Transcripts For CSPAN3 The Civil War 20140913

Symposium which is about 45 minutes. Mattr next speaker is thinkpinksner. He is a professor at Dickinson College which is the alma mater of both president buchanan and the chief justice. , for what that is worth. The author of a number of books and articles, including lincolns sanctuary which is a history of the soldiers home in lincolns sanctuary which is a history of the soldiers home where lincoln would go during the summer and he is the author of a forthcoming book which i think will radically force us to think about lincoln in a new way. Its hard to imagine anything that could force us to think about lincoln in a new way since there is so much on lincoln that what else is there to say . His new book will be called boss lincoln and he is going to look at lincoln as a party and president ial leader. Ill turn the podium over to matt pinsker and also let him talk to us about mr. Spielberg and lincoln goes to hollywood. Well, thank you very much. To paul and don and everyone here, it is an honor to be at a symposium like this and speak about spielbergs lincoln is important for us to do. This is a movie that is now about a year and a half old and not just a biopic about Abraham Lincoln but a really fascinating study of congress. For those of us who care about the history of congress this is a welcome event for Popular Culture to celebrate congress. The title of my talk i connected to mr. Smith goes to washington because i feel there is a dark connection between them in the sense both of these classics, spielbergs lincoln is an instant american classic and mr. Smith is. Both of them depict congress in a very dark way. I think we should acknowledge that. In spielbergs case i want to explore it deeper. It is a year and a half since the movie came out and the historical reception from people in my profession was generally very positive. There were criticisms, important ones, but some of them were large as if the subject matter was wrong. It was the wrong subject or the wrong people to feature in a movie about the abolition of slavery. That is fair but such a big criticism it is hard for a film maker to address. There were a lot of small potatoes criticisms some of which came from capitol hill itself over things like whether or not the congressman from connecticut voted for or against the final amendment. Those criticisms are fair but very precise. Now as a classroom teacher as i prepare to teach this movie and i have to teach it because its such a vivid portrayal of the period, ive been compelled to think a little more deeply about the nature of the narrative itself and in doing so, you know, i cant escape the conclusion that at the end of the day in the passage of the 13th amendment, the abolition amendment in congress in january of 65 at the heart of that narrative there is a conclusion it was passed with bribery. That not only was it passed with bribery but it was passed with bribery that Abraham Lincoln knew about and condoned. And i find that a very disturbing conclusion because theres been a lot of scholarship on this question and the scholarship addresses this question although its far, far more cautious about reaching the conclusions the movie reaches. I dont think people have realized it. I dont think the historians who commented on the movies release in the immediate months after it came out really addressed this in great detail. I think thats because almost all of them from what i can tell watched the movie. They didnt read the script. The script wasnt readily available sex ept to Academy Award voters and it was hard to get ahold of it. Now that i am preparing to teach it and worked with the script in great detail i find examples of other connections to movies like mr. Smith in that i see the fiction that is at the heart of this narrative. This is a work of historical fiction. I dont think anybody should be shocked by that and i dont mean it as an insult but i wanted to talk about that today and sort of diagram it for you. The fictions are very sweeping. Even the spoiler alert. The amendment did pass and slavery was abolished. All of that is true. To get there from the opening of the movie they had to arrange a lot of movies. Ill go through that now. You should be aware it is part of my effort to help teach this movie and i think we should teach it and study it and use it. Ive created an unofficial guide, teachers guide to the movie thats part of something we call Dickinson College the house divided project which i lead, the emancipation digital classroom. So if you google the emancipation digital classroom you will be able to see an unofficial teachers guide to lincoln that includes links to everything im about to talk about with primary sources and images and even links to the script so you can explore this issue for yourself. Let me remind you if you cant remember how the movie begins. Of course there is that great cinematic frame. Youve got the kind of seated lincoln in the Washington Navy yard and the black soldier and white soldier recite the gettysburg address to him. This is part of the poetic frame of the movie and a cinematic lincoln memorial. Seated lincoln with the gettysburg address on one side and at the end of the movie the second inaugural. The heart of the movie narrative opens with him describing a dream to his wife. In that description of the dream you realize in early january of 1865 that he is preparing to push for an abolition amendment to the constitution during the lame duck session of congress. This is a shock. Mary lincoln opposes it. Youll waste your popularity she warns him. When he explains to William Seward and congressman james ashley on capitol hill theyre worried and shocked. This is a dramatic and sort of surprising move. That is all fiction. You know, the reintroduction of the amendment that had been defeated the previous spring is real. It was all telegrafd out in the open. This is not a surprise and something lincoln comes up with in a way that was shocking to people. In his annual message in december of 1864 after he won that sweeping reelection victory he telegrafd it to the public and boasted about it you might say. Im reading from the annual message the state of the Union Address they delivered back then when congress reassembled for its session after the election in december, 64. He says to congress the next congress will pass the measure if this does not. So then he says it is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the states. I read the next line almost as a taunt. You might read it differently. He says, may we not agree the sooner the better . Lets get this done. The telegrafg of this reintroduction of the amendment during the lame duck session was done earlier than the post election annual message. The vote in the house, the previous june in 1864, that had been a vote that was supported by all of the republican members of congress. It failed because they required the super majority and the super majority that they required meant that they needed democrats to vote for it. They didnt have enough democrats but in order to reintroduce the measure, later in the session presumably after the election because they dont reassemble again until december, james ashley the amendments sponsor switched his vote at the last minute so that he voted no. He is the only republican who voted against it in the house. In order that he could bring it back up in january. When he recalls after the war his strategy he makes it clear, right, that they had known all along this would be something that they were making a platform of the now union party in the election of 1864. They were supporting an abolition amendment, going to fight for it during the campaign, and that if they won a sweeping victory as they hoped to do they would reintroduce it in a lame duck session. He spent the next several months after the defeated measure in the house and it already passed the senate that they were going to pin point, target, wavering democrats in the north, try to persuade them to switch their votes, and then afinogenov them in december. This is what lincoln is telegraphing in his annual message. It is now all out in the open. This is not the impression the movie gives. It gives the impression the republicans are bitterly divided over this and early on you get introduced to Montgomery Blair and his father Francis Preston blair. You know, the blair family are opposed. None of thats true, right . There were conservative republicans and there were radical republicans. They argue bitterly over a lot of stuff but by january of 1865 they were not arguing necessarily over the abolition of slavery. There were differences in tactics. So one of the speakers of the symposium is michael bornberg. He is sitting right over there. His book the final freedom which came out a number of years ago offers great detail about the nuances of the debates over how to abolish slafry and how the republicans came to it but by january of 65 the Republican Party was essentially united in the idea slavery had to be abolished and they were more or less agreed it had to be abolished by constitutional amendment and even those who objected to the exact amendment or its language they werent willing to vote against it. The only votes they were targeting were democratic votes, not conservative republicans. The conservatives and radicals were arguing over reconstruction, over what happens next after the union has reconciled. Those arguments were fierce and bitter and theyre real but when the movie portrays this tension between conservative and radical republicans with lincoln in the middle, its conflating two different issues that should be separated. You know, this plays out in a host of different ways. I dont have time to go into all of it. Classic scene, arguably the most teachable scene in the movie at least for a college professor. So there is this meeting of the cabinet where Abraham Lincoln defends his emancipation policy and explains to skeptical cabinet officers why they need to push for this abolition amendment and it is like a cinematic version of the famous painting by francis carpenter which you see on the senate side of the capital on the cover of the book the team of rivals and this is teachable, Abraham Lincoln bringing to life complicated constitutional arguments. Ive seen people, historians thrilled in their reviews celebrating this. We should. Okay . That scene, circa summer of 1862, has nothing to do with the politics of the moment in january of 1865. What theyre talking about in the summer of 62 is about the threat of the Supreme Court still at that point controlled by roger taney and the votes they need arent clear but by january of 65 taney is dead. Simon chase is the next chief justice, the fugitive slaves lawyer. This is a court they now have the votes to control. They are still worried about the ultimate legality of the emancipation proclamation and the slaves there but the dynamic has shifted dramatically. There is a lot thats changed. In january of 65 maryland has abolished slavery by popular vote. Missouri is about to by constitutional convention. The confederates are talking about offering limited emancipation for service in the army. Things have changed. This is not a debate they would have in the cabinet in the way that Steven Spielberg envision it and portray it. It is such a wonderful thing to see. A film, you know, addressing such complicated issues but the timing is all wrong. Theyve conflated everything. The reason theyve done that from a dramatic perspective from an Artistic License perspective is totally understandable. Right . They need to create drama and tension and set up conflict. Act one. Screen writing 101. You set up tension a know then resolve it. Need to do that. But in getting to the resolution of this conflict between the conservatives and the radicals, they have to introduce something that doesnt actually appear in the book thats the basis for the film. So the film is supposedly built around the team of rivals. Doris kearns goodwins book. In the team of rivals the socalled seward lobby doesnt appear. These are the lobbyists that were hired by secretary of state William Seward to help secure passage of the 13th amendment. Theyre not even in the team of rivals. Theyre in the book final freedom and in other books. There is a really terrific, detailed depiction shun of the seward lobby in an old book pie john cox, politics, principle, and prejudice. If you want to read it the chapter on the seward lobby is masterful and freely Available Online through the internet archive. This lobby was real. The characters depicted in the movie are real. James spader the actor plays the tennessee attorney, real guy. Okay . There is Robert Lathum and richard shell. These are real figures. But the actual behavior of the seward lobby is totally different from the po trail on screen. So for example you remember if you saw this movie these are like shakespearian characters. This is james spader is fallstaff, funny guys, drinkers, gamblers, seedy, at this squirrel infested hotel in these dark rooms, bribing congressmen, the worst kind of, you know, stereotypical lobbyists. But in reality, okay, in reality bilbo, straight out of the cox chapter, he was known for his elaborate waist coats, long side burns and elegant manners. You remember james spader in that movie. He did not have elegant manners. Bilbo was this prominent wig attorney from tennessee who switched sides in the mid of the war. He is interesting and elusive and nefarious in some ways but also not obscure. He knew Abraham Lincoln. We have letters in the lincoln papers. They had met each other and discussed strategy in november and december of 1864. He didnt live in a squirrel infested hotel. When he was in washington he roomd with another congressman and when he was in new york where he spent most of the time, in january of 1865, he stayed at the st. Nicholas hotel, the finest hotel at the time in manhattan. Robert lathum and richard sell were old friends of William Seward. They have a long history with him. Theyre prominent businessmen and investors. A little shady ill admit but who in wall street isnt or wasnt . But nonetheless theyre prominent, familiar guys. And when they were engaged in the lobbying effort, you know, the work they did was almost exclusively in new york, not in washington. When you read books like mike warnbergs or the coxes you realize what they were doing was mostly influence the democratic press in new york. Because if you could influence the democratic press in new york, through the operations of the governor, you could affect those swing votes, the swing democratic votes in the state of new york. It turns out at the end of the day the lame duck democrats theyre going to switch over, 2 3 of them are going to come from new york and pennsylvania and what theyre trying to do in january of 65 is affect the climate that allows democrats in states like new york and pennsylvania and connecticut to switch their votes. In the movie theyre bribing these guys. You know, in the worst possible way. You know, james spader says at one point, congressmen come cheap. He makes all of these jokes about it. In practice we dont really know. We dont really know. If you read scholarship on this question theyre very reluctant to draw conclusions. You at one point Robert Lathum one of the seward lobbyists writes in a letter we actually have where he says, about the passage of the amendment and the targeting of the lame ducks, he says, money will certainly do it if patriotism fails. Money will certainly do it if patriotism fails. That is a line that should have been in the movie. Of course it wasnt. I dont understand why not. I cant tell from the letter whether he was kidding or not. It is quite possible its tongue in cheek and also possible he was serious. You know, the scholars who looked at this will point out that there is all kinds of evidence that they had money available and of course we know there was corruption in the 19th century congress. But at the end of the day they denied they were bribing congressmen. There is this letter from richard shell after it was all over. He gets approached by somebody who is sent from secretary of state sewards office to get an accounting of their expenses. And he responds indignantly to this in a letter that we have to Frederick Seward the secretarys son and top assistant. He says, a gentleman called to have me give an account of expenses which amount to nothing, he said. At any time i could be of service to the honorable secretary of state or yourself i will do all i can, but at my own expense. He goes on to talk about the importance of the issue and the patriotism of the moment. It could mean he bribed people out of his own pocket. We dont know. Almost all of the stories of the bribery that allegedly occurred in january of 65 are accounts of recollected years after the fact. I in fact dont give them most credit. Its certainly not clear at all that any of them were apparent to Abraham Lincoln. The seward lobby that seward had activated is actually in motion in new york on his own initiative in many ways. Im not clear lincoln was involved much at all in that business. He was lobbying border state representatives like James Rollins who doesnt appear in the movie but was one of the swing votes. Seward is operating in new york at this moment without even the apparent partnership of philip weed. He thought this was a misfake. Not clear at all he was involved even in this much of the operation. Now, i think theres Something Else going on with seward, and ill talk about that a little bit later. But this is not the impression the Lincoln Movie gets. You remember in the Lincoln Movie, the seward lobbyists hired and they operate independent of lincoln and at a certain important, he meets with them in their swill infested seedy attic of a hotel room, and he makes a comment on how to get things done, and later when he hears about their efforts to bribe a congressman from ohio named clay hawkins, he says, this is the guy who goes bird hunting with james spader and hes got this dopey look on his face through most of the movie, sort of young, foolish congressman from ohio whos bribed with a post mastership from millersberg, ohio. Thats the deal, hes going to be a post master. Lincoln says in the movie, he is selling himself cheap, aint he. Selling himself cheap. This is the impression my students are going to have of Abraham Lincoln for years to come, but you know, theres no congressman named clay hawkins. Theres a congressman from ohio, a lame duck democrat who switched his vote on the amendment. His name was wells hutchens. He was not a fool. And he wasnt bribed, as far as i can tell. Theres no patronage position for him after he switched. This is a very independent minded tough democrat, kind of a hero in some respects in the wars, from ohio. Hes votes to abolish slavery in the District Of Columbia in 1862. He supports habeas corpus. Thats why he was a lame duck. He had principles and he acted on them and thats why he was leaving office, but hes not a fool who goes bird hunting with james spader or William Bilbo and gets bribed to the post mastership, and certainly nng lincoln knew about, but yet thats the impression the movie leaves them. You know, like i said, its understandable that they take Artistic License and have comic relief. I can appreciate that as long as people realize what it is. Its also true thats why the tension between the radicals and the conservatives is really hammered home with their very memorable depiction of Thaddeus Stevens. Tommy lee jones. You know, Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens is one of the stars of the movie. I in particular was have been riveted by the scene you might remember in the middle of the movie, stevens and lincoln end up in the white house kitchen after a reception where mary lincoln has a confrontation with him. The reception is real. This is in the middle of january, but the scene in the kitchen is all invented. The scene in the kitchen, the script writer has lincoln and stevens engage in a debate about tactics. For me, this is in a nutshell what you see hollywood do so well and also do so wrong. So in the scene in this debate about tactics, theres a profound insight that lincoln offers to stevens, a kind of lesson about the difference between pragmatism and radicalism. And theyre debating tablctics d lincoln says to him, a compass, i learned when i was surveying, it will point you true north from where youre standing but it has no advice about the swamps and deserts and the chasms. You know, thats true. Okay. But i dont think thats anything that lincoln and stevens would have said to each other. You know, we have this cartoonish view of stevens and the Popular Culture from movies like the birth of nation and now from lincoln that depict him as this radical, wildeyed figure, but he was a pragmatic politician just like Abraham Lincoln. He doesnt come from the new england states. He comes from lancaster, pennsylvania, where hes representing a Congressional District near the Mason Dixon Line that had produced james buchanan. This is not a place where hes immune to popular pressure. He says i shit on the people, he says that, he wouldnt do that in real life. Lincoln and stevens had known each other for years. I could document that in a way that would be really special at a symposium like this because they first met in the summer of 1848, and they met when Abraham Lincoln was a congressman. He served in congress for one term, and during that one term, he spent almost his entire service in congress trying to get Zachary Taylor elected as president. That was his ambition. And he goes to the Whig National convention in philadelphia and he meets stevens who had at to time was a lawyer from lancaster, but who was about to become a candidate for congress and about to Enter Congress as a whig, and lincoln writes him a letter in september, right before hes about to leave. Its so revealing and it shows them, i think, in such a rich light that its worth reminding ourselves about. He writes him on september 3rd, 1848. D dear sir, you may possibly remember seeing me at the philadelphia convention, introduced to you as the lone whig star of illinois. I have remained here so long in the whig document room, now, there are people in the room who know what hes talking about, but this is such an insightful reference. Hes been in the whig document room in the summer of 1848. What is he doing . Hes literally sitting in a small room here in the capitol, signing his name to political pamphlets that theyre franking out at taxpayer expense for the whig campaign operation. Hes the workhorse of the whig Congressional Committee which is run by a congressman from connecticut, and lincoln as the firstterm congressman from illinois, the only whig from illinois, the lone star, hes proving his worth to the National Operators by being their workhorse. He sits in the document room and franks out 15,000 pamphlets. Hes got to sign his name to all of them. He is the most or one of the most frequent users of the franking privilege burg that session of congress. Thats why hes rising as a political operative, because hes a workhorse. Hes writing articles, correcting mistakes in the general whig newspapers across the country. He writes Horace Greely from the new york tribune and corrects one of his mistakes and hes reaching out to people, they didnt have rolodexes, but hes working his rolodex, reaching out to people he met. He asks stevens, im about to start for home. I desire the experienced opinion of a politician as to how the vote of that state for governor and president is likely to go. And listen to how smooth this is. In casting about for such a man, i have settled upon you. And i shall be much obliged if you could write me in springfield, illinois. This is Abraham Lincoln working his network, and stevens responds just as fluidly. He responds by calling Abraham Lincoln the wise one and asking for him about information for his state, and stevens at that time was a abolitionist, a supporter of the underground railroad, but his advice was utterly pragmatic. We have to reach out to the know nothings, the nativists, the anticatholics and infuse with them. This is a footnote, but its worth mentioning. 1848 is this wonderful moment where people like Thaddeus Stevens, Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Steven are all young, rising whigs who are supporting taylor and working together. It was stevens who was one of the confederate peace commissioners lincoln is dealing with in the end. When we thing of the civil war in military terms, we talk about the mexican war as a precursor, a prelude, but the congress that lincoln served in has Horace Greely and Alexander Stevens and sidelines waiting to enter. This is part of lincolns story. Its a preview for him of what is to come. You know, i dont imagine that tony kushner or Steven Spielberg could have worked all this background in somehow to the movie. Im not complaining they didnt, but all this background is important to understand what is really going on. And the details matter. They know the details matter. If you look back at the Lincoln Movie, youll realize the purpose of the scene in the kitchen is to give lincoln credit for changing stevens mind. They have this debate in the kitchen and argue over tactics and talk about compasses and maps and stevens is talking about shittin orshitting on the and a week later, and hes being race baited by democrats about what would happen after abolition, stevens says he only supports equality under the law. Thats a powerful scene, and mary lincoln points out who would have thought this old man would have ever come around in that fashion, but the problem with that scene from the historical record is it never happened. Thats all invented. We have a congressional globe and we see the passages from the debate. That scene isnt there. Stevens did Say Something just like that on january 5th, 1865, after they got the official report of the annual message when they come back from the christmas break and hes responding to the debates over lincolns prophecy in december that they would, you know, debate this new amendment, and the republicans on capitol hill are trying to actually, its complicated, but theyre trying to sort of play for a time for a day while they wait for the members show up, and the next day, ashley is going to introduce into the record the abolition amendment, and stevens is race baited on january 5th and he responds all i support is equality under the law. He did that without prompting by lincoln. In the movie, lincoln is the hero. In the movie, stevens is, you know, an important foil. He has more speaking parts than anybody else but lincoln. If you go back to team arrivals, theres only four index entries for Thaddeus Stevens. If you look at mikes book, stevens is there more frequently, but far less frequently than the Senate Author or james ashley. He doesnt play the same pivotal role. Stevens is a marginal figure in that book. You know, we all acknowledge his importance, but in the narrative of the movie, he is so central because hes straight out of hollywood central casting. You know, with the wig and the club foot and the crusty demeanor and even the black mistress. Youve got it all working. Its perfect. But thats why hes there. And thats why this is there. You know, i think the kitchen scene has another profound truth in it. I wanted to point this out and maybe if someone wants to follow up, we can talk about it more in questions. You know, the kitchen scene is really about the politics of reconstruction, and i think that thats an underlying theme in the movie that they bury. They cant really address because theyre talking about the abolition of slavery. Thats why the peace negotiations seem so important, although i think of them more as a side show, unimportant to the final narrative of the war. There are historians who disagree with this, but the reason why i think the abolition amendment is a story of reconstruction is because you cant remember the rules. And this is so important. Right . In order for an amendment to become part of the constitution, of course, it cant just pass both houses of congress by a supermajority. It has to be ratified by the states, by three fourths of the state. There are 36 states at that time. Three fourths of them would be 27. Of course, thats the question, do you count them all . What about the seceded states . What about the confederates . Theyre not counted in the vote for congress, so should they be counted in the vote for ratification. This is what the politics of january 1865 is about because this is where lincoln is pressing his advantage as a party leader where hes building a union party, not just a Republican Party, for the postwar period because he knows that hes going to be able to take this amendment and press it down the throats of the radicals on the basis that they have to count all 36 states in the math in order to get it as part of the constitution. As he says in his final speech, the one on april 11th, 1865, its the only way this will seem legitimate, if we count the Confederate States in the equation. In order to count them, in order to get the 27 votes they need, theyre going to have to have some of those former Confederate States restored to the union on his basis, on the lower threshold, speedier process for restoration. Not the wade davis process for restoration, not the higher threshold, the one stevens was supporting that would punish the south and revolutionize it. Lincoln is saying to the radicals in effect if you want abolition of slavery to be written into this constitution and irrevocable, were going to have to pursue a policy of reconciliation that goes hand and glove with it. This is what he was fighting over in the final months of the war. The movie doesnt have a chance to convey all of that, and you know, i dont blame them for that and i understand what hollywood has to do. I think spielberg does, too. Again and again, hes been very gracious and modest about pointing out the difference between historical fiction and history, right . His work in lincoln is historical fiction. Sometimes the script writer hasnt been quite as gracious about that. And there is, you know, an exchange he had after the movie came out with congressman courtney from connecticut over this question of how the congressman from connecticut voted on the amendment. In the movie, one of them votes against and all of them voted for it, although one of the lame duck switchers was james english from kektconnecticut, and in th sort of exchange over the complaint, courtney wanted a formal apology from the filmmakers. Horowitz defended the historical accuracy of the movie. He said the 13th amendment passed by a twovote margin in the house of january 1865 because president lincoln decided to push it through using persuasion and patronage to switch the votes of lame duck democrats all the while fending off a serious offer to negotiate peace from the south. None of the key moments from the story our film tells arei . et no altered, nun of them, heklkok r. I guess it depends on what the definition of key is. I think there are a lot of key moment that are altered. The roll call is one of them, but the other one is in the climactic scene on the floor of the house on the day of the vote, january 1st, 1865, they have james spader and john hay running to the white house to get the note from lincoln. None of that happened. The note, we think, is real, though we dont have the original of it. Its a recollection from james ashley, but James Spaders character, William Bilbo, was in new york at the time, at the st. Nicolas hotel. The lobbyists were in new york in the final weeks of the fight working the press. The race scene is just a hollywood chase scene. Its no different than the airport race scene in argo and i have no problem with that, like i said, but key moments in this story are altered. And theyre altered for dramatic reasons. We need to understand that if were going to teach it and appreciate it. I call it fiction and i dont mean it as an insult, but i do think people need to appreciate the difference betweenviction and the record. The record is far more complicated. I think its just as interesting, but it is messier. So with that, i wanted to wrap up my presentation and open it up for questions. I know a lot of people have seen this movie. I hope if i didnt cover a topic you wanted to talk up, you feel free to raise it now. Thank you. [ applause ] yes, um, whether youre talking about ken burns and the civil war or godzilla, movies and television are first and foremost about entertainment. If its not entertainment, it fails. Right. This obviously didnt fail. My question, though, has to do with what do you think about daniel daylewis portrayal of lincoln as a person, not necessarily historically accurate words, but his portrayal . I think thats why the movie is called Abraham Lincoln and not the fight for the 13th amendment. Spielberg wanted to give us lincoln. Did he . Well, i was mesmerized. I have studied lincoln for over 20 years and for me, the movie felt like five minutes. You know, so thats hollywood magic. Thats what it does. I cannot do that in my books. Mike wrote a great book about the 13th amendment. Its not as magical as spielbergs lincoln, and he knows it and i know it, and theres magic involved. What i tried to do today is show you behind the curtain, magic involved deception. Theres deception in daniel daylewis performance and theres a lot of assumptions or premiseses that are wrong or shaky, and people who watch the movie and dont realize that might be confused. I dont think daniel daylewis lincoln is a real lincoln, but i think its a really powerful lincoln. I thought it was the best filmed lincoln i had seen, but the man himself despite all i have read, still remains in many key ways a mystery. So i do have two brief questions. The first is, Thaddeus Stevens who well into the 1960s was the image, if you had an image at all, was this man who whatever his moderate origins was traumatized by the burning of his factory and filled with a hatred of the south and buried in a black cemetery. This may be cut out of whole cloth, that is even more fictitious than the movie, but the other is i have heard other talks about this and there was a scene with lincoln slapping robert, his son, and someone said this could never happen. The movie presented it as the deposition of something that had never happened before and would never happen again. My larger question is isnt any historian, however objective he or she may aspire to be, should they not have their own internal spielberg that leaves scenes out that do not conform with their image of their character just as some of jeffersons biographers until quite recently dismissed any notion of a liaison with sal Sally Hemings because this is not something their Thomas Jefferson would ever do . We all make mistakes and we all interpret. However, we have footnotes and theres a transparency to our work that i dont always think script writers or screenwriters like tony kushner acknowledge. Whether or not they acknowledge it, too many of my students get confused. It seems so real. I guarantee you, theyre going to remember Abraham Lincoln saying he is selling himself cheap about that congressman more than anything else, or that scene in the white house right before the vote where he says, i am the president of the united states. Clothed in immense power. Thats probably something he never said. It comes from a recollection from a congressman. He certainly didnt say it before those people in that moment in that way. In the script, they say he rises to what seemed like 8 feet tall. Im studying him and appreciating him as a party leader, boss lincoln. I understand he has a gritty side, but that depiction to me seems off note. You know, historians have off notes, too. But i think the difference is that we at least try to be transparent about how we got there. I just want to add one footnote to all of your wonderful work and youve done all of us an enormous favor by giving us this paper, but next time you give it, there is the scene where the lobbyists drop the money on the floor. Having spent eight years in albany, new york, i can promise you the fixers from albany dropped the money on the floor. Well, ill yield to Paul Finkelman as the expert on corruption. You know, theres so many details like that that are hard to convey, but all of those lobbying scenes, every single one of them, thats all fiction. None of that comes from the record. There are accounts of bribery. None of those accounts are in the movie. Every single one of those scenes is pure invention from Tony Horowitz. I think thats legitimate Artistic License to a degree, but people need to realize what it is. Hey, matt. As a teacher, i mean, we have an important duty to our students. And its movies like lincoln and gettysburg that draw that desire to learn more. And for us the teachers, we have to give them the tools. Right. To help them depict what is fact and what is not fact. But i think lincoln will have a better i think its more of a positive in that it will hopefully draw people to want to learn more about lincoln. Sure, but you agree with me, right . At the heart of the movie, there is this depiction of bribery that lincoln is not only aware of but he condoned. True. Yeah. Thats pretty dark. I know, its very dark, and you compare it to modernday politics where, you know, you have congress thats been doing Insider Trading for years. Yeah. And all of these other things that lends to support what this movie unfortunately is saying. n puts your finger right on it because everyone including Tony Horowitz and Steven Spielberg are comparing this to modernday politics. Its a lesson more about modern day politics in some ways than 19th century politics. 19th century politics were corrupt, but it was different. Theres a scene on the day of the vote where Fernando Wood is waving papers saying i have affidavits. Thats not 19th century congress. Thats what you realize when you see a movie like lincoln. Or think about mr. Smith goes to washington, almost all of what we think we know about past politics comes from movies. And Popular Culture, and we absorb it so much, we think its real. Thats why its so important to try to sort it out. I dont want to be one of those scholar squirrels that gore vidal used to make fun of, but thats what i have been doing, digging around in the script and pointing out the small differences, but ultimately, they matter. As much as i think youre right, the Lincoln Movie will produce good things, when we teach it, teachers need to be aware of how it departs from what we know about the record. Greg. You need to wait for the microphone. Sorry, how does it skew in terms of younger audiences . Because my experience, which could be which is only anecdotal, when i poll my question classes. Many more have seen django and vampire hunter than lincoln. They see lincoln as a movie for not even their parents, for their grandparents. That could be puculiarities of my students. My line about the vampire hunter is, its not all true. I went to see the Lincoln Movie in the theater three times, and each time i was the youngest one in the room, which i think proves your point, but i do think that even if the kids didnt see it in the theaters, i dont know what the demographics are of the audience, but theyre going to see it in the classroom for a generation if not two. Its going to be powerful and theyre going to get it that way. I teach it and im going to continue to teach it and many others will and its really important that we focus on how they perceive it in the classroom more than anything else. One more question, paul . Okay. If i were you, i would be champing at the bit to try to get the early drafts of the script to see how it developed. I dont think youll get it but it would be really interesting because i bet you anything that those scenes that are less historically accurate were the ones that evolved most. Youre probably right. You know, theres no doubt that the script evolved. According to all the reports we have, it started out as a sweeping narrative of the whole war and i think it was spielberg who said we have to focus on thas moment. Thats why hes such a great story teller. Ill be honest, in my classes, i have had a tendency in the past to pass over the 13th amendment narrative and focus more on the emancipation proclamation. Now because of the movie and because of other works, you know, i feel like im aware in a way that i wasnt of the dramatic potential of the story, even as i note the discrepancies between the record and the film, but thats what great Story Tellers do, they show you drama and moments some of us miss because we dont have those skills. Thats another thing hollywood got right about the 13th youre watching American History tv 48 hours of programming on American History every weekend on cspan3. At cspanon twitter history for information on our schedule, upcoming programs and to but the latest history news. This year, cspan is to a ring cities across the country. Union pacific has been working on this for years. Seeing it arrived here in cheyenne today is nothing but phenomenal. Cheyenne, this big boy is home this big boy is home for many years, a generation of people have asked the question, will a big boy operate . When will the Union Pacific restore a big boy locomotive