PDA

View Full Version : The duel!!!!!!! Don't miss!!!!!!!



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-11-2013, 10:17 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/burr-vs-hamilton-behind-ultimate-political-feud-103217294.html Burr vs. Hamilton: Behind the ultimate duel. <cite class="byline vcard top-line">NCC Staff <abbr>15 hours ago</abbr> </cite>

This Thursday marks the 209th anniversary of the deadly duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. What caused the sitting vice president to gun down a Founding Father on the cliffs overlooking New York City?
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/5UrKWztcYiCT_eAgxOQCaA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTI0MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/NationalConstitutionCenter/Hamilton-burr-duel-434x300.jpgHamilton-burr-duel

The Burr-Hamilton Duel

Historians are still arguing over the deadly duel in Weehawken, New Jersey, which had its deep roots in both men’s service to General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.
The former friends became bitter enemies over political and personal issues, but a lot is still in dispute over the duel itself–and why it had to happen.
Here are five key points to remember as you draw your own conclusions.
1. The feud went back decades.
Burr and Hamilton were young officers for Washington in the fight with the British. It was Hamilton who got a promotion. Burr was a war hero, but he was overlooked by Washington when he allegedly caught Burr looking at some personal communications. In later years, President Washington turned down a Burr request for a generalship due to “intrigue” by Burr. Washington’s close adviser was Hamilton.
2. The men fought for control over New York politics.
Hamilton was the “big dog” in New York state politics, at least until Burr came along. The former allies became rivals when Burr ran for the U.S Senate against Hamilton’s father-in-law, Philip Schuyler. Burr won the election and he later became associated with the Tammany Society, the forerunners of the infamous Tammany Hall. Burr then surpassed Hamilton as a political force within New York.
3. The backstabbing, double-dealing election of 1800.
The election of 1800 would make J.R. Ewing blush: There were double crosses, and Hamilton and Burr were at the center of all the action. It was the first national election with political parties, but in a twist of fate, running mates Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College voting (some forgot to cast one less vote for Burr). Hamilton then worked behind the scenes to defeat Burr in the House runoff election, after Burr decided he didn’t want to play second fiddle to Jefferson. The Hamilton-Burr feud was on–big time political feud -

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-13-2013, 01:09 PM
Why Hamilton's death didn't come soon enough!!!!!! Jefferson and other great founders adamantly opposed Hamilton's push to establish a strong Central all powerful bank! Knowing that would lead to an all powerful Central banking system that would eventually rob the citizens and wield enormous political power which would thus pursue policies robbing citizens of their rights. As we now get to see the evidence of the absolute correctness of those founders 's predictions. -Tyr
<tbody>



The Founding of the Fed

http://www.newyorkfed.org/images/spacer.gif

</tbody>

<tbody>

<tbody>

<tbody>



1791: The First Bank of the United States



http://www.newyorkfed.org/images/spacer.gif

</tbody>


</tbody>


After Alexander Hamilton spearheaded a movement advocating the creation of a central bank, the First Bank of the United States was established in 1791.
The First Bank of the United States had a capital stock of $10 million, $2 million of which was subscribed by the federal government, while the remainder was subscribed by private individuals. Five of the 25 directors were appointed by the U.S. government, while the 20 others were chosen by the private investors in the Bank.
The First Bank of the United States was headquartered in Philadelphia, but had branches in other major cities. The Bank performed the basic banking functions of accepting deposits, issuing bank notes, making loans and purchasing securities. It was a nationwide bank and was in fact the largest corporation in the United States. As a result of its influence, the Bank was of considerable use to both American commerce and the federal government.
However, the Bank's influence was frightening to many people. The Bank's charter ran for twenty years, and when it expired in 1811, a proposal to renew the charter failed by the margin of a single vote in each house of Congress. Chaos quickly ensued, brought on by the War of 1812 and by the lack of a central regulating mechanism over banking and credit.






<tbody>

http://www.newyorkfed.org/images/v2/icons/arrow_up.gif


Top (http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html#top)


http://www.newyorkfed.org/images/spacer.gif


</tbody>





<tbody>


1816: The Second Bank of the United States



http://www.newyorkfed.org/images/spacer.gif

</tbody>


The situation deteriorated to such an extent that in 1816, a bill to charter a Second Bank of the United States was introduced in Congress. This bill narrowly passed both houses and was signed into law by President James Madison. Henry Clay, Speaker of the House, cited the "force of circumstance and the lights of experience" as reasons for this realization of the importance of a central bank to the U.S. economy.
The Second Bank of the United States was similar to the first, except that it was much larger; its capital was not $10 million, but $35 million. As with the First Bank of the United States, the charter was to run for 20 years, one-fifth of the stock was owned by the federal government and one-fifth of the directors were appointed by the President.
This bank was also similar to its predecessor in that it wielded immense power. Many citizens, politicians and businessmen perceived it as a menace to both themselves and U.S. democracy. One notable opponent was President Andrew Jackson, who, in 1829, when the charter still had seven years to run, made clear his opposition to the Bank and to the renewal of its charter. Jackson's argument rested on his belief that "such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people" was dangerous. This attack on the Bank's power drew public support, and when the charter of the Second Bank of the United States expired in 1836, it was not renewed. Read more at---



</tbody>
------- http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html

Robert A Whit
07-13-2013, 01:32 PM
Isn't it interesting that the founders left out of the constitution a federal bank but today here we live with one. Actually, the present bank is still not owned by the Feds.