“The greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America.” – Thaddeus Stevens. Supposedly.
“I can’t play Lincoln. That’s like playing God” – Henry Fonda
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn’t it just like a historian to complain and nitpick about the flaws of a good movie? You may not know any historians, but I do. We are like that. Just ask my daughters.
Yes, I have complaints about this very good film, “Lincoln.” And frankly, they are not insignificant complaints.
My first complaint: Steven Spielberg has a tendency to confuse Abraham Lincoln with Jesus Christ.
To be fair, he is not the first.
It has been a habit for Americans (particularly from the north) during the last century to make Lincoln into a demi-god. As a result, it is very difficult for any of us to get an accurate bead on this guy. Before I ever became a history major in college, my own
Is this person like anybody you have met?
mythic impressions of the man were shaped by dollar bills, luxury vehicles, pennies, granite monuments, state capitals, high schools, toy cabins, highways, Illinois license plates, and a trip to his boyhood home in southern Indiana when I was about ten, which left me with a memory of his mother’s tombstone set in a dark woods. That was kind of creepy. This image was balanced, or further confused, by a particularly memorable cartoon (which apparently is not shown on TV anymore because of its racial stereotypes) where Bugs Bunny suddenly appears in a stove-pipe hat, beard and long black coat and says in a deep, serious voice (to Yosemite Sam, who plays a Confederate officer), “What’s this I hear about you whippin’ slaves?” It’s just difficult to imagine Lincoln as a recognizable human being with all this material buried deep in one’s subconscious.
Let me, then, give Spielberg credit for making Lincoln look less than perfect in a couple of key ways. Lincoln gets deeply frustrated with his family (an unavoidable response if one were married to Mary Todd Lincoln) and even strikes his son in one scene. And throughout the film, Lincoln struggles with his conscience as he tries to reconcile his high anti-slavery goals with the dirty process of politics.
And, yet.
While Spielberg’s Lincoln wrestles with the ethical dilemmas of dirty politics, he never seems to waver in his rock solid conviction that everything must take a back seat to ending slavery. And unlike most everyone around him, he doesn’t doubt that blacks deserve full legal, political and social equality. This Lincoln is inspiring. This Lincoln is thrilling. This is the Lincoln that every (white) moviegoer wants to be.
And he is not the real Lincoln.
Now it is reasonable to argue that, for those weeks in January of 1865, Lincoln was firmly convinced that he had to get the 13th Amendment passed. The film does, after all, only focus on these few weeks. But by leaving out (or just plain missing) the Lincoln of 1862, the Lincoln of 1861 and the Lincoln of 1858, we end up with a Lincoln who is, in the words supposedly spoken by Thaddeus Stevens, “the purest man in America.”
Historians know better. Most Americans do not. Spielberg is like Disney: his portrayal of a story will become the definitive version. So his Lincoln will be what the next generation of Americans remember and believe about Lincoln. That’s not all bad, but there are problems.
Any high school history teacher worth her salt will tell you that Lincoln’s highest desire had always been the preservation of the Union and that his antislavery convictions came in second. Lincoln always opposed slavery – he was consistent about that throughout his life—but his first love was for nation-state. That meant that in 1862 he did not have the power to abolish slavery in the southern states, especially if it meant damaging the Union as it was presently constructed. He wrote, famously, to Horace Greeley in the summer of 1862, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” In his First Inaugural Address in 1861 Lincoln reassured the southern states that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Obviously, Lincoln changed his mind between 1861 and 1865. That is the key. Lincoln’s greatest internal struggle did not revolve around whether to stoop to log-rolling and horse trading and playing dirty politics in order to push through the greatest measure of the nineteenth century. His biggest dilemma was whether or not he really ought to push through the greatest measure of the nineteenth century in the first place.
Nor does Spielberg’s Lincoln deal effectively with the real Lincoln’s internal struggle with his own racism.
Ouch. Painful subject. We are OK if our demigods have minor flaws, but it is just too much to attach racism to them. Better just leave those questions alone. Spielberg accomplishes this task masterfully.
The reality is that Lincoln believed blacks had the right to freedom but he was not sure that they were fit to live as social equals with whites. Some samples: In his famous 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said about the black man, “I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects–certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every living man.” Hmm. He fudges a bit on social equality, though he does come out pretty strong on a type of labor equality. But then we have this declaration in another debate with Douglas: “While I was at the hotel today an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and the white people. [Great laughter.]….I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races–[applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarrying with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of political and social equality.”
And lest we think that Lincoln, that wily politician, was simply saying what he did not believe in order to curry support from racist voters in Illinois, we have other evidence. For instance, in the summer of 1862 he met with black leaders to try to convince them that they ought to embrace colonization. This plan promoted the wholesale migration of free blacks to some other country. In this case, he asked them if American blacks would move to Central America. His justification? “Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong afflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race…. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” (The African American leaders politely, but firmly, refused).
The purest man in America?
No.
But it is at just this point where Christian theology is far more helpful to us than the modern faith in human purity. (Or the modern faith in the human purity of a few select heroes and demigods). Why should we be surprised by Lincoln’s racism? Abraham Lincoln, like you and me, was a sinner. More importantly, (and this is a point that many evangelicals miss), Lincoln internalized social norms and cultural patterns that were also a product of a fallen world. In other words, we also inherit cultural sins, most of the time without even realizing it. Lincoln, like the vast majority of white Americans of the mid-nineteenth century (and arguably just about every white American of that era), was socialized by a culture that viewed blacks as inferior. To greater or lesser degrees, this racism came out in his behavior and attitudes.
In one sense, Lincoln could not help the fact that he was shaped by a racist culture. But that does not make the racism of nineteenth-century whites acceptable. It was still wrong. It still harmed others. It still prevented Lincoln and others from loving their neighbor as themselves. And it demonstrates one way that original sin operates on humanity – through the cultural norms and practices that shape them.
It is not surprising, then, that those who do not believe in this kind of sin desperately want Lincoln to be a pure and shining example to all of us, one that we might be able to achieve if we just try hard enough. Nor is it surprising that we buy it. That reaction fits well with Christian theology also.
Strangely, perhaps, this is not my biggest complaint with the film. That will come in my next post.
This is a very good post to meind us a Christians that all of us are sinners. I admire Lincoln(but wish he had been a Christian). I believe that he was part of a white supremacy culture but that he grew to over come some of his sinful cultural inheritance. I myself am a border state southerner by birth who has lived in the mid-west for three decades. Lincoln was a great president but also was for voluntary colonization until perhaps late 1862 or so. We all(starting with me) must be judged by Christ and need God’s grace and mercy. There are none who are beyond the reaches of original sin and are own sinful nature. I am an Arminian Christian but we like our Calvinist brothers and sisters see humans as depraved and without prevenient grace we have not chance of escaping original sin.
Can you suggest any books on Lincoln and Race, slavery that are scholarly and support and/or contradict the perspective that you have provided above? Personally, I found your arguments very convincing-especially the insights about our common Christian faith.
Most of the books that I have read have been standard biographies of Lincoln that touch on the issues of race — though they almost all deal more fully with his approach to the issues surrounding slavery. You might want to check out William Gienapp, “Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America” and Richard Carwardine, “Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power.” Also, on the issue of race in the Civil War (that involves LIncoln) you could read Vincent Harding, “There is a River.” Finally, you can fine a nice summary of these issues in the comments found in an edited volume, by Michael P. Johnson, “Abraham Lincoln , and the Civil War: Selected Writings and Speeches.” It’s a collection of speeches and writings (convenient title, there) but the comments by Johnson before each section help lay out the issues well. I am not familiar with works that look specifically at Lincoln and race, (it’s not an area of my primary research) though they must be out there, because there are thousands of books on Lincoln.
Pingback: “Lincoln:” My Complaints
You also may want to check out the book by Thomas Krannawitter, “Vindicating Lincoln.” http://www.claremont.org/scholars/id.204/scholar.asp
Also, a recent book which Allen Guelzo has put out on the Civil War,”Fateful Lightning.” There is a great deal of historical revisionism by some Christians who do what they can to slander Lincoln and his record.
These sounds like interesting books. I own Guelzo’s biography of Lincoln and I know he is a good historian. I’m not sure whether you think I am one of those Christian historians who slander Lincoln and his record. If that is your point, then it would be good to have a conversation, because I do not believe I am doing that, though my next post should help to make this point more clear.
I guess my question is: why is this news that a movie is flawed? Movies and visual media are always flawed in some ways in presenting history. As a matter of fact, Jacques Ellul wrote a book, “The Humiliation of the Word,” which makes the point that visual media portray reality instead of truth (via the printed word). In fact, the “Lincoln” movie was better than most historical movies I have seen.
Richard: Good question. You make a valid point. I would answer in several ways. First of all, it’s not news to thoughtful people like you that the film is flawed. However, a lot of people take historical films at face value and don’t realize or stop to think about how a historical film is an interpretation. Second, I also think “Lincoln” is better than most historical films that I have seen (which I tried to point out in my earlier post). However, as a historian I also think it is helpful to consider major interpretive issues. Third, I don’t have a problem with certain kinds of “flaws” that are made for aesthetic reasons (such as the fact that the Hampton Roads conference actually took place after the vote for the 13th Amendment took place. Spielberg changed the timing, but it fits with the overall point of how the politics of peace was affecting the vote). Fourth, the flaw I am most concerned with concerns our understanding of how abolition came about, which is a pretty important topic because it speaks to social change, ethics, human nature and a host of other issues that go to the core of our understanding of how the world works. I’ll be blogging about that in my next post.
Dr. Case–I think you mean Gulezo’s “Redeemer President.” He has recently put out an excellent summary of the Civil War which examines his views on slavery, among other issues, and gives background on the slavery and states’ rights issues. I have been concerned reading other Christians who are so into “The Lost Cause” and states’ rights issues that they manipulate the historical record and use the Dilorenzo book as their “bible” to pillory Lincoln. I’m sorry I gave you the impression I believed you were doing that.
Ah, I see what you are saying now. Yes, I know some Christians try to make specious connections between politics, history and Christianity — it’s similar to the way that the question of Christianity and America’s founding is sometimes treated.
Jay, You missed one important aspect of Lincoln and the confusion of which came first, the Union or ending slavery. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated that he would not restrict slavery because “he had no lawful right to do so, or an inclination to do so.” It was the 13th Amendment that would give him that legal right. Lincoln was a political pragmatist, and he knew that the hot blooded time of his first election was not going to be the effective time to force the change. For pete’s sake, the man had to sneak into Washington DC to avoid violent mobs in Maryland. What Lincoln was so gifted at doing was placing himself in the right spot to bring about the political change he desired. Look at the Republican convention of 1860. Lincoln arrived with almost no support, but he positioned himself as the ready second choice for many delegations pledged to others. When the time came, he struck.
I do not worry about Lincoln being portrayed as a Christ like figure. Except for a vampire movie and its ineveitable sequel with zombies, there is not much talk of his rising from the dead. While his death may have been a result of our sins, by no means did it absolve us of them and make us free from guilt in his or anyone’s eyes. What his death did was refocus the nation, giving an ultimate time of grieving for all the losses from the war.
Finally, as I age, I find it amazing how many long ago events seem to me to have happened just a few years ago: our disco hair, the ability for two of us to eat a large pizza and go looking for snacks after, and the Blizzard of 78, to name a few. In Lincoln’s time, many slaves had been there for two generations at most and culteral differences with the white population were very clear. It would not be irrational at all to think that sending the forced immigrants back to their homeland would be a bad thing. Furthermore, all humans have a tendency to think that their culture is superior to the culture of outsiders. For example, we all KNOW that kentucky basketball is a pale shadow of the Indiana version. We humor them, but secretly look down of them as inferior beings who just do not know the truth.
Where am I going with this? Lincoln was a great man, both in his times and today. While he made mistakes, he was a sinful being working within a flawed world. But he worked at it, worked for good. His efforts inspire me still. I wish I had more of that in me.
Tom, I love a post that links disco hair, the Blizzard of ’78 and Kentucky basketball to antebellum culture. I’m positive I will never see that combination again in a post in my lifetime.
Here is where I agree with you: Lincoln was a great man and a great political pragmatist. And you are correct that in that time and place, colonization was not irrational. In fact, some former slaves agreed with colonization and did actually move to Liberia.
You imply that Lincoln always had a goal of figuring out how to abolish slavery in the South, but his pragmatism led him to wait until the right moment. That may be correct. However, I’m still convinced that the preservation of the Union was still more important to him than abolishing slavery. Of course, he may have believed that preservation of the Union was the only way to get to the point where slavery could be abolished. So I may be a bit hard on him in the way I characterize his priorities. It’s difficult to know exactly what he thought when and how on this one. (Historians give different portrayals).
My main point (made in my latest post, which you may not have seen yet) is that Lincoln, though terribly important, probably should not be at the center of the story about abolition. When we do that (like Spielberg does) we intentionally or unintentionally see him as the prime mover and the purest advocate of abolition. As most historians now read the historical record, Lincoln was responding to pressure from slaves and abolitionists, as well as responding to events caused by the war.
He did it masterfully and admirably. That’s part of what makes him a great man. But that also means the prime movers are found elsewhere, and that is a point about the historical process that doesn’t usually come out in mainstream accounts of the process of abolition.
And yes, your point also shows how we are shaped by the norms, values and cultural forces of our time. We should not and cannot expect Lincoln to see things (like racial equality) in the same way we do today. I don’t fault him, personally, for that. It’s only to point out that there are what I might call cultural sins that we inherit, that we are often blind to. So certain things, like colonization, look rational to the people who have inherited those cultural norms, but they still can contain cultural sins within them.
Except for those of us who know that Kentucky basketball is indeed a pale shadow of the Hoosier version, which is, of course, pure.
Thank you for these posts. The “purest man in America” quote reminds me of a scene in ‘the dark knight’ when the joker is caught and says to batman, “you are incorruptible,” and thus the writers elevate a complicated and certainly flawed character like bruce wayne, who possesses some noble convictions and morals to a ‘saintlike’ status. Lincoln was a a man, not a symbol. And in the bonus features, Spielburg does admit that he wanted to show “a man not a monument” (referencing the Lincoln memorial). However, I was confused by lincoln’s personality changes in scenes where he was more passive and then suddenly agressive. So, was he both, was he scared of some of his contemporaries, I don’t know? Also, congressman in the movie seem to care less that Lincoln carried the office of President and simply bark at him to no avail. It seems in the film, that only the soldiers respect the president as their commander and chief. do you agree?
From my readings (and there are those who have more expertise than I do on this) I never got the sense that Lincoln was scared of his contemporaries. In my reading of Spielberg’s film, I see Lincoln’s change of moods as more of an expression of the difficult issues he was wrestling with. So he was trying to juggle a lot of demands and principles and political impulses and sometimes he just couldn’t take it any longer. That makes sense to me, and on this count I think Speilberg does a very good job of showing the man rather than the monument.
From what I have read, it is also historically fitting that he was not treated well by congressmen. Part of this is because the office of the President did not really achieve the level of respect (or awe) that we are familiar with until the 20th century. In the 19th century, it was much more likely for Congressmen to hold as much, if not more, respect from the people than the President. Lincoln, in the eyes of many, was just another politician, though one that held an important office.
It also seems to be true that soldiers in the 1860s would have accorded the President more respect because of his position as commander-in-chief — rather than his position as President. There was a very strong sense of duty in the 1860s — stronger than what Americans hold today — and that sense of duty often kicked in when one believed that one must fight for one’s country. So Lincoln’s military role probably carried more unquestioning deference among many Americans than his role as a politician attempting to guide legislation through Congress.
I think the film captures these dynamics pretty well, actually.
Pingback: google
Pingback: rimonabantexcellence site title
Pingback: propecia
Pingback: google