Badlands Media - Badlands Book Club: The Creature From Jekyll Island - Chapter 18

Episode Date: October 15, 2026

Ashe in America and CannCon settle in for Chapter 18 of The Creature from Jekyll Island, picking up right after Jackson's war on the Second Bank. The Bank is dead, but banking is very much alive, and the chapter walks through the failed fixes that followed. They cover the push to kill small banknotes and force everyday trade back onto gold and silver, then how checkbook money and demand deposits made those limits pointless. Next come the safety-fund schemes, money backed by government securities (the Red Dog and Wildcat era that foreshadowed the Fed), and the mirage of "free banking" that still ran on state favors and gold-box tricks. From there the book turns to the Union in jeopardy: tariffs, legal plunder, Lincoln, and why the Civil War looks like an economic war as much as a moral one, with Mexico and the Monroe Doctrine in the mix. Ashe and CannCon keep pulling the thread to today, including how the 1830s money fights rhyme with current trade and industrial policy. No sponsor interview in this cut. Dense history, clear parallels, and a lot of "we're just describing the present."

The Badlands, what are the Badlands? Explain those Badlands. That's a hell of a name. That's a hell of a name. All right. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Badlands Book Club covering chapter 18 of The Creature from Jekyll Island. It's the bad mood hour here on Badlands Media. And, you know, I was just thinking while watching the intro, the fact, I think I might have said this before, but it just tickles me every single time that the voice, over says join the movement as Chris Paul's faces on the screen and it's just the well the last one probably yeah that's funny um yeah so we're going to jump into chapter 18 today but did you um did you see the news about Bank of America uh is there new news about Bank of America since yesterday since yesterday's news oh okay because the the the $1.2 billion or is there something else?

No, the $1.2 billion, but did you... Yeah, I wrote about it. Okay, so you're familiar. That's crazy, man. Yeah, you know what's crazy about it, Brian? Is that if Bank of America came out and made some bold assertion about public trust, the majority of people would still believe them. Yeah, that's true.

Well, maybe not. Maybe with banking, they'd be like, oh, yeah, the banks are all corrupt. And it's like, but our elections are totally free and fair. They were aiding and abetting foreign money laundering networks. They were hiding, hiding transactions, aiding and abetting foreign money laundering networks. And who's going to prison? That was the theme of my take in the brief today. Who's going to prison for this?

Because, and what it said in the reporting was that they've agreed to additional oversight and auditability and training of their staff and all the things, right? We made some process changes. We all agreed. Here's the problem. Bank of America already is under as a condition of their existence in the United States of America, financial industry. They already agree to oversight and training and, you know, auditability and transparency. They've already, they already agree to that. And that's the punishment. That's not punishment. That's a joke. That's a slap in the face. the American people. And that's tying back, you know, because we can tie everything back to elections, that's Citizens United. That is giving corporations the power to be treated as humans when

they want to, when it's convenient and as individual, you know, as corporations, as corporate entities when it's convenient for the executives within that agency. And this is something that, you know, Bank of America acknowledged, or at least the article that we covered this on daily yesterday. The article we covered acknowledges that Bank of America has known about this for years and just kicked the can down the road on it, right? Ignored it, you know, did little to rectify it. Meanwhile, they've been funding, you know, cartels, terrorist organizations, money laundering. If you or I in a personal capacity did one, one thousandth of that, we would be in prison. And Bank of America gets a slap on the wrist, a $1.2 billion fine, which they'll probably

have 30 years to pay off and it's not going to affect their bottom dollar three point five trillion dollar at trillion dollars in assets second largest bank in the united states of america ironically sixth largest bank in the world so the first largest bank in america is jp morgan chase the second is bank of america the fifth largest bank in the world so america versus the world is jp morgan chase Chase. Sixth is Bank of America. The four banks in the world that are ahead of the two American banks, Chinese banks. And the allegation against Bank of America is that they were enabling Chinese money laundering networks. You cannot hate these people enough. And that is, that is actually probably a good segue into our first sponsor of today. And that is our friends over at Goldco, Golden Silver, are back in the headlines after an incredible. run earlier this year. Both metals pulled back, but recently they've started climbing again. Gold is once again pushing above the $4,000 mark, while silver has rallied sharply as investors returned precious metals amid gold global uncertainty. Analysts point to continued central bank buying

strong physical demand and a growing industrial demand for silver as reasons for long-term outlook to remain strong. Every day, more Americans are looking to diversify with assets that have withstood the test of time. And that is why now may be a smart time to take a closer look at Goldco for limited time, Goldco is celebrating America's 250th anniversary with a special offer. On qualifying purchases, you will receive up to 10% in free silver, plus a free solar generator. It's a valuable bonus for anyone looking to strengthen their financial preparedness. If you've been thinking about adding physical gold or silver to your portfolio or simply want to learn more, don't wait, head over to badlandsgold.com to claim your free gold and silver kit and see if you qualify for this limited time anniversary offer.

Again, that's badlandsgold.com. And then we've also got our friends over at Alp. Are you tired of nicotine pouches drier than your ex's texts? Meet Alp, the moist flavor bomb pouches that actually deliver. While the other guys taste like Grandma's dusty tea bag, Alp hits you with bold flavors and 20 pouches per 10. That's five extra hits of satisfaction. 3 milligrams for chill mode, up to 12 milligrams where I just saw the group chat energy.

Alp, because your lips deserves better than a desert. Grab yours at badlandsmedia. com. That's ALP and use code badlands for 10% off. Finally have a better time. That's badlandsmedia. TV slash alp code badlands. All right.

And why is the chat not working in streaming? Oh, there it is. For some reason it's frozen. No, it was frozen for me. Now it's good. So, okay. Let's go ahead and jump into chapter 18 of the creature from Jekyll Island. And go ahead.

Take it away, Ash. You got it. Hang on, I got to put my little creature. Little creatures got to go on his perch. This is where he sits while we read. All right. Loaves and fishes and Civil War. attempts to stabilize the banking system by political measures, including regulation of fractional reserve ratios and establishing bank failure insurance funds, the failure of all such schemes, the resulting economic conditions that led up to the Civil War.

As detailed in the previous chapter by 1836, the hydro-headed monster had been slain and, true to the president's campaign promise, the nation had Jackson and no bank. In April of that year, the administration moved to consolidate its victory and pushed a series of monetary reforms through Congress. One of these required all banks to cease issuing paper notes under $5. The figure was later increased to $20, and its purpose was to compel the nation to return to the use of gold and silver coin for everyday use, leaving bank notes primarily for large commercial transactions. The White House also announced that in the future, all federal land sales, would require full payment in lawful money, which of course meant precious metal coins. It must be remembered, however, that even though the Bank of the United States was dead,

banking was very much alive, and so were Jackson's enemies. Much to the disappointment of the hard money advocates, these measures were not sufficient to usher in the millennium. Not only were they inadequate by themselves, they were soon circumvented by the development of, by the development of new banking techniques and eventually were dismantled completely by a fickle Congress. The prohibition against banknotes of small denomination deserve special notice. It was an excellent concept, but what the legislators failed to understand, or at least pretended not to understand, was that the banks at this time were increasingly dealing with the checkbook money, technically

called demand deposits. As people gradually became accustomed to this new method of transferring funds, the importance of banknotes declined. Placing a limit on the issuance of banknotes without any restriction on the creation of demand deposits was an exercise in futility. In 1837, the Bank of the United States slipped into history. The nation was at the tail end of an economic boom. Professor Rothbard tells us that this expansion in the accompanying inflation had been fueled by the central bank.

Total money in circulation had risen 84. percent in just four years. Then, as inevitable as the setting sun, that portion of the money supply, which had been created by fractional reserve banking, in other words, the part that was backed by nothing, began to contract. 16% of all the nation's money totally disappeared in just that first year. Again, men were put out of work. Businesses went into bankruptcy, homes and savings were lost. Many banks folded also, but their operators walked away with the spoils. Only the depositors were left holding the empty bag. There were numerous proposals advanced regarding how to infuse stability into the banking system, but then as now, none of them

dealt with the real problem, which was fractional reserve banking itself. As Gross Close observed, these proposals were, quote, each according to a particular theory of how to multiply loaves and fishes or how to make candy wool. Since the proposals presented then are identical to the ones being offered, today, and since each of them was actually tried, it would seem appropriate to inquire into the actual results of these experiments. That's what I was just thinking. Like, it sounds like Jackson was the blueprint for how to abolish away the Federal Reserve. Now, that was only after 20 years.

We've had over 100, almost 120 years of a Federal Reserve. And you can imagine the tentacles, the roots are much deeper rooted in our society now. than they were back then. And now with technology and transportation and the internet and everything else, it's, I mean, that is a hell of a lift to abolish it in today's, uh, in today's system. Yeah. Proposal to base money on bank assets. There were four schools of thought regarding the multiplication of loaves and fishes. The first of these was the creation of money should be limited to a ratio of the bank's assets. This was a formula that was tried in the New England states in Massachusetts,

for example, the issuance of banknotes was limited to two times the amount of the bank's capital actually held in the vault. Furthermore, this could not be in the form of paper money, bond, securities, or other debt instruments. It had to be strictly gold or silver coin. Also, the banks were limited in the number of small denomination banknotes that they could use. And in this, Massachusetts served as the model for Jackson's attempt, attempted reform at the federal level. That they could issue is what mine says. That's what did I say? He said use.

Oh, that they could issue, excuse me. By previous standards and certainly by the standards that prevail today, this was an exceptionally conservative policy. In fact, even during the previous stress of the war of 1812, when banks were failing by the hundreds across the country, the Massachusetts banks and most of the other New England banks as well were able to maintain full payment in specie. With the passage of time, however, the limit on bank notes became less important because the banks were now using checkbook money instead. Their paper notes may have been limited to 200% of

their capital, but there was no effective limit to the numbers that they could ink into people's deposit books. So the quote-unquote fraction and fractional reserve banking began to shrink again. Consequently, the money contraction in 1837, quote, was like a sith across the crop, over the crop, said gross close. And 32 Massachusetts banks, Massachusetts, banks collapsed that year in 1844. The state attempted to patch the system by instituting a network of bank examiners and by increasing the liability of bank stockholders for the lost funds of their depositors, but the underlying problem was still ignored. A new crop of banks then sprang into existence and a new wave of speculative mania swept through the economy. By 1862, even though

the loss still limited bank notes to two times capital, the banks had, created 73,685,000 in total money, including checkbook money. This was supported by a base of only 9.595 million species, a reserve of only 13%. Massachusetts had not solved a problem. Yeah. Proposal to protect deposits with the safety fund. The second theory about how to have stable banking and allow the banks to create money out of nothing was to create a safety fund. This fund, supported by all the banks, would come to the aid of any member, which needed an emergency loan to cover a sudden drain of its reserves. It was the forerunner of today's FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and related agencies. The first safety fund was

established in New York in 1829. The law required each bank to contribute annually one-half, of 1% of its capital stock until the total reached 3%. The fund was first put to the test during the crisis of 1837, and it was almost swamped. The only thing that saved it was that the state agreed to accept the worthless notes of all defunct banks as payment for canal tolls. In other words, the taxpayers were compelled to make up the difference. When the fund was exhausted, the solvent banks were punished by being forced to pay for the deficits of the insolvent ones. Naturally, this impelled all banks to act more recklessly. Why not? The upside was that profits would be higher for a time at least. The downside was that if recklessness got them into trouble, the safety fund would bail them out. The result was that the system provided a penalty for prudence and an incentive for recklessness, a situation with perfect parallel to that which exists in the banking system today. They were too big to fail, Brian. Gross Close says, quote,

The conservatively managed institutions lending upon the safer risks upon which naturally the margins of profit were smaller, found the assessments burdensome and were compelled to embark upon the more speculative business in order to carry the charges. Gradually, all bank sank into the quagmire and in 1857, the Massachusetts Safety Fund was abandoned. Michigan's experience with a safety fund was perhaps more typical, of the period. It was established in 1836 and was completely blown away the next year during the panic of 1837. Proposals to base money on securities. The third proposal for maintaining a stable monetary system while at the same time allowing the banks to operate fraudulently was to base the money supply on government securities, in other words, upon paper certificates of government debt.

This was the scheme adopted in the 1850s by Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and other Midwestern states. It also set the precedent for the Federal Reserve System 60 years later. Gross Close continues, quote, so rampant was the note issue mania that the notes came to be called by the appropriate name of red dog and wildcat currency. The rising crop of banks created a fictitious demand and a rising market for securities to be used as capital stock and a consequence. stimulus to the creation of public debt by the issue of securities. This was followed by more bank notes being issued against the securities. Demand increasing and the market rising, more security issues, more bank notes, and so in an endless chain of debt creation and the inflation of paper wealth, the process was finally brought to a stop by the panic of 1857. Proposal to back money

with state credit. The fourth proposal for producing something out of nothing. was to back the issue and set money by the full faith and credit of the state. This was the method tried by many of the southern states, and it too has survived to become one of the cornerstones of our modern-day banking system. Alabama, for example, in 1835, created a state bank funded by a public bond issue of $13,800,000. Instant money flooded through the economy, and people were joyous over the miracle prosperity. The legislature, were so intoxicated with the scheme that they completely abolished directs taxation and decided to run the government on bank money instead. In other words, instead of raising state revenue through

taxes, they found it easier to raise it through inflation. Like all the others, this bubble also burst in the panic of 1837. A post-mortem examination of the bank showed that six million of its assets were completely worthless. The people who had lent, I wonder how much of Bank of America's 3.5 trillion in assets is absolutely worthless as just paper, you know. The people who had lent their real money to the venture backed by the full faith and credit of the state lost almost all of their investment in addition to what they had paid through inflation. Mississippi put its full faith in credit behind a state bank in 1838 and issued 15 million in

bonds as backing for its bank notes. The bank was belly up within four years and the state completely repudiated its obligations on the bonds. This infuriated the bondholders, particularly the British financiers who had purchased a large portion of the issue. The devastating effect upon the state and its people were described by Henry Poor. Quote, the 48 million of the bank's loans were never paid. The 23 million of notes and deposits were never redeemed. The whole system fell, a huge, shapeless wreck, leaving the people of the state very much as they came into the world. Everybody was in debt without any possible means of repayment.

Lands became worthless for the reason that no one had any money to pay for them. Such numbers of people fled from the state that the common return upon legal process against debtors was in the very abbreviated form, GTT, gone to Texas. Money, based on the full faith and credit of the state, met similar fates in Illinois, Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, and Louisiana. When the state bank collapsed in Illinois in 1825, all of the full faith bank notes left in its possession were ceremoniously burned in the public square. Another bank was formed in 1835 and collapsed in 1842. So devastating were these experiences that the Illinois Constitution of 1848 stipulated

that henceforth the state should never again create a bank or own banking stock. In Arkansas, even real estate was tried as a magic wand. Subscribers to the state bank instead of putting up cash were allowed to merely pledge their real estate holdings as collateral. The bank notes rapidly plummeted in value to only 25% of the face amount within four years and the bank was gone. We lost Facebook for some reason. The mirage of free banking.

There was a parallel development at this time called free banking. The name is an insult to truth. What was called free banking was merely the conversion of banks from corporations to private associations. Aside from no longer receiving a charter from the state, practically every other aspect of the system remained the same, including a multitude of government controls, regulations, supports, and other blocks against the free market. George Selgin reminds us that, quote, permission to set up a bank was usually accompanied by numerous restrictions, including especially required. acquired loans to the state, end quote. The free banks were no less fraudulent than the chartered banks. The old custom was revived of rushing gold coins from one bank to another just ahead of the bank examiners and of quote, putting a ballast of lead, broken glass, and appropriately 10 penny

nails in the box under a thinner covering of gold coins. When one such free bank collapsed in Massachusetts, it was discovered that its banknote circulation of $500,000 was backed by examines. exactly $86.48. Professor Hans Senholz writes, quote, Although economists disagree on many things, most see eye to eye on their acceptance of political control, these economists invariably point at an American money and banking before the Civil War, which in their judgment confirms their belief. In particular, they cite the free banking error of 1838 to 1860 as a frightening example

of turbulent banking and therefore applaud the legislation that strengthened the role of government. In reality, the instability experience during the free banking era was not caused by anything inherent in banking but resulted from extensive political intervention. Free banking acts did not repeal burdensome statutory provisions and regulatory directives. In fact, they added a few. For banking to have been truly free, the states would have had to do only two things. enforce banking contracts the same as any other contract, and then two, step out of the picture. By enforcing banking contracts, the executives of any bank which failed to redeem its currency

and specie would have been sent to prison, an eventuality which soon would have put a halt to currency over issue. By stepping out of the picture and dropping the pretense of protecting the public with a barrage of rules, regulations, safety funds, and guarantees, people would have realized that it was their responsibility to be cautious and informed. But, instead, the banks continued to enjoy the special privilege of suspending payment without punishment and the politicians clamored to convince the voters that they were taking care of everything. In short, throughout this entire period of bank failures, economic chaos and fleecing of both investors and taxpayers, Americans tried everything except full redemption by gold and silver.

As the name of Andrew Jackson faded into history, so did the dream of honest banking. not all banks were corrupt and certainly not all banks were conspirators against the public. There were many examples of honest men striving to act in an ethical manner in the discharge of their fiduciary responsibilities. But they were severely hampered by the system within which they labored, a system which, as previously illustrated, punished prudence and rewarded recklessness. In balance, the prudent banker was pushed aside by the mainstream and became a footnote to the history of that period. going back to for banking to have been truly free the states would have had to do only two things one enforce banking contracts the same as any other contract and then two step out of the picture that is such a john drake lysander spooner answer to this and it's and it's it's correct on its

face you know that this is it is the the government intervention the two the banks are too big to fail, so we need to bail them out. These are all scams that have been perpetrated on the American people. The answer, as is the answer with most things, is that the government needs to get out of it. Industrial expansion, in spite of dishonest banking. Another positive aspect to the picture is that it was during this same time that many business enterprises came into being and greatly prospered, albeit at the expense of those who had no desire to contribute. The great canals were dug, the railroads pushed back the frontier. Boomtown sprang up along the way. Prairies were turned into agricultural land and new businesses followed in their wake. Much of this expansion was

facilitated by a flood of fraudulent money created by the banks. Apologists for fractional reserve banking have been prone to look at this development and conclude that in net balance, it was a good thing. The fact that some people were cheated in order for others to prosper did not seem to be important. America just wouldn't have grown and prospered without funny money. Galbraith, for example, exudes, quote, as civilization or some approximation came into

an Indiana or Michigan crossroads in the 1830s or 1840s, so did a bank. Its notes, when used and loaned to a farmer to buy land, livestock, feed, seed, food, or simple equipment put him into business. If he and others prospered and paid off their loans, the bank survived. If he and others did not so prosper and pay, the bank failed. And someone, perhaps a local creditor, perhaps an Eastern supplier, was left holding the worthless

notes. But some borrowers from this bank were by now in business. Somewhere, someone holding the notes had made an involuntary contribution to the winning of the West. The banking anarchy survived the frontier far back. better than a more orderly system that had kept a tight hand on credit could have done. William Greider continues this rationale. Quote, reckless booming anarchy, in short, produced fundamental progress.

It was not a stable system, racked as it was, with bank failures, and collapsed business ventures, outrageous speculation, and defaulted loans. Yet it was also energetic and inventive, creating permanent economic growth that endured after the froth had blown away. This, of course, is a classic example of the failure of liberal economics. When evaluating policy, it focuses only on one beneficial consequence for one group of people and ignores the multitude of harmful effects which befall all other groups. Yes, if we look only at the frontiersmen who acquired new ranches and established new business,

the fractional reserve system looks pretty good. if we add into the equation all of the financial losses to all of the people who were victimized by the system, what Galbraith calls, quote, an involuntary contribution and what Grider lightly dismisses as froth, then the product is zero at best, and in terms of morality is deeply in the negative. Galbraith, Grider, and the other popular economists assume that the West could not possibly have been won with honest banking. Logic does not support that conclusion. There is every reason to believe that the bank failures and the resulting business failures on the frontier all but canceled out the gains that were made by hard work and

honest industry. Had these destructive convulsions been absent, as most of them would have been under a less chaotic system, there likely would have been fewer business starts, but a greater number would have finished. And it is entirely possible that the West would have been won even faster than it was. It's too bad that theory has never been tried. The union in jeopardy. Excuse me. As chronicled in a previous section, economic conflict has always played a major role in fomenting war. There is no time in American history in which there was more economic conflict between segments of the population than there was prior to the civil war. It is not surprising, therefore, that this period led directly into the nation's bloodiest war made all the more

tragic because it pitted brother against brother. There are many popular myths about the cause of the war between the states, just as the Bolshevik revolution is commonly believed to have been a spontaneous mass uprising against a tyrannical aristocracy. So too, it is generally accepted that the civil war was fought over the issue of slavery. That, at best, is a half-truth. Slavery was an issue, but the primary force for war was a clash between the economic interests of the North and the South, even the issue of slavery itself was based on economics. It may have been a moral issue in the North where prosperity was derived from the machines of heavy industry, but in the Agrarian South, where fields had to be tended by vast workforces of human labor, the issue was primarily

a matter of economics. The relative unimportance of slavery as a cause for war was made clear by Lincoln himself during his campaign for the presidency in 1860, and he repeated that message in his first inaugural address. Apprehension, quote, apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern states that by the accession of a Republican administration, their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so. Even after the outbreak of war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his previous stand.

He declared, quote, my paramount object in this struggle is to save the union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it. And if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. It may come as a surprise to learn that by strict definition, Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist. In his fourth debate with Senator Stephen Douglas, he addressed the subject bluntly, quote, I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races that I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

And I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Wow. Never heard that quote before from Lincoln. Yeah. That's, I've never, I've never heard that one either. I guess we should go back and read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. which I feel like we had to do in school,

but I probably, you know, cheated, skipped through, read the cliff's notes. Oh, holy shit. Yeah, that's like straight up white supremacy. Disavow Abraham Lincoln. This is not to say that Lincoln was indifferent to the institution of slavery for help.

He felt strongly that it was a violation of personal and national morality, but he also knew that slavery was gradually being swept away all over the world with the possible exception of Africa itself, ironic. And he believed that it would soon disappear in America simply by allowing the natural forces of enlightenment to work their way through the political system. He faced, and rightly so, that to demand immediate and total reform not only would destroy the union,

it would lead to massive bloodshed and more human suffering than was endured even under slavery itself. Yeah, I don't know if you have a transposed word there, or like a mush. I can't read your thing because I don't make a glass. but it said he feared. So he was afraid of the immediate and total reform. I said he feared, didn't I? He said faced. Oh, quote, I have not allowed myself to forget that the abolition of the slave trade by Great Britain was agitated by hundreds of years before, was agitated a hundred

years before it was a final success, that the measure had its open fire eating opponents, had its open fire-eating opponents. It's stealthy don't-care opponents. It's dollar-and-cent opponents. It's inferior race opponents. It's Negro equality opponents. And it's religion and good order opponents. That all these opponents got offices and their adversaries got none.

But I have also remembered that though they blazed like tallow candles for a century, at last they flickered in the socket, died out, stank in the dark for a brief season, and were remembered no more even by the smell schoolboys know that wilber will beforce and granville sharp helped the cause forward but who can now name a single man who labored to retard it yeah remembering these things i cannot but regard it as possible that the higher object of this contest may not be completely attained within the term of my natural life I just need to like mark for the transcript that tallow candles sound amazing and we should we should get those for soft disclosure. Yeah, I was thinking that too.

But the smell like I'm eating tallow chips right now. Yeah, they smell like beef. Yeah, they're so good. Yeah. They're so good. But tallow candles. I haven't even heard of tallow candles yet. You'd have to have some fragrance in there somewhere, I'm sure, because the fat itself would stink after.

But yeah. It could smell like roasting meat, though. which is a good smell. Smoke, mesquite tallow candles. Mesquite smoker. Honey, you smoking meat again? Oh, it's candles. Love it.

Candles. That's like me. I come downstairs. Are you baking cookies? No, it's a candle. And I'm like, son of a bitch. What a disappointment. If Lincoln's primary,

you're rugged on the cookies. Exactly. If Lincoln's primary goal in the war was not the abolition of slavery, but simply to preserve the union, the question arises. Why did the union need, preserving? Or more pointedly, why did the southern states want to secede?

Legal plunder, not slavery, the cause of war. The South, being predominantly an agricultural region, had to import practically all of its manufactured goods from the northern states or from Europe, both of which had reciprocated by providing a market for the South's cotton. However, many of the textiles and manufactured items were considerably cheaper from Europe, and even after the cost of shipping had been added. The southern states, therefore, often found it was to their advantage to purchase these European goods rather than those made in the north. This put considerable competitive pressure on the American manufacturers to lower their prices and operate more efficiently. The Republicans were not satisfied with that arrangement. They decided to use the power of the

federal government to tip the scales of competition in their favor. Shocking. I'm shocked. This is my shocked face. Claiming that this was in the national interest, they levied stiff import duties on almost every item coming from Europe that was also manufactured in the north. Not surprisingly, there was no duty applied to cotton, which presumably was not a commodity in the national interest. One result was that the European countries countered by stopping the purchase of U.S. cotton, which badly hurt the southern economy. The other result was that the manufacturers in the north

were able to charge higher prices without fear of competition, and the South was forced to pay more for practically all of its necessities. It was a classic case of legalized plunder in which the law was used to enrich one group of citizens at the expense of another. Pressure from the North against slavery in the South made matters even more volatile. A fact often overlooked in this episode is that the cost of a

slave was very high, around $1,500 each. A modest plantation, with only 40 or 50 slaves, therefore, had a large capital investment, which in terms of today's purchasing power represented many millions of dollars. To the south, therefore, abolition meant not only the loss of its ability to produce a cash crop, but the total destruction of an enormous capital base. Many southern plantation owners were working towards the day when they could convert their investment into more profitable industrial production, as had been done in the North. And others felt that free men who were paid wages would be more efficient than slaves who had no incentive to work. For the present, however, they were stuck with the system they inherited. They felt that a complete and sudden abolition

of slavery with no transition period would destroy their economy and leave many of the former slaves to starve, all of which happened in due course. And that has a footnote. That assertion has a footnote. See No Civil War at all Part 1 by William McElaney, Journal of Individualist Studies. That was the situation that existed at the time of Lincoln's campaign and why in his speeches he attempted to calm the fears of the South about his intentions. But his words were mostly political rhetoric.

Lincoln was a Republican and he was totally dependent on the northern industrialists who controlled the party. even if he had wanted to, and there is no indication that he did, he could not have reversed the trend of economic favoritism and protectionism that swept him into office. I have been saying that for years that the Civil War was an economic war, not a principles war. Mexico and the Monroe Doctrine. Well, it was, sorry, it was both. And don't forget, you know, our secret constitution.

It had this, and I think all of these things are essentially driven by the financial system, because that's where the power and control ultimately ends up. But it was also inverting the Constitution and making the central government more powerful than the states. Okay, let me rephrase. It was an economic war that was propped up by a principles-based argument, a morality argument. You could invert that. It could be the principle. We want the power and control. We want the decision right. And so we're going to manipulate the financials in such a way that gets us the...

Well, if that were the case, you would have to look at who seceded. And when the South seceded, that's what triggered the war. And the South seceded over economics, not over power. Although there was a power grab because the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states south of the Mason Dixon. You could still have slaves in the North. And that was where they came off. Like, you don't have the authority to tell us something that you can't tell the North, right? You can't make us do something that you're not going to make everybody do.

And that's where the federalism really took hold in the in the reconstruction era. But the war itself, like the act of secession because of the financial burden that they were putting on, you know, tariffs for all the goods that were coming in from overseas that the South was dependent on forcing the South to buy manufactured goods from the north that were based on the cotton that they sold them. The whole thing was economics. Sure. But if you think about it in terms of a Hegelian dialectic, what is the ultimate goal? Is the goal to create terrible economic conditions or is the goal to bring about inverted power and control? Right. So the overarching goal of inverting the power dynamics and centralizing power is brought about through the U.S. Civil War predominantly. That's the triggering effect that led to them. doing that. But they were trying to do that since the founding. Right. But the end of Washington's first term, they're trying to do all this stuff. They just finally

got there with the Civil War. Mexico and the Monroe Doctrine, in addition to the conflicting interest between North and South, there were two other forces. There were, excuse me, there were other forces also working to split the nation in two. Those forces were rooted in Europe and centered around the desire

of France, Spain, and England to control the markets of Latin America. Mexico was the prime target. This was the reason the Monroe Doctrine had been formulated 38 years previously. President James Monroe had put the European nations on notice that the U.S. would not interfere in their affairs and that any interference by them in American affairs would not be tolerated. The Donne Row doctrine of today. In particular, the proclamation said that the American continents were no longer to be considered as available for colonization. None of the European

powers wanted to put this issue to the test, but they knew that if the United States were to become embroiled in a civil war, it could not also cross swords in Latin America. To encourage war between the states, therefore, was to pave the way for the colonial expansion into Mexico. The Americans had become a giant chessboard for the game of global politics. In the American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War, we read, quote, The war had not progressed very far before it was clear that the ruling class in each of these two countries, England and France, sympathized strongly with the Confederacy. so strongly that with just a little prodding, they might be moved to intervene and bring about

southern independence by force of arms. Europe's aristocracies had never been happy about the prodigious success of the Yankee democracy. If the nation now broke into halves, proving that democracy did not contain the stuff of survival, the rulers of Europe would be well pleased. The global chess match between Lincoln on the one side and England and France on the other was closely watched by other leaders of Europe. One of the most candid observers at that time was the Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck. Since Bismarck was himself deeply obligated to the power of international finance, his observations are doubly revealing. He said, quote, the division of the United States and the federations of equal force was decided long before the

civil war by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain, economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the Europe, over the Europe and the world. Of course, in the quote unquote inner circle of finance, the voice of the raw shields prevailed. They saw an opportunity for prodigious booty. It sounds like a rapper's name. Prodigious booty. That should be your rapper name.

Prodigitius. That is now your rapper name. prodigious booty prodigious they saw an opportunity for Cancon if they could substitute two feeble democracies burdened with debt to the financiers in place of a vigorous republic sufficient unto herself

therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to drive a wedge between the two parts of the union the rupture between the north and the south became inevitable the masters of European finance employed all their forces to bring it about and to turn it to their advantage. The strategy was simple but effective.

Within months after the first clash of arms between the north and the south, France had landed troops in Mexico. By 1864, the Mexicans were subdued and the French monarch installed Ferdinand Maximilian as the puppet emperor. The Confederacy found a natural ally in Maximilian, and it was anticipated by both groups that after the successful execution of the war, they would combine into a new nation, dominated by the financial power of the raw shields, of course. At the same time, England moved 11,000 troops into Canada,

positioned them menacingly along the Union's northern flank and placed the British fleet onto wartime alerts. The European powers were closing in for a checkmate. Canada has always been our greatest national security threat. Yep. And they remain so. Yep. Summary.

The second bank of the United States was dead. But banking was very much alive. Many of the old problems continued and new ones arrived. The issuance of banknotes had been severely limited, but that was largely offset by the increasing use of checkbook money, which had no limits at all on its issue. When the second bank of the U.S. slipped into history, the nation was nearing the end of the boom phase of a boom bus cycle. When the inevitable contraction of the money supply came, politicians began to offer proposals on how to infuse stability into the banking system. None dealt with the real problem, which was fractional reserve banking itself. They concentrated instead on proposals on how to make it work. All of these proposals were tried, and they failed. These years are sometimes described as a period of free banking, which is an insult to truth. All that happened was that banks were converted from corporations to private associations, a change in form, not substance. They continued to be burdened by government controls, regulations, supports, and other blocks against the free market. The economic chaos

and conflict of this period was a major cause of the civil war. Lincoln made it clear during his public speeches that slavery was not the issue. The basic problem was that North and South were dependent on each other for trade. The industrialized North sold its project to the South, which sold its cotton to the north. The South also had a similar trade with Europe, and that was an annoyance to the North. Europe was selling many products at lower prices, and the North was losing market share. Northern politicians passed protectionist legislation putting import duties on industrial products. This all but stopped the importation of European goods and forced the South to buy from the north at higher prices.

Europe retaliated by curtailing the purchase of American cotton. That hurt the South even more. It was a classic case of legalized plunder and the South wanted out. Meanwhile, there were powerful forces in Europe that wanted to see America embroiled in civil war. If she could be split into two hostile countries, there would be less obstacle to European expansion on the North American continent. France was eager to capture Mexico and grafted into a new empire, which would include many of the southern states as well. England, on the other hand, had military forces poised along the Canadian border ready for action. Political agitators, funded and organized from Europe, were active on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

The issue of slavery was but a ploy. America had become the target in a ruthless game of world economics and politics. It's kind of interesting if you think about it, how the economics of that time are similar to the Trump policy in the second term here or the third term, depending on how you look at it. You know, it's not European goods. It's Chinese goods mainly, predominantly, but European goods as well, that we're importing for cheaper than what we can make them here in the U.S. itself. We don't obviously have the divide of North versus South. I do think we have the divide of Democrats. versus Republican, conservative, liberal, that kind of thing. But because there's no boundaries, there's no territorial lines between the two, I think a civil war in that regard would be pretty difficult.

I still think we should give everybody an ultimatum. You've got 10 years to get out of the state you're in and get in a state that aligns with your political ideology. And after that, move on. I were going to say, I still think we should try it. No, no, no, no, no. We should give the, we should call it the national divorce legislation. 10 year head start.

That's a long time. There's a, that's way too much stuff for politicians to do, too. You know, it would be fantastic. You know, it would be fantastic is if you lived in a, in a red state, you would make a shit ton of money by selling your house. If you had like multiple houses, because you'd have so many more liberals that move in from the blue states into the red states. And, uh, and there's, the red states are pretty, pretty red. Uh, that would be fantastic. You'd see like, like, we'll give them the northern half of the country. We'll take the

southern half of the country. And, uh, and the north will just turn into nothing. It'll be so barren because there's not nearly as many people as I think there are. Yeah, but that, you know, all of, all of those things present opportunities for people to build something different in the north and the south and the east and the west and i think it would look like i think civil war would look like the movie civil war it would be sporadic depending on where you were you would either be in a peace and normal feeling america with snipers on the roofs right or you would be in a war zone and you know in any any um variation in between because it would come down to the minds of the people in that specific area and right now with everything you know kind of happening on

line and life happening largely in a digital way. People don't have those same kind of community bonds that they did in the past, but I think they would be rediscovered real quick when the shooting started. Yeah. I also don't know that it would be kinetic at all like shooting. I don't, I think we're already in that war. Yeah, but I, well, that's, I mean, that's the information and the culture war that we're in. But I think it would get to the point where you would just have businesses refusing to do business with certain types of businesses. Like during COVID? Yeah, I mean, I guess we do kind of have that.

We're already in that war. The question is when is it going to turn kinetic? And unless something changes, I think it ultimately will. I think it's inevitable that it will because the system is exploiting. And the government is picking sides. And, you know, that's the war that they want us in, though. In reality, what kind of American are you, Brian? In reality, the two sides that we are theorizing are in this culture, information war, whatever,

we don't realize that the guns, quote unquote, guns that we have turned on each other. We actually need to turn on the establishment itself because the establishment is going to survive anything that we throw at each other. and we need to turn all of that disdain and animosity towards it. Yeah, I was in a shop yesterday and somebody was talking about attacks and I said, just another reason to hate the government. And the woman behind me got really upset. She said, I'm a U.S. Marine, as though I was saying, I hate you, individual U.S. Marine. And so I feel like compelled to repeat.

And I know it's on this network ad nauseum. But when we talk about hating the government, we're talking about the people wielding the decision rights. The people that are that are executing decisions that are, you know, antithetical to the Constitution and direct conflict with the Constitution. Not everybody that works in the government, not, certainly not, you know, soldiers. But, you know, that's, that is kind of what we're dealing with. Because that whole thing in that shop turned into a bunch of people talking about why we actually really, really need the government. We won't have roads, Brian.

We won't have roads if we don't let these people continue stealing from us. And in that instance, I was talking about the state government because we were talking, the whole thing started up based on a state tax. And I was talking about the state government. And it was like, you mean you hate U.S. Marines? No. No, it doesn't have to, it doesn't have to be like that. You would have roads because businesses would want people to come and patronize their business.

And you would have roads. Yeah. I did give the opportunity. to tell all those people about Badlands though so hi if you're watching yeah if you're watching jump in the chat and say what's up all right guys talking about war

peace between the houses was never meant to last the house he will pay for it's all from every home he will pay for this house Tallow has called

banners. Housebeard oil has answered. You want a war? I'll give you a war. But this war won't be decided on the battlefield. It will be decided by you. Buy anything at softdisclosure.com then choose your allegiance. Your purchase is your vote. House tallow to fight for house tallow or house beard oil to stand with house beard oil. shop now and fight for your house the realm will know it's victor softdisclosure.com promo code house beard oil to get you 20% off and uh there we go of course we got to get in with the shenanigans there um Clairecat I'm so disappointed in you I have no idea who's been I'm really disappointed in you I'm hurt actually by Claire Katna natural Nikki, you know whatever

but uh whoa I love you naturally, Nikki. I would never dismiss you as a whatever. I dismiss her. She's dismissed. You have Mags. You have Liberty Lion. You have most of the men are on your side.

I have suppressors. You're probably going to win. I have suppressors. No. So check out. You see me give you condolences on your impending boat accident. Yeah, I did. I've had people freaking out.

Like, stop posting pictures of your guns. And I'm like, I am not even. concerned about that like not worried about that. It would be if you lived in Colorado. Those people are probably from a blue state because we're, you don't need a beard to buy house beard oil. You guys, you don't need a beard to use promo code house beard oil. Just like you don't need tallow to use promo code house tallow. Yeah. So guys, if you want to see your face and house can con, that's what it should have been. It should have been house cancone and house ash. Take it up with Green Star. This is the whole thing is his invention. Do you want to see?

your face in the next game of lotion's ad at Gart 14 in St. Pete Beach this November. Place a new soft disclosure order, then email your photo and order number to hello at soft disclosure.com by October 20th. You've got five days for a chance to make a cameo. Even better if you're holding your soft disclosure products or wearing them merch. So please your order, send us your best photo and you might just end up on the big screen. Your face, our commercial, questionable decisions may follow. And one thing that I don't know that we have consistently mentioned is that you now have the opportunity to put GART tickets on AfterPay or Clarna, so you can break them up into payments.

That was updated in our read, but I didn't update it in my read because I keep them separately in Notepad. So I haven't consistently said that. So I want to make sure that people know that, that you can break up the payment for your for your guard tickets into multiple payments over time and come hang out with us in St.Pee Beach. There you go. All right, guys.

Stay tuned. We've got a... And that's badlandsmedia. Dot TV slash events. Sorry. Oh, that's okay. What do we got coming up for today? I know I got sit rep tonight at 9 p.m.

Although I'm going to be off on that because Alpha wasn't on daily with me this morning. So I'm going to be like all over the place. Oh, no. What? You're going to be. Oh, it's just like I'm used to like talking with him after. Anyways, we got quite frankly. Oh, sorry.

We got quite frankly at 7 p.m. And then we've got life in the singularity, Matt McDonagh's new show at 8 p.m. And then sit rep at 9 p.m. followed by Badlands Story Hour at 1030. And that's the adjustment bureau. You and I were trying. I was trying to remember what that movie was called this morning when we were on daily. And it's called the Adjustment Bureau.

And I'm probably going to watch it. Burning Bright made it sound pretty predictive, which is always fun. All right, guys, we will see you later.