How to Save the Republic – Part 3 – Repeal the Direct Election of Senators

Allison Bricker

NOTE: This is the third part in a 4 part series. Your questions and commentary are both welcomed and appreciated.

• Part 1 – How to Save the Republic
• Part 2 – Abolish the Income Tax
• Part 3 – Repeal the Direct Election of Senators
• Part 4 – Similarities Between the Great Depression and Our Current Crisis

We must understand that the Central Bankers who sought to regain control over our money supply and monetary policy at the beginning of the 20th century did indeed learn a precious lesson from the demise of the 2nd Central Bank of the United States…

From 1832 to 1834 the battle known as “The Bank War”¹ raged in Congress regarding whether or not to extend the charter of the 2nd Central Bank. By this time, President Andrew Jackson finally had found a Secretary of the Treasury who agreed to remove the Federal government’s deposits from the central bank and instead deposit them into various state banks.

Furious over President Jackson’s attempt at reducing the influence of the central bank, Nicolas Biddle, Bank President penned a letter to William Appleton² threatening to send the country into an economic depression by contracting the money supply. In his letter he stated:

Biddle’s plan worked, inflation soared, unemployment became rampant, an unprecedented number of businesses unable to repay loans went into bankruptcy, and President Jackson became the first President in our history to be censured by the Senate³. Unfortunately for Mr. Biddle, his arrogance regarding his ability to cause an economic collapse allowed his ego to get the best of him. He continued boasting, now publicly that relief would only come if Congress renewed the bank’s charter. When Pennsylvania Governor George Wolf, a previous supporter of the central bank was made aware of the bank President’s sentiments, he immediately came out against extension or renewal of the bank’s charter.⁴

Further, the Pennsylvania state Senate legislatively denounced the Central Bank directing both of Pennsylvania’s, Federal Senators, Samuel McKean and William Wilkins, also previous supporters of the central bank, to vote against rechartering or extension of the 2nd National Bank.

Thus since Pennsylvania demanded its Senators vote against re-authorization of the 2nd Central Bank, both Senators McKean and Wilkins had no choice but to follow their state’s mandate or risk being recalled and replaced by the Pennsylvania legislature. With Pennsylvania, the home state of the 2nd Central Bank, coming out against renewal, Biddle and his bank were lost. The bank’s charter was not renewed and it reverted to a private state bank, ultimately collapsing under its own insolvency.

While Nicholas Biddle was able to bribe many individual members of Congress into supporting the 2nd Central Bank, neither the time nor resources could be made available to bribe all of the state Governors and legislatures, which held the leash over Senators to the upper house of Congress.

Seeing this as a possible stumbling block, those involved with crafting the 3rd Central Bank or FEDERAL RESERVE, sought to wholly prevent this check and balance on Federal Authority. The opportunity finally presented itself to sever this connection of Senators to their states during what came to be known as the “Progressive Movement”⁵, 1901 to 1917. It was an era where “Direct Democracy” was touted as a way to put the average person in charge of their government. Progressive shills railed against vacancies in the Senate as proof that the system of state legislative appointments was untenable. They also decried that political party “bosses” had too much sway over the ruling faction within a state legislature.

However, a 2006 analysis of “progressive era reforms” by Raffaela Wakeman from M.I.T. contradicts this “progressive” hyperbole stating:

…supposed [progressive era] anti-party reform actually made it easier for the two major parties to control the election of U.S. Senators.⁶

Morever, prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment and unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate was not a body of career politicians, with most Senators serving anywhere from 4 to 10 years. However, after direct election, Senators began to serve almost in perpetuity; with many serving 30+ years before retiring.

Additionally, the claim that massive deadlocks permeated state legislatures, thereby preventing effective representation is factually incorrect. The historical record indicates that between 1871 to 1913 only 13 deadlocks existed, with 12 of the 13 coming in the 1890’s. Yet another accusation made by “progressives” was that the Senate was a corrupt body purchased by business tycoons, robber barons, and industrialists. This “progressive era” claim also falls flat again as data available in the historical record, shows that prior to 1913 candidates for Senate had the rare hundred thousand Dollar expenditure. However, once popular elections commenced, the cost of a Senate seat exploded to well over $5 Million Dollars by the 1990’s.⁷

Nevertheless, the greatest damage from the direct election of Senators is that in destroying the last vestige of Federalism, it allows for unchecked Federal expansion of power while simultaneously chaining Senators to popular sentiment and thus making them easily corrupted by their reliance on necessary campaign contributions. Moreover, with no threat of recall by the states, it centralizes political authority wholly in Washington, making it even easier to exact a corrupting influence over all of Congress without having to corrupt numerous state legislators and Governors.

Looking even further into the historical record we see that even with the passage of the 17th Amendment, every single legislatively appointed Senator won re-election by popular vote, seriously calling into question the necessity of this so called “progressive reform”.⁷

Thus, with the limitless spigot of revenue to Washington secured by the
16th Amendment ( February 3rd, 1913) and the subservience of Senators via the 17th Amendment (April 8th, 1913), the central bankers now had within their grasp all that was necessary to finally resurrect the Bank of the United States.

Representative Lindbergh’s mentioning of the “Money Trust” was a reference to the “Pujo Committee”, conducted from May 16, 1912 to February 26, 1913. The committee concluded that a conspiracy to control the money supply and amass wealth did in fact exist, stating:

“An established and well-defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance which has been created and is held together through stock holdings, interlocking directorates, and other forms of domination over banks, trust companies, railroads, public service and industrial corporations, and which resulted in a vast and growing concentration of control of money and credit in the hands of a comparatively few men….”⁸

The entire report from the “Pujo Committee” which substantiates the existence of a conspiracy of bankers is available for download from the “FEDERAL RESERVE Archival System for Economic Research, -FRASER” in 32 separate PDF files.

Regardless of the committee’s findings, on December 23rd, 1913 “The FEDERAL RESERVE ACT” passed both the House and Senate and was thus signed into law by then President Wilson⁹. Within six years and with the Senate now subservient to contributions from lobbyists, financiers, and special interests, Congress became intoxicated with their new endless stream of “money”. The budget ballooned from $714 Million in 1913, to $5.13 Billion by 1919. Whereby the national debt during the first 124 years of the Republic, totaled $910 Million, it skyrocketed up to $24.1 Billion by 1919. An increase of $23.2 Billion in just 6 years.¹⁰

If the Republic is to be saved, the Senate must be restored to its Constitutional position and foundation upon Federalism. While it is my estimation that many “progressives” were of good and genuine intent to see government reformed and corruption eradicated, their movement was merely co-opted by those who sought a total centralization of power unto themselves for purely selfish desires, not to the benefit of “We the People”.

Source(s): ¹Jacksonian America by Edward Pessen 1920 • ²The Second Bank of the United States By Ralph Charles Henry Catterall -1902, pg 330 • ³ United States Senate, “Senate Censures President” • ⁴ The Second Bank of the United States By Ralph Charles Henry Catterall -1902, pg 339 • ⁵Progressive Era Reforms – Regents U.S. Histiory • ⁶ United States Senate Elections before 1914 by Raffaela Wakeman, M.I.T. • ⁷ “Democratizing the Constitution:The Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment” by C. H. Hoebeke* From HUMANITAS, Volume IX, No. 2, 1996 • ⁸ Report of the Committee Appointed Pursuant to House Resolutions 429 and 504 to Investigate the Concentration of Control of Money and Credit. February 28, 1913. Pages 1-258. • ⁹ New York Times “Affixes His Signature at 6:02P.M., Using Four Gold Pens” – December 24th, 1913 • ¹⁰ HISTORICAL TABLES – BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT – Office of Management and Budget 2005