Lincoln... As Seen Through The Rosy Spectacles of Steven Spielberg

Rating: 2/10 (10 December 2012)

Spielberg's Lincoln is subtly inaccurate, and for that reason it is insidious and dangerous. There are also glaring omissions in the story line which serve as a detraction. To John Q. Public, who probably has a cursory knowledge concerning Lincoln and the Civil War, this film will reinforce the biased Union perspective that is generally taught in secondary education. The skewed prism that Spielberg looks through in making this film is an anathema to any historian who has done a scintilla of research concerning the war.
The centerpiece of Spielberg's Lincoln involves the political machinations concerning the passage of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. To Spielberg's credit he paints William Seward and Lincoln as the conniving politicians they both were. Their "ends justify the means" approach to the passage of the amendment is depicted without any remorse concerning the morality of buying off potential undecided votes. It is Seward who conspires with Lincoln suggesting that they employ the services of W.N. Bilbo, and others, to corrupt the process and pass the amendment. Basically, Lincoln finds himself twenty votes short for passage of the amendment. Through the auspices of Bilbo and his band of rogues, they systematically bribe each undecided Congressman before finally obtaining the requisite number required for passage.
Spielberg's Lincoln is very passionate about the 13th Amendment. But does this passion actually jibe with what transpired during the war? Lincoln's famous quotation to the New York Tribune on August 22, 1862 would seem to contradict Spielberg's curious passion of 1865. In 1862 Lincoln stated, "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union
Should we believe the Lincoln of 1862, or the Lincoln of 1865? Lincoln cultists would argue that Lincoln simply evolved to this more "enlightened" position concerning slavery. However, it's my belief that's much too easy a jump to make.
In Spielberg's Lincoln no mention is ever made of Lincoln's plan to repatriate slaves, and other blacks, to Liberia. In 1862 Lincoln invited a group of free black men into the White House and requested that they lead by example and leave the country. The men were greeted by the Federal Commissioner of Emigration J. Mitchell, who explained that a sum of money had been apportioned by Congress "for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or potion of them African decent". Lincoln is quoted as asserting, " You and we are of different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both and affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate". That assertion is a decidedly different tenor than the movie attempts to convey.
Another highly debatable, accuracy challenged segment in the film is the final meeting (in early 1865) between the Confederate Peace Commissioners and Lincoln. At the meeting Spielberg's Lincoln asserts slavery is dead. The Confederate commissioners, led by Vice President Alexander Stephens, break off the negotiations ostensibly based on Lincoln's comments. Stephens subsequently replies that the South's agrarian economy is based on slavery, and that abolishing slavery would have a crippling effect on its existence. In actuality, that meeting was much different than what occurred in the film. What did occur, and is verifiable, was that Stephens asked: "Is there no way of putting an end to the present trouble, and bringing about a restoration of general good will and harmony?" Lincoln replied, " There is but one way... for those who are resisting the laws of the union to cease that resistance". He offered 400 million compensation for the freed slaves, but emphasized: The restoration of the Union is a "sine qua non" with me.
Spielberg's Lincoln, portrayed in the film by Daniel Day Lewis, attempts to depict Lincoln in a folksy, homespun manner. Lincoln uses his charm with friends and detractors invoking whimsical yarns at every opportunity. In reality, the stories are used to obfuscate the real issues at hand. At one point in the film one of Lincoln's own cabinet members, Edwin Stanton, becomes so frustrated with the incessant "yarns" he abruptly leaves Lincoln's presence. Of course Spielberg's motivation in spotlighting the yarns is to create a more sympathetic character in Lincoln. Spielberg's Lincoln also elicits sympathy through glimpses into his dysfunctional marriage to Mary Todd Lincoln, portrayed by Sally Field. Spielberg's mining for sympathy is a disservice to anyone who has done any real historical research and is aware that the war, which killed over 600,000 of his fellow American citizens, could have been potentially avoided by Lincoln.