7 votes

The "Civil War" and the Federal Reserve

Is there a connection here?

My computer just told me "You might also be interested in - 'Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve' by John Graham."

Here's the description:

"The author chronicles how the divisive antagonisms between the North and South, finally erupting in the spring of 1861, were deliberately agitated by great international banking houses with the goal of provoking secession. According to Graham, these private interests fully succeeded and set up a huge financial empire centered on Wall Street, using public debt as the source of their wealth. This watershed book explores the economic causes of the Civil War, revealing how the Civil War would not have happened had it not been planned and fomented by Northern capitalists."

Is there truth in history to pursue here? If so, do any of you DP's recommend this book?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
No.7's picture

bump. +1

What was the central bank during that time? I know it wasn't the federal reserve..

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Haven't Read but Have Similar Question

Thanks for the post - want to buy and read.

A couple years ago, I read a post that during the Civil War, President Lincoln was having trouble with the banks. The Czar of Russia, who had encountered similar problems, sent the Russian Naval Fleet for a visit of US ports. Their presence was a message to the banks that if they overthrew Lincoln, Russia would back him up. The banks never forgot that and later took part in backing the Reds in the Russian Revolution which resulted in the death of the Czar and his family.

Is this true?

One of the most concise articles you will ever read

Regarding Central Banks and our history

Americas Forgotten War Against the Central Banks

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/fsu/editorials/dollarda...

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Hamilton

"This type of money was also known as colonial bills of credit. This radically differed from the bills of debit issued by the central banks of Europe."

That ought not be misunderstood.

Alexander Hamilton was an associate of Robert Morris and they worked to create National Debt.

The Dirty Compromise (a.k.a. The deal to enslave both North and South under a new National Debt/Tax System or Consolidated Government) set the stage for an effort by many States to secede from the "Union", which was declared to be lawful (secession was lawful) with such notable documents as The Declaration of Independence.

There were many attempts to break The Union (banking monopoly) back into a voluntary association among separate, sovereign, competitive, and limited by constitutional governments or States including the effort by Jefferson and Madison with their Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions.

Of course the bankers are at the root of crime (fraud and extortion) made legal, just follow the one money to the one source and see who is ordering all those purchases with all that debt based fraudulent money.

Guess what can be found at the end of that rainbow?

CAFR?

Joe

One step further...

"176O's: Mayer Amschel's banking empire begins.

He soon realized the profitability of loaning money to governments. Shortly there after he realized even more profitability of loaning money to governments at war. It didn't take long after that to realize the maximum profitability of financing both sides of governments at war. He passed it on. It's been perfected."

he would finance the both sides of the war with one condition, the winner would accept the debts of the loser. By the way, this is with money they created with their own printing presses and charged interest to boot...

There is another way, just opt out of the federal reserve system and DEMAND LAWFUL MONEY. Don't endorse your paychecks. They can't force you to use their money, most just don't know they have an option.

David Merrill - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU6fxC5CXMg

12 USC § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

I have not read the book, but...

...the situation described by the author in the excerpt you provided is generally consistent with facts relayed by Thomas DiLorenzo in his two Lincoln books, The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.

Both excellent reads....showing the truth about Lincoln from his own words and documents...a truth that is quite at odds with established Lincoln lore.

And I note that there's a recent Lincoln push across the various propaganda engines today. Between O'Reilly, Beck, and a couple of recent movies (what else did I miss?), oh all the media comparisons between Obama and Lincoln, there seems to be something going on. Likely, it is one or both of the following:

1. These are in response to DiLorenzo, hoping that he has not done too much damage to the state-sponsored and idyllic view of Lincoln.
2. They are preparing the nation for Lincoln-like acts from Obama, in hopes that with the fable-version of Lincoln as his precedent, Obama can get away with some high level tyranny, such as invading and firing on a seceded state or arresting entire state legislatures to prevent them from passing laws he doesn't like.

Edited to add: Upon further reflection, this sentence in the excerpt bothers me: "with the goal of provoking secession." As I understand it so far, the South seceded because they were tired of being forced (by high tarriffs) to buy expensive products from the northern companies when they could otherwise get them cheaper overseas. So when they left, they were attacked in order to keep the northern companies from losing a huge chunk of their markets. I am not aware of any bankers trying to FORCE secession. I'd be interested to know what possible motives may have existed for that purpose.

Jack

Removing state barriers allowed for

enforced nationalisation of all industries. Controlled by northern monopolies this let a few people make a whole bunch of money without having to worry about competition from a free market. The 'robber barons' Carnegie (steel), Vanderbilt (rail), Rockefeller (oil), Morgan (finance), et al. That's basically how I understand it.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

I have read...

The Real Lincoln, but not Lincoln Unmasked. The former mentioned nothing about this banking plot within the conflict, at least not that I can remember.

I've also listened to all lectures on the war in Tom Woods' "Liberty Classroom." They mentioned the change in our national banking system that resulted from the North's victory, but they never made it out like banking interests are what started, or goaded the war into erupting.

Yep :

Bankers have been the bane of mankind since Sumerian times.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

Michael Nystrom's picture

Bump

While I don't have the time to read it at the moment, I wouldn't doubt it.

Wars need to be financed, and if done correctly, that financing is always profitable.

The Daily Paul continues to exist only with your support. Please contribute to the the DP's Summer 2014 Fundraiser.

176O's: Mayer Amschel's banking empire begins.

He soon realized the profitability of loaning money to governments. Shortly there after he realized even more profitability of loaning money to governments at war. It didn't take long after that to realize the maximum profitability of financing both sides of governments at war. He passed it on. It's been perfected.