Steven Spielberg’s masterful Lincoln might more accurately have been called The 13th Amendment — and while the choice of the more marketable title is easy to understand, the more crucial decision to limit the scope of the film to the last few months of Lincoln’s life, and to focus less on Lincoln himself than on the political machinations of bringing about his most enduring legal legacy, must have been harder to make.
Watching Daniel Day-Lewis’ sublime interpretation of perhaps the most iconic figure in American history, it’s easy to wish that Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner (Munich) had chosen to adapt a greater swath of their source material; namely, the popular historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s study Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, which covers Lincoln’s presidency and his working relationships with members of his cabinet, including three who ran against him in his first presidential campaign.
Indeed, given the enduring, quasi-canonical force on our shared idea of the 16th president Day-Lewis’ performance is likely to exert, one could easily wish for a film that covered as much of the story as possible: scenes from Lincoln’s prairie-lawyer days; the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates; Lincoln’s presidential campaign; the beginning of the Civil War; the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation; and, of course, the great speeches — above all the Gettysburg Address.
Such a film might be a more momentous contribution to the iconography of Americana; but the filmmakers rightly judged the scope of Goodwin’s book too broad for a film. The result is almost certainly a better film, at least in some respects. Instead of a biopic, Lincoln is the story of a particular event, not only in Lincoln’s life, but in the life of the nation. In this story, Lincoln plays a decisive but not overwhelming role, and Day-Lewis’ performance, while a big draw, is not the film’s raison d’etre.
This means, among other things, that rather than build up the legendary figure of Lincoln known to posterity, the film opens with the legend, as it were, already in place. Indeed, the film introduces Lincoln chatting with some reverent Union soldiers — two blacks and two whites — while seated in a chair on a podium above them, looking for all the world as if he were posing for the statue in the Lincoln Memorial.
In case there’s any doubt that this opening scene is an act of cinematic mythmaking, one of the black soldiers explains to Lincoln, with solemn pertness, how far blacks have and haven’t come (black soldiers get equal pay, but aren’t eligible for commissions) and lays out an emancipation program for decades to come — after which the soldiers take turns reciting memorized lines from the Gettysburg Address (which, in fact, acquired its rhetorical fame only after Lincoln’s assassination).
Despite this florid opening, Lincoln is deeply engaged in the historical and especially the political complexities of its subject matter. It’s a movie, not a history lesson, but there’s a lot of historical perspective in it. It is talky and information-rich — exhilaratingly so for those, like me, who love such movies; perhaps dry and daunting for others.
The film acknowledges Lincoln’s ambiguous exercise of wartime powers, from the suspension of habeas corpus to the Emancipation Proclamation itself, which Lincoln admits he “hoped was legal” but could only be reasonably confident “wasn’t quite criminal.” (Important issues not addressed include the legitimacy of secession and the justness of the Civil War itself.)
Lincoln is largely concerned with the sordid business of trying to add enough vulnerable Democratic votes to those of the Republicans to amass the supermajority needed to pass the 13th Amendment — if necessary, with threats, offers of positions and other inducements short of direct vote buying. This realpolitik the film approaches with cheery dark humor, as Lincoln’s surrogates, including Secretary of State William Seward (thoughtful, calculating David Strathairn) and Democratic operative W.N. Bilboe (blunt, funny James Spader), labor to pressure the necessary votes to fall into place.
Underlying these ambiguities is the starkness of morality and the natural law, to which both sides appeal. In congressional debate pro-slavery Democrat Fernando Wood declaims that to make blacks equal to white men is “an insult to natural law” — to which the powerful, acid-tongued Republican abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens, played by a well-cast Tommy Lee Jones, retorts, “Slavery is the only insult to natural law, you fatuous nincompoop. You insult God!”
The immorality of slavery, for Lincoln, is decisive; the legal issues are secondary, and he does what he believes the needs of the times require. Earlier in the country’s history it had been possible to believe that slavery was for the moment a regrettable necessity that would eventually die away on its own; but by Lincoln’s day that was no longer the case; indeed, slavery seemed poised to expand into the territories. The film’s Lincoln expresses fear that white men’s moral compasses have become ossified through tolerating slavery for so long. It is a diagnosis not hard to apply to our own times, in connection with the evils tolerated today; and while there are still many who denounce the evils of our day, we have no powerful men of Stevens’ or Lincoln’s caliber so committed, above all, to the abolition of abortion.
The role of religion is minimal. Lincoln was a secular man who never joined a church, a deist whose idea of God was remote and unknowable. Yet he also believed in divine Providence, believed that God’s will, however inscrutable, was at work in human affairs, including his own presidency and the conflict of the Civil War. He believed that slavery was morally wrong and came to believe that God was finally bringing slavery to an end in the events of his day.
The film hints at Lincoln’s religious perspective on the conflict only twice, once when he jokingly wishes that God had “chosen an instrument more wieldy than the House of Representatives” and, in the very end, in a brief flashback to the second inaugural address, as Lincoln reflects on Providence and theodicy in connection with slavery and the Civil War.
There are scenes from Lincoln’s personal life, including his affectionate but strained relationship with Mary Todd Lincoln (a grandly unstable Sally Field), on one occasion boiling over into a fight openly broaching the prospect of committing Mary to a madhouse. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Robert Todd Lincoln, spoiling to enlist over the objections of his parents; and 13-year-old Gulliver McGrath as young Tad Lincoln is an avatar for Spielberg’s inner child — crucially so in perhaps the film’s most Spielbergian moment, a wholly novel take on perhaps the most familiar image in Lincoln’s biography.
Black characters are relegated to the sidelines, though S. Epatha Merkerson as Thaddeus Stevens’ housemaid has a crucial, poignant moment at the denouement. Gloria Reuben and Stephen Henderson are positive presences as a pair of White House servants.
Standing over the whole film, of course, is Day-Lewis in his most controlled performance in years. He convincingly comprehends Lincoln’s melancholy and his humor; his self-deprecation and brandishing of authority; his backwoods simplicity and his highly literate verbal dexterity; his moral rectitude and his clear-eyed pragmatism. This Lincoln can make fluent, even humorous, use of elevated language and classical allusions, but also says “ain’t” and can enjoy ribald humor.
Lincoln would make a terrific double feature with one of my favorite films from last year, Robert Redford’s The Conspirator, which was about the aftermath of the Lincoln assassination and the trial of a Southern Catholic widow named Mary Surratt for her alleged role in the conspiracy. Although both films offer intelligent, literate takes on their historical subjects, The Conspirator is clear-eyed about the pitfalls of expansive use of executive power and how easily the liberties Lincoln took in order to end slavery can be used to replace the rule of law with any politically desirable end.
Steven D. Greydanus is the Register’s film critic.
Content Advisory: Brief depictions of graphic battlefield violence, slain soldiers and amputated limbs; an obscenity, some profane and crude language and racial epithets; a depiction of cohabitation or common-law marriage. Mature teens and up.
Dan Burke: The Truth About Movies and Les Miserables
SDG: Man of Steel: dueling opinions! The Purge! Much Ado! More!
Comments
Post a Comment
Is Colm Meaney in it?
Victor: Why do you think it only got 3½ stars?
Ha! I heard your discussion about it on Catholic Answers Live! It definitely sounds like one of those niche Lincoln films, but very good. I still have to watch The Conspirator, but it’s on Netflix now which makes the possibility of us watching it very likely. “A Cat In Paris” and “Bernie” also just popped up on Netflix, though, so it’ll be tough to choose which one of the three to watch for movie night.
If this film makes someone happy when they see it; it is for the good.
But is is very far from the real history of Lincoln.
Lincoln was not a Christian. Lincoln did not like blacks and worked up until his death to provide a place and a way to remove black people from the USA.
The northern states all had laws that did not allow blacks to even live in the cities. Most of the blacks had been removed from the North before the war. The goal of most Norther whites was to at least not allow any more blacks into the USA and many Northerners wanted to remove the blacks from the USA.
Lincoln was the head of the organization to remove blacks from the USA before he became President.
The truth was that the North wanted to get rid of blacks. Only when Lincoln became aware that the North might not win the war did he try the tactic of “freeing” the blacks. The areas of the country that were occupied by the Union Soldiers in the South; the blacks were not freeded but remained in slavery or put to work for the Union Army or enlisted in the Union Army.
The new histories are bringing out the actual facts of the war and it is rather sad to see the Hollywood enshrinement of an evil man like Lincoln.
A man who embroils his country in a war that killed millions is no saint. The black people were not actually free until the people of the south of my generation; I am 67, saw the stupidity of the treatment of black people and acted.
People not of the South do not understand the real relationship between black and white Southerners. There is no difference between the average white and black southerner; after all we have been living in the same fields, farms and towns for four hundred years.
Lincoln brought into our lives a powerful and harsh National government that has only become more harsh in the years since the war.
Lincoln would have agreed with the weakening of the CC and the forcing of the CC to accept the providing of abortion inducing drugs.
I know many will not like what I have to say. It is always a treat to see Daniel Lewis in a great role. However, having seen 8,352 movies and television shows whose theme was racial prejudice against black people by whites in the US, I believe I have surpassed my lifetime quota of films trying to induce white guilt in me. Despite the loss of seeing a good flick, I will have to pass on this one.
Randall Ward:
It’s not clear to me from your comments whether you’ve a) seen the film or b) read my review. The film does not present Lincoln as a Christian, and my review makes it clear that he was not.
Lincoln was well known as a critic of slavery, though not an abolitionist, before assuming the White House. That is part of the reason the southern states responded to his election by seceding. During the Civil War Lincoln believed that slavery was contrary to God’s will and that the war was part of God’s way of ending slavery.
FWIW, I am familiar with various Southern critiques of Lincoln, and am sympathetic to some aspects of them, including the view that the South had a right to secede, and that the Union had no right to wage the Civil War against the South.
That said, the idea that Lincoln “worked to remove black people from the USA” sounds like looney conspiracy territory, and the attempt to smear Lincoln with abortifacients is nonsense. What initiatives specifically are you talking about? What evidence or documentation do you have? Lincoln may be dead for well over a century, but the eighth commandment still constrains us not to bear false witness.
Keith:
Lincoln is not about evil white men oppressing blacks. It is about heroic white men abolishing slavery. If anything, it’s an anti-“white guilt” movie, although I can see how Southerners who strongly identify with their heritage might not appreciate it.
Some critics have complained about films about racial prejudice, including Lincoln, making heroes of white opponents of racism while leaving black characters passive, rather than focusing on their own efforts at justice. You see, different people see different things, don’t they? I wonder how many of those 8,352 films about racial prejudice you’ve perhaps misjudged through the filter of “white guilt,” as you seem to have done, sight unseen, with Lincoln.
Thanks for your reply to my comments, Steven. You make some good points that have made me think a bit more. Of those 8,352 films and TV shows (of course, I am being facetious) you are right, many focus on white people who take the side of blacks who are being oppressed by, generally, other whites. The net message is the same. I don’t dispute the facts that black people were oppressed by whites, that some white people opposed this, that some were passive (on both sides) and that this racial prejudice was a bad thing. It is hard to come up with any rational thinking that would conclude in ANY case that this aspect of our society was or is a good thing. I don’t even object to movies, books, TV shows, etc., that portray these things as bad and that this has been treated much more than the oppression and destruction that black prejudice against whites is treated in these media. After all, white versus black oppression was much more prominent during the past and some might say it is even so now. My problem is that the number of such treatments and the proportions have been far, far too much. It has become a gross cliche’ devoid of any real meaning and this constant harping undermines the values these people are trying to communicate. In short, I am tired to death about hearing about it! I have far over-fulfilled my quota! Enough already! Pardon my exaggerated emotional reaction to something I have been driven to being emotional about. Someday, perhaps, the number of films and TV shows about oppression by heterosexual Christians of homosexuals will outnumber these black/white treatments. But not yet, apparently. Finally, Steven, I don’t understand your criticism of me for condemning the movie, sight unseen. Normally, I read your reviews of movies I have not seen so I can learn if they are worthwhile seeing. I thought your review of the movie was sufficiently positive for me to regret that it would be a loss if I was to avoid it - even though my quota has been so very much overfulfilled. Pax!
Steven:
I would not so readily conclude that Lincoln was not a Christian. I’ve read numerous Lincoln biographies and can only conclude that his religious beliefs were at best ambiguous, but leaning toward Christianity or at least acceptance of the Christian world view. In the last years of his life, in particular, it seems that the trials of his life were leading towards a full acceptance of Christianity. One thing I am sure of is that God worked through him and was leading him, something he apparently only acknowledged as though “through a glass, darkly.” In other words, Lincoln was like the rest of us, a work in progress, and very much open to the working of divine providence in his life. One of the reasons he is a hero to me is that, no matter what his specific religious beliefs, he was a profoundly virtuous man. I do expect to meet him in Heaven some day (assuming I get there myself!).
Excellent review for an excellent film.
Keith,
Jefferson wrote in Query XVIII in the Notes on the State of Virginia that “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.” That story—the story of the United State’s unjust nature at its founding and the working out of that injustice ever since—is the fundamental story of the United States. If you find the telling of that story to have grown cliched that is one thing and it speaks to the quality of the execution of the telling. If you find the story tiresome and view all such stories as an attempt to induce “white guilt” in you, you mistake the lessons of history because of your defensiveness.
Keith: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I wish to clarify just one thing: I didn’t mean to criticize you for “condemning” the movie sight unseen, which I didn’t read you as doing. I just wanted to indicate that I thought you had misjudged the tenor of the film, which truly is not about instilling white guilt. Cheers.
David Cunis: FWIW, I’ve done a fair bit of inquiry regarding Lincoln’s complex religious views, so I don’t think I’ve concluded anything “so readily.” For a good survey of the most relevant evidence.
see Lincoln Institute research director Richard J. Behn’s essay on “Lincoln’s search for meaning.” In my judgment, evidence regarding Lincoln converging toward “a full acceptance of Christianity” is wanting, although his version of Deism, trending toward Theism, was certainly closer to Christianity than that of a number of the Founding Fathers.
Regarding the “working to remove black people from the USA”: This is very well documented fact. Throughout the vast majority of his career, including most of his presidency, Lincoln supported the efforts of the American Colonization Society to send blacks to recolonize Africa, the project that eventually resulted in the nation of Liberia. He only revised his views on this, if at all, near the end of the war. Wikipedia has more details.
It’s worth, noting, however, that supporters of African colonization had a wide variety of motives, ranging from white supremacism to a pragmatic belief that full racial equality would never be possible in the USA.
Pachyderminator: Thanks for your helpful historical clarification. The article section you link to begins, “One of President Abraham Lincoln’s policies during his administration was the voluntary colonization of African American Freedmen.” Whether the previous commenter’s phrase “working to remove black people from the USA” accurately characterizes “voluntary colonization” I will leave readers to decide for themselves.
I do not know if Lincoln was a Christian, but he was one of the worst Presidents we ever had. He was a leader of Republicanism, a movement to increase the power of the central government, while diminishing that of the States. There is so much we have never learned about him. Within days after his election, 7 States petitioned for Secession, as a result of high unfair taxes and penalties.
The southern States were very profitable and controlled many ports and waterways. In his letters; Lincoln states that he cares not about the slaves, rather the wealth, and waterways of the South. Lincoln ignored the Constitutional rights of the States and waged war against his own citizens! The issue of slavery came about during this time, when Northern States wanted to expand their troops. Emancipated slaves were indoctrinated into the Union army. Even when Senator’s like Henry Crittenton offer peaceful solutions to the Republicans, it was not enough.
As far as slavery goes, within the British mindset people were considered property. Slave trade was a big business and was not relegated to the color of a persons skin. The first indentured servant here, when the new colonists arrived, was a white man who was owned by a black British Aristocrat. The founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution must protect ALL men, which is why the preamble to the Constitution was changed from life, liberty and the “pursuit of property” to the “pursuit of happiness.” Actually, during that time, the Chair of the Constitutional Congress was a black man from Spain, John Hanson. One could say that the first president of the Confederation, before America became a Union, was a black man. In 1789, George Washington, Jefferson and others moved to free the slaves, under the condition that those who wished to leave the plantations must learn to read and write, as well as learn a trade. Slaves were given the option to stay and work on the plantations for, as well.
I chose not to see the movie, as I have had enough of the homespun inaccurate tales,, and revisionist history of Lincoln. He was one of the many assaults on our Liberty. For a good resource on Lincoln; see many of the authors at the tenth amendment center - Mike Maharry is one of my favorites.
To SDG
Everything I said in my post is backed up by good research and history. A good book published in 2011 is “Colonization after Emancipation, Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement”. It is available at any bookstore or Amazon.
For political reasons the myth of Lincoln has been built up until the mythical Lincoln does not resemble the real Lincoln.
Ask yourself the question; how many people that live in the North (black or white) today would move to Africa and spend four years risking their lives to make the lives of Africans better in some way? How many of the people in the North in 1861 would join a war to “free” the slaves? The War Between the States was started by the North for several reasons but for most of the Northern people the war was not about black freedom.
The real history of the war is easily obtained and can be read in less than a year. Why should we know the truth; because the same tactics that blurred the war history are being used on us today by the National government? The National government is just as unlawful and deceitful today as it was in 1861 and the only defense available to the Citizens of the several States of the USA starts with knowing the tactics of the National government.
In a movie about Lincoln, especially one as (blessedly) focused on this period of his life, lots of debate about slavery as an abstract political topic is unavoidable.
But Spielberg otherwise does very little about the Eeeeevils of slavery and Raaaaacism, especially by his own lily-gilding standards. There’s a scene in which Lincoln’s younger son asks about some pictures showing slave kids and their prices, another where he asks a couple of White House servants whether they were slaves (and both are handled appropriately to a kid bringing up an awkward question—i.e., not as an excuse for a sermon). There’s also a glancing closeup of a famous scarred-back picture, and the presence of a mulatto servant at White House and some other black servants are seen en passant.
Slavery and potential “white guilt” topics are handled about as gingerly as is possible while having any shred of historical authenticity.
Tricia: While I have no intention of getting into a point-for-point debate on Lincoln (you’re welcome to have your say, as are others), I will just say this: The causes of secession and the Civil War are certainly complex, but any account that omits slavery and abolitionism is pure spin.
Thank you for the insightful and thorough review!
Since the history is getting debated, I may as well put this out there here and see if I can get an answer (I already discussed this with Steve and he was almost as puzzled as me).
At several points, characters in LINCOLN say the 13th Amendment will help bring about or hasten an end to the war. Why would it have done so? The film doesn’t explain why, and I can’t think of a reason. In January 1865, the South was clearly defeated, but not yet finished. Under such circumstances, wouldn’t such an amendment be objectively a war-lengthener? It could of course be defended on moral grounds, as a weapon to re-order Southern society once it was over, or a weapon to disenfranchise slavery in the North.
But if one is even theoretically interested in negotiating a peace to avoid superfluous bloodshed, the LAST thing you do is add a condition that overturns the basis of the defeated society. That would fuel a to-the-last-man, we-have-nothing-left-to-lose attitude in a nearly-defeated enemy.
SDG:
I respect you position, we all have learned what you have learned. Yes, I agree we could certainly go head to head. It all depends on ones resources, as to what we believe. IMHO Lincoln had no regard for the slaves….except to send them to Liberia or use them for the Union Army. I take this information from his actual written words and letters by other during that time, as well as good historical references. This is not to diminish the issue of slavery. I am just saying that it had nothing to do with Lincoln’s decision to ignore the Constitution and the rights of the States, and wage war on his own people at all costs. It was nothing less than tyranny, as it is today. If we do not know our history, we will repeat the our mistakes. I concur with Randall Ward’s posts here.
“It all depends on ones resources, as to what we believe. IMHO Lincoln had no regard for the slaves….except to send them to Liberia or use them for the Union Army.”
Regardless of what resources one chooses to trust, THAT is not a defensible opinion.
(1) It doesn’t wholly explain the Emancipation Proclamation.
(2) Most pertinent to LINCOLN, it doesn’t explain the 13th Amendment AT ALL.
(3) It leaves free blacks in the North COMPLETELY out of the picture, since their freedom was never consequent upon military service.
(4) It doesn’t explain why Lincoln never repatriated, forcibly or otherwise, ANY black person (free or slave, North or South) to Liberia.
(5) It doesn’t explain why the North took so long to create black regiments at all.
(6) It doesn’t explain the actual use of black soldiers in the conduct of the war once the regiments WERE created, or Lincoln’s granting them increased status over the course of the war.
There is no doubt that Lincoln said things that we now consider racist (none of them atypical of his era). And he did all sorts of things during wartime that would be unacceptable in peacetime (distinguishing him from no war leader ever, not excluding Jefferson Davis).
That statement of yours is still tendentious anti-history.
Tricia: Thanks. The only thing I wish to add at this time is that I’m not going by the reflexive pro-Lincoln story we all learn in school. I have looked into this critically, and as I said I am sympathetic to some of the anti-Lincoln, anti-Civil War arguments. None of this obviates my comment above. The issues around slavery and abolition were not tangential, certainly to the South’s concerns.
Victor:
I appreciate your comments, yet my post was intended for an individual-SDG - whom had prior posts. I wish to stay on topic, although it is a good segue to the discussion of slavery and the history of the black soldiers, etc. The major point in my post was Lincoln’s disregard for the Constitution, the sovereignty of the states, and their right to secede. This information has been well researched, and aligns with several sound historians, original documents, and others. Further, it includes the history of such individuals as Samuel Chase, Henry Clay, Crittenton, George Washington, and others to understand not only evolution of the political climate during those times, but the conflicting agendas between the North and the South that had nothing to do with slavery, yet more to do with taxes, tariffs, and control of the southern ports. Regardless of the cultural norms, Lincoln’s agenda had nothing to do with helping the slaves, even if he gave a great speech in Gettysburg and eventually supported the 13th Amendment. Demagoguery and special interests existed then, as they do now. Frankly, the movement to abolish slavery began long before Lincoln. To assume my statements are sheer bias as an unreliable historian, is an ineffective method of debate in my opinion, petulant at best.
Victor:
I just read your earlier post;“At several points, characters in LINCOLN say the 13th Amendment will help bring about or hasten an end to the war. Why would it have done so?”
If would not have done so. The film was not accurate because it was not about slavery. Days after Lincoln was elected, before he was officially instated on March 4th, South Carolina lead the way for 7 states to secede. This was about imposed taxes, big government, the agenda of Henry Clay, and Lincoln’s willingness to disregard the Constitutional rights of the States. Lincoln, had he allowed the states to secede would have lost a great deal of money and resources from trade, agriculture tariffs, ports and waterways. You can imagine that the southern states had many advantages over the northern states. This is why Senator Criterion, proposed to extend the divide between the states to the Pacific, as one option.
Movies are not the best source of historical accounts.
one note on slavery, Massachusetts was the first state to officially free the slaves, thus the formation of the 16th regiment - if my memory serves me - which was comprised of black soldiers.
“the conflicting agendas between the North and the South that had nothing to do with slavery, yet more to do with taxes, tariffs, and control of the southern ports.”
Alexander Stephens and all the secession statements filed by such unimportant people as the Southern state legislatures all disagree. Slavery is central. Other concerns aren’t absent, but “more to do with” is sheer contemporary wish fulfillment.
“Regardless of the cultural norms, Lincoln’s agenda had nothing to do with helping the slaves…”
The penchant for overstatement raises its head again. Yes, Lincoln had other subjects on his mind and he wasn’t a modern racial-egalitarian. “Had nothing to do with” is tendentious denialism.
“Frankly, the movement to abolish slavery began long before Lincoln.”
Really? I did not know that.
Arguments that the 13th Amendment would not have shortened the war (plus rehearsing the disputes as it stood in 1860) do not answer the question I asked—namely “what was the argument that it would?”
Where are your sources for saying that Lincoln was not a Christian. I too have read biographies and he was a church goer at least in his youth. At least he was deeply religious (which today is going away). It seems that the south STILL does not like the North’s position and vice versa. The greatest tragedy of the war was not the end of slavery but the institution of the KKK which still a very active hateful group (they also are anti-Catholic). I believe the Civil Rights movement is an extension of the Emancipation Proclamation.
lroy: It was because of his father’s nutty form of Calvinism that Lincoln fell away from religion as a young man. He did attend church in Washington, DC, but never joined, because he wouldn’t subscribe to a statement of faith he didn’t believe. He was not “deeply religious,” but he does seem to have been haunted by God, as it were. Many sources will verify this; the essay I linked to above by the research director of the Lincoln Institute is a good place to start. P.S. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t outlaw slavery. The 13th Amendment did.
Victor Morton & Tricia: While I’m still not prepared to resolve the historical basis for the connection between the impetus to pass the 13th Amendment and the Civil War, the events in the film around Lincoln avoiding meeting with Confederate peace delegates, and in particular the question of peace delegates being raised on the floor of the Senate during debate of the 13th Amendment, and Lincoln writing the carefully worded note that “as far as I know” there was no peace delegation “in Washington,” accord with what I remember reading about the actual events. So apparently the absence of an evident path to peace was part of the impetus to pass the 13th Amendment.
Victor,
Yes, the issue of slavery became apparent at the Philadelphia Convention. It was one of the issues that influenced Massachusetts to sign. As a result, Washington was one of the first southern slave owners to free his slaves, while ensuring that they were taught reading, writing and a trade. He became a strong proponent, among many others, for which he never received any credit. Lincoln takes credit for this effort, even though some of his pre-war letters state otherwise.
As far as the question about the 13th Amendment, I had answered your question indirectly in my earlier post. Further, the more relevant question is what happened in the decades prior to 1860 to incite the secessionist movement within the Southern States,and the Civil War, as well as politicizing slavery? To ignore the: Northwest Crisis, Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions, Missouri Compromise, Tariff of 1828, Nullification Crisis, Nat Turners slave rebellion, the Amistad, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, Texas Annexation ( the key to politicizing slavery), the Mexican-American War, American System Agenda, Manifest Destiny, Henry Clay’s agenda, Hilton Rowan Helper’s “the Impending Crisis of the South” (written to bolster the Republican campaign efforts) etc. is what leads to one’s penchant for overstatement. As I said, in my earlier post, slavery is another discussion, as there was much more than the obvious considered during those times. Such a discussion must include the concepts of political science and how issues were used to bolster campaigning and elections. (as they are today) (Read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky)
The major point is Lincoln’s disregard for the Constitution, the sovereignty of the states, and his willingness to wage war against his own people at all costs. This is and of itself should staggering to anyone that appreciates Liberty. Additionally, one might ask; “How could the war have been prevented?”
Kevin Gutzman is a professor and author on 19th Century history; he is held in the most high regard. Mises.org has some good information, as well. Even Wikipedia, which I do not deem as a source for the reliable historian, has good accounts of the event during that time. Kindly refrain from your comments as to the depth of my faculties and naivete; it is unnecessary.
Steve,
I still here; been given a “stay” so to say.
I’m sorry your review seems to broken down into a Historical-political tryst.
I found the film to be most interesting and entertaining, as did my 16-year-old twin boys did (if high school juniors think that, then all is not lost). The measure of discussion/interchange holds ones interest for over two and one half hours.
Spielberg delivers once again and with great performances all around.
Keep it up, SDG!
Thanks for the review, this definitely seems like something I’d want to see but unfortunately I’d have to drive out of town…my one (count ‘em, one) local theater isn’t carrying it, because of course no one can expect them to give up one of Twilight’s six screens to make room for something that ISN’T terrible in every possible way.
Great review and great movie. My only gripe was that Lincoln was not tall enough in this movie.
Our Founding Father’s experiment of a democratic republic is a delicate handling of all the colonies turning into unified, colloborative group of state powers. There is a tension: 1) how much state power to govern its own habitants must you allow before they turn against each other with different state constitutions and laws and financial means of opposition and 2) a federal regulation of the states to keep them united but potentially turn into tyranny when a central government increasingly becomes responsible for governance. State powers and Federal powers both have their pros and cons, and no one can rationally argue that one kind of power is necessarily and always better and more just than the other. The freedom of citizens rests in the balance of the two.
Why the need for balance? While recognizing that each colony-turned-state had its own recourse to governing citizens, the potential for states bullying each other, being financially punitive of each other (by each state printing their own money and refusing the recognize the currency of another state), or warring with each other was, and still can be, real. The Founding Fathers did not want another 100 years war as seen by England and France. The emerging value of religious freedom also played a role, for a state may be able to get away with outlawing religion, but a federal power can put a stop to such an action, thus completely subverting the ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It must be acknowledged that that while States have powers granted onto them by rule of law fostered by the Constitution, there is no such power to seceede from the union granted by the Constitution or even the Declaration of Independence. Rather, the Constitution and Declaration recognized the necessity of the people to revolt against and overthrow an existing unjust government. That is a very different thing than breaking the sort of “covenant” among the states that the Constitution created. I think it’s important that this issue be thought of as breaking a covenant, because the protection to a participating entity provided by the other participants of the covenant cannot expect the same protection if the convenant is broken.
I would say that the South may have been better off if Southern states had decided to organize to overthrow federal powers in Washington D.C. than try to seceede from the Union, if their concern really was about their economic security and the autonomy of state powers. But no, I’m afraid that such nobler ambitions were clouded with what Radical Republicans woul. But as human nature would have it, the Radical Republicans also became corrupted and zealous to the point of vengence that allowed them to override the Constitution and abuse executive powers in order the punish the South. It is unfortunate that the war within the Republican Party over how to handle the South came a little too late by 1877, letting a bitter thorn in the side of political relations between the South and the North allow for the KKK and Jim Crow laws (even infecting Northern States, like Indiana) to crop up.
I can sympathesize with both pro-Lincoln and anti-Lincoln attitudes. After all, he was a lawyer and new how to find the loopholes and bend the laws to defend his clients. As president, I see him as a lawyer defending the Union and manipulating the Constitution and executive powers accordingly. I also see him as a man who really struggled with his less than positive beliefs about the races that he grew up with and Justice’s emerging demand to end slavery, because it is unjust for a man to not be allowed to earn a living of his own accord except as a punishment for a crime proven he committed by a trial of peers. I think it was more a matter of justice than a matter of racial equality, as can be seen with his clashing with abolitionists, like Federick Douglas and Thaddeus Stevens. I both hate and love Lincoln’s political shrewdness, and yet I am uncomfortable and suspicious of any other president that tries to be the same sort of “great compromiser.” Yes, truly, there was far more to the Emancipation and Abolishment of Slavery than what Lincoln had to offer, but I am at least grateful to Lincoln for choosing to give momentum to the cause with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13 Amendment. I really wish he had lived his entire second term, for I am convinced that the Reconstruction Act wouldn’t have been so devasting and abusive.
Because hindsight is better than forsight, and I would like to give President Lincoln some benefit of a doubt, I regret more that our Founding Fathers were not courageous enough to ask themselves what the logical conclusions to Independence and to the Constitution would necessitate regarding the acknowledgement that all people are endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights, by virtue of existing as human beings, that cannot be taken away and that no human body of governance has the authority to take away. I wish they had fought themselves to death in their arguments while constructing the Constitution that there cannot be slavery and Independence from tyranny existing in the same rule of law. I wish they had never written permission for slave ownership and the counting of slave individuals as 3/5ths of a person. If they had done right from the beginning by writing good rule of law for the Constitution, President Lincoln would never had to trample on the Constitution in order to correct its errors.
Corrected:
Our Founding Father’s experiment of a democratic republic is a delicate handling of all the colonies turning into unified, collaborative group of state powers. There is a tension: 1) how much state power to govern its own habitants must you allow before they turn against each other with different state constitutions and laws and financial means of opposition and 2) a federal regulation of the states to keep them united but potentially turn into tyranny when a central government increasingly becomes responsible for governance. State powers and Federal powers both have their pros and cons, and no one can rationally argue that one kind of power is necessarily and always better and more just than the other. The freedom of citizens rests in the balance of the two.
Why the need for balance? While recognizing that each colony-turned-state had its own recourse to governing citizens, the potential for states bullying each other, being financially punitive of each other (by each state printing their own money and refusing the recognize the currency of another state), or warring with each other was, and still can be, real. The Founding Fathers did not want another 100 years war as seen by England and France. The emerging value of religious freedom also played a role, for a state may be able to get away with outlawing religion, but a federal power can put a stop to such an action, thus completely subverting the ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It must be acknowledged that that while States have powers granted onto them by rule of law fostered by the Constitution, there is no such power to secede from the union granted by the Constitution or even the Declaration of Independence. Rather, the Constitution and Declaration recognized the necessity of the people to revolt against and overthrow an existing unjust government. That is a very different thing than breaking the sort of “covenant” among the states that the Constitution created. I think it’s important that this issue be thought of as breaking a covenant, because the protection to a participating entity provided by the other participants of the covenant cannot expect the same protection if the covenant is broken.
I would say that the South may have been better off if Southern states had decided to organize to overthrow federal powers in Washington D.C. than try to secede from the Union, if their concern really was about their economic security and the autonomy of state powers. But no, I’m afraid that such nobler ambitions were clouded with what Radical Republicans would call “Slave Power,” the need to preserve the institution of slavery for economic benefit. But as human nature would have it, the Radical Republicans also became corrupted and zealous to the point of vengeance that allowed them to override the Constitution and abuse executive powers in order the punish the South. It is unfortunate that the war within the Republican Party over how to handle the South came a little too late by 1877, letting a bitter thorn in the side of political relations between the South and the North allow for the KKK and Jim Crow laws (even infecting Northern States, like Indiana) to crop up.
I can sympathize with both pro-Lincoln and anti-Lincoln attitudes. After all, he was a lawyer and knew how to find the loopholes and bend the laws to defend his clients. As president, I see him as a lawyer defending the Union and manipulating the Constitution and executive powers accordingly. I also see him as a man who really struggled with his less than positive beliefs about the races that he grew up with and Justice’s emerging demand to end slavery, because it is unjust for a man to not be allowed to earn a living of his own accord except as a punishment for a crime proven he committed by a trial of peers. I think it was more a matter of justice than a matter of racial equality, as can be seen with his clashing with abolitionists, like Federick Douglas and Thaddeus Stevens. I both hate and love Lincoln’s political shrewdness, and yet I am uncomfortable and suspicious of any other president that tries to be the same sort of “great compromiser.” Yes, truly, there was far more to the Emancipation and Abolishment of Slavery than what Lincoln had to offer, but I am at least grateful to Lincoln for choosing to give momentum to the cause with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13 Amendment. I really wish he had lived his entire second term, for I am convinced that the Reconstruction Act wouldn’t have been so devastating and abusive.
Because hindsight is better than foresight, and I would like to give President Lincoln some benefit of a doubt, I regret more that our Founding Fathers were not courageous enough to ask themselves what the logical conclusions to Independence and to the Constitution would necessitate regarding the acknowledgement that all people are endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights, by virtue of existing as human beings, that cannot be taken away and that no human body of governance has the authority to take away. I wish they had fought themselves to death in their arguments while constructing the Constitution that there cannot be slavery and Independence from tyranny existing in the same rule of law. I wish they had never written permission for slave ownership and the counting of slave individuals as 3/5ths of a person. If they had done right from the beginning by writing good rule of law for the Constitution, President Lincoln would never had to trample on the Constitution in order to correct the contradiction between slavery and freedom.
AME:
Please do not take this post as critical. I am a stickler for detail and could not help myself. I suspect that you and I have learned the same history throughout our school years.
We are a Constitutional Republic, which means the Constitution is the law of the land. It also means that the States have a Compact, vs a nation. It is the States that provide enumerated and limited power to the Federal Government and they can just as easily take that power away. This comes from the many letters and debates of the founding fathers, the Federalist Papers, and the anti-Federalist, and the text of the Constitution itself.(Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods are excellent scholars in this regard)
With that said, as early as ten years after the Constitution was ratified,
our liberty has been assaulted by the new central government. The the supremacy clause has been taken out of context, and the trend of Supreme Court doctrine and cases informing theory and liberty had begun. The Federalist Papers and the Constitution itself was disregarded. Simply consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which allowed no one to even utter a word of disagreement with the President of the US nor Congress. (note: Jefferson was not named in these act, even though he was the Vice President at the time. Jefferson was an opponent of the Governments agenda)
Additionally, law schools had begun to teach Constitutional Law within the context of Supreme Court doctrine and specific cases, while avoiding the document text completely. It was believed that modern theory should be used to interpret the Constitution, while in fact the reverse is true. Further, early 19th century arguments over nationalism vs Compact theory have been debated, ignoring common sense. Nationalist had won this debate, sadly during the 1800’s, yet there is a move towards rectifying these mistakes.
Compact Theory, which holds that the Union was created by the sovereign peoples of the states, must confront the Nationalist view. The Nationalist, by contrast, holds that the Union was created by a singular “people”; from there comes the inevitable conclusion that the Union is indestructible, nullification is unthinkable, and Supreme over the nation, etc.
Compact Theory, Jeffersonian thinking, is the only way towards preserving liberty and freedom. And although the arguments have supported the nationalist point of view, one simply has to ask the following questions to make the case for State sovereignty:
1.Where is the proof of this “one people”?
2.Where did it come from?
3.Where is evidence of this “one people” doing anything? (I see zero such evidence)
4.Why would the states have ratified the Constitution one by one?
5.Why did the Declaration speak of free and independent states?
6.Why did the states perform actions we associate with sovereignty?
7.Why did Britain acknowledge the independence of individual states?
8.Why did the Articles of Confederation say the states “retained” their sovereignty? If they “retained” it, didn’t that mean they must have had it to begin with?
These are just a few of the difficulties the nationalists have to overcome. The compact theory of the Union is the most persuasive of theories, sad to say.
Too many Americans believe that the federal government is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Supreme Court is the last check and balance. As a result the US has operated more like a social democracy than a republic. In reality, the Constitution, the Declaration, and Rule of Law, represents the “Law of the Land” and the intended sovereignty of the States. The States are the last check and balance, above and beyond the Supreme Court, and it is these things which distinguish the United States as a Republic vs a democracy.
As for Lincoln, his campaign discussions were about abolition, but in his Letters to Henry Clay and others, he could have cared less. in fact, he was more interested in property and seizing the rights of the States. Northern States, in particular Kansas, were concerned that the wealth land owners of the south would purchase the best land in the area leaving others with less optimal choices. since these land owners in the south were also slave owners, slavery became a political issue as a means to deter land purchases. Kansas actually went to war with Missouri, if my memory serves me, over this land issue. The story of Lincoln is a myth. George Washington, before the Constitution was ratified had done a great deal more for the slaves than Lincoln ever did. Lincoln did not free the slaves over moral purposes, rather it was political and he waged war on his own people to do so.
Do not take my word for it, Look into Kevin Gutzman and Thomas DeLorenzo Tom woods, and others. Consider the Constitutionalists, such as those mentioned above as well as Yale Law Schools, Michael Stokes Paulsen
How To Interpret the Constitution(and How Not To), and Ahkil Amar’s the Constitution; A Biography.
Please excuse my intrusion to your post, and consider this as a chance to challenge your own view. None of us have been taught true history. It is in my most recent years, after working in DC, and finding conflicting information embedded in original writings of those who framed our Constitution.
WOW! Dear Tricia and AME and of course, our dear host, SDG,
as a home-schooling mom who has absolutely NO TIME (I work 2 jobs while home schooling my 13 year old son) to look too deeply into this topic, what would you recommend as American history material for a 7-8 grader? I may need to have him attend our public high-school and am trying in these couple of years that I have him home to help him wade through what it “out there” and TRUTH. The big challenge though is other than Jesus Himself revealed in Scripture and Holy Mother Church, I find discerning some of this similar to skimming the fat from home-made chicken soup with a wide fork! At present we have been reading over-views of human history (Louis DeWhol’s Upon This Rock supplemented with historical bios and some well-written historical fictions and Christ the King, Lord of History by Dr. Anne Carroll. We have barely scratched American history other than in local (live in NJ) historical places and we go to Gettysburg and participate in re-enactments almost every year. He’s read the classic bio on R.E. Lee and although we are northerners, all three of my children always sympathize with the South over State’s rights and hate the hypocrisy of the Northern “factory-slaves” as well as the treatment of the Irish immigrants and over-enlistment of “those expendable cannon-fodder mics” who were often not even given a gun but sent none the less into battle. I find history almost impossible to teach as it is always biased and I feel so incredibly inadequate. I tried to learn about the French Revolution years ago while schooling my oldest and decided that it was impossible. Just let me join the sisters singing on the way to the gallows!
Not to be obtuse, but do any of you have any suggestions? I appreciate the conversation here.
We are going to see this movie on my birthday (tues) with two of our best friends who also home-school. Both of us moms are skeptical (again, we are from NJ, so between Sarcasm being our first language and cynicism being our natural outlook) and our boys love to argue when they are thinking at all (meaning they don’t swallow all the bait). I love Daniel Day-Lewis and I want the day off. But I’d love to bring some resources to share with my friend so we can at least give these guys something more than the average American kid.
Thank you all (if anyone is still out there) for all your comments. I learned a lot - mostly that I don’t know anything.
If you care to, log on to http://www.thecatholicthing.org and read last week’s (in the Archives) post on this movie by Brad Miner. Very Good points that Steven didn’t mention.
Second the redirection to the Brad Miner article. As he says, Spielberg’s (and by the way homosexual-screenwriter=activist Kushner’s) Lincoln may be completely internally true but nevertheless a mash note to Obama and his politically-bought Obamacare. Instead of allowing Obama to get the reflected glory of this movie, Catholics should be rightfully diverting the focus to the current “Human Life Amendment”. It would not be too much to ask folks to dress up in stovepipe hats and hoopskirts for the March for Life and this year, actually visit your congressman before or after the March.
Kushner’s “Angels in America” may have been a powerful driving force behind our eventual tolerance of sodomite marriage. His Lincoln movie may have the unfortunate effect of burnishing Obama’s big government public image. May we instead campaign for it to propel the HLA to victory.
Debby,
I am just reading your post. Mike Maharry’s book, Our Last Hope, its an easy read for a youngster. You can contact Tom Woods via the Tenth Amendment Center for other recommendations. Also, The Forgotten Men radio show one Saturdays at noon, is helpful for families, and the Abbeville Institute is another good resource. Also, go to The Forgotten Men fb page. Mark Kreslins is excellent and may better direct you in this regard.
Good luck. Feel free to context me again here.
Tricia - Thank you so much for your kind effort! I will share your suggestions with my friends as well. I will try and find the radio show but I have refrained thus far from FB. Too much time lost in the great internet abyss as it is…...Happy New Year in this Year of Faith to you and yours!
Debby, Thank you and may you and yours have a blessed year ahead. Yes, fb can be daunting. Try http://www.forgottenmen.com or WTMD online for the show. I listen to it in my computer or cell phone. Best of luck.
Debby, oops one more thing…...Tom Woods is a great historian/ author, prolific Catholic author.
also Kevin Gutzman. Easy reads for you…two books. Politically incorrect guide to American history, and politically incorrect guide to Lincoln….fun to read. God Bless.
EXCELLENT! thanks again!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.