PDA

View Full Version : tPF The Roosevelts



Green Arrow
01-15-2016, 10:17 PM
iustitia, in past discussions regarding the Roosevelts, you've mentioned that they were Morgan men, if I recall correctly, and as such pursued policies and actions that helped the Morgans. My interpretation of that was that you were referring to J.P. Morgan.

If I'm correct, I'm curious how you came to think that. From what I've read, TR quite often clashed with J.P. Morgan, most notably in his antitrust suit against the Northern Securities Co. (J.P. Morgan's steel monopoly formed from a merger with some other steel companies, the most notable being J.D. Rockefeller) as president in 1902 that crashed J.P. Morgan's stock (and caused a ding on Wall Street in general) and further broke up the monopoly.

I'm curious how he could thus be argued as a Morgan man or in anyway a supporter of Wall Street's scheming given this rather large blow to the monopoly of two of Wall Street's biggest figures, J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller.

iustitia
01-16-2016, 04:53 AM
The important thing to remember is that historically political parties are by and large governed by coalitions of economic interests. These can vary by era but generally speaking they're bought and paid for. Originally Republicans were a party of protectionism, "internal improvements" and fiat/paper currency with financial connections ranging from railroads interests to big oil. Democrats on the other hand were a party of trade and the gold standard, with connections largely to banking. By the time of the elections leading into the 20th century, such as the fight between Republican William McKinley and Democrat William Jennings Bryan, the economic policies of the parties started to become inverted. Bryan began representing the inflationist policies of populists.

The Morgans, traditionally Democratic financiers, began jumping ship with Bryans' nomination and thanks to back room deals, McKinley switched his protectionist and inflationist policies to a pro-trade one with support for the gold standard, gaining the support of the Morgans in the election. Traditionally fronting for the Rockefeller/Standard Oil interests, the GOP candidate who was once saved from bankruptcy by Rockefeller was backed by Morgan influence and even his VP was Morgan man Garret Hobart. Hobart died later on and after several other Morgan boys passed on filling the role, his spot was filled with... Theodore Roosevelt, whose first act after winning the 1900 election was throwing a huge party for JP Morgan.

Shockingly, McKinley was assassinated and Theodore Roosevelt became president. Secretary of State John Hay's daughter married the son of William Whitney and into Morgan influence. The next Secretary of State was Roosevelt's friend Elihu Root who was the personal attorney of JP Morgan. And appointed as his Assistant Secretary was Roosevelt's friend Robert Bacon who was a Morgan partner and also became Roosevelt's Secretary of State. Roosevelt's Secretary of the Navy was Paul Morton, the vice-president of the Morgan-controlled Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe Railroad. His Assistant Secretary Herbert Satterlee was JP Morgan's son in law.

I could into this one particular episode further, but suffice it to say the Panama revolution against Columbia was a phony exercise in Morgan influence in the White House. A Morgan lobbyist named William Cromwell directed the "revolution" while in the White House, and the Panama Canal episode was plotted by a financial syndicate headed by JP Morgan & Co. Roosevelt's brother in law Douglas Robinson was the director of Morgan’s Astor National Bank and was a part of said syndicate.

As for Northern Securities, I could be wrong but I believe this is the point at which the "land war" began between Morgan and everyone else. The big businessmen of the day began fighting for control of railroads with Harriman, Kuhn and Loeb taking Union Pacific Railroad and fighting Morgan for control of Northern Pacific. I could be wrong I'm tired as shit. But this applied to everything by a point. That syndicate involved in Panama? Morgan was allied with Rockefeller, Seligman, Kuhn and Loeb, Perkins and Saterlee to profit off engineering a coup there. Anyway.

Theodore's anti-trust laws were generally designed to benefit the Morgans. The Morgans were allies of the Rothschilds, and by the turn of the century the Morgans began feuding with pretty much all the other big money. On one side you had the Morgans and on the other you had Harriman, Kuhn, Loeb and Rockefeller. Standard Oil competed with the Rotshchild-backed British Royal Dutch Shell, and Theodore aided his 'side' by going after Rockefeller. Philander Knox, who filed the suit against Standard Oil, was a Morgan lawyer.

Taft, contrary to Theodore, was a typical Rockefeller Republican. He fought fire with fire and attacked the Morgans with anti-trust suits, breaking up International Harvester and United States Steel. In retaliation for Taft's retaliation, the Morgans straight up invented a political party to break Taft. The Progressive Party, the first one, was founded in 1912 by the Morgans. They wanted blood basically and brought Roosevelt out of retirement, split the Republicans and get a Democrat elected for the first time in a generation. The party was erased afterwards. But anyway yeah, the Progressive Party was headed by George Perkins, a former Morgan partner. Roosevelt's financiers included Judge Elbert Gary the chairman of the board of US Steel, Medill McCormick from the International Harvester family, and Morgan's partner Willard Straight.

Wanna hear something funny? Guess who was on the board of the Morgan-controlled Mutual Life Insurance Company for years right before the election. Woodrow Wilson. I'll get to his cabinet and then FDR later.

I'll try to post more later in the day. I need sleep.

iustitia
01-16-2016, 01:55 PM
Ok so Wilson's son in law William McAdoo not only became his Secretary of Treasury but was also a failed businessman who was bailed out by Morgan and even made president of New York's Hudson and Manhattan Railroad. Wilson's main support came from George Harvey the head of the Morgan-controlled Harper & Brothers, Thomas Ryan a Wall Street financier and Morgan associate, and Cyrus McCormick the head of International Harvester, a Morgan ally and Wilson's college classmate. A head political advisor of Wilson's was George Peabody a NYC banker and son of Morgan banker Boston Brahmin.

Wilson's crooked foreign policy adviser, Colonel Edward House had a shitload of financial connections but was head of Trinity and Brazos Valley Railway financed by the House family in partnership with Morgan-associated Boston moneyed interests like the Old Colony Trust Company. By 1914 Morgans were hit hard by recession and competition. And what do you know, that's when WWI breaks out. WWI saved the Morgan steel industry because you need metal for war obviously. The Morgans were heavily invested in the Allies in WWI, connected to the British and French, especially through their Rothschild allies. The Morgans had a monopoly on their war bonds in the US. JP Morgan also of course was the fiscal agent for the Bank of England and heavily financed the American munitions and war-related industries which despite America not being at war yet profited by exporting to the British and French. Andrew Carnegie, Morgan ally since Carnegie Steel merged into US Steel, wrote to Wilson in 1914 bitching about business conditions but cheered for the prospect of WWI because Allied purchases would increase their profits.

IIRC, the Morgans didn't just profit, they fucking rebounded like a motherfucker. Business boomed thanks to WWI. Iron and steel quintupled from 1914 to 1917. Explosives exports rose 10-fold just in 1915, and from 1915 to to 1917 profit rates of iron and steel jumped from 7.4 to 28.7%. JP Morgan had negotiated 3 billion dollars worth of contracts to the French and British. And everyone supported this "war socialism" so to speak. Secretary McAdoo lauded the prosperity created by the Allies in writing to Wilson. J. George Frederick accurately claimed in a column that "War, for Europe, is meaning devastation and death; for America a bumper crop of new millionaires and a hectic hastening of prosperity revival. The coming of war orders has created more value by five times than the war orders themselves!"

The Morgans also desired to get America into the war. Morgan partner Henry Davison set up the Aerial Coast Patrol to propagate anti-German hysteria, Bernard Baruch and Morgan partners Willard Straight and Robert Bacon financed the Businessmen's Training Camp to push for universal military training and war preparation, and Morgan himself along with his political goons pushed for US entry into the war on the side of the Allies, including Henry Cabot Lodge, Elihu Root and Theodore Roosevelt.

The National Security League was founded as early as 1914 to promote American entry into the war against Germany, promoting anti-German hysteria and fear-mongering over invasion by the Germans, and also promoted universal training, conscription and the creation of the most powerful navy on Earth. The NSL of course, included Wall Street attorney for the British, Russian and French governments Frederic Coudert, T. Coleman DuPont from the DuPont munitions family of course, and other Morgan men including Morgan parter Robert Bacon, Henry Prick of Carnegie Steel, Judge Gary of US Steel, the "secretary of state" for Morgan interests and Morgan partner George Perkins, former president Theodore Roosevelt and JP Morgan himself. There are others I could name off who are also connected to the two Roosevelt administrations. There were other societies founded, including the secret group The Inquiry founded by Colonel House.

Long story short, I would never claim that WWI as complex as it was was the sole creation of American businessmen; that's stupid. But what I will say is that once the war broke out American financial and political interests worked heavily to guide its outcomes for profit. Morgan rivals such as Kuhn-Loeb were pro-German and didn't make out as well. But for Morgans and their allies in business, banking and politics WWI was a godsend. I'd write more, but I have to go work out. So I don't want to argue that WWI was started by Wall Street, the suggestion of which would likely give Mister D a stroke. But I do maintain that once it began, our financial sector - especially on Wall Street - manipulated the situation and its influence over a Morgan puppet like Woodrow Wilson is undeniable.

But like I said, I need to go work out. I'll get to FDR later.

iustitia
01-16-2016, 09:33 PM
Ok, there is so much to say about FDR. And I hate talking about him. But yeah, cousin of Morgan-backed Theodore Roosevelt. Morgan-backed Woodrow Wilson retread. But of course Franklin Delano Roosevelt was of two rich and influential families connected to business, banking and politics - the Delano and Roosevelt families. FDR's uncle Fred Delano aka "uncle Freddy", for instance, was on Wilson's Federal Reserve Board along with other Morgan interests. And FDR himself was a huge businessman that over his career held 14 corporate directorships, including the presidency of the United European Investors corporation he founded to profit off speculation and investment in Germany's hyperinflation following WWI, working alongside the very German politicians and businessmen that caused said economic collapse like Wilhelm Cuno who led HAPAG and was connected to FDR through UEI board member John von Berenberg Gossler who was also co-director of HAPAG. FDR and his fellows in the UEI took part in the "sack of Germany", buying up property in the inter-war period and investing in poison gases, explosives and... huh, nah couldn't be.

Nah but really, FDR did some fucking shady shit. His company had connections to German and Bolshevik espionage. UEI and FDR were connected through Muller, Schall & Company to Adoplh Pavenstedt and Edmund Pavenstadt of Amsinck & Co. Amsinck & Co. which was controlled by Morgan financial interests (through the American International Corporation) and connected to the German spy system in America. But whatever, off topic I guess.

Much like WWI, WWII saw the Morgans deeply entrenched in British and French efforts, as opposed to the Rockefellers who competed ith Japan for oil and rubber but were connected to Germany through IG Farben. The Morgans wanted war with Germany whereas the Rockefellers wanted war with Japan. Shockingly, the US ended up fighting both. WWII, America's financial involvement anyway, was thus a coalition war. I mean everything about it was incestuous, from the money to the history. Japan for instance was as militaristic as it was because FDR's cousin Theodore convinced the Japanese they were honorary Aryans and had an obligation to subjugate the inferior Asian people as a means of civilizing them like Europeans. Morgan men like Lewis Douglas and Dean Achesonnleft the Roosevelt administration over fiat monetary policies but jumped back into the pool with the onset of war. Nelson Rockefeller became head of Latin American activities during the war. The only Morgan man in FDR's cabinet that I'm aware of who supported peace was Joe Grew, and he was Ambassador to Japan not Ambassador to Germany.

What's funny is you'll find plenty of Roosevelt-haters and Rooseveltophiles writing biographies or ideological works about his and/or his life but you will never find a work that scrutinizes his business life in any meaningful way. Detractors would seldom even think to attack FDR for making money, and supporters would never utter more than a few measly sentences about business practices that might portray the bastard as anything less than a patron of the common man. FDR was an aristocrat. He was a businessman. He was a speculator. He was kind of a crook in reality. Even ignoring his connections to money everything about him was disgusting. And the same goes for that vile tool Woodrow Wilson. And the same goes for that insane militarist Teddy.

Green Arrow
01-25-2016, 11:10 PM
@iustita, sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I kept meaning to come back and respond but then something else would come up and I forgot again.

I see the angle you are coming from, but the Northern Securities Co. case still makes me skeptical of your conclusions, at least about TR. You basically argue that the Northern Securities Co. antitrust case, which broke up the Morgan-backed steel monopoly, actually benefited the Morgans and that they basically wanted the breakup. That doesn't make much sense to me. If no monopoly was better for Morgan than having a monopoly, why bother constructing the monopoly to begin with? Why not just leave things as they were?

iustitia
01-26-2016, 01:28 AM
Morgan really didn't have a monopoly, though. Northern Securities was the end result of a bidding war between Morgan/Hill and Harriman, financial enemies who had been competing for control of railroads. The entire company was a compromise after a series of stock raids. It stalled Harriman from advancing over more railroads.

Roosevelt's reputation as a trust-buster has been long-exagerated. Taft, for instance initiated twice as many anti-trust suits in a single term than Roosevelt in two. Truth be told once you wade through the patriotic myths you learn that Roosevelt believed that the concentration of corporate power was inevitable and often beneficial for the public.

But back on point, however, Roosevelt also pursued statist objectives. The Northern Securites case did something I hadn't mentioned. It severely expanded federal authority over matters of interstate trade since the scope of the Sherman Act was limited as a result of the EC Knight case. United States vs EC Knight was a case in which President Grover Cleveland sued over the American Sugar Refining Company gaining control of the EC Knight Company. Funny thing, Grover Cleveland was also a Morgan man. Both his non-consecutive terms were filled with Morgan interests. And he hated sugar trusts, unlike Republicans. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Roosevelt succeeded with Northern Securities where Cleveland failed with EC Knight, expanding federal authority over matters of interstate trade, and unlike with sugar trusts there were no consumers to protect.

That said, it had nothing to really do with leveling the playing fields for the consumer. Prices for consumers were actually down and despite competition between Harriman, Morgan and others prices were stable. There was no real monopoly over railroads to bust. Price wars between Northern Pacific and Great Northern hadn't been a thing for twenty years.

I'm sorry if I again come off as jumbled. I'm again replying after midnight and need sleep.

Chris
01-26-2016, 10:47 AM
iustitia, you would like reading Armentano's Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure. It looks at major anti-monopoly suits brought by the government, at the behest of competitors, who couldn't compete economically, against non-existent monopolies. Most court opinions were not based on evidence of monopoly but the judges' invention of the potential for it.

Peter1469
01-26-2016, 04:13 PM
@iustitia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=926), you would like reading Armentano's Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure. It looks at major anti-monopoly suits brought by the government, at the behest of competitors, who couldn't compete economically, against non-existent monopolies. Most court opinions were not based on evidence of monopoly but the judges' invention of the potential for it.

The recent monopoly cases are concerned with actual market share. Not the potential of market share.

Chris
01-26-2016, 04:19 PM
The recent monopoly cases are concerned with actual market share. Not the potential of market share.

Don't want to get off topic the op but market share is not indicative of monopolistic practices.