37 votes

Abraham Lincoln Saved America from Central Banking Tyranny

There seems to be a group of people that view Lincoln as some kind of an anti-central-banker prophet for the cause of "debt-free" currency. This sentiment is one which is particularly confounding when one considers Lincoln's affiliations and agenda throughout his political career. Along with ending the concept of a federal government whose powers are justly derived from the consent of the states and their citizens, Lincoln also could be called the father of the modern monetary-dictatorship. He was a fierce defender of the Whig Party platform and advocate of an American central bank, he was also a mercantilist who continuously supported a more nationalist, centrally planned economic system.

Lincoln did all that he could to expand the federal government's role in economic planning. Passing the Legal Tender act in 1862, which forced the acceptance of the greenbacks that Lincoln had issued to pay for the war effort. He then signed the National Banking Act of 1863 which imposed a tax on currencies issued through the state banks. He also was in favor of grand government spending projects like the transcontinental railroad which he signed into law and over-saw the beginning of its construction. The transcontinental railroad ended up being a massive example of government waste and corruption, running many multiples over budget, and leading the United States into an era of rail subsidies which became the center of an economic crash in 1873.

To be sure, a currency which can be manipulated through central bank policy is always a bad idea as it will always lead to cyclical fluctuations and economic instability, and Lincoln's version of monetary policy was not different. The claim that the currency created under the National Bank Acts of 1863 and 1864 was debt free, meaning that the government did not have to go into debt to a bank to issue new currency, is not actually true. Though the federal government was the actual issuer of the national currency, it also issued treasury bonds to the banks to hold as reserve behind the cash it was handing out. It was actually far closer in execution to the system of currency creation which exists today than most would admit. And, more importantly, this means that the government actually did pay interest to the banks for doling out and accepting their currency.

Just the mere fact that Lincoln was in favor of a central bank further proves his vision of a subordinate position for the state governments, as well as it demonstrates his lack of concern for any real constitutional limitations on the federal government's ability to legislate. The national banking debate had been at the center of the divide in US politics from the very inception of the constitution. Those that did not acknowledge the danger to liberty brought about by a highly centralized national government took the stance, which was first used by Alexander Hamilton to institute the National Banking Act of 1791, that Article One Section Eight of the enumerated powers gave virtually unlimited power to the congress to pass legislation on anything which could be defined as being for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. Hamilton argued that the term general welfare specifically included anything concerning the general interests of learning, agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.

Those that opposed this interpretation cited the fact that such a broad reading would essentially make the previous enumerated powers pointless and that to even argue such a position was absurd, as the language used in Article One Section Eight was also used in the Articles of Confederation and understood for years prior as nothing that could extend the powers of the national legislature beyond what had specifically been delegated to them. Nonetheless, it is this specific clause which has served the uses of the federal government to denigrate the states into the subordinate, province-like, position that they now hold. This was the position of Lincoln. He used it to crush the sovereignty of the state governments in the legislature just as he crushed their ability to resist his tyranny on the battlefield.

There are many brilliant pieces of writing about Lincoln's true stance on abolition and the real motives behind his invasion of the South. This post is simply to point out the fallacy of those who praise Lincoln as an endearing free-marketeer; as a man who bravely stood between the American economy and the tyranny of the international bankers and their evil debt-based money. This position is plainly untrue. Lincoln may not have contracted out the creation of American currency, but he did issue treasury bonds to the banks to hold as reserve in place of gold that he promised to pay, plus interest, in the future. The American tax payer DID pay interest to banks for dispensing currency. And the money supply WAS inflated and mismanaged to pay for an illegal and unjust war and many wasteful government spending programs. And finally, Lincoln also set in stone the broad interpretation of Article One Section Eight, which has been used to justify all of the encroachments committed by the American government against the liberties of the people, leading to the despotic consolidation under which we must endure today.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Study the Roots of the people that founded America, and what they were avoiding.

It seems that is what you always show up to defend. It also shows why you have so much hate for what Karen Hudes has uncovered. ;)



A Spanish corporation at that………. looking for riches…..capitalist.

KH is greenbacker....RP does not like GB.....checkmate!


You created a Keeper Here.

It's saved, as well as your Troll intent. You obviously know nothing about the Reformation, and what went on in Europe and what went on during our founding.

Dumbass, ;) You haven't studied as much as I have, and you sir may not have found the freedom that was born in your Heart, as of yet.


Some people find it sooner than others, and I pray that you find it in yours before you die.


i think the term "national bank" is intended to mean...

I think the term "national bank" is intended to mean a "central" bank which is owned by the government (the people) rather than being a PRIVATELY-HELD central bank like the Federal Reserve.

I think Lincoln was "the good guy" on the banking issue... and furthermore believe that the secession movement was created/funded-by English and French banksters & businessmen who naturally wanted to have direct access to the southern states which were the economic engine of the continent prior to the industrial revolution.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Jefferson & Jackson were good guys on banking, Lincoln was a

Monster. The Greenback and Greenbackers of then and now are evil to Liberty.

Rothbard's History of Banking and Money

The National Banking Acts of 1863–1864 had semi-cartelized the banking system. Only certain banks could issue money, but all other banks had to have accounts at these banks.

The most interventionary of the Civil War actions was in the vital field of money and banking. The approach toward hard money and free banking that had been achieved during the 1840s and 1850s was swept away by two pernicious inflationist measures of the wartime Republican administration. One was fiat money greenbacks, which depreciated by half by the middle of the Civil War, and were finally replaced by the gold standard after urgent pressure by hard-money Democrats, but not until 1879, some 14 full years after the end of the war. A second, and more lasting, intervention was the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864,and 1865, which destroyed the issue of bank notes by state-chartered (or “state”) banks by a prohibitory tax, and then monopolized the issue of bank notes in the hands of a few large, federally chartered “national banks,” mainly centered on Wall Street.

In a typical cartelization, national banks were compelled by law to accept each other’s notes and demand deposits at par, negating the process by which the free market had previously been discounting
the notes and deposits of shaky and inflationary banks. In this way, the Wall Street–federal government establishment was able to control the banking system, and inflate the supply of notes and deposits in a coordinated manner.

But there were still problems. The national banking system provided only a halfway house between free banking and government central banking, and by the end of the nineteenth century,the Wall Street banks were becoming increasingly unhappy with the status quo. The centralization was only limited, and, above all, there was no governmental central bank to coordinate inflation, and to act as a lender of last resort, bailing out banks in trouble. No sooner had bank credit generated booms when they got into trouble and bank-created booms turned into recessions,with banks forced to contract their loans and assets and to deflate in order to save themselves. Not only that, but after the initial shock of the National Banking Acts, state banks had grown rapidly by pyramiding their loans and demand deposits on top of national bank notes.

The complaints of the big banks were summed up in one word: “inelasticity.” The national banking system, they charged, did not provide for the proper “elasticity” of the money supply; that is, the banks were not able to expand money and credit as much as they wished, particularly in times of recession. In short,the national banking system did not provide sufficient room for
inflationary expansions of credit by the nation’s banks.

This lead to the drive for a full cartel of the banking system, which became the Federal Reserve System.

Lincoln quotes

Quote from Lincoln in his 4th debate with Douglas:

"I will say then that 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; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…"

"I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which 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."


You know I dislike slavery;

"You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. ... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet.

In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. . . How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people?

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty— to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Lincoln supported slavery

The Corwin Amendment was an attempt to enshrine slavery into the Constitution by prohibiting any further attempts to abolish slavery.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.


Not only did he support it, but my understanding is it is the

only amendment ever signed by a President.

(amendments do not require signature, but instead, ratification by the States)



"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

The implication being that

The implication being that Lincoln signed it?

The Corwin amendment simply reinforced Lincoln's understanding of the Constitution...that the federal government couldn't repeal slavery in current states, but could make sure it wasn't permitted in states joining the union.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Corwin Amendment

The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress in 1861.

It would have forbade any subsequent attempts to amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states, including "persons held to labor or service" (a reference to slavery).

Yes, but only in states that

Yes, but only in states that currently had slavery. The notion back then was that for slavery to survive, it had to spread.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Wanting to enshrine slavery

Wanting to enshrine slavery into the Constitution doesn't mean that you're against slavery. It means that you're for it.

Except the millions of other

Except the millions of other quotes from Lincoln saying that he was against slavery...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

It was not effective

Lincoln was a huge tyrant and traitor who is responsible for the civil war and alot of genocide. No hero of mine.


Interesting article

Where are your sources? Tom DiLorenzo? Anyone else?

Von, the recorded debates

Von, the recorded debates between Lincoln and Douglas, and official Lincoln letters written during the period leading up to the Civil war, show that Lincoln was a racist, pure and simple. The results of the war is indisputable, whereas the power arrangement between the central government and the states changed in favor of the central government -- the 10th amendment no longer has any power. Official records of the Lincoln period are available in the National Archives to anyone interested in seeking the truth.

Yes, no doubt

I'm on board with most of your post, through DiLorenzo, Tom Woods and looking into it a bit. But have not had time to get into it much deeper.

As far as Lincoln's racism, the cronyism, the real economic reasons behind the war AND the deliberate re-interpretation of Federalism that they rammed through behind the chaos they created .. got that

I'm curious to find additional sources, thanks.

Just like Jayden Smith

said, the public school system has been used to brainwash us into believing history the way the PTB's, what I call the Rothschild Zionist Cabal, wants us to believe. Zionism, has nothing to do with religion, or Israel, it's just used as a control method used to destroy America and the world. Now, back to Lincoln. He can be accredited as the greatest destroyer of our Liberties and Freedoms ever in American history. He attacked and killed his own people, and in the end 600,000+ died. He destroyed the remaining sovereignty of the independent states, and forced them under control of the federal central government. Even if he 'might' have had the intentions of ending the the Rothschild Banksters control of the money, in the end he did them the greatest favor by forcing the states under federal tyranny, that has led to the Feds power to this day. In reality, when you hear these brainwashed fools mention Hitler as the great evil to threaten our Republic, the reply should be 'no, I'm sorry but Lincoln was the one who actually destroyed the Republic before Hiltler was even born, as Lincoln attacked America and put us under control of the Rothschild Banking tyranny we are facing today'. And, when they say how he freed the slaves, that's another lie. He only passed a decree to force the South to free the slaves to aggregate them into a Civil War. His top General, Grant, had slaves during and several years after the war. In his debates with Douglas, Lincoln stated he believed the negroes should never be allowed to vote, hold any kind of office, own land, and should be rounded up and shipped to S. America.
Also, what you have learned about Hitler is another great lie, which was first brought about by Pat Buchanan in his book 'The Unneccary War'. There is another book just released, by Mike King, 'The Bad War', that shows well documented facts, that disprove most of what we have been made to believe. Here, you can read a sample of his documentation contained in his book. http://tomatobubble.com/worldwarii.html

ecorob's picture

I beleive this comment is way more accurate...

than the one made by the OP.

Lincoln was a murderer for profit. Hmmmm, where have we heard that before? Who benefitted from the Civil War? The South? No. The North? Well, to the victor goes the spoils. The English and the French? A little.

The Rothschild Zionists? Oh, yes, they benefitted greatly!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.


Lincoln was opposed to the National Banking Act of 1863.

The Congress (bribed by the Bankers) passed this initiative, and Lincoln could not veto it because Congress had the numbers to override it. But this act (which Lincoln opposed), put the Bankers back in charge -- while his Greenback policy had temporarily taken the control away from the Bankers (and saved American taxpayers immense sums of interest).

Lincoln called these Greenbacks "the greatest blessing the American people have ever had." A blessing for all, except for the bankers, since it was putting an end to their racket, to the stealing of the nation's credit and issuing interest-bearing money. So they did everything possible to destroy these Greenbacks and sabotage Lincoln's work. The National Banking Act of 1863 was one such effort.

Read Lincoln's own words:

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers.

By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.

"I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. And of the two, the Bankers are my greatest foe."

It was the Bankers (Rothschilds men) who killed him. Lincoln was the Bankers worst nightmare.

Lord Goschen, spokesman of the Rothschilds, wrote on their behalf in The London Times (Quote taken from Who Rules America by C. K. Howe, and reproduced in Lincoln Money Martyred by Dr. R. E. Search):

"If this mischievous financial policy [Greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost.

It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world.

That Government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

"The London Times", 1863
(speaking for The Rothschilds )


So what more evidence do you really need?

We have an open admission, and a confession from The Rothschilds, that Sovereign currency (which the Banking Monarchy could not create-for-fee, corrupt, or control) was the one thing.....the one thing....that really, really threatened to take away the power of these Money Masters, and cause their whole crooked Financial Empire to come crashing down to its knees. (Exactly what we all wish would happen)

They also revealed that it would make America the most prosperous Nation on the Globe (as it would pay off all its debts, and be without debt). Do you realize the enormity of that statement? You should read and understand these words very, very carefully.

Imagine if we had such a system, and such a Country that was completely free and outside the sphere of influence and control of Banksters, and debt-free with all debts paid off? Our Economy would thrive. The chains of systematic, and institutionalized debt would be shattered.

Would that be an improvement over everything that occurred after 1863? The answer is clearly yes. The Lincoln solution was right, and it was the one thing that could have put The Rothschilds out-of-business (at least as far as The United States was concerned), and would've created total Independence from the Global Elites.

So they killed him (which is also more proof).

One more important quote. After the National Banking Act (which Lincoln opposed, he said:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

This is exactly what happened to this Country.
That's the sad story of this Country.

When Lincoln stood in their way, they killed him.

Im not even sure how much I buy into Lincoln's opposition to

the banking act of 1863. Lincoln was a master politician and talked out of both sides of his mouth all of the time. He could have fought the laws on constitutional grounds as well, because the legislation was clearly unconstitutional, yet I find no evidence of this.

More Fake Greenbacker Quotes

Lincoln never said that. That quotation is obviously an anachronism. No one used economic language like that in the nineteenth century. "The buying power of consumers"? No one at that time used that phrase. It's an obvious fake.

This is what comes out of getting your knowledge from the LaRouche people, who think the Fed's problem is that it's "private." The Fed's problem is that it is a government-created monopoly.

Lincoln did not promote the Greenbacks, which he hated. He finally indicated to Congress how unfortunate it was that repeated issues of them were thought necessary. He did not reluctantly sign the National Bank Act. He proposed it to Congress.

From the beginning of his political career he had always indicated his support for a national bank. Everyone knew this about Lincoln. It is why he was welcomed with open arms by the Whigs.

That "speaking for the Rothschilds" quotation is also a fake.

Everything about the Greenbacker movement is dishonest. The quotations, the economics, the history, everything.

ROTHSCHILDS Troll go away.......

Your own quotes are what is fake, and not Lincolns.

And yes, if you cannot recognize the significance of The London Times piece -- then you are just in denial. It's a fact (well sourced).

As for for the Fed being private, this is also true. The government does not own the Central Bank. The Central Bank is entirely a private ownership (Rothschilds, Warburg, Morgan, Rockefeller, etc.). And The Rothschilds Banking Empire existed long before the Federal Reserve was ever created.

And your lies are getting ridiculous whe you say Lincoln hated Greenbacks. He created The Greenbacks because they were DEBT FREE currency (a concept that you clearly are incapable of understanding), and the Banksters could not control it.

The Bankers always kill the people who threaten to take away their power. Andrew Jackson was shot at twice from close range (and survived only by luck). But they made sure that they didn't miss with Lincoln.

Troll for truth

I am a Rothschild troll because I demand a primary source. I see. I note that you have not provided one. The other letter is also fake. It is not well sourced. It is quoted by Greenbackers. That does not make it well sourced.

It amazes me that anyone would be taken in by that Lincoln quote. These are 20th-century economic concepts. No one in the 19th century spoke like that.

As soon as you find me the primary sources, let me know. Until then, call me all the LaRouchian names you can think of.

can you cite some evidence of these forgeries?

I'm totally open-minded to this stuff... I was under the impression that Lincoln was a good guy, but I've been fooled by politicians before.

Please cite some evidence which proves the "generally-accepted" quotes are inaccurate.

My understanding was always that Lincoln opposed the banksters and that the only reason the Union won the civil war was that Lincoln was able to get the Czar to send the Russian Navy to prevent the British & French coming to the aid of the confederacy... and that the only reason the Russians were open to the idea was that the banksters were trying to take over Russia too.

I'm eager to see your sources and understand your view.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Lincoln and the Banks

These quotations are not generally accepted, except by Greenbackers. Note that no reputable historian uses them. Note that no one can show you a primary source. It's one Greenback book quoting another one. Where is the source? No answer.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to prove a quotation is fake. I think the people using the quotation need to prove it's genuine. Certainly the language is laughably modern, and would never have been used in the mid-19th century, or in any part of the 19th century for that matter. Where is the primary source? You should ask them, not me. I say it doesn't exist. Show me where he said it.

Had Lincoln opposed "the banksters," he wouldn't have been a Whig. The national bank was a central plank of their program.

Lincoln, having been a railroad lobbyist, wasn't about to undermine the banks, given that the railroads funded their expansion by selling bonds.

The Greenbackers love to pretend that some presidents were really on their side. I don't share their weird devotion to the presidents.

do you believe the history taught in schools is accurate?

I'm just trying to get bearings here...

First off, I agree with your assertion about language on some of the quotes. The wording doesn't seem to fit with his style of speech or the "dialect of the time(s)".

I believe that a great deal of what we claim is history is in fact a series of lies cobbled together by those already in power and those seeking to gain power.

For example, kids in today's schools (and even yesterday's schools, I graduated high school in the late 90s) are taught that the civil war was about slavery and all other issues were merely side-notes. They're taught that Viet Cong attacked one of our ships in the Gulf Of Tonkin to start the Viet Nam war. They're taught about pilgrim & indians sharing turkey & pumpkin pie... all of these "truths" are backed by "facts" they can readily produce on demand.

I think when one looks back to history beyond the limit of the memories of the living generations that details become very sketchy. Sometimes the truth can even be obscured to a great extent when examining relatively recent events.

While I don't doubt your assertions, I don't necessarily doubt the opposing points either.

To me, presidents and kings are side-notes. The power has always been with the banksters. They buy and sell rulers and thus rules. Whether Lincoln was a good guy or a bad guy, whether the currency he created worked for or against the banksters really matters less than the fact that people look into the matter when sparked by some message about Lincoln or Jefferson or Jackson or Hamilton... or the eccentric old guy down the street who told 'em the federal reserve is run by lizard-people.

It seems like history has taken-on an existence akin to religion. People believe what they want to believe and use it to rationalize their current values and behavior.

Thanks for bringing up an opposing view though. I'll be a little more cynical in future readings on the topic.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Ah, the facts are

Ah, the facts are inconvenient, so simply dismiss them out-of-hand.

Lincoln's folly was allowing the Greenback to be fractioned...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a