the issuing of
  writs at the fixed  times  be  the responsibility of the Lord
  Chancellor; that, if he failed, the  House  of  Lords  should
  issue  the writs; if the Lords failed, then the Sheriffs were
  to do it; and, if the Sheriffs neglected or refused, then the
  people were to proceed to elect their representatives without
  any writs at all.   Now,  if  you're looking for a precedent,
  that's the  one  you  should  be  taking  note  of,  not  the
  Sovereign's power to dismiss!"
 
  "And,  as an additional pointed reminder to the King of where
  the true power lay, he was compelled by this law to agree not
  to dismiss  or  adjourn  Parliament  without  its own consent
  within fifty days of its commencing its session."
 
  "So, if thereafter he dismissed it, writs were  automatically
  issued  for election to a new Parliament -- whether he agreed
  or not -- at the next stated time; if this process failed, or
  was  neglected,  the  people   met   and  elected  their  own
  representatives.  And  that  Parliament  could  not  then  be
  dismissed by the King for at least fifty days."
 
  "So  if  Clinton wants to draw on residual powers to prorogue
  passed down  from  Charles  I,  that's  the  package  he'd be
  getting!"
 
  "However, the modern evolution  of  this  doctrine  has  gone
  beyond  that.  The Crown can only now prorogue Parliament for
  good constitutional  reason;  it  must  then immediately take
  steps to call a new election for a new Parliament.  If it was
  wrong, the Parliament so elected would reflect the  wrath  of
  the voters, which might well result in the legislative demise
  of  the  Crown  or sharp abridgement of its powers.  It's for
  that reason that the royal  right to prorogue is residual and
  rarely used."
 
  "Not much to comfort Clinton in that, I'm afraid."
 
  "And the  exercise  of  an  arbitrary  "right"  to  prorogue,
  unfettered, ultimately cost King Charles his throne, then his
  head."
 
  "Another precedent King Clinton  would  do well to consider."
  [Whitley]
 
 
    Here in America, Andrew  Jackson  fought  against the Bank of
the United States.
 
    "Specie" was a gold and silver bimetallic system "established
by Congress in the Coinage Act of 1792.  This  act  provided  for
'full-bodied'  money,  that  is full-weight gold and silver coins
whose commodity value  equaled  their  exchange value."  [Remini,
25] But favored by Alexander Hamilton and others was a  "Bank  of
the United States."  Chartered in 1791 amidst fierce controversy,
the "B.U.S." had assets of $10 million, four-fifths of which came
from  private  investors  who  bought stock in it.  Buyers of its
stock offerings "were  concentrated  mainly  in Boston, New York,
Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore,  but  in  a  short  time   foreign
investors  snapped  up its stock."  [24] Because the operation of
the  bank  was  primarily  under   the  control  of  its  private
investors, this meant that the nation's fiscal policy was greatly
controlled by wealthy private citizens and even,  apparently,  by
foreigners.   Although  the  charter of the B.U.S. was allowed to
expire in 1811, the subsequent  Second Bank of the United States,
begun in 1816, was basically more of the same.
 
    Although Jackson had, from the start, planned to restrict the
Second Bank, the so-called "Portsmouth incident" pushed him  even
further.   After reviewing serious charges that the B.U.S. had in
some localities  actively  opposed  Jackson's  election, Nicholas
Biddle, president of the Bank, informed Jackson that his board of
directors "[acknowledged] not the slightest responsibility of any
description whatsoever to the Secretary of the Treasury  touching
the political opinions and conduct of their officers."  [55] This
exacerbated the looming confrontation.
 
    From  Jackson's  point  of  view, there was no constitutional
authority for the Bank  of  the United States.  [24] Furthermore,
Jackson contended "that the Bank was dangerous to the liberty  of
the  American  people  because  it concentrated enormous power in
private  hands  and  used  this  power  to  control  legislation,
influence  elections,  and  even   manipulate  the  operation  of
government to get what it wanted."  [44] To Jackson,  the  B.U.S.
was   "a   monopoly   with  special  privileges  granted  by  the
government."   [ibid.]  So  Jackson,  not  part  of  the  eastern
establishment, was  determined  to  pull  the  plug  on this cozy
operation.
 
    But Biddle and his cohorts had some tricks up their  sleeves.
They  used  their  considerable forces to manuever a bill through
Congress granting recharter of the Bank.  Jackson fired back with
his historic Bank  veto  of  July  10,  1832,  which concluded as
follows:
 
  "It is to be regretted  that  the rich and powerful too often
  bend the  acts  of  government  to  their  selfish  purposes.
  Distinctions  in  society  will always exist under every just
  government.  Equality of talents,  of education, or of wealth
  can not be produced  by  human  institutions.   In  the  full
  enjoyment  of  the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior
  industry, economy, and virtue,  every man is equally entitled
  to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to  add  to
  these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to
  grant  titles,  gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make
  the rich richer  and  the  potent  more  powerful, the humble
  members of society -- the farmer, mechanics, and laborers  --
  who  have  neither  the  time  nor the means of securing like
  favors  to  themselves,  have  a  right  to  complain  of the
  injustice of their Government.  There are no necessary  evils
  in  government.   Its  evils exist only in its abuses.  If it
  would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does
  its rains, shower its favors  alike  on the high and the low,
  the rich and the poor, it would be an  unqualified  blessing.
  In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary
  departure from these just principles."  [83]
 
 
    The  Second  Bank  of  the  United States spent hugely in the
presidential campaign of 1832.  They  hoped to at all cost defeat
Jackson's bid for re-election.  Democrats charged that  the  Bank
was   bribing   government  officials  and  citizens  to  promote
Jackson's defeat.  Warned  one  newspaper,  "If  the Bank, a mere
monied corporation, can influence and change the results  of  our
election  at  pleasure,  nothing  remains  of our boasted freedom
except the skin of the immolated victim."  [99]
 
    Jackson won re-election and  stock  in the United States Bank
immediately dropped six  points,  from  120.5  to  114.5.   [108]
During his second term, the President sought to remove government
deposits from the B.U.S. and place them in state banks.  Nicholas
Biddle retaliated by curtailing loans.  This sent the nation into
a financial panic.  [126] "Biddle's squeeze caught the country at
the  worst  possible moment...  [It] staggered the commercial and
manufacturing  centers  of  the   country...   Every  major  city
sustained  a  string  of  business  failures;  wages  and  prices
declined; and workingmen were discharged in  distressingly  large
numbers."  [127-128] Yet Jackson would not yield in his "struggle
to maintain a government of the people against the most heartless
of all aristocracies, that of money."  [131]
 
    Public  opinion  slowly  turned against the Bank.  By 1834, a
resolution urging that the B.U.S.  not be rechartered was adopted
by Congress.  This and other resolutions "spelled the doom of the
Bank."  [166] The Second Bank of the United States "died  a  slow
demeaning  death...   With  each  election  the people reaffirmed
their desire to have done  with the monster."  [173-174] The Bank
wound up its affairs and closed shop.  With the expiration of its
charter in 1836, the B.U.S. ceased to exist.
 
    While  all  this  was  going  on,  the  "secret  ideology  of
international finance... aimed at  eventual  rule  over  all  the
world  by  the  British Government" [Knuth, 86] was seething at a
perceived affront  to  its  plans  as  promulgated  in the Monroe
Doctrine.  The Monroe Doctrine, "America for the Americans,"  was
in  conflict  with  British  plans  to  maintain  and advance the
worldwide British  empire.   But  at  the  time  of its inception
during the 1820s, the British were then preoccupied with problems
in the Mohammedan world.  [88-89] By 1856, however, Great Britain
turned its attention to America.   A  close  business  connection
existed  between  cotton  manufacturing  England  and  the cotton
aristocracy of the  American  South.   The  southern states "were
swarming with British agents."  [89] These agents acted upon  the
business  connection  between the South and Great Britain to help
foment rebellion.  The British also  provided indirect aid to the
Confederacy which "brought the fortunes of the North  to  a  very
low  ebb; and every indication at this stage was that Britain was
preparing to enter the war."  [ibid.] "In December, 1861, a large
British, French and  Spanish  expeditionary  force  was landed at
Vera Cruz [Mexico] in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine."   [ibid.]
Things  looked  bad  for  the  Union.   However  the North itself
received timely assistance  from  Russia  [90] and that, combined
with other factors, resulted in eventual Union victory.
 
    (The question arises as to whether John Wilkes Booth, a known
agent of the  Confederacy,  really  was  a  "lone  nut"  when  he
assassinated  the  victorious  Abraham Lincoln.  This editor does
not believe that it was Booth  who perished on or about April 26,
1865 at the Garret barn in Virginia.  Support  for  this  opinion
can  be found in, among several works, Escape and Suicide of John
Wilkes Booth by Finis L.  Bates.  Memphis:  Pilcher Printing Co.,
1907)
 
    We have seen a  sampling  of  past  faction  fights  and  the
effects  they  have  on  the common people are either implicit or
described.  Now, in  Washington,  D.C.,  it  appears that another
"Clash of the Titans" is underway.  What can be said  about  this
current battle?
 
    The  first  thing  that  comes  to mind is what puny "titans"
these are.  The old-time titans were GREAT -- not in the sense of
being good, necessarily, but in  the  sense of being big, "larger
than life."  The current episode of political collision could  be
better   called  "Plots  of  the  Lawyers,"  or  "Tricks  of  the
Statisticians," or "Food Fight  of  the  Frat Boys."  What crummy
titans we get these days.
 
    Following from this it can be argued that perhaps these guys,
Newt and King Clinton and the other suits and ties  are  not  the
real titans.  That would be why these "titans" are all so boring:
they  are  not  the  real  thing.   They  are bought-off stooges,
puppets on a string, owned and  operated by the likes of Arkansas
billionaire Jackson Stephens, Goldman Sachs, and  God  knows  who
else.   Aiding  the  magic  lantern show are the so-called "news"
sources, owned  and  operated  by  the  same  folks  who  own the
politicians.  The final player  is  the  deceived  public,  still
trusting  the  major  "news"  outlets, that gets caught up in the
fake drama.   Tricked  and  misled  by  masters  of illusion, the
American  people  get  sucked  into  passionate  arguments   over
chimeras.
 
   But  what  is  really  going  on?  We are told that there is a
budget battle occuring  between  the  Congress and the President,
that it has as its basis a "philosophical difference" between the
two giants.  One thing is certain:  powerful forces  are  acting,
behind the scenes, that we know nothing about.
 
Works Cited
===========
 
Bates, Finis L. Escape and  Suicide of John Wilkes Booth Memphis:
Pilcher Printing Co., 1907 
 
Encyclopedia   Americana,   International   Edition.     Danbury:
Grolier, Inc., 1993 
 
Haigh, Christopher, ed.  The Cambridge Historical Encyclopedia of
Great  Britain  and  Ireland.   Cambridge:   Cambridge University
Press, 1985.  ISBN 0-521-25559-7 
 
Knuth,  E.C.  The  Empire  of  "The  City"  1946.   Torrance, CA:
Noontide Press, 1983. 
 
Morgan, Kenneth  O.,  ed.   The  Oxford  Illustrated  History  of
Britain   Oxford:    Oxford   University   Press,   1984.    ISBN
0-19-822684-5 
 
Morse,  Samuel  F.B.  Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of
the United States 1835.  New York:  Arno Press, 1977 
 
Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Bank War New York:  W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc., 1967. 
 
Weir, Alison.  The  Princes  in  the  Tower New York:  Ballantine
Books, 1992.  ISBN 0-345-38372-9
 
Whitley, John K. Electronic mail to Conspiracy Nation.   Jan.  4,
1996 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to 
listproc@cornell.edu          (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
    For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy 
  Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? 
(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
       See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
          See also: ftp.shout.net  pub/users/bigred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et 
  pauperem.                    -- Liber Proverbiorum  XXXI: 8-9 

