Direct Link to Latest News


Was Abe Lincoln a Money Power Puppet?

August 2, 2012

abe.jpg(left. Abe Lincoln, yet another Money Power stooge portrayed as a man of the people.)

Lincoln is overrated, says Anthony Migchels.  Greenbacks were not debt-free, but backed by interest-bearing bonds owned by the bankers.

This famous quote, a classic of the Conspiracy, has been debunked: it's not in the Times of London archives:

"If this mischievous financial policy (the Greenback), which has its origin in North America, shall become ... a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without 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. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." -Times of London

(Editor's Note: I reserve judgment and post for purposes of discussion.)

By Anthony Migchels,

I thought Lincoln was a Prince of the People, until I was re-educated by Name789, the man behind the wonderful website

Here's some of what I learned.

To begin with, there is this urban legend that the Rothschilds tried to force gold at 30% upon Lincoln. This is total nonsense: anybody with good credit could borrow at 6% at the time:

"I simply wish to say to the chairman of the Committee on Finance [Mr. Fessenden] that any merchant in the United States with good securities can to-day borrow $1,000,000 at six per cent. I can, with good securities; and so can my friend from Maine." Senator Chandler in the Senate February 13th 1862, during the Greenback debate.

The Urban Legend then continues with the story that Abe Lincoln was instructed by a Colonel Dick to print his own currency and that Abe was much relieved by this alchemy.

More nonsense: at the time the Treasury routinely circulated debt free Treasury notes. The ins and outs of this tool was common knowledge between senior politicians, of which Lincoln, who had been in Washington for 30 years certainly was one.

Furthermore, throughout his career Lincoln had been agitating for a (privately owned) 'National i.e. Central Bank', the Nicholas Biddle kind of operation that Andrew Jackson (despite his many faults) heroically busted.

Already in 1839 Lincoln is on record as saying in the House:

"We do not pretend, that a National Bank can establish and maintain a sound and uniform state of currency in the country, in spite of the National Government; but we do say, that it has established and maintained such a currency, and can do so again, by the aid of that Government; and we further say, that no duty is more imperative on that Government, than the duty it owes the people, of furnishing them a sound and uniform currency."

Lincoln was a 'national Whig'. As such he favored Central Banking and the truth is he would have signed the Federal Reserve Act any time.


The main problem with the 'interest-free, debt-free Greenback' was that it was....neither debt-free, nor interest-free.

What was the Greenback? There were $450million non-interest-bearing US notes, backed by $500million bonds bearing 6% interest (the 5/20s) and there were ~$1,000million Treasury notes bearing 6-7.3% interest.
Worse still: Lincoln's hand-picked Secretary of the Treasury and the Whig crew in Congress weren't finished; the people who gave us greenbacks intended to give us permanent national debt; so, 1,000million currency obligations were turned into 40-year gold bonds.

There you have it: the 'debt-free' paper they circulated as Greenbacks were backed by bonds at 6%, while they were later turned into 40 year gold bonds.


He accomplished everything the Money Power wanted: (permanent) national indebtedness, strong central government, national banking system, national currency based on this indebtedness; everything that Henry Clay in failed to do in 1841: strong central Government, 'National' Banking System, 'National' Currency.

The Money Power was behind this agenda, which destroyed classical American decentralized political power, individualism and State Rights.

Many people in the alternative media believe this is a boon: it is not, one knows a tree by its fruit and, in the hands of the Rothschilds, the American Empire has been an incredible scourge to the world.

To many Americans even today the Government seems not too bad, but just ask the dozens of nations who have been destroyed by the US Government, from Germans, to Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Iraqi's, etc.

In all these wars, the US was the Money Power's Golem: doing their bidding as their, dimwitted, brutish goon.

So why was Lincoln murdered? Nobody knows. Perhaps his work was finished and he did seem to have resisted certain even more extreme measures.

Name789: "Between 1866 and 1868 Senator Doolittle said many times that Lincoln would not have gone along with radical reconstruction (to "reduce States to the condition of territories and citizens[whites] to the grade of vassals"). That would have been a lot more plausible reason for wasting him."

It's the same with Garfield, who was also murdered and later made into a hero, while during his life he was a reliable spokesman for banker bonds and Gold.


The Money Power always owns both sides of every conflict. The war gave them everything they wanted, including eternal indebtedness, their main hallmark.

Of course the war had nothing to do with slavery, which would have ended anyway, as it did throughout the civilized world.

Lincoln declared war without consulting Congress and creating 'facts on the ground', which did immeasurable damage to the rights of Legislative.

The Executive has got away with this up to this day Presidents start phoney wars all over the place, unhindered by an emasculated Congress.

During the war, Lincoln had tens of thousands of people in the North arrested for opposing it. During riots throughout the country, he had the Army repress them by shooting the protesters en masse.

In short: he was a tyrant of the worst kind.


Lincoln was a Money Power Agent. He accomplished everything the Money Power wanted: permanent indebtedness, power centralization in Washington and a 'national' (central banking) currency plus 'national' (privately controlled) banking system.

Clearly this has important ramifications for how we believe the opposition and its monetary agenda should look like.
The main lesson is that centralization of power is an eternal tell-tale of the enemy.

More about false and real monetary reform:

Faux Economics
Interest-Free Economics

Anthony Migchels is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Was Abe Lincoln a Money Power Puppet?"

Frank said (August 3, 2012):

Interesting Lincoln article.

The hole in the donut here, as with much that is said about Abe, is race.

Lincoln quite honestly believed Africans and Europeans could not live together in one nation. He was not cruel about the subject; he asked Free Blacks to join with him and find a solution that would create a win-win situation for both races.

The subject of "money" and even "banks" was far down Abe Lincoln's list of priorities. Lincoln's belief that if the race issue was botched, first America then ALL the European peoples would be in great peril.

For further reading on this, I recomment Lerone Bennett Jr's massive study "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream". Bennett is a black nationalist and has an ax to grind, but his scholarship is exemplary. He shows how Lincoln spent much of his time as president to separate the races, wanted the USA to take in poor Europeans from "everywhere" to build a Whitopea, and even refused to arm free blacks to shoot Southern whites till the war was nearly over.

Everything about Abraham Lincoln was subordinated to his white nationalism. He felt white and black, together, would create a disaster of cosmic dimensions. Right or wrong, his words and actions during the war reflected his primary obsession. The Greenbacks were a detail to him, no more.

Maureen said (August 3, 2012):

Re: Stephen Coleman's comment.

Excellent insights. There's no way Alexander II would have sent warships to New York and San Francisco to warn off the British and French from invading the US
during its Civil War, if Lincoln were a Rothschild agent. As Coleman says, the proof of Lincoln's loyalties lies in his assassination by the Money Power.

Despite being related to Queen Victoria, the Romanovs were betrayed numerous times by her in collusion with Benjamin Disraeli. Alexander II knew the kind of perfidy
that he was dealing with in England -- as did his father, Alexander I, who opposed the Rothschilds' attempt to take over the whole of Europe at the Congress of Vienna.

The subjugation of Europe, known as the European Union -- and the defeat of the US -- ongoing before our very eyes -- had to wait another 200 years.

Stephen Coleman said (August 3, 2012):

There are so many rumors about Lincoln, so many "Illuminati" sponsored historical revisionist websites denigrating Lincoln that it is nearly impossible to sort them out. I would suggest sticking only to original source documentation by Lincoln's own hand. Why are the Illuminati so intent on destroying Lincoln's legacy? Because it will mean the very end of the bankster's strangle hold on the world's peoples.

Why are there so many false and ad lib historians attacking the National Bank, Hamilton, Biddle, Clay, Carey and others? There is no other reason for this evil attack, except to prevent the only viable answer to the biggest calamity in human history that is about to be let loose.

Mr. Migchels you may continue to do the Illuminati's bidding but you no longer deceive me. Your excellent handling of the Ron Paul deception indicates to me that you really do know better; especially after your back tracking with the Austrians in your last article of well thought out deception. I do say you certainly are brighter than Fozdyke.

There is a saying in the Bible: by their fruits ye shall know them.

Lincoln over rated? Lincoln faced the Satanic onslaught from the British Crown and its lackey Albert Pike. Pike started the Civil War on Lord Palmerston's orders, using his control of the Free Masons to organize it.

Lincoln rebuilt a broken destitute nation from scratch. England arbitrarily devalued the dollar to the point that the USA could not do any trade outside of its borders. The Crown's puppet Maximilian in Mexico was using his ports to supply the fascist CSA. The USA was the only democracy on earth and that was about to be lost forever to the delight of the oligarchical Illuminati.

After the war Lincoln and Czar Alexander II had a secret treaty to build navies of steam powered iron clad war ships and together burn the City of London to the ground to eliminate the Illuminati crown once and for all. Spies got a hold of this and Queen Victoria ordered a spy/actor troop to eliminate Lincoln. Later they managed to eliminate Alexander II.

So Mr. Migchels you as an Illuminati shill have a very good reason to denigrate Lincoln. The assassination just was not enough, was it?

Cliff Shack said (August 3, 2012):

The Civil War was a Rothschild-led operation with German Jewish bankers on both sides providing finance and guidance. To think that they would not have an inside man in the White House during such an upheaval is just plain ignorant.

Of course Lincoln was a stooge of the bankers. The interesting thing here is...if. Lincoln was an insider than who really fathered him, or rather who grandfathered him. Lincoln once admitted to his legal partner that his Mother's father was a Virginia gentleman planter without revealing anything more.

Is it a coincidence that the Lincoln Memorial sits opposite the Washington Memorial? Was George Washington, a Virginian gentleman planter Lincoln's grand-daddy? I say emphatically mais qui. Connect the dots and discover the length and breadth of Sabbatean power.

For more info:

Marc said (August 3, 2012):

There are many similarities between Lincoln and Hitler,
Hitler admired and imitated Lincoln.

If Lincoln was secretly fathered by a Springstein/Rothschild,
and secretly fathered twins with German King Leopold's
illegitimate daughter Elizabeth, that mirrors Nathan Meyer Rothschild secretly fathering Hitler's father and Hitler's relationship with Unity Valkyrie Mitford.

The Bankers in both cases directed their throw-away puppets
to create debt-free money to rapidly build up fascist empires.

Understanding Hitler's Secret Relationship to the House of Rothschild
Introducing Hansjurgen Koehler's "Fatal File"
Inside The Gestapo (1941)
shows how governments are totally controlled by corrupt agents:

"Lincoln constantly complained about "the troublesome presence of free negroes" and worked diligently with Congress on a plan to send American blacks to the African nation of Liberia. Lincoln also proposed a 13th amendment to the Constitution forever protecting the institution of slavery in order to pacify Southern secessionists."

Chad said (August 3, 2012):

concerning Abraham Lincoln, i'd just like to ask the guys comparing him to Stalin if maybe they could put down their moonshine because it's clouding their judgment. i mean really, Stalin? only a mental patient could compare Abraham Lincoln to stalin with a straight face.

and as for the accusation that Lincoln had troops fire on "protesters," that's a laugh, are you talking about the new york draft riots? well those "innocent protesters" were hanging every black person they could find from telephone poles. i don't care if it was george washington himself, if i was hanging people from telephone poles and he told me to stop and i refused to stop, he'd shoot me too.

and i can't help but cringe every time i here somebody say the civil war wasn't about slavery. i agree for the north it wasn't strictly about slavery, but for the southern plantation owners it most certainly was. after all, why did the south secede? because Lincoln got elected president. why didn't the southern plantation owners like Lincoln? because they knew they were going to lose their, "property."

i hear people spout the same slogan over and over about how lincoln, 'violated the writ of habeas corpus!"

we were in a civil war folks, this isn't in any way comparable to the treason being committed by our government today with the likes of the patriot act or the rest of the garbage being shoved down our throats by Joe Lieberman and his dancing puppets. when you have hundreds of thousands of your nations finest men in the field fighting for your country, you can not afford to let traitors print their locations and their intentions in the local newspaper. period.

and the writ of habeas corpus?

The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

cases of rebellion man, cases of rebellion. that's what the constitution says.

there would have been none of the horrors of reconstruction had lincoln lived. when asked after the war how the rebs should be treated he replied, "let them up gently." the carpet baggers were going to have none of that. so they murdered him.

and i must respond to one of the people who wrote to you henry that claimed lincoln was hated on both sides of the mason Dixon. i'm sorry but that sir is not accurate. my ancestors fought proudly in the Indiana infantry. and we loved and love Abraham Lincoln. 600,000 men died in that war. Blue and Grey. atrocities are committed in every war. just ask the Missouri bushwhackers about that. but was that Jefferson Davis' fault? after four years of butchery people tend to lose some of their humanity. just ask Nathan Bedford Forrest about that.

was Lincoln a saint? no. was he comparable to Stalin? not even in the farthest corner of the twilight zone.

Tony Blizzard said (August 3, 2012):

I agree with most of Anthony's anti-Lincoln article. Especially that Lincoln was a tyrant first class. That said, I believe Anthony's source, who hides behind a non name, paints what he wants people to conclude in his "information." I'm not at all sure his motives are pure.

For one thing, it is no surprise that the oft quoted statement from the Times of London is not in its archives. To say that "debunks" the statement is simplistic at best. After all, the Times of London is in London, which is totally controlled by the Rothschilds. The very simple and obviously true logic of the statement is something the Rothschild power would be extremely anxious for the public not to remember. How difficult would it be for them to have it expunged from the archives?

Few who have studied greenbacks say they were totally free of debt. What they say is that what they conceded to the bankers is only what they were forced to in order to get the laws passed. Nevertheless greenbacks saved the American public untold billions of interest dollars over the years even though the bankers still profited somewhat from them. Why else would the bankers work so long and hard to get them out of circulation?

I have suspicions that the money powers see in Anthony's distrust of government to create honest money an entry wedge into yet another attempt to quash any thought of such a worthwhile advance to civilization of which they are naturally most frightened as it would be the end of their criminal scam which is destroying the world. After all, it is exactly why they keep us in constant wars destroying Muslim nations which have much more honest banking plus the "world bankers" are left outside looking in. Every time another Muslim nation is conquered the first action is always to install "western" style fractional reserve (Rothschild theft) banking.

There is no doubt that Lincoln was manipulated. The whole civil war was a creation of the reigning Rothschild of the times who bragged he would give half the nation to each of his two sons. I recall that Lincoln had personal conversations with Karl Marx and was not put off by his concepts which might have sounded like fresh air to him next to the Rothschilds' machinations. But he was not an ignoramus on money and economics. It was Lincoln who, when pressured to buy train track rails from England (translate Rothschild) at a cheaper price than from the states replied that if the union did that the Americans would have the rails and the English would have the money but if the union paid a bit extra to American firms, Americans would have both the rails and the money. Frankly, I'd like that kind of thought from ANY present day American politician.

L said (August 2, 2012):

Lincoln - The Jewish Connection

Dan said (August 2, 2012):

I must write to support Anthony Migchels' unbiased article on Lincoln. I know there will be a lot of reactive letters defending the Lincoln myth.

Lincoln's only goal was to centralize as much power as possible in a Federal State, permanently . The greenback was a way to do that, period. He wasn't working for the London bankers, but he wasn't working for the American people, either. He was ruthless lawyer for the big railroad, coal and steel interests.

Before the Civil War, America was a constitutional republic carefully designed to leave as much autonomy (self rule) as possible to the states, and individual citizens. That suited the agricultural regions, but it limited the goals of the big industrial interests that were greedy for exponential expansion. Lincoln's real agenda with putting Federal power over local legislatures served the goal of interstate railways paid for by Federal taxes. In pursuit of that goal, Lincoln trashed the Constitution without hesitation at every turn. He suspended habeus corpus - the keystone of the Bills of Rights - merely to silence dissent by incarcerating sixteen thousand citizens who disagreed with him. These were all Northerners, too. People of influence - mayors, elected officials, newspaper editors, college professors...
People in seceding states had no rights. His Federal armies of hundreds of thousands of men looted, and vandalized civilian farms and towns, burned whole cities to the ground. In his native Midwest he conscripted. commandeered, confiscated and imprisoned. During the war he was hated on both sides of the Mason Dixon line. After the war he was hated for a generation by those who lived through the war.

We have to deprogram ourselves from these 'cult of personality' myths to make us think we need politicians. I've met Russians that speak of Stalin with the same hero worship Americans reserve for Lincoln. What's the attractions? I think it must be power we worship. Why do ordinary people worship power?

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at