Dyed-In-The-Wool History
The Assignation of Mr. Lincoln
​
Abraham Lincoln is regarded by most today in America as a sort of national saint yet his place in the collective memory was actually very unlikely and was largely dependent on his untimely death. In 1860 he won a four way race with just under 40% of the popular vote, which was entirely regional, and in 1864 he defeated McClellan by app 400,000 votes in the popular vote which was aided by posting union troops at pooling location and the first use of large scale mail in ballots. The degree to which all different political factions in the Union and abroad disliked Mr. Lincoln was extreme and maybe unique as was the aggressiveness in which this was expressed. This was so notable that author Larry Tagg wrote a book on the subject titled The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: The Story of America’s Most Reviled President which sites thousands of primary sources to make this point. Other mainstream Lincoln scholars have, perhaps reluctantly, reached the same conclusions.
​
Tagg, who it is important to note is in no way a confederate sympathizer or defender, summarized the Mr. Lincoln’s public appeal saying, “The violence of the criticism aimed at Lincoln by the great men of his time on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line is startling. The breadth and depth of the spectacular prejudice against him is often shocking for its cruelty, intensity, and unrelenting vigor. The plain truth is that Mr. Lincoln was deeply reviled by many who knew him personally, and by hundreds of thousands who only knew of him.” He then goes on to say, “ Lincoln was widely criticized in the North as a “bloody tyrant” and a “dictator” for his “arbitrary arrests, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the suppression of newspapers . . .” The second point refers to many of his policies that have been largely obscured by popular history such as: “imprisoning tens of thousands of Northern civilians without due process for verbally opposing his policies; shutting down over 300 opposition newspapers; deporting an opposing member of Congress; confiscating firearms and other forms of private property; intimidating and threatening to imprison federal judges; invoking military conscription, income taxation, an internal revenue bureaucracy, and huge public debt; and ordering the murder of hundreds of draft protesters in the streets of New York City in July of 1863.”
​
The diversity and degree of scorn Lincoln endured from all sides is evidenced from the following quotes taken Tagg’s book and cited by author and historian Thomas DiLorenzo in his review of the book:
​
“a first-rate second-rate man.” abolitionist Wendell Phillips (1)
​
“ignorant, self-willed, and is surrounded by men some of whom are almost as ignorant as himself.” Historian George Bankroft (1)
​
“If Abraham Lincoln should be reelected for another term of four years of such wretched administration, we hope that a bold hand will be found to plunge the dagger into the tyrant’s heart for the public welfare.” Wisconsin Democrat newspaper November 1864 (1)
​
“No living man was ever charged with political crimes of such multiplicity and such enormity as Abraham Lincoln. He has been denounced without end as a perjurer, a usurper, a tyrant, a subverter of the Constitution, a destroyer of the liberties of his country, a reckless desperado, a heartless trifler over the last agonies of an expiring nation. Had that which has been said of him been true there is no circle in Dante’s Inferno full enough of torment to expiate his iniquities.” New York Times (1)
​
When Lincoln died on Good Friday of 1865 succumbing to a gunshot wound to the head, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton used his funeral and 1600 mile railroad tour of his corpse as a propaganda tool (1). The bullet hole was left as it was to make the body appear as grotesque as possible. Soon anyone speaking ill of the dead president was in danger from both the law and semi-organized mobs that specifically targeted Democratic papers. An editor of a Maryland paper was killed by a mob after he was critical of Lincoln. This remarkable shift in public perception wasn’t simply brought about by political astute Republican politicians for immediate objectives but was driven by the progressive Yankee clergy who ensured that the sudden sainthood of the president would rapidly become culturally wrapped around a network of newly created false memories (2). Easter sermons two days after Lincoln’s death framed him as the “American Mosses”. The clergy were frequently prolific writer and answered the call in this instance with detailed embellished accounts of second hand and third hand events along with out and out fabrications that frequently used quotes that didn’t remotely sound like Lincoln. These were post-Millennialists seeking to bring about the kingdom of God on earth by rendering the earth free of sin which specifically included “slavery, alcohol, and Catholicism”. Perhaps a little creativity in framing reality was justifiable in obtaining such a goal.
​
Considering that Lincoln was not liked and not trusted by abolitionists and Radical Republicans and never claimed to be any form of Christian despite fairly intense pressure to do so (2), his death provided his more progressive opponents an extremely fortuitous opportunity to recast an adversary who they couldn’t control to a national savior figure they could define any way they liked. A regional minority party with a large percentage of progressive Christian activists (or heretics) could use this event to silence their opposition and implement their vision for the world which was to include the further destruction and pillaging of the South. Providentially this was all handed to them by a small group of Confederate sympathizers seeking to avenge the lost war – or was it? Alternate theories about the assignation, which generally center on the banking system, have existed since the event and while they cannot or have not been established as true, they do merit some consideration.
​
Lincoln certainly had little respect for the constitution and held to a Nationalist vision that was much different from the founder’s vision in most cases but he was not philosophically or religiously a progressive evangelical seeking to bring about the second coming. He also arguably tried to remain independent from European financial interests. A fair question to ask when analyzing a complex event is who benefits. In the case of Lincoln’s death the South certainly would not benefit as Lincoln acted as a constraint on the Radical Republicans. Lincoln’s concept of reconstruction was far less heavy handed than that of the party as a whole and the radicals in particular, favoring rapid re-assimilation and growing the Republican Party by attracting former Southern Whigs back into a national as opposed to regional party. He specifically had vetoed the Wade-Davis bill that would have placed a lien against Southern cotton to buy back Southern debt at face value (it had been purchased at deep discounts) and would have defined seceded states as conquered countries (3 p. 391). Still looking at domestic politics only, this is little more than a footnote or conjecture without some sort of theory of the crime. When the war is seen as an international conflict, however, the possibility that there may be more to Lincoln’s murder than is taught becomes more specific.
​
The European powers were attempting to extend their influence to the Americas and would have liked to see the nation split into two or more states. The European banks were also seeking to expand their control across the Atlantic. Otto von Bismarck, who was the founder of the unified German nation and was also a benefactor of international finance, openly described the situation as follows:
​
“The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long ago before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would openly upset their financial domination of Europe and the world. Of course, in the “inner circle” of finance the voice of the Rothschild’s prevailed. They saw an opportunity for prodigious booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, burdened with debt to the financiers…in place of a vigorous republic sufficient unto herself. Therefore, they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to drive a wedge between the two parts of the Union…The rupture between the North and the South became inevitable; the masters of European finance employed all their forces to bring it about and to turn it into their advantage” Otto von Bismarck (3 p. 374)
​
Lincoln stood in the way of this, resisting both political division and, to some extent at least, the European finance of the Union war effort. The Lincoln administration with Congressional approval in 1861 issued $150 million in “greenbacks” which were bills of credit deemed to be legal tender. This, of course, was unconstitutional but so were a great many other things done during this time period. By the end of the war, about $432 million in greenbacks had been issued. This was effectively a way around financing by European bankers and they perceived this and similar actions taken by other governments since, as a threat to their very existence. The London Times, which represented the perspective of European financial aristocracy, wrote at the time: “If that mischievous policy, which had its origins 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 its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of 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” (4). This is overstated in several respects in that fiat currencies always tend to collapse in uncontrolled inflation (both sides suffered from rampant inflation during the war) and specific forms of governance have no pattern of ensuring stability or long term success, yet it represents the very real fears of the financial masters of Europe that the scheme of creating money out of nothing and lending it to the government at interest was in jeopardy.
​
Similar observations were more directly expounded on the Hazard Circular that was a form of financial trade publication circulated amongst the nation’s upper business echelon: “The great debt that capitalists will see is made out of the war and must be used to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time as we cannot control the bonds and through them the bank issue.”(3 p. 386). The Hazard Circular was a highly secretive publication that didn’t become generally known or acknowledged until the 1880’s (5). Another interesting quote from this publication regarding the role of slavery in the war from 1862 is as follows: “Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is capital control of labor by controlling wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY. (5)
​
The resistance to European political and financial power created an unlikely alliance with Russia that provided naval support to the Union blockade. This was aimed at the French and British and there is no record of the Russian ships ever firing at French or British shipping but it did act as a deterrent (3 p. 378)(6). Through a violent and tumultuous history that included decades under communist rule, Russia has consistently stood as a barrier to the dominance or western financial and corporate powers.
​
Greenbacks were by no means the only or principal method of financing the North’s war on the South and became deeply discounted in part due to resistance by the banking powers. War bonds were issued, an income tax was instituted for the first time, and the national bank reappeared with the Banking Act of 1863. The International banking community was very pleased with this piece of legislation. A communiqué sent from the Rothschild investment house in London to an associated firm in New York boasted, “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent upon its favors that there will be no opposition from that class while, on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending…will bear its burden without complaint” (3 p. 389). Instead of a single bank it set up a system of many national banks under the control of the federal government. It created a market for government bonds and then transformed those bonds into circulating currency by turning treasury notes purchased by the banks into an equal amount of US Banknotes which were declared legal tender for government related debts. It cost the bank nothing because they got their money back immediately and also enabled the bank to collect interest on both the bond and the loan. One of the consequences of the National Banking Act was that it made it virtually impossible for the federal government to ever get out of debt. Even progressive economist John Galbraith recognized this saying, “In numerous years following the war the Federal government ran a heavy surplus. It could not pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply” (3 p. 388). Money simply became debt and so it remains today. Murray Rothbard in A History of Money and Banking in the United States described this permanent change in the banking system stating: “The federal government in effect outlawed the issue of state bank notes, and created a new, quasi-centralized fractional reserve system which paved the way for the return of outright central banking in the Federal Reserve System” (7 p. 122).
​
Lincoln’s views on banking are a bit ambiguous and may have been evolving. Early in his political career he was a supporter of the banking industry and easy credit and he supported the 2nd Bank led by Biddle. While advocating greenbacks he also supported the idea of a new national bank. Although some contend he privately expressed concerns over the Banking Act of 1863, he did end up supporting it. There is a popular quote on the subject that can be found in several books and numerous websites casting Lincoln as standing against European banking influence, that is attributed to Lincoln either from a letter to William Elkins in 1864 or to a speech although its authenticity is dubious. Regardless of who the source is, it proved to be eerily prophetic:
​
“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. 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, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed.” Disputed / unverifiable Lincoln Quote (3 p. 389)(8 p. 31)
​
Some contend that Lincoln’s intent after his reelection was to end the national banking system created by the Banking Act of 1863. If this were true or if it were believed to be true it certainly would have provided a strong motive for his assignation but does this connect to Booth? After the assignation and the reported death of Booth in the Garrett’s tobacco barn, records of the investigation were locked down hard by Secretary of War Stanton. While there were persistent rumors from the time period about Booth’s potential escape and a much broader conspiracy, frequently having to do with the Knights of the Golden Circle of which Booth was a member, they couldn’t be investigated. The Knights, who were organized by George Bickley in Cincinnati in 1854 and had “castles” in Union states as well as Confederate states along with a membership estimated at between 200,000 and 300,000, drew most of their membership from Mason Lodges and were linked to a French society called The Seasons (3 p. 392).
​
When the files were declassified in the mid 30’s the information supported many of the lingering doubts about the official story but were not conclusive. Otto Eisenschiml was the first investigator to produce a book on his findings in 1937 titled Why Was Lincoln Murdered followed by Theodore Roscoe who wrote in the introduction to his book after describing the commonly held view of the assignation, “But the facts of the case are neither so satisfying nor so gratifying. For the facts indicate that the criminals responsible for Lincoln’s death got away with murder.” John Wilkes Booth’s granddaughter also wrote a book titled “One Mad Act” where she was given access to KGC documents and artifacts no one had accessed before including bone fragments apparently from Booth’s autopsy. In her book she described her grandmother as saying her husband was “the tool of other men”(3 p. 395) and details Booth’s contact with “mysterious Europeans” (4). At the time the bones would have just been a simple a point of interest but today they could be used for DNA analysis against Wilkes’ brother’s remains to validate identity.
​
So was Lincoln a threat to the aspirations of European banking interests and is there a reasonable chance that there was more to his assignation than meets the eye? This is in many respects a difficult question to resolve but one point that could be determined is whether the body that is reported to be that of Booth really is. This has been discussed since the technology became commonly available but it keeps getting blocked and we seem to get no closer to having hard scientific evidence that could potentially alter the understanding of our history.
​
Bibliography
​
1. DiLorenzo, Thomas J. How the Lincoln Myth was Hatched. Lew Rockwell.com. [Online] July 22, 2010. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/07/thomas-dilorenzo/the-first-dictator-president/.
2. Cardiff, Ira D. The Deification of Lincoln. s.l. : Christopher Publishing House, 1943.
3. Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island. Westlake Village, California : The Reality Zone, 1994. ISBN 978-0-912986-45-6.
4. Morse, John. The Event Chronicle. The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Rothschild, Rockefeller and Morgan Families. [Online] June 29, 2015. https://theeventchronicle.com/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-rothschild-rockefeller-and-morgan-families/.
5. Staff, RBN. The Hazard Circular. Republic Broadcasting Network. [Online] July 6, 2015. https://republicbroadcasting.org/news/the-history-of-the-hazard-circular/.
6. Poe, Richard. How the British Caused the American Civil War. Lew Rockwell.com. [Online] December 31, 2021. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/12/richard-poe/how-the-british-caused-the-american-civil-war/.
7. Rothbard, Murray N. A History of Money and Banking in the United States. Auburn Alabama : Ludwig von Misses Institute, 2002.
8. DiLorenzo, Thomas J. Lincoln Unmasked. New York, New York : Three Rivers Press, 2006.