"Lincoln" legal mistake

[Linda Anderson]

Thanks, Liz. Kushner's rebuttal is very interesting. I suppose we don't know until we've walked in the historical novelist's or screenwriter's shoes how difficult it really is to merge art with historical fact.

Kushner does seem to be referring to the Oscar whispering campaign when he writes, "I’m sorry if anyone in Connecticut felt insulted by these 15 seconds of the movie, although issuing a Congressional press release startlingly headlined “Before The Oscars …” seems a rather flamboyant way to make that known."

[HerbS]

Most of us grew up in an era when we knew movies were not always historically correct.But,this mistake is "blatent".Maybe because many of us have put our heart and soul into the "Lincoln Assassination Field".I know other researchers in various fields feel the same way about their work.

[Jim Garrett]

I have seen the movie twice. I have to say that Kushner did a remarkable job. If you look at the body of the work as a whole, it is spectacular. To be honest, that small blooper went right past me.

[ELCore]

I haven't seen the movie yet. Apart from the "clothed with immense power" remark, this is the only real complaint about the movie's historical accuracy that I've seen. If that's all there is to fault in that regard, it must be incomparably more faithful to reality than most of Hollywood's historical dramas — if not, indeed, of all the others!

As to the quotation itself, it does not seem to be in Fehrenbachers' Recollected Words at all. Or am I just not seeing it? It comes from John B. Alley, doesn't it?

[RJNorton]

Hi Lane. I researched this when the movie came out, and the only source I found for this quote are the reminisces of Congressman John B. Alley published in Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time collected and edited by Allen Thorndike Rice. Goodwin used an 1886 edition.

The two House members who are supposed to have heard this remark are not named either in Goodwin's book or Rice's. Goodwin writes, "He (Lincoln) assigned two of his allies in the House to deliver the votes of two wavering members. When asked how to proceed he said the quote about clothed in immense power. Unless I am missing it, Alley doesn't even say if he is one of the two Congressmen present for the remark.

As you noted the Fehrenbachers did not even include it in their book, and thus I do wonder if its apocryphal.

[LincolnMan]

One can get, perhaps, a clearer sense of how close to reality the movie is in comparison to other "historical" movies. Think about the epic The Ten Commandments-how faithful to the Book of Exodus is that movie? Yes, the movie Lincoln, even with some historically questionable matters, is as close to being accurate to history as Hollywood has produced to date.

[David Lockmiller]

(02-06-2013 05:17 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Very interesting, Lindsey. Thank you for sharing this. There are several other things including the quote, "I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done; but remember that I am president of the United States, clothed with immense power, and I expect you to procure those votes” that may not be accurate. I researched that quote, and it comes from the reminisces of one single person 20+ years after the fact.

---

I consider there to be a serious problem regarding the "Lincoln" movie in its supposedly accurate depiction of historical events during the Civil War relating to Lincoln and the truthful portrayal of Lincoln's character by actor Daniel Day-Lewis. Last Sunday, he won the Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln.

I consider myself to be a defender of truth about Lincoln. It bothers me a good deal to see Lincoln's character to be falsely represented. When I first learned of the misrepresentations of historical fact and the highly-questionable portrayal of the character of Abraham Lincoln by watching the trailer of the "Lincoln" movie, I went to this website to find out what knowledgeable web site participants had written on the subject. I did not find much at that time.

I have not seen the movie "Lincoln" and I do not intend to see it. But I have seen the movie trailer, the interview that Tony Kushner had with Charlie Rose, and the 60 Minutes interview by Leslie Stahl with Daniel Day-Lewis and Steven Spielberg. Without seeing the movie, I have concluded that the movie does not fit at all with my perception of Abraham Lincoln's character. In my opinion, Tony Kushner is a sort of "Carl Sandburg" of this time, i.e. a dramatist posing as a historian. In principle and in fact, I am against any fictional misrepresentation of Lincoln in terms of historical fact or character portrayal.

Recently, historical inaccuracy in the movie regarding the vote of the Connecticut congressmen on the Thirteenth Amendment was challenged by Joe Courtney, a congressman from Connecticut. There was even an editorial in the NY Times by Maureen Dowd in support of the importance of historical accuracy in movies, and in the Lincoln movie specifically. She wrote in her New York Times editorial of February 16, 2013, entitled "The Oscar for Best Fabrication": "Hollywood always wants it both ways, of course, but this Oscar season is rife with contenders who bank on the authenticity of their films until it's challenged, and then fall back on the 'Hey, it's just a movie' defense." In the editorial, Maureen Dowd added the information: "Spielberg has agreed to provide a DVD to every middle and high school that requests it."

Without any disclaimer as to historical accuracy, many current and future students of history who see this movie in school will presume that the movie presentation is historically accurate as to events and the portrayal of Lincoln's character.

The comment section to the Ms. Dowd's NY Times editorial had been cut-off by the time I read the editorial, so I wrote one of those N Y Times internal emails to Maureen Dowd. In my email, I wrote:

"Lincoln would never have said the words "God damn" to anyone - not even to argue for the passage of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution. And, he most certainly would not have entered into the argument depicted with Mary about ending slavery. When the title of your movie is "Lincoln," it is presumed to be a historically factual movie.

I would suggest that the movie title come with an immediate disclaimer that the film is a 'historical drama - meaning not factual history' and signed by Director Steven Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner."

In my email I asked Ms. Dowd to publicize my recommended fix, but I have not received a response from her. [I did not really expect a response.] So, I presume that my well-meaning suggestion simply fell off into oblivion.

Last Sunday morning I watched "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and the panel was asked their individual opinions regarding the Oscar awards to be presented that night. One of the panelists, who referred to the "Lincoln" movie, said of the acting by Daniel Day-Lewis: "You really did think that you were watching Lincoln."

Well, this comment was "the straw that broke the camel's back" for me. Again, I went to this web site and did more research on the posted comments regarding the "Lincoln" movie, especially looking for comments made by Roger Norton, a Lincoln expert who I greatly admire and respect. I found the following comment posted by him and this comment made by him in response to the Connecticut vote issue has prompted this posting.

RE: "Lincoln" legal mistake
“Very interesting, Lindsey. Thank you for sharing this. There are several other things including the quote, "I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done; but remember that I am president of the United States, clothed with immense power, and I expect you to procure those votes” that may not be accurate. I researched that quote, and it comes from the reminiscences of one single person 20+ years after the fact." (Emphasis added)

Roger did not identify the source consulted by him in questioning the veracity of this quote used verbatim in the movie, but I presume it to be from "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln" (first published in 1885) in the chapter authored by John B. Alley (pages 585-86).

In all of my Lincoln readings, I have never come across the two words "God damn" being used together by Abraham Lincoln. In the movie, the actor portraying Lincoln uses the words "God damn" on two occasions.

In the occasion from the movie trailer referred to in Roger’s quote immediately above, Lincoln uncharacteristically pounds his fist in anger on the table at a meeting of his cabinet and says in a loud voice (also uncharacteristic):

"I can't accomplish a God damn thing of any human meaning or worth until we cure ourselves of slavery and end this pestilential war."

In contrast, compare the alleged Lincoln words in this instance used by the movie actor with the words Lincoln undoubtedly spoke in his second inaugural address a few months later, as commented upon by Frederick Douglass: "I heard Mr. Lincoln deliver this wonderful address. It was very short; but he answered all the objections raised to his prolonging the war in one sentence -- it was a remarkable sentence." (Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln" at page 191.)

"Fondly do we hope, profoundly do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue until all the wealth piled up by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, we must still say, as was said three thousand years ago, the judgment of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

On the second occasion in which the actor portraying Lincoln uses these same words in this short movie, the actor's lines are as follows and the discussion on 60 Minutes by Leslie Stahl with Lincoln historian Doris Kearns Goodwin follows immediately thereafter:

Lincoln: For everyone's god damn sake. I should've clapped you in the madhouse.
Mary: Then do it. Do it. Don't you threaten me, you do it this time. Lock me away.

Lesley Stahl: When the movie starts their second child has already died, Willie. And she has been in the deepest of mourning. As I had heard, she basically closeted herself upstairs in the White House and is this true, Doris, stopped mothering the younger child, Tad?

Doris Kearns Goodwin: "The most terrible thing that Mary did after Willie died was she couldn't bear being with Tad, her youngest son, because he reminded her of Willie's absence. It's as if both Willie and Tad died after Willie died. Lincoln had to become both mother and father to Tad after Mary turned away. And he had to take over not only the country, in leading the country, but take over that little kid at the same time."

In point of fact, instead of bitter, reproachful argument on the subject of Willie’s death as depicted in the scene from the movie, Lincoln attempted to console his wife in her time of deep grief as much as he could. Elizabeth Keckley (Mary's closest confidante) observed the following scene:

"Mrs. Lincoln was inconsolable. In one of her paroxysms of grief the President kindly bent over his wife, took her by the arm, and gently led her to a window. With a solemn, stately gesture, he pointed to the lunatic asylum, saying: 'Mother, do you see that large, white building on the hill yonder? Try to control your grief, or it will drive you mad, and we may have to send you there." ("Lincoln Talks, a Biography in Anecdote," by Emanuel Hertz, page 662)

John B. Alley noted that President Lincoln even permitted Mary, as a matter of consolation, to conduct séances at the White House in a useless attempt to reach the spirit of her dead son. (Reminiscences at page 191.)

"At the time he lost his little son, to whom he was greatly attached, Mrs. Lincoln sought consolation and comfort from the spiritualists, and I think she did believe in spiritualism."

Leslie Stahl in her national 60 Minutes broadcast on the "Lincoln" movie began with these words: "The film is filled with things about our 16th President that we, who are not Lincoln scholars, did not know."

What will people learn about the accurate portrayal of Abraham Lincoln's character and his relation to historical events by watching this short “Lincoln” movie? It seems to me that the film may be filled with things that Lincoln scholars themselves also did not know, because they did not happen.

As Roger stated: "There are several other things . . . that may not be accurate." I have not read any other critical comments regarding the "Lincoln" movie that have been made by a Lincoln scholar. I believe that other members of the Lincoln Community (i.e., Lincoln scholars and knowledgeable students of Lincoln) should point out and document as flaws in the "Lincoln" movie, either as to historical facts or the accuracy of the portrayal of Lincoln's character.

All movies are now digitalized. It would be but a small effort and easily done to insert in all digital copies of the movie, immediately following the movie title, a disclaimer to the effect that the movie “Lincoln” is a “historical drama - meaning not factual history” and the disclaimer should be electronically-signed by Director Steven Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner.

[Gene C]

I had a problem with the scene in the movie where the President slaps Robert.

[Liz Rosenthal]

In response to David Lockmiller:

My first question is how you can possibly condemn the accuracy of a movie you have not seen. It's your prerogative to not see the movie if you don't want to, but to judge it without having seen it makes no sense at all.

Toward the end of your post, you state that you haven't read any criticisms of the movie by Lincoln scholars. I'm not sure if that's because you haven't looked for any, but there has definitely been criticism by scholars. Harold Holzer, James McPherson, Eric Foner and Kate Masur come to mind. By the same token, approximately two dozen Lincoln scholars were consultants on the movie, including those who later made some public criticisms.

But before you assume that your point has been proved, you should know a few things:

**Harold Holzer wrote a piece for The Daily Beast about a number of very tiny facts that the movie got "wrong," such as Lincoln having a portrait of William Henry Harrison in his White House office, Alexander Gardner permitting young Tad Lincoln to borrow invaluable photographic plates, Lincoln not being placed diagonally across his death bed (accurate) but at rest in a sort of fetal position (inaccurate), etc.
**Eric Foner and Kate Masur's criticisms had to do with a movie that was not made. They were concerned that the movie didn't show the role of abolitionists and slaves in bringing about the end of slavery. The reason that these criticisms were not relevant (to me and many others) is that Steven Spielberg did not set out to make a movie about efforts "on the ground" to eradicate slavery, but about Abraham Lincoln, the man and the president, seen through the lens of his work to get the 13th Amendment passed.
**James McPherson said that he was a bit taken aback by the scene in which Lincoln slaps his son Robert in the face during an argument, and was, like you, perturbed at the swearing. However, he did not condemn the film and agreed that it was generally excellent.
**Thomas DiLorenzo, who has made a career out of maligning Lincoln's record as president by arguing that he was an out-of-control tyrant, had the nastiest take on the movie, although I'm not sure he saw it. My guess is that he didn't.

You're right that Connecticut Congressman Courtney, who pretty much owes his seat to Ben Affleck, attacked the movie on the eve of Oscar ballots going out for its depiction of two Connecticut Congressmen voting against the 13th Amendment instead of showing the entire CT delegation as being united in favor of the amendment.

The inaccurate but small details in the Lincoln film that Harold Holzer, Congressman Courtney and you have identified are perfect exemplars of a concept known as "dramatic license." Incidentally, Harold Holzer acknowledged in his article that the inaccuracies likely were included in the movie for the purpose of dramatic license. None of the things pointed to as errors are important to the central idea of the film, which was Lincoln's struggle to obtain the necessary votes to get the 13th Amendment passed and to provide a glimpse, during this struggle, of Lincoln as a president and as a man with some familial challenges who was still a loving father and husband. The reason that some facts are massaged or some fictional points are introduced in a play or a movie is to assist in the story-telling.

You mention being disturbed to learn that Lincoln and Mary had a very heated argument in the film in which the President used the epithet, "goddamned." I think the general feeling, which I share, is that the argument between them was meant to illustrate the difficulties of their marriage. There is no question that they had many, many arguments during their 20-plus years together. There is also no question that Mary was mentally unstable. There is no question, either, that Mary got herself into many ethically compromising situations while serving as First Lady and that this distressed the President greatly. I believe that the scene you complain of was meant to illustrate these troubles without having to go through the entire history of their marriage.

Lincoln's declaration in the movie, the one in which he says that, as president, he's "clothed in immense power," probably was not uttered by the President in those exact words, chiefly because Lincoln just didn't talk that way. But I have read where at least one Lincoln scholar stated that Lincoln probably said something to that effect, but he wouldn't have expressed it so stodgily. By the way, the "immense power" quote is in Sandberg's writings and I believe Sandberg got it from one of the many individuals who wrote memoirs about Lincoln after the war. It was typical of Lincoln's friends and associates to add a bit of starch to statements they attributed to him in their reminiscences, because they seemed to believe that they were making him sound more like an educated gentleman and less like a backwoodsman.

But you seem especially concerned about the use of the epithet "goddamned" because of what you believe this seems to say about Lincoln's character. First: In the year 2013, there are relatively few people who are not exposed to swearing or who do not swear themselves on a daily basis. It is not a shocking thing in today's America. Second: While Lincoln may not have said "goddamned," he is on record as saying "damned" on more than one occasion, under totally understandable circumstances. Anyway, I don't see how his saying "goddamned" in the movie once or twice should place his character in a poor light to most Americans today.

I thought that the movie was brilliant in almost every way, and very accurate in story and spirit. Tony Kushner, the screenwriter (who happens to be a winner of the Pulitzer Prize), did indeed read broadly and deeply in the Lincoln canon, as did actor Daniel Day-Lewis. Also, both men came away from the project feeling great love for Abraham Lincoln, and the deepest admiration for his character and accomplishments.

[RJNorton]

First of all I would like to welcome David Lockmiller to the forum. Some members here were posters on the defunct Abraham Lincoln Online Friends of Lincoln Mailbag and will remember David as being an integral part of the discussions there. Welcome aboard, David!

I believe the parts of the movie which I was referring to have now been mentioned by the posts above. I think, with Abraham and Mary Lincoln, it's sometimes difficult to get at the absolute truth. Neither of them kept a diary. Although we have plenty of letters, when it comes to conversations, language, mannerisms, etc. we often have to rely on the recollections of others. These recollections do not always agree with each other. Many of the recollections were made many, many years after the fact.

One example would be Lincoln's voice. I have a book entitled "Abraham Lincoln: Public Speaker" by Waldo W. Braden. Chapter 8 is entitled "Penetrating and Far Reaching: Lincoln's Voice." Although many of the "ear witnesses" do say something like "high-pitched," not all do. It's not unanimous. So what Daniel Day-Lewis tried to emulate is simply what the majority of folks thought. I am sure there are probably some people from Lincoln's time who, had they seen the movie, would say, "No, that's not the way he sounded at all."

The movie is partly based on Goodwin's book. In her book she uses a variety of sources, some quite obscure. Are her sources accurate? In some cases, there is no way of telling. If a conversation was reported by one single individual, how can we tell if it's accurate when there is no other source? I don't think we can.

As far as I know Elizabeth Keckly is the sole source for the conversation about the big white building. Did she remember it correctly? We really have no sure way of knowing. I had not previously been aware that Mary turned away from Tad after Willie's death. That was new to me. Maybe someone who knows more than me can expound upon that.

Regarding the "clothed in immense power" quote, the only source I see for this are the reminisces of Congressman John B. Alley published in "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time" collected and edited by Allen Thorndike Rice. Goodwin used an 1886 edition.

The two House members who are supposed to have heard this remark are not named either in Goodwin's book or Rice's. Goodwin writes, "He (Lincoln) assigned two of his allies in the House to deliver the votes of two wavering members. When asked how to proceed he said (see above quote)." Unless I am missing it, Alley doesn't even say if he is one of the two Congressmen present for the remark.

When I researched that quote I found that the Fehrenbachers did not even think it was worthy enough to include in their excellent book. This made me wonder about the accuracy of other quotes in the movie. How much of what Lincoln says in the movie is based on dubious sources?

In truth I agree with both David and Liz. I thought it was a terrific movie....I absolutely loved it and along with many in the theater gave it a standing applause at the end. I did this despite having some misgivings on the historical accuracy. I wish I didn't feel that way; so my opinion on the movie is "divided," but I still loved it (if that makes any sense!). Do we "nit-pick" too much? I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that, and there will never really be a consensus. I agree that it is important that the movie stay true to Lincoln's actions, thoughts, and character. In some respects it may not have, but I still loved the movie anyway. If the inaccuracies in the movie do divert the audience from Lincoln's true character, then I disagree with that. I doubt we can reach a consensus as to what degree this happens. What is "nit-picking" to one person may be serious movie flaws to another. I think we should respect both views.

I am NOT a movie critic. So, David and Liz, if you are disappointed in this posting, please know that critiquing a movie is not something I am good at doing. I did not take part in the "Killing Lincoln" analysis. I didn't know what to say - I just loved the production although articulating why is hard, if not impossible, for me to do. As a teacher I rarely assigned my students essays as I myself am poor at writing them and didn't know how I could possibly justify assigning a letter grade to what the students wrote. Most of the teachers on my old staff were far better at writing essays than I was.

[HerbS]

Well said Roger! I feel that "nit-picking" is done much too often!

[Liz Rosenthal]

I did feel somewhat uncomfortable about the voice that Daniel Day-Lewis settled on. I had always imagined Lincoln's voice to be somewhat high-pitched, but a lot clearer, and more similar to Conan O'Brien's voice than, say, Jimmy Stewart's. One reason I figured that Lincoln would have had a clear voice is the fact of his gift of mimicry. He was terrific at not only accents, but also tones of voice, from what I've read. However, we'll never know for sure how Lincoln really sounded if all we have to go on are "earwitness" accounts by diverse people whose sensibilities likely varied greatly. But I'm thankful that Daniel Day-Lewis avoided the old, hackneyed stentorian representation of Lincoln's speech (and even Andrew Johnson's speech!) that has occurred in the past. We can be sure that he didn't sound like he'd been educated at Harvard nor that he resided on Mount Olympus.

[Thomas Thorne]

History is the known record of human events. An historical film is the dramatization of historical events told within a specified time frame. Of necessity it must compress people and events to tell an exciting story. A screenplay that fails to do so will likely never be filmed.

We will always lack the technology to send recording devices back into time to record what historical figures thought,said,saw and did. So wide swatches of history will be controversial or unknowable. The idea that Abraham Lincoln never cursed is something we can't say unless primary sources remarked upon it and they could be wrong.


I agree with Laurie Verge that any movie that creates an interest in history serves a useful purpose.
Tom

[LincolnMan]

David: welcome to the Forum! I found your first post here very interesting to read and consider. I get the impression that you don't find value in the movie at all? In your opinion, where does it rank with some of the other movies about Lincoln-say the Henry Fonda movie, for instance? My own thought is that it got far more right than it got wrong.

[L Verge]

Another historical figure that has had some people paying attention after the Lincoln movie is Thaddeus Stevens. Danny West sent me the following link to an article about the man: http://www.historynet.com/thaddeus-stevens.htm