4 ms·

Abraham Lincoln was not just a great president, but could probably be considered a psychic in many circles: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that

Abraham Lincoln was not just a great president, but could probably be considered a psychic in many circles: “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 and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

datashovel 12y ago
In a strange way this makes me very optimistic about the future. That in the age of free-flowing information, we can find and (hopefully) snuff out these egregious attempts to take advantage of the system.
- delucain 12y ago
  But, have we (the US)? We're a good solid decade or two into the age of free-flowing information, and we are trending the other direction in a frighteningly fast pace. The middle class is gone. More wealth is getting concentrated to the top than ever before in our country's history. And all the while, we have the least productive congress in history whose re-election is entirely dependent on the handouts given by those corporations that Abraham Lincoln warned us about. The few bills that are being passed are often written by those very corporations. We've lost the representation in our government. The Republic is no longer for the people by the people. The Republic is lost.
  - datashovel 12y ago
    I have the impression that we (humanity) have just gotten our feet under ourselves in terms of how to utilize technology and the internet to really make a difference and make real progress in fighting back against these kinds of things. 20 years is only a tiny blip on the map of the entire history of civilization. Unfortunately that probably means you and I will maybe only see the beginnings of what the world will be like 1000 years from now, but the initial signs (to me) are very encouraging.
NoPiece 12y ago
It is a fake quote: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125169095 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1251690... http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp
- datashovel 12y ago
  Thanks for the references. Ok, perhaps Lincoln wasn't as brilliant as I thought he was. But whoever wrote those words certainly had some insight. I certainly don't mind quoting 'anonymous' :)
- datashovel 12y ago
  On the other hand, here is contrary reference: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html Not interested really in figuring out the real source. There's enough substance to the quote that I think it stands on its own.
  - NoPiece 12y ago
    The Ratical source has been debunked, see the snopes link. Pedigree for this quote is often asserted by pointing to the 1950 Lincoln Encyclopedia, compiled by Archer H. Shaw, which "authenticates" the quote by citing a purported 1864 letter from Lincoln to one Col. William F. Elkins found in Emanuel Hertz's 1931 book, Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait. However, this source is fraudulent: the Elkins letter reproduced by Hertz was a forgery, and Shaw, a sloppy compiler, added the bogus letter to his encyclopedia (along with several other pieces of Lincoln apocrypha) without verifying its authenticity. As historian Merrill Peterson, author of Lincoln in American Memory, noted of Shaw's work: Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp#TmQ2MSs5eXjUah3P.99* http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp#TmQ2MSs5eXjUah3P.99...
    - datashovel 12y ago
      I guess I have no stake in it one way or another, but it's an interesting problem nonetheless... It's honestly too bad none of us have real time to put into digging up and verifying this stuff on our own. The snopes source says "was a forgery...added the bogus letter to his encyclopedia (along with several other pieces of Lincoln apocrypha) without verifying its authenticity" but doesn't give reference to how this is known, or by whom it was confirmed to be a forgery. The only other point made is that given the author's (Merrill Peterson) knowledge: "Nonetheless, Peterson concluded, even Lincoln's wartime experience and pro-labor credentials don't justify the attribution of the 'money power' warning to him". And the other reference 'W.J. Ghent' is an article in a newspaper where he's giving what appears to be an opinion. According to his wikipedia page, he was not a historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._J._Ghent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._J._Ghent It's hard to read the article given that it's scanned copy of the newspaper from 1905, but here it is: http://goo.gl/Qfsqry http://goo.gl/Qfsqry So we have an argument that the letter was fraudulent without references to who asserts this, and we have the author's own authoritative "spin" as justification that the letter wasn't real. I'm no historian, but if the "forgery" claim is based on the fact that they can't pin the handwriting to Lincoln's own, is it out of the question that the letter was transcribed? On the other hand we have a reference which claims to contain a letter written by Lincoln, the original of which may or may not still be in existence. Who knows how far down the rabbit hole we could go just to figure this out. Instead perhaps it's best to leave it to the internet to argue the point further if they decide to.

datashovel 12y ago

In a strange way this makes me very optimistic about the future. That in the age of free-flowing information, we can find and (hopefully) snuff out these egregious attempts to take advantage of the system.

delucain 12y ago
But, have we (the US)? We're a good solid decade or two into the age of free-flowing information, and we are trending the other direction in a frighteningly fast pace. The middle class is gone. More wealth is getting concentrated to the top than ever before in our country's history. And all the while, we have the least productive congress in history whose re-election is entirely dependent on the handouts given by those corporations that Abraham Lincoln warned us about. The few bills that are being passed are often written by those very corporations. We've lost the representation in our government. The Republic is no longer for the people by the people. The Republic is lost.
- datashovel 12y ago
  I have the impression that we (humanity) have just gotten our feet under ourselves in terms of how to utilize technology and the internet to really make a difference and make real progress in fighting back against these kinds of things. 20 years is only a tiny blip on the map of the entire history of civilization. Unfortunately that probably means you and I will maybe only see the beginnings of what the world will be like 1000 years from now, but the initial signs (to me) are very encouraging.

NoPiece 12y ago

It is a fake quote: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125169095 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1251690... http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp

datashovel 12y ago
Thanks for the references. Ok, perhaps Lincoln wasn't as brilliant as I thought he was. But whoever wrote those words certainly had some insight. I certainly don't mind quoting 'anonymous' :)
datashovel 12y ago
On the other hand, here is contrary reference: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html Not interested really in figuring out the real source. There's enough substance to the quote that I think it stands on its own.
- NoPiece 12y ago
  The Ratical source has been debunked, see the snopes link. Pedigree for this quote is often asserted by pointing to the 1950 Lincoln Encyclopedia, compiled by Archer H. Shaw, which "authenticates" the quote by citing a purported 1864 letter from Lincoln to one Col. William F. Elkins found in Emanuel Hertz's 1931 book, Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait. However, this source is fraudulent: the Elkins letter reproduced by Hertz was a forgery, and Shaw, a sloppy compiler, added the bogus letter to his encyclopedia (along with several other pieces of Lincoln apocrypha) without verifying its authenticity. As historian Merrill Peterson, author of Lincoln in American Memory, noted of Shaw's work: Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp#TmQ2MSs5eXjUah3P.99* http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp#TmQ2MSs5eXjUah3P.99...
  - datashovel 12y ago
    I guess I have no stake in it one way or another, but it's an interesting problem nonetheless... It's honestly too bad none of us have real time to put into digging up and verifying this stuff on our own. The snopes source says "was a forgery...added the bogus letter to his encyclopedia (along with several other pieces of Lincoln apocrypha) without verifying its authenticity" but doesn't give reference to how this is known, or by whom it was confirmed to be a forgery. The only other point made is that given the author's (Merrill Peterson) knowledge: "Nonetheless, Peterson concluded, even Lincoln's wartime experience and pro-labor credentials don't justify the attribution of the 'money power' warning to him". And the other reference 'W.J. Ghent' is an article in a newspaper where he's giving what appears to be an opinion. According to his wikipedia page, he was not a historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._J._Ghent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._J._Ghent It's hard to read the article given that it's scanned copy of the newspaper from 1905, but here it is: http://goo.gl/Qfsqry http://goo.gl/Qfsqry So we have an argument that the letter was fraudulent without references to who asserts this, and we have the author's own authoritative "spin" as justification that the letter wasn't real. I'm no historian, but if the "forgery" claim is based on the fact that they can't pin the handwriting to Lincoln's own, is it out of the question that the letter was transcribed? On the other hand we have a reference which claims to contain a letter written by Lincoln, the original of which may or may not still be in existence. Who knows how far down the rabbit hole we could go just to figure this out. Instead perhaps it's best to leave it to the internet to argue the point further if they decide to.