Tulsi Gabbard - Who Actually Runs The US Government?

Chris Williamson ^ | 5/8/24 | Tulsi Gabbard

[Eleutheria5]

Tulsi Gabbard is a politician, military veteran, and former U.S. Representative.

Our elected officials are supposed to be in charge of the country we live in. But the more we learn about the inner workings of government, the less that seems to be true. So, who is really running the show, and what will the future of America look like for those who truly hold the power?

Expect to learn what Joe Biden is actually like behind the scenes, why RFK Jr’s campaign didn't succeed, the reason that Elon Musk’s X platform was so important during Trump's assassination attempt, the truth behind Project 2025, Tulsi’s thoughts on Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate and much more…

Linked transcript high-lights.

[DiogenesLamp]

That may be a fake quote.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/al-gore-lincoln-quote-fake/

It existed at least since 1908, so if it's fake, it's a very old fake, and written at a time when many of the people who knew Lincoln were still alive.

It would seem to me that claim that it is from a letter to Elkins ought to be verifiable.

Also, I cannot see anything at your link. My old browser on my old computer has stopped working at many websites, and apparently National Review is one of them.

If you could copy and paste it in this thread, I could read it then.

[Dick Bachert]

HERE’S WHAT KATASTROPHIC KAMALA WILL DO AS PRESIDENT!
90 SECONDS OF UTTER MARXIST MADNESS!
https://x.com/i/status/1826574222677741668
IF YOU CARE SHARE, SHARE, SHARE!

[Eleutheria5]

She does know, and it confirms all suspicions.

[BroJoeK]

Alleged Lincoln quote:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, 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 . . . until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands."

x #60: "That may be a fake quote."

DiogenesLamp: "It existed at least since 1908, so if it's fake, it's a very old fake, and written at a time when many of the people who knew Lincoln were still alive.
It would seem to me that claim that it is from a letter to Elkins ought to be verifiable."

1896 Democrat Convention at the Chicago Coleseum
William Jennings Bryan "Cross of Gold" Speech:

We've covered this ground before, and as reported in NR, the quote is a fake that "John Hay and John Nicolay — secretaries to Lincoln who published their former boss’s collected writings — traced it to an 1888 pamphlet.
Then they denounced it as a forgery."

This fact-check traces the quote to the 1896 election in which Democrat William Jennings Bryan ran his Cross of Gold campaign against Republican William McKinley.

It is exactly the period in which the Third Party System (original Republicans) converted to the Fourth Party System (Progressive Republicans and Democrats).

As American priorities changed from traditional Republican issues to more Progressive concerns, some people were looking for a blessing from their revered father Lincoln for their new adventures in Progressivism.

And, of course, where the demand is strong enough, a supply will soon enough appear...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The system is rotten, and it has been rotten going back at least to the 1850s, and probably all the way back to the 1820s."

Yes, there's some truth in your arguments, but also fundamental flaws and those begin with your efforts to impose your own very high moral standards on people who do not, or did not, recognize your standards as legitimate.

It's a flaw you well understand regarding, for example, our slaveholding Founding Fathers, but when you're own favorite ax needs sharpening, you're OK with using historical congress-critters as whetstones.

So, your basic root problem here is that Congress itself, not DiogenesLamp, defines by law what is, or is not, "corrupt" and so far as I know, Nancy Pelosi never once wrote a law which made her own wealth-grabbing activities immoral or illegal.
And if you don't believe me on this, then go and ask her yourself.

As for when did your definition of "corruption" begin in Congress, I'd naturally assume it began in some form on or around Day One, in 1789.
Why would you expect anything different?

[DiogenesLamp]

This fact-check ...

Don't quote "Snopes" on anything. They are liberal lying sacks of sh*t, and you automatically lose the argument if you cite those liars. Same applies to any of the popular "News" sources, like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, NPR, etc.

[DiogenesLamp]

As for when did your definition of "corruption" begin in Congress, I'd naturally assume it began in some form on or around Day One, in 1789.

The core of the dispute between North and South was whether or not the nation should embrace the Hamiltonian view of Government, or the Jeffersonian view of government.

The Hamiltonian philosophy viewed government as a tool meant to increase the wealth and prosperity of the nation. It favored activism in government, which is the very opposite of the Jeffersonian view of Laissez Faire government.

A large, activist government that creates policy on the basis of what will make industry prosperous and wealthy will inevitably evolve to be the tool of that industry, which will quickly learn that by *CONTROLLING* that government, they can use laws and policies to further increase their own wealth and power.

These are the seeds that will evolve into Fascism, which is the collusion between government and corporations to milk the populace to the maximum extent possible.

A small government is much harder to twist into a money making enterprise. When the government is small, and only does necessary things, there is not that much graft that can be gotten from it.

So given the chief architect of activism in government (Hamilton) began serving in 1789, perhaps you have a point when you say it goes back that far, though I think it took a couple of decades for it to really get entrenched.

Interestingly enough, I have recently been engaged in a conversation relating to this very point we are discussing now, on another thread.

"The Fop" has put forth some ideas that I had never considered before, and I find them intriguing. I have yet to notice any inconsistencies between the theory he's put forth, and my own understanding of past history.

Maybe you will find these ideas interesting too.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4260158/posts?page=48#48

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Don't quote "Snopes" on anything.
They are liberal lying sacks of sh*t, and you automatically lose the argument if you cite those liars."

I had to search all the way back to April 26, 2023 to find where we discussed this, at great length, the last time -- here, and here and here:

Regarding the alleged Lincoln quote:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, 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 . . . until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands."

Herndon & Weik's books do not include alleged fake quote:

My previous posts focus on Lincoln's alcoholic lawyer William Herndon and his collaborator Jesse Weik in their 1888 biography of Lincoln.
Rick Crawford and Rich Buhler imply the alleged Lincoln quote originated from Emanuel Hertz's 1931 quote from William Herndon and Jesse Weik's 1888 biography of Lincoln.

However other sources, i.e., David Mikkelson, say that quote does not appear in Herndon's books, but instead was first seen in an 1888 political pamphlet.

So Mikkelson rejects Herndon & Weik as originating the quote, but instead focuses on an 1888 political pamphlet where the quote first appeared and was immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by Lincoln secretaries John Hay and John Nicolay, according to Mikkelson.

The only part of all this I can verify is that the alleged quote first appeared in Emanuel Hertz's 1931 book "Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait"
Everything else is very murky and uncorroborated.

[DiogenesLamp]

I had to search all the way back to April 26, 2023 to find where we discussed this, at great length, the last time -- here, and here and here:

*YOU* may have discussed it. When I see you getting all long winded and wordy, I just skip the comment and go look for something else to read.

The only part of all this I can verify is that the alleged quote first appeared in Emanuel Hertz's 1931 book "Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait" Everything else is very murky and uncorroborated.

As I said when I first mentioned it, you can find the quote in "Iron Heel" written by Jack London and published in 1908. So the quote is clearly older than 1931.

Also, Lincoln's secretaries are not proof he didn't say that. In *their* opinion he wouldn't say such a thing, but that's just an opinion, and people occasionally do things contrary to their usual behavior, such as RFK Junior dropping out and endorsing Trump.

I'm sure RFK's secretaries would say he would never endorse a Republican, yet here we are!

[BroJoeK]

alleged Lincoln quote:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow..."

DiogenesLamp: "As I said when I first mentioned it, you can find the quote in "Iron Heel" written by Jack London and published in 1908.
So the quote is clearly older than 1931."

We also discussed Jack London's book before, here.

I found the book and quote, here.
The alleged quote appears on page 121.
London was a radical progressive socialist, who wrote fiction, not history, and may well have wished Lincoln said something like the words in London's fiction book.

This then becomes the earliest actual evidence we can find of the alleged quote.
Other claimed evidence consists of:

1. Lincoln's alcoholic lawyer William Herndon and Jessie Weik's 1888 Biography of Lincoln, which Crawford & Buhler imply includes the quote, others say it doesn't.
   I've searched Volumes 1 & 2, and that quote is not in either of them.

2. A posited 1888 political pamphlet (Mikkelson) said to include the quote.
   I can't find the actual pamphlet, or any certain reference to it.

3. An alleged denunciation by Lincoln's secretaries Hay and Nicolay, saying the quote is a "bold, unflushing forgery", and suggesting the quote was a public item in 1888.
   But I can't confirm that Hay and Nicolay denounced the quote as a forgery.

So, the key point is: there is no original evidence of the alleged letter to Col. William F. Elkins dated Nov. 21, 1864, and so everything reported about it is at least second hand, and comes from people with a decided ideological ax to grind, wishing to use Lincoln as their whetstone.

DiogenesLamp: "When I see you getting all long winded and wordy, I just skip the comment and go look for something else to read."

Naw... the truth is you are perfectly capable of writing and responding to long posts, so long as they agree with your own views.
It's only when they disagree that you become intolerant and dismissive.

[DiogenesLamp]

London was a radical progressive socialist, who wrote fiction, not history, and may well have wished Lincoln said something like the words in London's fiction book.

You are attacking Jack London. What he was had nothing to do with the fact that he quoted something that he believed Lincoln said, unless you are arguing he was deliberately trying to push something he knew was wrong.

His book proves the quote is at least as old as 1908. I think you are saying it can be shown to be from 1883. The first time I mentioned it in this thread said it came from a letter to Elkins in 1864. I would think the Elkins thing could be verified as true or not, but I don't know.

Lincoln's alcoholic lawyer William Herndon and Jessie Weik's 1888 Biography of Lincoln, which Crawford & Buhler imply includes the quote, others say it doesn't.

And you have to denigrate his law partner as an "alcoholic"? Well clearly he can't get basic facts about Lincoln right because he was an "alcoholic." It's a wonder General Grant was so effective.

So, the key point is: there is no original evidence of the alleged letter to Col. William F. Elkins dated Nov. 21, 1864, and so everything reported about it is at least second hand, and comes from people with a decided ideological ax to grind, wishing to use Lincoln as their whetstone.

Why would you think that quote makes Lincoln look bad? I actually think it makes him look good. He realized what was happening and warned people about it.

Look at how these modern version of the corporate crony capitalists collusion cartels are playing out.

Kamala Harris was a hated nobody, and in just a couple of weeks they have made her into the BEST PERSON EVER!

The corporate media-liars are now saying she's awesome, even though she sounds like an idiot and has never done anything of any worth in her entire life.

The corruption cartel has completely changed how people view her, and they are able to do this because they have the power to present people as being "Hitler" (Trump for example) or "Mother Teresa", Like they are doing with Kamala the idiot.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You are attacking Jack London.
What he was had nothing to do with the fact that he quoted something that he believed Lincoln said, unless you are arguing he was deliberately trying to push something he knew was wrong."

There is no suggestion from London as to where he got the alleged Lincoln quote.
My guess is that, wherever the quote originated, it was "too good not to be true" and too close to London's own views for him to seriously question its provenance.

So, London need not have invented the quote himself to have not looked carefully into its source.

DiogenesLamp: "His book proves the quote is at least as old as 1908.
I think you are saying it can be shown to be from 1883.
The first time I mentioned it in this thread said it came from a letter to Elkins in 1864.
I would think the Elkins thing could be verified as true or not, but I don't know."

The alleged letter to Col. William F. Elkins was supposedly dated Nov. 21, 1864, but I've found nothing to confirm it ever actually existed, or if it did, that it was genuinely from Lincoln and not a forgery inserted by, for example, Jesse Weik in 1888.

Indeed, I can't find any confirmation that the Elkins letter existed before it was mentioned by Jack London in 1908.

Again:

1. Rick Crawford found the quote in Emanuel Hertz's 1931 book: “Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait”.
   Crawford implies but does not state that Hertz sourced the quote from Lincoln's lawyer, William Herndon's (coauthored with Jesse Weik), "Herndon's Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life (History & Personal Recollections of Abraham Lincoln", but I searched two volumes and it's not there.

2. Rich Buhler also sources the quote to Emanuel Hertz's 1931 book: “Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait”.
   But Buhler also reports that "author David Korten, for example, attributed the same quote to Harvey Wasserman in his 1995 book “When Corporations Rule the World.”
   Wasserman in turn sourced: Paha Sapa Reports, the newspaper of the Black Hills Alliance, Rapid City, South Dakota, 4 March 1982 -- a dead end.
   Wasserman is noted for leading protests against nuclear power plants.

   Buhler then goes back to quoting Crawford as implying the original source is Herndon & Weik's biography of Lincoln.
   And again, that's a dead end, nothing confirmable.

3. This brings us back to David Mikkelson, who says that none of the authors who repeated the Elkin's letter ever verified its source and that the alleged letter was denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary, when it first appeared around 1888.
   But I can't confirm any of that, including Mikkelson's claim that there was an actual letter which Lincoln's secretary Nicolay denounced as forgery around 1888.

4. So, if Mikkelson's claim is true: that the Elkin letter was denounced as a forgery around 1888, then at least we know there was a letter extant -- whether real or forged -- around 1888.
   However, you, DiogenesLamp, described Mikkelson's words as "liberal lying sacks of sh*t, and you automatically lose the argument if you cite those liars," so I feel almost compelled to discount Mikkelson's report of an extant letter in 1888 as necessarily, "lying sacks of sh*t" that I must not cite.

   George Orwell circa 1942:

   

5. That means Jack London's 1908 book quote is the earliest source I can confirm and everything earlier must be written off as mere speculations.

Sooo, who was Jack London?
Jack London was a self-described Socialist who ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Oakland as a Socialist in 1901 -- he got 245 votes!
George Orwell -- who should know -- described London as a fascist.
London was also a racist who used the term "The Yellow Peril" as the title of a 1904 published essay.
And of course, you understand enough political theory to know that the technical term for combining fascism with racism is "National Socialism" or Nazi, for short -- Jack London.

Bottom line: to me the alleged Lincoln quote sounds more like Karl Marx or Jack London than the back-woods "Rail-splitter" & railroad lawyer, Abraham Lincoln.

DiogenesLamp: "And you have to denigrate his law partner as an "alcoholic"?
Well clearly he can't get basic facts about Lincoln right because he was an "alcoholic."
It's a wonder General Grant was so effective."

It's important because of this:

William Herndon circa 1888:

"Herndon's Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life, the result of their collaborations, appeared in a three-volume edition published by Belford, Clarke & Company in 1889.[24][25][26]
The majority of the actual writing was done by Weik, who received full credit as co-author."

It's been suggested that Herndon's alcoholism prevented him from closely supervising Weik's work and that Weik may not have recognized the Elkins letter's forgery.

DiogenesLamp: "Why would you think that quote makes Lincoln look bad?
I actually think it makes him look good.
He realized what was happening and warned people about it.
Look at how these modern version of the corporate crony capitalists collusion cartels are playing out."

Sure, and so did many other "progressives", socialists and proto-fascists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- such alleged words from the great Lincoln were music to their ears.
The only problem is there's no confirming evidence that Lincoln himself entertained such ideas in November of 1864, or any other time.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, if Mikkelson's claim is true: that the Elkin letter was denounced as a forgery around 1888, then at least we know there was a letter extant -- whether real or forged -- around 1888. However, you, DiogenesLamp, described Mikkelson's words as "liberal lying sacks of sh*t, and you automatically lose the argument if you cite those liars,"

Don't be dishonest. I said nothing about Mikkelson. I was referring to Snopes, and you know it. I don't know what lying Snopes quoted, because *I WILL NOT GO TO SNOPES*.

That means Jack London's 1908 book quote is the earliest source I can confirm and everything earlier must be written off as mere speculations.

Ah, so you finally came to the same point I made in the first place. The Quote is at least as old as 1908, else it could never have appeared in the book.

Therefore, Jack London got it from somewhere, and it is actually older than 1908.

[DiogenesLamp]

"“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, 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. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

https://ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html

“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.”

speech to Illinois legislature, Jan. 1837. See Vol. 1, p. 24 of Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. by Nicolay and Hay (New York: F.D. Tandy Co., 1905)

[DiogenesLamp]

And, Colonel William Fletcher Elkins is a real person and was socially intimate with Abraham Lincoln.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/23972647/william-elkin

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Don't be dishonest.
I said nothing about Mikkelson.
I was referring to Snopes, and you know it.
I don't know what lying Snopes quoted, because *I WILL NOT GO TO SNOPES*."

Sorry, I was not being dishonest, only possibly a little too clever.
I invite you again to click on my link to David Mikkelson's article titled: "Did Abraham Lincoln Warn of the Tyranny of Capitalism?" and dated June 30, 2002.

Notice first that the date in 2002 is years before the article posted by Buhler (2016, no date for Crawford's article), so it's possible that Crawford and Buhler knew things that Mikkelson did not.
However, neither Crawford nor Buhler repeated Mikkelson's claim that, when it first appeared around 1888, the alleged Elkens letter was denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary.
This would have at least confirmed that the letter existed -- whether genuine or forged -- in 1888, but since they don't repeat Mikkelson's claim, the earliest confirmed record of the Elkins letter quote I can find is from Jack London's "The Iron Heel" book in 1908.

Finally, the "too clever" part -- now notice that Mikkelson's article is published as a Snopes "Fact Check".
So, given your categorical denunciations of Snopes, I should feel compelled to discount whatever Mikkelson said in 2002.

DiogenesLamp: "Ah, so you finally came to the same point I made in the first place.
The Quote is at least as old as 1908, else it could never have appeared in the book.
Therefore, Jack London got it from somewhere, and it is actually older than 1908."

I agree that Jack London published the alleged quote in 1908, but I can confirm no evidence that it existed in any form before that.

So, here again is what Mikkelson said about it:

"This spurious Lincoln warning gained currency during the 1896 presidential election season (when economic policy, particularly the USA's adherence to the gold standard, was the major campaign issue), and ever since then it has been cited and quoted by innumerable journalists, clergymen, congressmen, and compilers of encyclopedias."

So, here Mikkelson claims the alleged quote was used politically in 1896, but then goes to claim it originated in 1888:

"These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however — they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary)...

...However, this source [Hertz] is fraudulent: the Elkins letter reproduced by Hertz [in 1931] was a forgery, and Shaw [in 1950], a sloppy compiler, added the bogus letter to his encyclopedia (along with several other pieces of Lincoln apocrypha) without verifying its authenticity."

So again, there are two problems with Mikkelson's report:

1. I can't personally confirm any of it earlier than Hertz's 1931 book which reproduced the Elkins letter.

2. DiogenesLamp claims that anything from Snopes is a "lying sack of sh*t" and Mikkelson posted in Snopes.

All of which returns us to the fact that the earliest appearance of the alleged Elkins letter is in Jack London's 1908 book, "The Iron Heel".
Jack London was a fiction writer, a self-described socialist, a fascist according to George Orwell and also a racist, which would put London in the category with Nazis.
Is such a man to be taken seriously?

[Dogbert41]

“They’ve been “red-pilled” by having an honest quest for truth.

Like Matt Taibi, Bari Weiss, and Glen Greenwald.

Let’s give them some grace and not focus on how imperfect they are, (who isn’t?)”

Amen!!!

[BroJoeK]

Re: alleged Lincoln quote:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow..."

Further research turned up:

1. According to Wikiquotes here your alleged Lincoln quote is first found at the Journal of United Labor (Vol 8, no. 20, Nov. 19, 1887, pg. 2).
   The Journal of United Labor was published in Marblehead, near Boston, MA, and was house organ for the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, an early radical labor union.

   The JUL link above is to the Library of Congress, which I've never used and wouldn't know how.

2. Here wikiquotes discusses disputes about this alleged quote.

3. Here we see where wikiquotes calls the Lincoln quote "misattributed" rather than "disputed" and cites the Journal of United Labor as its first appearance.
   They also quote Lincoln's secretary, John Nicolay, as saying, in full:

   "This alleged quotation from Mr. Lincoln is a bald, unblushing forgery.
   The great President never said it or wrote it, and never said or wrote anything that by the utmost license could be distorted to resemble it."

   The source for Nicolay's quote is a New York Times article titled: "A popocratic forgery" dated October 3, 1896, which is available online, but behind their subscription paywall = $1 per month.
   Btw, "popocratic" is a clever portmanteau combining "populist" with "Democratic" = "popocratic".
   That is the source of the alleged Lincoln quote, according to the NYTimes in 1896.

4. There is a second early source listed by wikiquotes: the 20 May 1898 periodical "The Flaming Sword" here
   So I found and read through the entire May 20 edition of Flaming Sword, twice, but did not see this particular Lincoln quote mentioned at all.
   There was, seemingly, a different Lincoln quote referred to, but not this one.

Bottom line: the copy in wikiquotes of the article in Journal of United Labor, citing this alleged Lincoln quote, seems to me detailed enough to be genuine, which means we can now put the alleged Lincoln quote's earliest confirmed appearance as November 19, 1887, in the house organ of the Knights of Labor.

And this, we can easily assume, is the source for Jack London's use of the quote in his 1908 book, "The Iron Heel".

[DiogenesLamp]

I have been waiting for you to respond to message #74 because it contains more of the quote, and also another quote by Lincoln which is similar, (So much for what John Nicolay says about it) and the link I gave you goes to a webpage where the guy claims to have found the actual source of the quote.

For some reason you have ignored message #74, and at first I thought it was because you didn't like the ramifications of it and didn't want to address it.

Did you just overlook it?

[BroJoeK]

"I have been waiting for you to respond to message #74 because it contains more of the quote, and also another quote by Lincoln which is similar, (So much for what John Nicolay says about it)..."

I didn't see an issue in your post which needed a response from me.
Today I'm satisfied that the alleged quote first appeared in the:

"Journal of United Labor (Vol 8, no. 20, Nov. 19, 1887, pg. 2). The Journal of United Labor was published in Marblehead, near Boston, MA, and was house organ for the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, an early radical labor union."

I'm also satisfied that the denunciation of the quote by Lincoln's secretary John Nicolay, in 1887 is also real:

"This alleged quotation from Mr. Lincoln is a bald, unblushing forgery.
The great President never said it or wrote it, and never said or wrote anything that by the utmost license could be distorted to resemble it."

Of course, Nicolay's words by themselves do not prove the alleged quote is fake, but since the original source is a Knights of Labor house organ, I think we'd need to see positive proof that the KOL was not just putting their own words into Lincoln's mouth.

As for your allegedly similar words from 1837, I don't think the context of those words shows any similarity whatever to that of the quote alleged from 1864 -- 27 years later.

"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel."

Lincoln's 1837 "State Bank Speech" in the Illinois State legislature involves strictly a dispute amongst capitalists as to who owned how much of a certain stock.
In it, Lincoln merely argues that the government should not be required to pay for the disputed stocks -- that's all!

Here's the whole quote:

"It is an old maxim and a very sound one, that he that dances should always pay the fiddler.
Now, sir, in the present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a burden to them, choose to lead off a dance, I am decidedly opposed to the people's money being used to pay the fiddler.
No one can doubt that the examination proposed by this resolution, must cost the State some ten or twelve thousand dollars; and all this to settle a question in which the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing.
These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people, and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel."

In 1837, Lincoln is talking about settling a dispute amongst bankers, not worrying that "corporations have been enthroned", as alleged in 1864.

Who are very worried that "corporations have been enthroned" are the 1887 Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, an early radical labor union.