Analysis: Tragedy And Hope

1250 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Debate questions hamilton vs jefferson

Tragedy and Hope: http://joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-made-easy.html
Tragedy and Hope full Audio: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLu5tKfQq0iybY2hiWze543ew_zqVo8il0

I think you have coalesced Most of the suspicions I also have. In the beginning, Jefferson, Hamilton represent not just a difference of political thought and purpose, but perhaps a fundamental or universal truth about mankind, power and the need to obtain power over others. The reasons, ego, competition, human sport and the monopoly or poker mentality, there can be only be one winner, by necessity, I have yet to grasp the need to own everything, unless, like A. Carnegie, it is the end game to give it back, redistribution as you see it needs to be done; and thus history writes of …show more content…

Although A. Jackson destroyed the Central Bank, the secretive powers where back at work to restore the bank the next day, private powers within England/Europe did everything within there powers to regain control of America, by way of the money supply.

Quigley, like Butler was privy to the inside information, and like a modern day Whistle-Blower has laid before us the truths which otherwise may not have been exposed.

Is there a vast One World Order Conspiracy? I can not help but answer in a resounding, YES...
There are many compartments around the World and many facets which, unknown to us, play roles and parts all contributing to the whole.
Tragedy and Hope, clarifies the ways in which this has happened, like no other book or essay I have ever come across, it is comprehensive in its scope and understand of the Terrifying Powers amassed within this (Network).

Deeper history and some, well frankly, quite a lot of speculation...
As the saying goes, "All Roads Lead to Rome" if it were possible to trace the linkages, this saying might be as true today as it once

Show More
Related

  • Alexander Hamilton's Five Points Plan

    803 Words  | 2 Pages

    This bank held government money and controlled the economy by making it easier for local banks to borrow money from it to loan it to manufacturers and factories. As the idea arose the cabinet, Jefferson protested that such a bank was unconstitutional because it favored the north over the south since the bank did not loan money to farmers for land expansions. Being true as it is, the bank drastically boosted our economy and had a great future for our nation. Since it was unconstitutional, a compromise said that the bank would only be funded for 20 years. So as soon as Andrew Jackson was elected, he destroyed the bank. In response to this, our nation suddenly falls into a major depression. No one had jobs and the economy was dying. This showed the brilliance of the national bank and how much it helped our economy. Adding onto this, the bank began the formation of the Federalist and Democratic

    Read More

  • American Colossus The Triumph Of Capitalism Summary

    1553 Words  | 4 Pages

    He states that the financial system was based on competing state banks with no central bank which promoted a rapid economic growth. As the American banking system developed the money supply developed with it. The federal government began the banking system through the issuing of specie but as the capitalist system developed the banking structure developed as well. During the Civil War, the North printed Greenbacks that drove gold from the domestic circulation to help pay for war necessities. The Greenbacks, however, were rarely used in the South expressing the different economies of the North and the South at the time of the Civil War. With differing economies and the growth of specie and paper money, Brands argues that the basis of knowledge about the money system of this time lays a foundation for how Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others were able to manipulate the market and gain wealth. Leading into price manipulation by those in corporate

    Read More

  • Alexander Hamilton: Strong Central Government

    468 Words  | 1 Pages

    “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” Alexander Hamilton. When Hamilton said this he was expressing the way he felt about central government. Hamilton and Jefferson both had very different views on government. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and Jefferson wanted all of the power to belong to the states. Alexander Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would become.

    Read More

  • The Impact on America of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson

    613 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were completely at odds in their vision on how America was to develop. Hamilton wanted to concentrate power in a centralized federal government with limited access and Jefferson wished to diffuse it among all the eligible freemen of the time. Alexander Hamilton feared anarchy and distrusted popular rule while Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of liberty and freedom.

    Read More

  • The Inevitable Two-Party System in the U.S.

    1535 Words  | 4 Pages

    "Teaching History.org, Home of the National History Education Clearinghouse." Jefferson versus Hamilton. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. .

    Read More

  • George Washington's Two Political Parties

    1252 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton did not necessarily get along and the citizens of the United States were splitting to support the different leaders, it did not cause the emergence of the parties. The social tensions and differences, rather than a cause, was more of an effect. Jefferson and Hamilton’s disagreements on the subjects of economics, politics, and foreign affairs were major divisions, leaving social tensions in the aftermath. The emergence of political parties during the 1790s in the United States can be compared to the emergence of the Whigs and Tories in England during the 1700s and 1800s. Both pairs of opposing political parties emerged over disagreements. Whigs, like the Democratic-Republicans, supported the rights and power of the people. Tories, like the Federalists, supported a strong monarchy/government (UK

    Read More

  • Reckless Disregard For The Crimes Of Andrew Jackson

    872 Words  | 2 Pages

    guilty of reckless disregard for the economic interests of the citizens of the United States. The national bank only benefitted the wealthy. Jackson vetoing the National Bank and Taney’s agreement to moving federal funds to the

    Read More

  • Aristotle's Legacy In The Federalist Papers

    2064 Words  | 5 Pages

    When examining selections from Aristotle's teachings or the Federalist Papers, the one common element that is clear is that the authors of these works sought the same goal. That goal was to create a practical and rational outline of a better way of life for those who would seek it. That such an outline would be so necessary or that any one person would presume to be qualified to compose such a treaty, particularly when mankind claims exclusivity as the enlightened, civilized, and intelligent species of the planet, reveals a certain degree of conceit. If conceit is the charge towards Aristotle, or Hamilton, or the other authors of the Papers, then Madison or Hamilton (it is unclear to scholars which man is responsible for the following passage) refutes this charge quite

    Read More

  • Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton

    653 Words  | 2 Pages

    Jefferson’s agricultural viewpoint was vastly different from Hamilton’s manufacturing perspective. Though they both envisioned a great and prosperous nation, they had contrasting opinions on how this should occur. Hamilton, a Federalist, believed the rich and powerful should be the central government for all people, as they knew better how to foster and protect the em...

    Read More

  • Impeachment of Andrew Jackson

    999 Words  | 2 Pages

    Jackson believed that the National Bank system was corrupt and unjust, so it was justifiable to withdraw federal funds. The National Bank was only useful for the rich, which were a minority in the United States. As a representer of the entire country, he needed to ensure that all systems were in favor of the general people, not just the elite. He “destroyed” the national bank by vetoing the charter that was approved by the senate. When he vetoed the charter, he lost a few of his wealthy voters, but Jackson gained votes from the common people in the election of 1832 (King Andrew and the Bank). Then, Jackson withdrew federal funds and created pet banks. This was an attempt to help the common man become equal individual of the US. Jackson’s efforts failed because these banks raised the demand of paper money, leading to inflation and an unstable economy. Even though this idea resulted in an economic downfall, it was a neither a crime nor treasonous; it was merely a poor decision. Jackso...

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson Essay

    751 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Second Bank of the United States was a corporation controlled by Congress to ensure a national paper currency, and manage government's banking. Similar to Thomas Jefferson, Jackson believed such a bank to be dangerous and corrupt. In 1832, he vetoed a bill to extend the Bank's charter beyond its scheduled expiration in 1836. Jackson's veto mess...

    Read More

  • National Debt Essay

    1380 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ons of people, the plans will never be successful and will forever be a burden on the public. Hamilton was more concerned with the government as a whole, while Madison was concerned with the people that the government will affect.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Andrew Jackson

    820 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the summer of 1832 and Congress renewed the Bank’s charter even though it wasn’t due until 1836. Jackson hesitated to approve of the charter, so Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle went on the offensive to attempt to persuade Jackson to pass the bill. Jackson, having had his opinion on the banks cemented by Clay’s presence in the organization, then committed to de-establishing the Second National Bank. He waged war against Biddle in particular to make sure Biddle lost power. He vetoed the bank bill, and after winning the race to be reelected, he closed Biddle’s bank. He ordered his Secretary of the Treasury to move money from the Second National Bank to smaller, state banks. When Congress returned from its summer recess, it censured him for his actions. In 1836, Bank of US was dead, and the new democratic-congressmen expunged Jackson’s censure. Because Jackson had no formal plan for managing the nation’s funds after the Second National Bank closed, it caused problems in Van Buren’s administration. He destroyed the Bank of the United States, in the main, for personal reasons. Jackson hated the bank before his presidency because as a wealthy land and slave owner he had lost money due to its fiscal policies. He believed that Congress had no right under the constitution to charter a

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson: The Best or the Worst

    836 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...ral governments deposits from the bank and placed them is a series of "pet banks". This doomed the already failing bank. Jackson still won reelection in 1832, defeating Clay by a huge margin.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson and the Bank War

    2332 Words  | 5 Pages

    The validity of President Andrew Jackson’s response to the Bank War issue has been contradicted by many, but his reasoning was supported by fact and inevitably beneficial to the country. Jackson’s primary involvement with the Second Bank of the United States arose during the suggested governmental re-chartering of the institution. It was during this period that the necessity and value of the Bank’s services were questioned.

    Read More

More about Analysis: Tragedy And Hope

Open Document