Historical Response #2: Ellen Brown Thinks That by Quoting Herself Again, But Without Responding to My Evidence, She Has Refuted Me.
Ellen Brown replies to my citations from Jefferson's writings, especially his letter to Eppes (which she cited incompletely) which show he hated paper money. She replies by merely by quoting herself, but not mentioning my citations that show the opposite.
Here is my original article:
Here is her response.
2. Jefferson was a promoter of unbacked paper money.Here is what I wrote, and I believe it is correct:
It would be several decades before Jefferson realized that the villain was not paper money itself. It was private debt masquerading as paper money, a private debt owed to bankers who were merely "pretending to have money." Jefferson wrote to Treasury Secretary Gallatin in 1815:
The treasury, lacking confidence in the country, delivered itself bound hand and foot to bold and bankrupt adventurers and bankers pretending to have money, whom it could have crushed at any moment.
Jefferson wrote to John Taylor on May 28, 1816:
I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments 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.
Jefferson wrote to John Eppes in 1813, "Although we have so foolishly allowed the field of circulating medium to be filched from us by private individuals, I think we may recover it . . . . The states should be asked to transfer the right of issuing paper money to Congress, in perpetuity." He told Eppes, "the nation may continue to issue its bills [paper notes] as far as its needs require and the limits of circulation allow. Those limits are understood at present to be 200 millions of dollars."
Here is what Jefferson wrote to Eppes, which I cited in my article:
"Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war." . . . ."The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals... it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted."
These statements refute her argument that Jefferson accepted the idea of unbacked paper money. She did not respond to this information. Why not? Because there is no possible way to interpret his statements that would be consistent with her assertion regarding his views. Anyone can see what he wrote.
She is a lawyer. Imagine this scene. Her client is accused of theft. In her opening statement to the jury, she declares: "My client is innocent. He was never at the scene of the crime. He has an alibi. He was with his friend at 6 p.m. until 7:45 p.m."
During the trial, the prosecuting attorney argues as follows: "His witness has testified, 'At 7:45 p.m., I drove him to the liquor store. Then I drove home.' We also have a time-stamped video of her client robbing the liquor store at 8 p.m." He shows the jury the video.
In her final summation, Brown tells the jury: "I have proven that my client was with his friend between 6 p.m. and 7:45 p.m. He could not possibly have robbed the liquor store." She does not refer to the additional statement from the witness. She does not mention the time-stamped video.
Her client will go to jail.
Why? Because she is treating the jury as if they were a bunch of rubes. "They won't remember any of the evidence. They will remember only what I tell them."