American Exceptionalism – Serious Distortions of the New Economic Era
F. William Engdahl writes in Studien von Zeitfragen:
It’s impossible to say whether, had he lived and remained vigorous to the end of the 1920’s, Junius Pierpont Morgan would have permitted the policy pursued by the House of Morgan after his death in early 1913. Morgan died some months before the Federal Reserve opened its doors in 1914, a Federal Reserve which largely owed its existence to Morgan’s support. Indicating the degree of personal authority the 75-year old Morgan commanded, the Wall Street Journal in February 1912, noted:
“The condition that has developed in Wall Street in the past fifteen years is to a considerable extent a personal one, and the authority which centers in the hands of Mr. Morgan, a man seventy-five years of age, is by no means something which can be passed down to his successors. Such men have no successors; and their work is either left undone after they are dead or the world devises other means and other works to take its place.”
Morgan died some months after being forced to testify before the populist Pujo House Banking Committee hearings into allegations of monopoly practices in finance. Apparently, those hearings shattered the older Morgan. His testimony that, for him a person’s personal character was the most important consideration of creditworthiness, was ridiculed by populist media, denouncing the banker as head of a so-called Money Trust. Clear is that the J.P. Morgan & Co. run by the successor partners, such as Henry P. Davison, Willard Straight (who died at the Versailles Peace talks), or Thomas W. Lamont, and later J.P. Morgan jr., linked the fate of Wall Street finance, and with it, the American finance and economy, which it dominated, to the future of postwar England, through various financial entanglements.