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.


Banking and the Confederacy, Lincoln's Greenback

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 09:42 AM
I am fascinated with the history of money in this country especially during the civil war. With all the protesting going on in Charlotte and the attacks on Confederate statues and flags I found this interesting article on "Banking and the Confederacy" during one of my google searches.

The article points out a number of interesting points:

* The North had "Greenbacks" the Confederacy had "Graybacks" for currency
* The Rothschilds may have supported the South in the war
* The Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P Benjamin, was a puppet of the Rothchilds
* Lincoln was assassinated because he tried to get the USA "free from the bondage of the international bankers"
* Rothschild funding of the Confederacy was actually a myth

Here's the article:

I have used the following fascinating quote in a number of posts. The part in bold below is the part I find most interesting:

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.

Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

"(we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own paper money to pay their own debts..."

The Treasury notes were printed with green ink on the back, so the people called them "Greenbacks".

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.

Shortly after that happened, The London Times printed the following: "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should 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 beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

As someone who is a strong believer in classical liberalism, the idea of destroying monarchy is very appealing. Everyone talks about globalism and the NWO being a huge threat to our nation's sovereignty. It seems to me if you study the history of banking in this country the real crime happened in 1913. I think all the hemming and hawing about Democrats, progressives, NWO, and globalists is just partisan political rancor.

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:00 AM
As I posted in another thread, you can't overlook the correlation between this, the Civil War, southern agriculture and the implementation of the first federal income tax, which Lincoln enacted.

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:14 AM
a reply to: dfnj2015

The Rothschilds may have supported the South in the war
* The Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P Benjamin, was a puppet of the Rothchilds
* Lincoln was assassinated because he tried to get the USA "free from the bondage of the international bankers"

The Rothschlds supported both sides, but banked on the North whose industry outproduced the south in war material.
All they had to do was sit back and rake the money from conflict, the arms, the destruction, and then the rebuilding.

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:30 AM

originally posted by: rexsblues
As I posted in another thread, you can't overlook the correlation between this, the Civil War, southern agriculture and the implementation of the first federal income tax, which Lincoln enacted.

Your post is what made me start this thread. I was googling the things you were talking about.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 04:42 PM
a reply to: dfnj2015

If you bothered to learn history, your would have had the pre-requisite knowledge to recognize the article you cited, for what it is: a piece of garbage, the usual regurgitation of fake quotes, fabrications

known fact 1; in 1862, anyone with good credit, could get money at six percent
known fact 2; US notes came in a package that contained $500million six percent bonds
known fact 3; Lincoln considered banknotes based on bonds the best currency the country may have

that alleged London Times article never happened, it is a fabrication

who were Lincoln's advisors in those days? and whose idea was it to issue legal-tender notes ?

Lincoln gave the bankers everything they could ask for, so why would they shoot him; throughout his political life, Lincoln was a vocal supporter of the central bank concept

now read some history, for a change

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 04:46 PM
a reply to: dfnj2015

Good post, friend!

I am interested in the whole money thing as well. I like Ron Paul, he can't stand federal reserve. I watched video other day of him explaining the ideas that both sides battled a few of same ideas. I believe it's Madison vs. Jefferson. I may not have that first name correct but I'll go with it. Despite being republican or democrat you have Madison's and Jefferson's idea when comes to banking. I'll try to find it and post here for you, it was directly referring to civil war as well.

One thing I would like to point out, to why I think he did it (greenback) and why he oppressed the South to cause them to revolt (morill terrif act). First I need to point out that a.) North made most of income in factories. b.) America wasn't the international trader it is today: England and Germany was. No one cared about thirst from NY, but people loved stuff from those countries. It was "fancy", better made.. however..

The South? Most of their goods relied on the dependencies of other countries. Such as Cotton, Sugar, and the ever so popular Tobacco. South have no problem with international trades because a.) England needs cotton to make their highly imported goods b.) Tobacco was south's bread and butter, something most at the time couldn't grow.

Well, when the South seceeded from the Union, there goes that cotton, there goes southern whiskey and shine and wine. This leaves the banks and stock holders on Wall Street need to tighten up in order not to go bankrupt. That interest was spiked because a lot of people didn't agree with attacking the South.

Abraham allowed the Morill Tarrif, which was a 40%-46% interest on South to sustain Norths factories. The banks revolting the war than wanted Abraham replace the 40% that he had previously promised with Morill Terrif Act. The South was importing and exporting goods like crazy, it was nothing to them to just say "go screw yourself" because their harbors was always full. No need use North goods, England is always at our seaports. Wall street, which all here can agree are bunch crooks swindling everyone and capitalism on suffering was in hard place that put pressure on Lincoln. Lincoln has provoked a war and no one will back him! Banks are saying we won't fund your war so he decided to screw them over too and make his own money system to fund the war.

You see the banks were fine when South agreed to 20-30% interest, but when it got up to 50% from greed they withdrew. Many banks went from 20-30% (30 being during regression after wars, see stocks at 1812-1816 after 2nd British conflict) to South seceeding and being complete severed from North.

No one was buying Northern Goods, they was mooching on 1/3rd of South's income and every one was happy (today it's 8-12%) all Lincoln could do at that point was what I call the "thin-air-system", you can't bleed a stone but you can bust it and divide it up in small pebbles under guise that the pebble is worth just as much as rock. Because the rock is in fact now that pebble. Lincoln put pressure more as a dictator on not just banks, but factories as well.

Best instances was Confederate Uniforms... not a lot had them because we stopped demanding them. South figures why should we have North make money off us just to kill us. Ironically, same time they stopped their goods is around same time Abraham had such big problem with his own banks.

In short.. he screwed himself, the banks, by screwing over south too much and North relied on South to buy their crap.

I want to add that look into France, Germany, and England. They started getting way better deals than North did. Russia promised to try and keep them out of it but most of Europe had sympathized and rooted for South. It's classic "biting hand feeds you". Marijuana is a prime example... they don't care to add insane taxes on alcohol (west Virginia suceeded once to pay a 30-40% tax to pay for previous war), it's when you say kiss my ass they come put you in jail. It's when you say "Where is the representation?" that DEA and ATF and IRS come knocking. lol

If South won it would had probably grown cannabis..actually it for sure would.. same thing.. bye, bye Big Pharma. No, we need a tax to raise to make up financial losses. It's crooks working with crooks to boss around the ones doing the real work. Like making moonshine, or tobacco, or marijuana.

Yea, slavery is "free" in sense you don't pay them but then again, factories don't need to feed, cloth, train, and shelter their employees either.
edit on 31-8-2017 by Iostsheep because: (no reason given)

top topics

log in