Abraham Lincoln said this:

[FarLeftFist]

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace

and conspire against it in times of adversity.

It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than

autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy.

It denounces as public enemies, all who question its

methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great

enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers

in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest

foe. corporations have been enthroned and an era of

corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers

of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by

working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth

is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is

destroyed."

[Scuba]

1. Great quote. Do you have a source?

[mimitabby]

2. point being, this is not a new fight.

[midnight]

33. No it's not.. The bankers did not like him and made his life hell...

Otto von Bismark chancellor of Germany 1876 On the 12th of April 1861 this economic war began. Predictably Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers wishing the Union to fail offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."


Colonel Dick Taylor When Lincoln asked if the people of America would accept the notes Taylor said. "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."


Colonel Dick Taylor 1 Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. "The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."


Abraham Lincoln 2 From this we see that the solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy. This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realised how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times. Oddly enough, while the article seems to have been designed to discourage this creative financial policy, in its put down we're clearly able to see the policies goodness. "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to 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."http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html

[robertpaulsen]

3. I wish he had.

Unfortunately, snopes says no.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp

[FarLeftFist]

5. The example listed wasn't the quote.

[Democracyinkind]

8. It's almost the exact same quote, plus one sentence at the end and a different beginning.

Clearly it is the same quote.

[FarLeftFist]

11. Uh, It's actually completely different. There is one similar sentence.

[Democracyinkind]

18. Why don't you source the quote, if it is true, then?

[FarLeftFist]

22. Because Lincoln is dead.

[Democracyinkind]

24. OMG. Are you serious?

Do you not see the fallacy in saying that?


I'll make this really easy, since it seems to be necessary:

When and where did Lincoln say that? And accordings to what source?

OR

Where did he write that down?

That's what I mean by "source the claim"

[FarLeftFist]

32. He wrote it down on his Macbook Pro which was destroyed during the Civil War.

[Democracyinkind]

34. How funny - and pathethic.

Thank you for your revisionism.

[FarLeftFist]

38. Funny and pathetic. Just like our Founding Fathers intended.

[JVS]

57. MLA citation guide fail!

[Democracyinkind]

4. No he didn't.

Just because we all agree with the contents of the quote does not make it true - only a teabager's mind works that way.

[FarLeftFist]

6. What?! Because I agree with the content I'm a teabagger?!

Explain yourself.

[Democracyinkind]

7. No.

As I said - I think anyone on DU agrees with the contents of that fraudulent quote.

Believing something is true just because one agrees with it is a hallmark of teabagerism. I was not accusing you, nor anyone else of being a teabager. I'm saying we should hold ourselves to higher standards, no offense intended.

[FarLeftFist]

9. Are you saying the quote doesn't exist?

If I believe in the contents then what are you arguing? Are you arguing who said it? Does it matter who said it, you seem to be accusing the quote of not actually existing. The contents exist, therefore it is real. There are plenty of websites that attribute that quote to Lincoln.

[Democracyinkind]

12. The quote "exists" in the sense that it is written down here.

However, it was NEVER said by Lincoln - at least not veryfiably, and it is NOWHERE to be found in his collected writings.

It matters who said it - it matters that Lincoln didn't say it.

"Plenty of websites" is not enough to make something historically verified. "Plenty of Websites" is an argument that can be made for anything; Lizard-Overlordship, Nazis from Aldebaran etc. etc.

[FarLeftFist]

14. Yet you don't prove that it's "fraudulent". Nice!

[Democracyinkind]

16. Burden of proof is on you - by any reasonable standard.

Your claim - your burden. That's the way it's done among us historians, anyway.

Secondly: It has been proven by a link up above, and I'm not big on redundancy.

[FarLeftFist]

19. That link above is FAR from the same quote. Extremely far.

[Democracyinkind]

21. Even if I grant that, it's still your burden.

Stop the game, source the claim.

[FarLeftFist]

26. It's credited to Abraham Lincoln, what source do you want, I'm no where near the Library of Congress

[Democracyinkind]

37. Lol.

It's also credited to Abraham Lincoln that he said that gay peope like to eat babies.

Does that make it true?

[FarLeftFist]

40. WHAAAAT?! What a crazy guy.

[liberal N proud]

10. Jon Steward said something last week about that

Paraphrasing here:

"It is easier for people to believe what they agree with" or something like that.

I would find it, but can't recall what night it was on and don't have hours to search for it.

[Democracyinkind]

15. I saw that, and it's an important point.

Do we believe certain things to be true just because they feel right? It is surely a human tendency, but one we should find.

I mentioned "teabagerism" in an above post because I think uncritically believing something just because it "rings true" is the very hallmark of that ridiculous "movement".

[FarLeftFist]

17. So it's not true because YOU say it's not true? Yet millions of others say it IS true.

No offense, but that sounds tea-baggerish.

[Democracyinkind]

20. Argument from majority. Invalid.

What you have to do is source the claim, and this childish game could just stop.

[liberal N proud]

25. One has to look at facts

And one should not take the first thing they see as fact.

I read article linked from here all the time yet, I must continuously try to corroborate the story before taking it as being factual.

Although when a certain source has built integrity, you can start to believe them when they speak. Even this though should be used with caution.

[FarLeftFist]

30. The point is more of the fact that this fight is not new.

[liberal N proud]

52. Find real quotes to back up your statement

If you are going to quote something here, you need to have a source.

DUer's demand that of posters, and it is only fair to prove the quote is factual and remove all doubt.

[FarLeftFist]

65. Really, DU'ers DEMAND that?! Should I give them a refund?

[JVS]

58. That's just the kind of gross lumping together that Hitler did.

[Democracyinkind]

59. Self Delete...

All I was trying to say is that we should hold ourselves to higher standards than the sort of people who believe anything is true because it is in accord with their preconceived notions. Within the limited experience that I have had with TB'ers, that seemes to be one of their properties. But maybe that is a bit gross.

[JVS]

63. Fair enough. My Hitler reference was a tongue in cheek, I must admit.

[Democracyinkind]

64. That was my first guess.

I just lack the self confidence to go with my first guesses. Thanks for reassuring me, though :-)

[Bandit]

13. IMO the key sentence is this one..

"until the wealth

is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is

destroyed."

[Democracyinkind]

23. I'm still convinced that there is a good reason why you didn't/can't source the claim.

Because the quote first appears long after Lincolns death, and it is nowhere to be found in his collected papers/speeches.

Don't take it personal - the internet is filled with ahistorical crap that panders to preconceived notions.

BTW - Lincoln did - at least in the 40's and 50's - believe in the Labor Theory of Value. That's pretty radical, even back then, and it provides todays progressives with abundant rhetorical ammunition against the reign of corporations coming from the great emancipator.

[FarLeftFist]

27. Source your claim.

[Democracyinkind]

31. Burden of proof is on you.

I see you can't source the claim. Interesting.

[FarLeftFist]

35. You made a claim as well with no source. Besides, the burden is always on me.

[Democracyinkind]

42. Philosphy 101.

I didn't make the rules.

[FarLeftFist]

44. Let's make our own rules.

[Democracyinkind]

46. No - then we end up with the kind of ahistorical bullshit that you are peddling here.

My profession kind of forbids me to agreeing to that.

[FarLeftFist]

48. I meant our own rules of philosophy.

[Democracyinkind]

50. That's what I meant too.

Version A: We stick to the old rules, since they have proven their worth. Result: We get objective, verifiable history.

Version B: We stick to your new "rules", since they please our preconceived notions. Result: Anything goes - simply saying that X said Y makes it that way. Brave new world: Hitler becomes a socialist, the civil war was not about slavery, we didn't land on the moon.

I prefer version A.

[FarLeftFist]

51. I'm living in a world searching for option C.

[Democracyinkind]

54. There's no option C.

PM me when you've found something in addition to "subjective" and "objective". I won't hold my breath. How old are you?

[NYC Liberal]

28. Who cares if Lincoln or the Man in the Moon said it? It's TRUE

no matter who came up with it!

[FarLeftFist]

67. And there's my point. Average Joe circa 1862 could have said it, it's about the longevity of it.

Some people have pointed to an article stating that it was said 20 yrs after he died. He died in 1865. So in 1885 this fight was already happening.

[The Magistrate]

69. Actually, Sir, It is the Appeal To Authority In the Mis-Attribution That Was the Point

Not only now, but back then....

[NYC Liberal]

70. Exactly. Unless the author would change the meaning, it doesn't matter.

If someone posted a quote about freeing the slaves claiming it was from Lincoln but in reality it was a quote from Hitler about freeing Germans from "Jewish oppressors" or whatnot, then yeah the author would make a difference.

This quote is 100% true no matter who said it.

[The Magistrate]

29. Sorry, Sir: Mr.Lincoln Never Said Nor Wrote This

[FarLeftFist]

36. Oh well. If Lincoln never said it then I guess it's meaningless and should be disregarded.

[Democracyinkind]

39. No one said that.

If it has meaning it should be regarded.

No need to get all revisionist and make shit up (not you, but the place you got it from)

BTW - I totally agree with the quote. But I also care about history.

[FarLeftFist]

41. Sure, kill the messenger. Suddenly I'M the revisionist. It's all my fault. I can't go on living.

[Democracyinkind]

43. I'm starting to think that

1) you're not even reading what I'm writing

2) you don't understand what I'm trying to say

3) you're behaving childish because you don't know better.

Must be one of those.

[FarLeftFist]

45. 4-You have as much proof he didn't say it as I do he did.

[Democracyinkind]

47. That doesn't change the fact that when you quote someone...

you should (in the public sphere) or must (in the academic sphere=) source the claim.

If you don't do that, no one will take you seriously.

"You haven't any proof either" won't get you any respect and it will most definitely not get you tenure. I should know, I tried once. LOL.

[FarLeftFist]

49. But PLENTY of people and historians credit it to Lincoln. Yet, your claim isn't sourced at all.

Even the above link is FAR from the quote.

[Democracyinkind]

53. Please cite "plenty of historians" who say that that quote is from Lincoln.

I've read tons of books on him, I've read his collected speeches and documents.

I can't remember ever having read it.

Please do - we could end this silly charade.

[The Magistrate]

61. He Will Not Be Able To, Sir:It Is In No Published Collection Of Mr.Lincoln's Writings And Speeches

It is a fabrication.

[Democracyinkind]

62. The books on my shelf, Sir, totally agree with you.

[Honeycombe8]

55. True. I wish people would be skeptical of posts & emails that purport

to quote something or give "facts." A red flag should go up, at the least, if there is no valid, objective source for the information.

Doesn't mean the quote or the "facts" aren't good ones. But this is how those rightwingnut emails work. They send them around containing all sorts of quotes and facts, most of which isn't true or are half-true. The idiots who get them and read them are so ready to just take as truth anything those emails spout. I guess because they WANT to believe them.

A quote (unless it's a famous one that is common knowledge) always cites a valid source. Facts always cite some valid source. References to legal cases always cite the name of the case and waht court it was in. If those things aren't present, the emailer doesn't want the reader to know that it's either not true, or strays from the truth enough that they don't want the reader to know that.

[Democracyinkind]

56. I reccomend your post. You said what I was trying to say so much more eloquently.

I'm quite impressed! Thanks.

[FarLeftFist]

66. Jeez, it wasn't really about who said it as much as it was about the fact that this fight isn't new.

Really, I wouldn't care if average Joe circa 1862 said this, it was more about the longevity of the message.

[WilliamPitt]

68. You don't play well with others, do you?

You posted a fake quote, and were informed about it, and from what I can tell, being corrected caused you to flip out completely.

Breathe, friend. Breathe.

[The Magistrate]

60. Yes And No, Sir

The attempt to link the sentiment to the authority of the revered President Lincoln must be rejected, since he did not say this. The statement must then stand or fall on its own. It is therefore necessary to examine somewhat the actual historical background.

Mr. Lincoln was no particular friend of the large corporation. In the later stages of his career as a lawyer, a large railroad he did some work for attempted to short him on his fee; he sued, and on receiving a judgement of five thousand dollars remarked on the pleasure of having such a corporation put into his hands for the fleecing. Mr. Lincoln also expressed himself frequently on the primacy of labor over capital, and in support of the right of workers to strike.

In regard to the Civil War, the question of Mr.Lincoln's relation to and attitude towards banks and bankers is complex. It is certainly true that some banking and mercantile interests at the North did not wish prosecution of the war, as it interfered with what had been peace-time sources of profit in lending to, and trade with, the South. This was particularly true in New York City, where early in the war there was actually talk of the city seceding. However, the Federal government had no difficulty raising funds for the war, particularly after the Treasury Secretary's early threat to 'print money till it takes a thousand dollars to buy a breakfast' if funds could be got no other way. The money of the north backed the war, and profited from doing so. President Lincoln's administration set up, as a war finance measure, a system of national banks. His administration also sold, through Jay Cooke, a leading banker, tremendous sums of government bonds, bringing in funds essential to successful prosecution of the war. You are free to draw your own conclusions, but it does not seem to me a good case could be made for President Lincoln regarding 'the money power' as a dangerous enemy arrayed against him during the Civil War.