American Lackeys (Uniformed Servants) of Great Britain

In an article entitled “The Army”, William Jennings Bryan begins by noting that President William McKinley, in his annual message to Congress of December 5, 1898, had made recommendations in favor of a permanent increase in the standing army. [1]

This was the same President McKinley who, a year earlier, on December 6, 1897, had said any forcible annexation of Cuba was “not to be thought of” because “by our code of morality” such an annexation “would be criminal aggression.” (Background: One Billion Dollars Flushed Down the Toilet, Ersjdamoo’s Blog entry of April 3, 2014.)


In one year’s time, President McKinley had gone from relative peacenik to increased preparations for war. One thing which had happened in the interim was the suspicious sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898. The USS Maine (image above) had been sent to Havana to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens after a small riot had erupted in Havana. [2]

Something else which may have changed between December 1897 and December 1898 was the effect of an alleged secret treaty between Britain and the United States. “In the United States, the Rockefeller-Morgan banking empire entered into a secret partnership with the British Rothschilds in 1897. That partnership – the real ‘special relationship’ – meant that Britain exerted control over U.S. foreign policy thereafter.” [3]

In Pan-Germanism by Roland G. Usher, published in 1913, corroboration of a secret “understanding” between Britain and the United States is given in Chapter X: overtures were made to the United States “which resulted, probably before the summer of the year 1897, in an understanding between the three countries [including France]. There seems to be no doubt whatever that no papers of any sort were signed, and that no pledges were given which circumstances would not justify any one of the contracting parties in denying or possibly repudiating.” [4]

“The mere fact that no open acknowledgment of this agreement was then made need not lessen its importance and significance.” [4]

Given that a “special relationship” was secretly agreed to by Britain and the United States in 1897, that could explain the imperialist expansion into the Philippines and President McKinley’s recommendations in favor of a permanent increase in the standing army. This was during the beginning of the eventually waning overt British empire. Somehow getting the United States to shoulder the burden of Britain’s global tentacles would have been good policy for the British.

However William Jennings Bryan did not favor the proposed increase of U.S. militarism. He considered it strange that McKinley’s request for a large increase in the permanent army came at the same time the Russian Tsar was urging the nations of the world to agree to the reduction of military establishments. Furthermore, argued Bryan, a large increase in the permanent army of the United States would transfer workers from field and factory to camps and barracks, “from the ranks of the wealth producers to the ranks of the tax consumers”. [1] This would decrease the wealth-producing power of the United States because, as explained by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, it is agriculture and manufacturing which produce wealth.

Also objected to by William Jennings Bryan was that an increase in the size of the permanent army would decrease the U.S. reliance upon its citizen soldiery. It was far better to rely on the State militia, since “soldiers in the regular service are withdrawn from productive labor and must be supported the year round, while members of the State militia receive military training without abandoning civil pursuits and without becoming a pecuniary burden to either State or nation.” [1]

But all this, if the secret agreement of 1897 did occur, had to be abandoned in order that the people and taxpayers of the United States could do the hard work of propping up the British empire. Britain is in an unusual position: according to a private letter written by Cecil Rhodes, made public in 1902, England had 90 million people to feed but was capable internally of supporting only about 6 million people. Hence Britain has chosen control of the seas and dominance over foreign markets. “Few Americans comprehend the immensity of the British Empire,” wrote E.C. Knuth circa 1945. [5] In April 2013 Nicholas Shaxson made a similar point: “It comes as a surprise to most people that the most important player in the global offshore system of tax havens is not Switzerland or the Cayman Islands, but Britain, sitting at the center of a web of British-linked tax havens, the last remnants of empire.” [6]

——- Sources ——-
[1] Republic or Empire?, by William Jennings Bryan, et al. Chicago: The Independence Company, 1899
[2] “Spanish-American War”, Wikipedia, April 4, 2014
[3] “Clash of Ideologies in Europe”, Ersjdamoo’s Blog entry of March 29, 2014.
[4] Pan-Germanism by Roland G. Usher. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1913
[5] The Empire of “The City”, by E.C. Knuth. Torrance, CA: Noontide Press, 1983
[6] “A Tale of Two Londons”, by Nicholas Shaxson. Vanity Fair magazine, April 2013.


About ersjdamoo

Editor of Conspiracy Nation, later renamed Melchizedek Communique. Close associate of the late Sherman H. Skolnick. Jack of all trades, master of none. Sagittarius, with Sagittarius rising. I'm not a bum, I'm a philosopher.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to American Lackeys (Uniformed Servants) of Great Britain

  1. Pingback: Apprehensions of War | Ersjdamoo's Blog

  2. Pingback: Emergence of Multipolar World | Ersjdamoo's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s