I've never seen any such "proof" with my own eyes, Menelik. Thus I can't provide you with it here. I can provide you with some reading material that can hopefully serve as food for thought.
The following excerpt is taken from:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w62.html
In their fascinating
recent book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Republicans-Lincolns-Marxists-Marxism/dp/0595446981" target="_blank">
Red
Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War,
</a>Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. examine the role of the
"48ers" â€" veterans of the 18 interconnected revolutions that convulsed
Europe in 1848â€"1849 â€" in creating the Republican Party, bringing
Lincoln to power, and conducting the war against the South.</font>
Lincoln himself
hailed the proto-Marxist revolution of 1848 in terms that seem,
for him, profoundly odd. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and
having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing
government, and form a new one that suits them better," insisted
Lincoln in a January 12, 1848 speech. "Nor is this right confined
to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may
choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may
revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as
they inhabit."</font>
Those seeking
to "revolutionize" Europe weren't secessionists content to withdraw
from existing political entities and leave others in peace. Their
objective, as described by Kennedy and Benson, was to overthrow
the existing political order under which they lived, and then consolidate
power over larger territories. The objective was to
reconstruct
society, not merely to withdraw from oppressive, unjust political
arrangements. </font>
Germany provided
both the best example of this centralizing revolutionary effort
and a large supply of failed revolutionaries who migrated to the
United States and later joined the struggle to suppress Southern
independence. German revolutionaries, in describing their vision,
declared that all of Germany â€" which at the time was a fractious
collection of principalities â€" henceforth would be "a united indivisible
republic." </font>
Certainly,
the revolutionary program appealed to idealistic impulses by promising
to free people from arbitrary rule and feudalist institutions. "People
were to be freed from local decentralized control," write Kennedy
and Benson, only to be "placed instead under centralized authoritarian
control" in the name of "Democracy." </font>
When the revolt
of 1848â€"49 was crushed, the "48er" diaspora brought many of
the most ambitious and radical of the revolutionaries to the United
States, where they were taken into the bosom of America's home-grown
collectivist movement.</font>
Many of them
were instrumental in creating the Republican Party and mobilizing
fellow expatriates to vote for Fremont and Lincoln. Some of them
â€" such as Joseph Wedemeyer, Charles A. Dana, Franz Sigel, August
Willich, and Carl Schurz, to name just a few â€" rose to commanding
heights in the Union Army during the war. <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1851/letters/51_10_16.htm" target="_blank">Dana,
a personal friend of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels</a>, was assistant
secretary of war under Lincoln.</font>
Gen. Wedemeyer
was <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_05_14.htm" target="_blank">a
friend and close associate of Marx</a> in the London Communist League
before migrating to the United States, where he distinguished himself
as a publisher of Communist tracts (including the first American
edition of the
Communist Manifesto) and helped organize the
Republican Party, and commanded a Union army. </font>
Gen. Willich,
whom Marx incongruously described as "A Communist with a heart,"
served on the Central Committee of the Communist League. His fellow
48ers referred to the Union General as "The reddest of the Red."
A passionate admirer of the deranged terrorist John Brown, Willich
gave a speech in 1859 urging his audience to "whet their sabers
with the blood" of southern slaveholders.</font>
Franz Sigel's
command experience at the time he was given a Union army consisted
of leading socialist troops in a failed uprising in Baden, Germany.
Carl Schurz, another veteran of the German socialist uprising, did
little to distinguish himself as a Union general, but had lasting
influence as a Senator from Missouri and Secretary of the Interior.</font>
It was Schurz
who created the American Gulag Archipelago called the <a href="http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13729096_ITM" target="_blank">Indian
Reservation system</a> (and it was his wife who pioneered the kindergarten
system, better described as the ante-chamber to the Regime's collectivist
mind-laundry). </font>
Revolutionary
collectivists of this variety clustered around Lincoln and his party
because they understood the need to forge a unitary state out of
the decentralized American republic â€" and they were very aware of
the fact that this could only be accomplished through total war.
This view was well expressed in a hopeful note Engels wrote to Weydemeyer
in which the war against the South was described as "the preliminaries
of the proletarian revolution, the measures that prepare the battleground
and clear the way for us."</font>
Lincoln's war
didn't preserve or restore the Union; it destroyed it and supplanted
it with a new polity based on radically different premises. Just
as Marxists of his era gravitated naturally toward Lincoln and vibrated
like tuning forks when he spoke the language of raw power and ruthless
centralization, Marxist academicians of our era understand the true
nature of what Lincoln accomplished. </font>
Among that
number can be found Columbia School of Law professor<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Fletcher" target="_blank">
George P. Fletcher</a>
, whose above-mentioned book <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/LegalHistory/?view=usa&ci=9780195156287" target="_blank">
The
Secret Constitution</a> acknowledges what Lincoln's critics
have long maintained, in the teeth of criticism and contumely: The
so-called Civil War was an effort to bring about "the consolidation
of the United States in the mid-nineteenth-century European sense
of the term" â€" or, if you will, the post-1848 sense of the expression.</font>
"One year into
the war," continues Fletcher, "after a string of Union defeats,
Lincoln learned that the old Union could not possibly survive. `A
new one had to be embraced.' And the new Union would have to be
based on a new constitutional order." </font>
That new order,
Fletcher elaborated, would be based on the premise that "the federal
government, victorious in warfare, must continue its aggressive
intervention in the lives of its citizens." Familiar institutions
would remain, but their roles would be redefined and their powers
completely revised within "a new framework of government, a structure
based on values fundamentally different from those that went before."</font>
For decades,
the Soviet Regime and its agents celebrated Lincoln as a precursor
to Lenin, and for very good reason: Both Lincoln and Lenin displayed
nearly limitless tactical flexibility in pursuit of the power they
exercised ruthlessly in the effort to create a vast, centralized
Union (or
Soyuz). </font>
Shortly before
his death, General Lee â€" in a characteristically graceful reply
to a kind note he'd received from Lord Acton â€" explained that "the
maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and
to the people [were] the safeguard to the continuance of a free
government." By suppressing the option of secession, which is the
ultimate peaceful check on the ambitions of a central government,
the North had destroyed that safeguard. </font>
In words that
have the undeniable heft of fulfilled prophecy, Lee predicted that
"the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to
be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor
of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded
it." </font>
Cast a look
about you, ladies and gentlemen, and you'll behold the "ruin" of
which Lee wrote. Those ruling us have pledged <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11098847" target="_blank">something
in excess of $8 trillion</a> â€" more than half of this year's gross
domestic product â€" to provide a financial cushion for the politically
connected criminals who preside over our financial system. In that
fact we can see the real nature of the "Union" created by Lincoln:
It is a forced marriage between the ignorant or deceived host and
eager, esurient parasites.</font>
The logic of
Lincoln's triumph, wrote biographer Charles C.L. Minor, is that
"the right to govern is paramount over the right to live, that man
is made for government, rather than government for man, and that
for men to claim the right of self-government is to deserve and
incur the death penalty." This is why the Power Elite exalts Lincoln's
name above all others and celebrates him as the Holy State made
Flesh.</font>
For those who
reside within the bunkers and gated communities of the Power Elite,
the rest of us are useful only as something to be consumed: We are
producers whose earnings can be taxed, whose properties can be seized,
whose children can be conscripted.</font>
An interesting letter Marx wrote to Lincoln in late 1864:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
I think this book (Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War) would be interesting as well.
http://olesouthbooks.com/kennedy_brothers/red_republicans.php
Another take on the subject:
http://albensonjr.com/mrlincolnthesocialist.shtml
Mr. Lincoln The Socialist
by Al Benson Jr.
</font>
</font>
Over the years I have contended that Abraham Lincoln was a
socialist--not that he was a card-carrying member of some socialist
group, but rather that his mindset had that bent. In that contention I
have met all manner of reactions, everything from some who agree with me
(and many do), to outright ridicule from Lincoln lovers in the North
(and some in the South, too). Many seem to feel, although they would not
express it in those terms, that Mr. Lincoln should be elevated to the
level of Deity. Also, I have run across almost complete apathy in much
of the South, and other sections of the country as well. Southern folks
at least used to know that Mr. Lincoln had been a less-than-desirable
president; they knew he had been responsible for alot of bad things
during the "late unpleasantness" and that was about it. Many, no matter
what their persuasion, had the thought (planted) in the back of their
heads that, for all his faults, Lincoln was, at least, a "good" man. The
contention that he was some kind of socialist really shakes them up,
and mostly, they just don't want to hear anymore on the subject. It's
not that they are apathetic--it's just that they don't know and they
don't care. Please don't rattle their chain or rock their boat--just
leave them fat and happy with their illusions.
</font>
Many years ago now, when I first began reading about the goodly number
of socialists and outright Communists in Mr. Lincoln's armies, I began
to have these nagging little doubts that, maybe, just maybe, Mr. Lincoln
was not the honest, country hayseed that his promoters tried to make
him out to be.
</font>
You
often find tidbits of interesting history in places you would seldom
look for them. For instance, I have never really cared for Carl
Sandburg's six volume story of the life of Lincoln. I felt that much of
it was just shameless promotion of the "great emancipator." Yet there
had to be some truth in it.
</font>
Often
that truth has been sanitized so that we don't quite grasp all its
importance, but it is there. I will cite one small example. In chapter
22 of the first volume, on pages 84-85, Sandburg mentioned one Robert
Owen, a "rich English businessman" who bought land in New Harmony,
Indiana. He mentioned that Owen gave a speech before Congress telling
how "...he and his companions were going to find a new way for people to
live their lives together, without fighting, cheating, or exploiting
one another...they would share and share alike, each for all and all for
each."
</font>
Owen did, indeed, have a "new" way for the people in America to live
together--it was and is, called socialism! Then Sandburg informed us
that Mr. Lincoln knew about this colony of Owen's and, according to
Sandburg "The scheme lighted up Abe Lincoln's heart." It is interesting
that Mr. Sandburg didn't bother to tell his readers that Mr. Owen was a
socialist and that his colony in Indiana was a socialist experiment,
one that ultimately failed because of its socialism. Surely Sandburg
must have been aware of that, given his own background (which will be
dealt with in a later article). Why didn't he bother to inform his
readers?
</font>
And
if Lincoln, even in those early years of his life, was aware of Owen's
undertaking, he must have had some idea of what Owen was all about.
Lincoln, even as a young man, was ambitious. He was no country bumpkin.
</font>
Later
in life, when Mr. Lincoln broke into politics, he was a great admirer
of Henry Clay and of Clay's "vision" for America. For those who may not
know alot about Henry Clay, I would recommend a very revelatory article
written by Thomas DiLorenzo that appeared in the March, 1998 issue of
The Free Market, published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The title
of Professor DiLorenzo's article was Henry Clay--National Socialist.
Space will not permit here, but DiLorenzo aptly sets forth a blistering
critique of Clay's socialism.
</font>
Lincoln
eulogized Clay when he said "During my whole political life, I have
loved and revered (Clay) as a leader and teacher." If Clay was a
socialist and Lincoln considered him a great teacher and leader, what
does that tell you about where Lincoln was coming from?
</font>
We
are able to glean even further confirmation of Lincoln's socialist
leanings from establishment "historian" James M. McPherson. In his book
Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution McPherson has noted,
on pages 24-25: "Lincoln championed the leaders of the European
revolutions of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those
revolutions--Karl Marx--praised Lincoln in 1865 as 'the single-minded
son of the working class' who had led his 'country through the matchless
struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a
social world." Stop and ponder just what Marx was referring to, and the
language he used--"reconstruction of a social world." In actuality,
neither Marx nor Lincoln had much use for blacks, but they did make good
cannor fodder, and they contained grist for the socialist propaganda
mill, and so both Marx and Lincoln exalted their "esteem" for them in
their public pronouncements. Privately it was altogether something else.
Marx even signed a letter to Lincoln, with others, congratulating him
on his re-election in 1864, and Lincoln reportedly responded warmly. It
was just enough of this kind of information that led Donnie Kennedy and I
to write our new book Red Republicans And Lincoln's Marxists (
www.oldsouthbooks.com)
in which we pointed out clearly the socialist origins of the
Republican Party and Lincoln's affinity for socialists and Communists.
</font>
In this book we dealt with the fact of a noted socialist and Communist
presence in the Union Armies during the War of Northern Aggression. For
years this was a studiously ignored fact. No one that wrote about the
war talked about it--you weren't supposed to be aware of it or even dare
to think in those terms at all. Were you to become aware of a major
socialist presence in the Union Armies, it just might begin to change
your perception of what the war was really all about (Marxist
revolution). I realise that, for the average Southerner, it was about
liberty and repelling the invasion of his homeland; for the Yankee, it
was about empire, financial gain, and growing centralized government
control over everyone's lives and control over people's lives was the
elixir of life for the socialists. The fact that Communists and
socialists from the failed 1848 revolts in Europe flocked to join
Lincoln's armies is only now beginning to be dealt with, and even now,
most authors who do mention it tend to downplay the significance of it
and to try to move their readers along to the "more important" things,
such as who won which battle where. Don't dwell too long on Lincoln and
his socialist buddies. It might change your perspective and we can't
have too much of that now, can we.
</font>
Lincoln's
entire life reveals an ongoing affinity for socialism and for those
that practiced and promoted it. Once this is fully grasped, it will
enable us to lay hold of the fact that, for the federal government in
Washington, D.C. in the 1860s, the Northern victory in the War of
Northern Aggression was another giant step in the program of socialist
revolution that would, in time, reveal itself as the New World Order.
</font>
Edited by: Colonel_Reb 
