Editor's Note:A generation ago Thomas Bailey proposed that the history profession maintain a computer database of historical myths so that scholars could avoid repeating hoary stories their colleagues had exposed as fakes. Alas, nobody took up Bailey's suggestion (which remains a good one!) and the myths continue to pile up like a long bad car wreck.

The latest writer to end up on this highway junk heap is Kevin Phillips. Just a few pages into his new book, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich, Phillips regales the reader with a fabulous quotation from Abraham Lincoln that illustrates perfectly the theme of the new work. It's the kind of quote an author dreams of finding. You can just imagine how delighted Phillips was when he came across it. It's not just political parties that want to get right with Lincoln.

Unfortunately, Phillips was bamboozled--as was Paul Kennedy, who cited the quotation in a positive review of the book featured in the Los Angeles Times. The quote's long been known to be a fake, but as Matthew Pinsker pointed out in an essay published by the History News Service in 1999, it's taken in everybody from Newsweek's Jonathan Alter to Warren Beatty. And of course, it's made the rounds on the Internet. (Thanks go to Richard Jensen for bringing Phillips's use of the quotation to HNN's attention.)

Getting Wrong with Lincoln By Matthew Pinsker (October 15, 1999)

Say what you want concerning Warren Beatty's pseudo-presidential campaign, he's already done something that most candidates can only dream about. He's rewritten a part of American history.

The Hollywood actor recently capped a bizarre speech to Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) with a dramatic quotation from Abraham Lincoln about the greed of corporations and the danger of the"money power."

The trouble is that Lincoln never said any such thing. Yet instead of pouncing on this presumably innocent mistake, some of our more prominent pundits have actually repeated, and thus compounded, the movie star's error.

The bogus quotation reads as follows:
"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and it conspires against it in times of adversity. It's more despotic than monarchy. It's more insolent than autocracy. It's more selfish than bureaucracy. . . . 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 on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed."

That's a powerful indictment, but you won't find it anywhere in Lincoln's collected works. His official biographer called the statement, which began appearing during the Populist era and played a minor role in the 1896 campaign,"a bold, unblushing forgery."

Historian Merrill Peterson, in his 1994 study of Lincoln's image in the American public memory, devotes considerable attention to exploding the myth of this"prophesy."

Anyone familiar with Lincoln's professional career and economic views would understand immediately how preposterous it is to attribute such an anti-business creed to him. After all, Lincoln had been a prominent corporate attorney in the years before he became president. He represented, among other clients, the Illinois Central Railroad, one of the largest and most"insolent" commercial interests of the era.

As a devoted member of the Whig and then Republican parties, Lincoln was a thoroughly committed advocate for the development of industrial capitalism and the Northern free market. Although he expressed sympathy for the working man on several occasions, not once in his published writings did Lincoln refer to, let alone attack, the so-called"money power."

At one level, none of this should affect Beatty's analysis of our current problems. With or without Lincoln, he can still make the case that corporate CEOs earn too much money or that special interest contributions choke the political system. But if anything, an actor knows a good line when he hears one -- and Beatty must have understood that his audience would respond better with an appeal to Lincoln's moral authority.

Actually, those who paid attention to Beatty's remarks have responded all too well. Syndicated columnist Donald Kaul followed the ADA speech with a supportive review of Beatty's performance and a"pop quiz" for his readers that repeated the"money power" lines verbatim. Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter pointed out that Beatty's"harshest attacks were actually quotes from a speech by Abraham Lincoln" and told cable TV's Geraldo Rivera"that Lincoln stuff just amazed me."

By now, several million Americans must believe that Honest Abe was mad as hell and much feistier about the class struggle than our history books have suggested. Like a nagging flu bug, this strain of misinformation has been passed along to infect yet another generation. Admittedly, nobody dies from a bad quotation, but without question the historical record suffers still more damage during an era when credibility is already hard enough to come by.

In fairness to Beatty, he's not the first actor-politician to be confused by unscrupulous Lincoln script doctors. During the 1992 Republican national convention, former President Ronald Reagan mistakenly attributed to Lincoln statements such as:"You cannot help the weak by weakening the strong" and"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich" nice conservative sentiments that he had reportedly culled from his perennial favorite,"The Toastmaster's Treasure Chest."

For now at least, the score is even. Both liberals and conservatives have phony Lincoln quotations to call their own. Yet one can only imagine what lurks within the Reform Party corner, where Jesse Ventura has recently told reporters that he sees himself as" closest to Lincoln," because they're both"six-foot-four" and both"wrestlers." If only it were that easy.

This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.

Donald D dienst - 9/23/2005

The Author of the below link says...

The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

For a reliable pedigree, cite p. 40 of The Lincoln Encyclopedia, by Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY). That traces the quote's lineage to p. 954 of Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait, (Vol. 2) by Emanuel Hertz (Horace Liveright Inc, 1931, NY).

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html

Darryl Oliver - 9/9/2003

I'd be interested to know the true origin of the quote.

RD - 2/13/2003

I do not find it difficult to believe that womeone might attribute something to Lincoln that he did not say - people nowadays do it all the time. Our own government is currently in the process of disseminating misinformation. And so it goes.
BUT, I have a quote that is supposedly attributed to Lincoln, and it gives the date of when he supposedly said it. If it is true that he said this, then it is clear what Abe thought of corporate power and its need to be checked! He said:
"I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear; the latter is my greatest foe. 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 the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."
President Abraham Lincoln, Nov 21, 1864
Interesting hmmmm?
:)

CG - 6/10/2002

Matthew Pinsker says, "Lincoln was a thoroughly committed advocate for the development of industrial capitalism and the Northern free market." In point of fact, however, Lincoln was an opponent of free markets, which in the antebellum period actually were advocated by southerners such as John C. Calhoun and their fellow strict constructionists (mainly Democrats) in the North. Lincoln always professed to be an acolyte of Henry Clay, the "Tip" O'Neill of the 19th century, and as a Whig in the pre-Republican Party days, Lincoln advocated protective tariffs, extensive federally-financed public works, and a congressionally-chartered bank. Indeed, even in his famous dispute with Stephen Douglass, Lincoln favored federal power over local control on the issue of slavery in the territories.

Lincoln's preferences played themselves out during the Civil War: among other things, Congress adopted and Lincoln approved legislation increasing tariffs; substituting paper "money" for the gold and silver contemplated by Article I, Section 8 of the constitution; subsidizing a transcontinental railroad ("corporate welfare," anyone?); and on and on.

Thus, Pinsker's statement is diametrically opposed to the truth: Lincoln favored as much federal intervention in the economy as any successful politician of the 19th century. What Pinsker may have meant was that the economic policies Lincoln supported redounded to the benefit of, among others, northern plutocrats.

Jim Schmidt - 6/10/2002

Kevin Phillips and Warren Beatty, when they used the Lincoln quote under discussion were engaging in the common rhetorical practice of appeal to authority. Normally, the way to judge this argumentative technique is to determine if the authority cited has adequate knowledge or is reliable. Unfortunately, Matthew Pinsker presents us with an abundance of evidence that Mr. Lincoln is a knowledgeable and reliable authority. Why he does so remains a mystery. One is tempted to attribute his observations to a public display of his own struggles with the demons of his private fantasies.

It is sufficient to observe that Mr. Lincoln said no such thing as that attributed to him by Mr. Beatty and Mr. Phillips. But once observed, the fact that Mr. Lincoln said no such thing does not say anything about the argument presented by Mr. Beatty and Mr. Phillips. The misquotation of Lincoln only causes us to consider the other merits of the arguments of Mr. Beatty and Mr. Phillips, and not their appeal to authority.

It would be much more helpful if Mr. Pinsker would limit is commentary to the argument of Mr. Beatty and Mr. Phillips and not confuse the issue with his opinions of Mr. Lincoln which an unbiased observer must conclude are the result of his own personality flaws as reflected in his prejudiced reading of the historical record.

Jim Schmidt
www.jimschmidt.com