"Our One Common Country" author talk in Stratford, CT

[Gene C]

I didn't expect the Lincoln movie to be 100% accurate, if O'Really couldn't do it for Killing Lincoln, why experct Spielberg to be any different.
I was hoping for about 85-90% accuracy. I wasn't disappointed, much better than anything before it. It has set the standard for the next full screen 90 minute plus movie on Lincoln.

(I personaly feel that Sally Field would have played a great Mary Surratt in the new Sun Clasic movie, The Flying Nun Escapes From the Old Capitol Prison..."It was a breezy day when Mary Surratt walked through the court yard of the Old Capitaol Prison, closely flanked by Father Walter, her Catholic confessor, who was concealing a cornette under his long flowing robe. )

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks, Betty, for posting this opinion, and for sharing this great experience!!! Wow, how cool!!! I totally second your last passage and statements!

Re: "Great pains was taken with this film in sets, costumes as well as history. Sally Field took great care with her part as did Ms. Reuben. All of the actors did", one gets an impression when watching this:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z-w4A43wkGU

---

(08-20-2014 07:09 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  Never, at any time or anywhere in over 30 years of reading about Mary Lincoln, have I ever heard that she opposed the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Elizabeth Keckly's memoirs do mention her pleading with AL to provide money for blankets and food for the contraband shanty camps around the White House. Something tells me that little tidbit did not pass muster to get an honorable mention in Burlingame's tome.
UNBELIEVABLE!!

I can't come up with a 30 years experience and knowledge, but it contradicts everything I've read on her, too.

MB's source for the following passage David quoted:
"On January 1, 1863, after Lincoln spent a sleepless night, his wife, who (according to her eldest son) ‘was very much opposed to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation,’ inquired ‘in her sharp way, “Well, what do you intend doing?”’ He replied: ‘I am under orders, I cannot do otherwise.’”

...reads as follows:
"Robert Todd Lincoln told this to Mrs. Florence Weston Stanley. Mrs. Florence Weston Stanley to Dwight C. Sturges, [Needham, Massachusetts?], 7 February 1935, Christian Science Monitor , 12 February 1935."

The quote is especially weird with regard to Lincoln's reply which to me implies he himself was opposed to the EP, too, but felt forced to sign it.

So, who was Mrs. Florence Weston Stanley, how reliable is this (being so far the only evidence), and when could she have been told this?

[David Lockmiller]

(08-20-2014 07:09 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  Never, at any time or anywhere in over 30 years of reading about Mary Lincoln, have I ever heard that she opposed the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln scholar, Professor Allen C. Guelzo, wrote in his book, “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America,” Simon & Schuster, Copyright 2004, 2005 (paperback edition), pages 204 -05:

The next day, New Year’s Day, dawned with “scare a cloud . . . to obscure the brilliant rays of light emitted from the great alchemist.” Lincoln had “never retired that night,” and early in the morning, he walked down the corridor from the family quarters of the White House to his office and wrote out his final revision with Chase’s closing.

He covered three long sheets of paper, saving himself the trouble of writing in one instance by pasting two paragraphs from a previously printed circular onto the first page as an insertion. But he would wait for an official copy to be made before signing it, as he only did on state documents, with his full name – Abraham Lincoln. A clerk was summoned to take the written draft over to the State Department for it to be engrossed, and in the meantime Lincoln ate his usual meager breakfast (“an egg, a piece of toast coffee & c,” according to John Hay). Mary Lincoln (who, according to her son Robert “was very much opposed to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation”) appeared in the doorway, “inquiring in her quick sharp way, ‘Well, what do you intend doing?’” Lincoln only looked upwards, “as to heaven,” and replied, “I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise.”

Secretary of State Seward arrived with the engrossed copy for Lincoln’s signature just after midmorning: But here matters stalled. With his lawyer’s eye, Lincoln noticed that the closing subscription in the engrossed copy contained an error. It read: “In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my name and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.” The draft had omitted the usual subscription form, leaving that technicality to be supplied by the State-Department’s copyist, who dutifully wrote it out in what he thought was the desired form. But it was not. Setting his name to a document in testimony was what he did in the subscription of treaties; setting his hand was what he did in witness whereof to presidential proclamations—calling out the first troops, announcing the blockade, setting aside days of fasting and prayer—and that was what he wanted here. He could not let this error pass, not with this Proclamation, which would be scrutinized down to the last syllable like no other document he had written in his life. And so Seward and the botched copy were sent back to the State Department for a corrected one.

Professor Michael Burlingame published his material containing the very same Mary Lincoln quote in 2008, in “Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Vol. Two, pages 468-69. This was four years after Professor Guelzo’s book was first published in 2004. I prefer the Professor Allen C. Guelzo version. It is much more informative.

And, I never quite understood Lincoln’s shortened reply to Mary’s question ("Well, what do you intend doing?") in Professor Burlingame’s book: “I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise.” By contrast, Professor Guelzo wrote above: Lincoln only looked upwards, “as to heaven,” and replied, “I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise.”

This was meant to inform Mary Todd Lincoln that President Abraham Lincoln was doing God’s work.

I do not have access to the footnote source reference used by Professor Guelzo since I used Google books and the footnote material was not available to me.

[Eva Elisabeth]

"Lincoln only looked upwards, 'as to heaven' This was meant to inform Mary Todd Lincoln that President Abraham Lincoln was doing God’s work." - wow. Just an aside, David, if you study a bit physiology and psychology, you will discover that when you are visualizing images, scenes, or similar in your mind, the eyes/the view will move up. That even goes for atheists, and for more trivial situations in life than signing the EP.

However, would "I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise” not imply to you that he himself was opposed to what he was doing and just acting against his will as a puppet on God's or whoever's string? Would that make any sense to you?

[Gene C]

Can't speak for David, but I don't agree with you on this Eva.
Regardless, I agree with you and Toia, Fido and I are also of the opinion that it is very questionable whether this discussion quoted below between Abraham and Mary ever took place

---

Lincoln scholar, Professor Allen C. Guelzo, wrote in his book, “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America,” Simon & Schuster, Copyright 2004, 2005 (paperback edition), pages 204 -05:

Mary Lincoln (who, according to her son Robert “was very much opposed to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation”) appeared in the doorway, “inquiring in her quick sharp way, ‘Well, what do you intend doing?’” Lincoln only looked upwards, “as to heaven,” and replied, “I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise.”
[/quote]

Maybe Jason Emerson, Donna McCreary or someone who has made an in depth study on Mary or Robert could weigh in on this

[Eva Elisabeth]

Gene, just to clarify - the point I object is not that I deny he felt (also) acting upon God's will, that might be quite possible, but that he personally seemed opposed to what he was going to do (sign the EP), and that doesn't make sense to me. I think it was his own will, too.

[Gene C]

Sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying

[LincolnToddFan]

Alright then. We have an obscure third hand quote, given in an interview by someone who never met her over 70 years after the fact, quoted as proof by a couple of Lincoln academics that MTL opposed the signing of the Emancipation. Let's also not overlook her "sharp" inquiry to her exhausted and saintly husband on the morning of the day.

Never mind that the vast compilation of MTL's own letters from 1840 to shortly before her death in 1882 make no mention of any hint of disapproval of the EP, not to mention the memoirs of the mulatto woman who was her closest companion in the White House, Elizabeth Keckly.

BettyO, I was squealing like a fangirl reading about your experience on the set of "Lincoln"....how cool! I like and admire Steven Spielberg very much. I wanted to write him a fan letter telling him how much I enjoyed the film...maybe I'll still do it!

And yes, I do realize it wasn't 100% faithful to history. AL entering fallen Richmond on horseback was especially jarring. But since I am able to sift true history from Hollywood embellishment, my enjoyment of the movie was not affected. The acting, the look of the dark, Victorian sets...all of it was spot on, imo.

[RJNorton]

Here is another person's opinion on Mary and emancipation.

Five days after Mary Lincoln's death Jane Grey Swisshelm wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune. She wrote, "In statesmanship she was farther-sighted than he [Lincoln] — was more radically opposed to slavery, and urged him to Emancipation, as a matter of right, long before he saw it as a matter of necessity."

[Wild Bill]

Thanks Roger. I knew I had read something about Mary being the real antislaverite in the Lincoln family years ago. I never could find it again until now.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-21-2014 04:49 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  "Lincoln only looked upwards, 'as to heaven' This was meant to inform Mary Todd Lincoln that President Abraham Lincoln was doing God’s work." - wow. Just an aside, David, if you study a bit physiology and psychology, you will discover that when you are visualizing images, scenes, or similar in your mind, the eyes/the view will move up. That even goes for atheists, and for more trivial situations in life than signing the EP.

However, would "I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise” not imply to you that he himself was opposed to what he was doing and just acting against his will as a puppet on God's or whoever's string? Would that make any sense to you?

Who were the orders from? Seward? Stanton? Somebody on the street? Lincoln wrote the original emancipation proclamation over time in the telegraph office. He asked Eckert to keep the papers in his drawer while he was working on them. Who do you think was giving him the orders to write the emancipation proclamation? I don't think it was McClellan. Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States.

[Eva Elisabeth]

I know, David. I'm afraid you missed my point.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-21-2014 09:54 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  And yes, I do realize it wasn't 100% faithful to history. AL entering fallen Richmond on horseback was especially jarring. But since I am able to sift true history from Hollywood embellishment, my enjoyment of the movie was not affected.

Leslie Stahl is a pretty smart woman. But she introduced the 60 Minutes segment on Spielbergs's "Lincoln" movie with these words: "The film is filled with things about our 16th President that we, who are not Lincoln scholars, did not know."

After seeing Spielberg's "Lincoln" movie, would your granddaugher know that portion of the film showing "AL entering fallen Richmond on horseback" was not true? Of course, you could correct for her the misinformation. But are you intending to make it your life's work with all of the other little girls and little boys in the South who see the free "Lincoln" DVD at school to correct this single misstatement of historical fact? Are there any other major historical blunders within the movie that you intend to correct only for your granddaughter?

And, for your information, since I did not see the movie (only the movie trailers and some small clips on shows such as Bill Moyer's), I was unaware that this scene was in the movie.

---

(08-22-2014 09:50 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I know, David. I'm afraid you missed my point.

Sorry, I posted my response to your comment before reading the response by Gene C. and your clarifying response to him.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-22-2014 10:15 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  After seeing Spielberg's "Lincoln" movie, would your granddaugher know that portion of the film showing "AL entering fallen Richmond on horseback" was not true? Of course, you could correct for her the misinformation. But are you intending to make it your life's work with all of the other little girls and little boys in the South who see the free "Lincoln" DVD at school to correct this single misstatement of historical fact? Are there any other major historical blunders within the movie that you intend to correct only for your granddaughter?

There are not only little boys and girls at school, there's also a teacher who will know how to handle such media. Please see post #27.

[L Verge]

Eva - I think I understand your point that Lincoln was hesitant about issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (at least at that point), BUT he was being "forced" into doing it by others. And, I would hazard a guess that those others included the Republican political machinery that was smelling an election coming up in 1864 that they needed to win. In order to win, they needed to please influential supporters - many of whom were strong abolitionists. Money and politics are a dangerous combination, IMO.

Lincoln may have been President of the United States, but that doesn't mean he acted alone. There were assorted pressures brought on him throughout his term. From the standpoint of prestige, wealth, influence, and abolition, I would guess that William H. Seward was one of the stronger pressures in the fall of 1862. Not only did he fit those four criteria I just listed, but Seward (as Secretary of State) had to do what he could to keep foreign powers, especially Great Britain, from coming to any further aid with the Confederacy. The slavery issue was a big factor in that.

I also wonder if Lincoln didn't hesitate a bit because he knew that the common folk (who comprised the great majority of the Union foot soldiers) would balk at the thought of emancipating those who would, at some point, compete with them in the work place. By stopping Lee's first advance into Northern territory, he probably had the soldiers feeling a little relieved -- and now he was going to hit them with this. The war was no longer about just reunification. His soldiers were being asked to fight for something that they might not believe in.

Would it be rude of me to suggest that Mr. Lincoln wasn't taking orders from God or his wife? Since I consider him a prime pragmatist (as I have said before), he was reluctantly following his political instincts.