It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The American Revolution and the war of 1812 were BANKSTER WARS

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+33 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:47 PM
In 1757, Ben Franklin was quite the celebrity for having discovered that lightning was nothing more than static electricity. His celebrity gave him access to the courts of Kings and captains of industry so, the American Colonies decided to use him as their ambassador to the English court.

While in England, Franklin witnessed the extreme poverty of the people during that country’s industrial revolution. When the King’s court asked how the colonies dealt with the poor and unemployed, his answer shocked them.

Franklin shocked them when he replied that the colonies simply did not have a great many poor and unemployed. At the time, the law in England required that everyone conduct all the commerce using bank notes from the then-privately owned Bank of England (Britain was forced to nationalize the bank following Bretton Woods and the decline of the British Pound as the global currency). The bank notes were loaned at interest so that the Bank of England grew richer and richer and the people poorer and poorer, no matter how hard they worked.

Ben Franklin pointed out that the colonies had wisely avoided this problem by simply issuing their own currency which circulated through commerce interest-free, that is to say without a portion of the profits of business and labor automatically going to the bankers via interest on those bank notes.

What really happened

The British were shocked by this revelation. Debate soon sprang out about what to do about the poverty situation. In the end, it was decided to take extreme measures to rectify the situation.

No, not to improve the lives of the English commoners, who cares about them right? The decision was made to enslave the American Colonists under the same corrupt banking system that was robbing the life out of the British economy and thus, the Currency Act 0f 1764 was born.

This act ordered the American colonies to thenceforth conduct all commerce ONLY using bank notes borrowed at interest from the Bank of England. And as a (desired) result, the ordinary people of the colonies were rapidly plunged into the same poverty and mass unemployment as the ordinary people of Britain, by being forced by their government into permanent and irrevocable debt to the private bankers.

Most people these days believe the American Revolution was a result of “taxation without representation” exemplified by such bills as the Tea Tax and the Stamp Act but, Franklin, a man who lived through those times and was directly involved in the decision to revolt against the crown, saw things differently.

"The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution." -- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

Strike the Root

You would think that after fighting to free themselves from the tyranny of the banksters, the new Republic would stay away from the schemes of the banksters. Unfortunately, war is an expensive business there were tons of bills to be paid and, it wasn’t long though before the new independent Republic of the United States of America fell back into the errors of their predecessors and commissioned the 1st Bank of the United States, a privately owned bank, most likely under the influence of the Rothschild banksters. By the end of its 20 year charter, the bank had pretty much ruined the nation’s finances while enriching the banksters. Congress was dead set against renewing the charter, preferring instead to go back to state issued currency which charged no interest to go into the pockets of the banksters.

The banksters didn’t take this lying down.

This resulted in a threat from Nathan Mayer Rothschild against the US Government, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed, "Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!" The British Prime Minister at the time, Spencer Perceval was adamantly opposed to war with the United States, primarily because the majority of England's military might was occupied with the ongoing Napoleonic wars. Spencer Perceval was concerned that Britain might not prevail in a new American war, a concern shared by many in the British government. Then, Spencer Perceval was assassinated (the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Jenkinson, the 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who was fully supportive of a war to recapture the colonies. Financed at virtually no interest by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Britain then provoked the war of 1812 to recolonize the United States and force them back into the slavery of the Bank of England, or to plunge the United States into so much debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank. And the plan worked. Even though the War of 1812 was won by the United States, Congress was forced to grant a new charter for yet another private bank issuing the public currency as loans at interest, the Second Bank of the United States. Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation's money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it.

It took another 20 years before the United States were able to free themselves of the evil influence of the banksters under the guidance of President Andrew Jackson, the first and only US president to operate the US government in the black, even if only for a very short period of time.

The bankster’s influence in these wars used to be common knowledge in America and was taught in most schools throughout the remainder of the 19th century, resulting in a country with sound, stable currency based on precious metals which held its value and allowed the United States to achieve prosperity unimagined in a world dominated by the Rothschild banksters.

Slowly, insidiously, this knowledge began to fall out of favor in American educational establishments, perhaps even through a conspiracy inspired by Rothschild banksters. By the time the year 1912 rolled around, Americans had become convinced that the Revolution was fought over unfair taxes and 1812 was all about the impressments of American sailors. The knowledge of the bankster’s involvement was all but forgotten. Still, the banksters had a hard time shoving the Federal Reserve Bank down the throats of the American people and it was necessary to create the illusion that the legislation to create the central bank was actually meant in some way to curb the power of the banksters.

The rest is history; The wealth and prosperity of the nation has slowly been leached away by the banksters, leaving us with out of control government debt and inflation which has robbed away most all of the value of American currency. If only the American people of the early 20th century had remembered the lessons of our founders, this once great nation might not have come to the sorry state it is now in.

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:07 PM
what wars have not been fought over Money, power, and control?

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:10 PM
Great thread! That's how a thread is done.

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:15 PM
How dare you speak the truth!!

When Britain was Great Britain with an empire, we had the poorest slums in all of europe!
We're now heading that way again.

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:31 PM
I think the OP is right
its more specific then just "money wealth and power"....

its the same bunch that went after states' rights in the civil war to further centralize power

In the new, more powerful Congress, Madison and Jefferson soon found themselves disagreeing with the Federalists on key issues dealing with federal debt and power. For example, the two men favored states’ rights and opposed Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton’s (c.1755-1804) proposal for a national bank. In 1792, Jefferson and Madison founded the Democratic-Republican Party, which has been labeled America’s first opposition political party. Jefferson, Madison and James Monroe (1758-1831) were the only Democratic-Republicans ever to become U.S. presidents, as the party divided into competing factions in the 1820s.

....Presidency and the War of 1812 In the presidential election of 1808, Madison defeated Federalist candidate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (1745-1825) to become the nation’s fourth chief executive. Madison continued to face problems from overseas, as Britain and France had continued their attacks on American ships following the embargo. In addition to impeding U.S. trade, Britain took U.S. sailors for its own navy and began supporting American Indians in battles against U.S. settlers.

In retaliation, Madison issued a war proclamation against Britain in 1812. However, America was not ready for a war. Congress had not properly funded or prepared an army, and a number of the states did not support what was referred to as “Mr. Madison’s War” and would not allow their militias to join the campaign. Despite these setbacks, American forces attempted to fight off and attack British forces. The U.S. met defeat much of the time both on land and at sea, but its well-built ships proved to be formidable foes.

looks like the bankers that ran Britian...didn't like Madisons plan for a balanced government

here is who bankrolled Britian pre rothshilde takeover at waterloo in 1815

The British budget in 1814 reached £66 million, including £10 million for the Navy, £40 million for the Army, £10 million for the Allies, and £38 million as interest on the national debt. The national debt soared to £679 million, more than double the GDP. It was willingly supported by hundreds of thousands of investors and tax payers, despite the higher taxes on land and a new income tax..[17] The whole cost of the war came to £831 million. By contrast the French financial system was inadequate and Napoleon’s forces had to rely in part on requisitions from conquered lands

edit on 1-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:58 PM

The Federal Reserve Act passed on Dec 23rd 1913 was the final nail in the coffin to imprison the planets inhabitants. Enforcement of this clearly illegal and immoral law is done using a court system designed to favour the rich and penalize the poor.

Western Military forces enforce this law in countries where it is not recognised or where gold wants to be used as the trading standard and not the petro-dollar.

It is my genuine desire to see all banksters and their supporters rot in hell during my life time - they have cloaked the planet in misery and divided humanity into the haves and have-nots.

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:05 PM
If youre viewing this thread, if you see this post, youre now REQUIRED to view the following video per the law of the United Nations of the Universe.

It will explain how the banksters, specifically the Rothschilds, run and own the world's monetary system:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:09 PM
here is the apparent logic regarding the decision to attack Canada

The most persuasive answer is offered by University of Virginia historian J.C.A. Stagg who is editing the Madison Papers. His book, Mr. Madison’s War, is the most comprehensive study of the politics of the era available. Stagg writes:

with a total population of barely half a million, the various provinces of Canada seemed to be the weakest links in the chain of British imperial power and many Americans assumed that they could be easily seized by the United States with its vastly superior population of nearly seven and one half million. Yet Canada did not seem in itself to be the source of the most important grievances that the United States wish to settle by war… For this reason, most opponents of the war never ceased to point out that the conquest of Canada promised neither to guarantee respect for American maritime rights nor even to reimburse the nation for the expense of the effort.

Stagg argues that for Madison “the policy of a Canadian war followed logically from his previous diplomatic strategies.” American policy under both Jefferson and Madison had been based on the assumption that the British Empire needed raw materials from North America. Legislative efforts to restrict British access to these resources had failed partly because the Canadas and adjacent parts of the northern United States provided the wheat, timber, and other commodities the British required. Once Canada was conquered, Madison believed the British would have to make peace on American terms both at sea and on the western..

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:44 PM
Don't forget Andrew Jackson paying down off the debt, then the subsequent crash of the land bubble because state banks began printing tons of money, along with foreign interests manipulating markets to get them back to where they wanted them to be.

The panic of 1837…

The Panic of 1837 was a financial crisis in the United States that touched off a major recession that lasted until the mid-1840s. Profits, prices and wages went down while unemployment went up. Pessimism abounded during the time. The panic had both domestic and foreign origins. Speculative lending practices in western states, a sharp decline in cotton prices, a collapsing land bubble, international specie flows, and restrictive lending policies in Great Britain were all to blame.

If you fight a war you might win. If you find the money lenders, you will just postpone the inevitable.
edit on 1-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by Danbones

here is the apparent logic regarding the decision to attack Canada

Only logic you need to attack Canada is to get their beer & women. Perhaps bacon, & poutine, (if you're into the kinky stuff.)

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by boncho

Yep, it just goes to show there's no fury like a bankster scorned.

They pulled out all their weapons against the US after we closed their bank. It almost broke us too but, we held strong in our resolve and fought through the tough years and eventually, it turned out to be a source of American prosperity for the remainder of the 19th century.

It just goes to show that the bankster CAN be defied but, only at great cost. They won't give up their power without making their former slaves pay dearly.

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:20 PM
Now, I am no expert on this subject, but I read somewhere, that during the American Civil War, with the Union victory only a matter of time, Abraham Lincoln attempted to borrow money from European Banks, and was told that "Yes, we will lend you the money you need. The intrest will be 30% per year IN GOLD."
Lincoln hit the ceiling, and invented The United States Note, commonly called "The Greenback", A non-intrest bearing Government Promisary Note.
Some folks say that was why Booth shot him.

"People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the materials and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest....But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good as well. The differnce is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, where as the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our country can issue bonds but can not issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situaton when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous intrest charges at the hands of men who control the ficticious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan." Thomas Alva Edison

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

This incredible thread finally explains to me the reason why.... as quoted by Benjamin Franklin.. well done Op!

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Hi Op... In reviewing your doc... I cannot find a reasonable historical reference for the section marked
'The banksters didn’t take this lying down....'

Please provide a link or historical reference to this whole section... it seems quoted from Rumormillnews which is not really a historical reference..

The quote from Franklin was great... also, your article eludes to the assassination being linked to the war, but America declared war which was completely unrelated to any decisions made by England by the PM as the holding orders were by a Privy Council. Please provide historical links..

You may have provided good historical reference with unsupportable claims..

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Brilliant and, (as far as my own research tells me), accurate thread. The information isn't that hard to find but the Banksters media controls the major propaganda news. It seems tho that this info is getting more air time with the likes of Ron Paul. Hopefully that trend continues. The money lenders time will come to an end I believe, I just hope it's sooner than later!

I recommend reading:

"Pawns in Game" by William Guy Carr.
"Who Owns the TV Networks" and "Why General Patton was Murdered" both by Eustace Mullins.

ps.. I'm still trying to independently verify some things I read in those books but they provide a good over all direction to start looking... IMO!

edit on 2-3-2014 by sasquatch5100 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2014 by sasquatch5100 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by R_Clark

The quote by Rothschild can be found all over the web but, like most quotes, it is difficult to track down its origin.

It is a historical fact that the US government refused to recharter the 1st bank of the US and it was only after the war of 1812 had ruined the country's finances that Congress found itself forced to charter a new bank.

The political support for the revival of a national banking system was rooted in the early 19th century transformation of the country from simple Jeffersonian agrarianism towards one interdependent with industrialization and finance. In the aftermath of the War of 1812 the federal government suffered from the disarray of an unregulated currency and a lack of fiscal order; business interests sought security for their government bonds. A national alliance arose to legislate a central bank to address these needs.

The political climate – dubbed the Era of Good Feelings – favored the development of national programs and institutions, including a protective tariff, internal improvements and the revival of a Bank of the United States Southern and western support for the Bank, led by Republican nationalists John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and Henry Clay of Kentucky was decisive in the successful chartering effort. The charter was signed into law by Madison on April 10, 1816.

Opposition to the Bank's revival emanated from two interests. Old Republicans, represented by John Taylor of Caroline and John Randolph of Roanoke characterized the Second Bank of the United States as both constitutionally illegitimate and a direct threat to Jeffersonian agrarianism, state sovereignty and the institution of slavery, expressed by Taylor's statement that "...if Congress could incorporate a bank, it might emancipate a slave".


Wikipedia has the bankster approved "official" history of the 2nd bank. If you read between the lines, it becomes obvious that the country refused to renew the charter before the War of 1812 and was only forced to charter a new bank after the war put the country into so much debt, the new bank became necessary. Notice how the "official" history makes opposition to the bank seem to be based on the defense of the institution of slavery and makes no mention of how national banks suck the life out of the economy or make all men salves to the banksters in the end. The ill effects of national banking were well known to the people of the time but, the "official" historians want us to think that opposition to the bank was something that only racist slave owners could support.

edit on 3/2/14 by FortAnthem because:

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:35 PM
The Titanic false flag then sent the message to all those who opposed, you will drown, we will kill you, and all the banksters who were not sure quickly came around.

Shocked the world, media coverage like 9/11, similar death toll, good times.

Many found murdered in the ship well before it sank, just as in the towers.

I wonder what holds this year? The Final Phase is being readied for sure.

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:48 PM
This one is pretty interesting.... The more you learn the more obvious it becomes that violent revolution is the only way...

And then add this to the equation and you have pretty much a cleat picture as to why the world is #ed up today

edit on 2/3/14 by flice because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by ParasuvO

Proof to this? I have had this sneaking suspicion about the Titanic and Fed act of 1913 but I only assumed because of some people on that boat i thought were preventing such things from happening..

As for the general public on this issue.. Talk to any kids today 18 - 21.. You will get a lesson on how much they can care.
edit on 3/2/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:06 PM
In America you learn that the war of 1812 was won by Americans. However, that is not the case, Canada kicked ass & won. We burnt down your white house (which at the time was brown). Just because we didn't want to take any American land, doesn't mean we, Canadians, didn't win.

<<   2  3 >>

log in