Posted on 11/16/2012 7:29:27 AM PST by Kaslin
Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” is a different film than one would expect from the brilliant filmmaker responsible for unforgettable films like “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan.” Unlike those two features, “Lincoln” takes place on a much smaller scale.
When its trailer arrived in theaters several months ago, many viewers undoubtedly believed that the film would attempt to tell Abraham Lincoln’s complete story, focusing on a young Illinois lawyer who became president and saved the Union from self-destruction. But this movie isn’t about that, nor is it simply a noble and simplistic tribute to the 16th President. The film is, instead, a well-told story about a good man who cajoled, manipulated and bravely fought to end slavery through the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. p>
Despite the fact that the North was winning the Civil War when the amendment was passionately debated in Congress a few months after Lincoln's reelection, its passage was far from assured. To pass it, the president and his team of former rivals would have to overcome naysayers, pacifists and Democrats alike who were willing to do whatever was necessary to prevent it from becoming law.
The film begins with a brief battle sequence that shows the noble president watching as soldiers prepare for engagement. In the midst of the fighting, young men- who may lose their lives in a matter of moments—look lovingly at the quiet figure who sits above them. Like fans approaching their idol, they quote back to Lincoln portions of the Gettysburg Address and stand in quiet wonder at a man who they recognize is forever changing the course of their country.
As the film continues, it focuses less on the battlefield of war and more on the political landscape where the fight to pass the amendment is taking place. Instead of the grim details of war, Spielberg puts the camera in the dark halls of Congress where threats, manipulations and lies are all used to get legislators to say yes.
As the inevitable victory of the North over the South approaches, some legislators and members of Lincoln’s administration- including Secretary of State and one-time political rival William Steward (David Strathairn)—argue fervently that ending the war quickly should be their highest priority. Ending slavery, they state, is a secondary concern. Others, including the powerful Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) are more focused on punishing the South after the war than anything else.
Lincoln rejects both ideas. He rejects the idea that ending the war at the cost of enduring more years of slavery is necessary and he disputes the notion that punishing the South after the war has ended is a noble goal. He is a man who yearns for peace but who is unwilling to compromise his values to achieve it.
Throughout the movie, Lincoln is depicted as something we don’t often view him as: a politician. Like a great politician, he is able to tell a grand story to a group of people with each believing that the story was intended for them. But unlike many politicians, Lincoln was—at considerable risk to both his political fortunes and his legacy— willing to fight for an unpopular position simply because above everything else, he knew it was right.
Many will likely dislike how Spielberg has settled his story around something as seemingly simple as the passage of an amendment. But in deciding to tell the story on a small scale, the director has brought attention to Lincoln the man-- rather than Lincoln the legend-- and made this great leader into a relatable figure who achieved greatness by never backing down from the principle that all men should be free.
Yeah, why weren’t you speaking of slavery? That’s a curious fact about the causes of the war that people like you conveniently ignore or gloss over. The south instigated the war. Not Lincoln. It did it to try to keep slavery. No slavery, no war.
In all sincerity, I can see you need professional help.
Yeah right, why argue facts when you can call names? Have a nice day.
Absolutely spot on.
“He presided over the deaths of 625,000 Americans who killed each other in the 1861–1865 war (Civil War, War of Northern Aggression - take your pick). Not to mention the more than 300,000 wounded.
A great president would have found a less bloody way to resolve the conflict.”
As a southerner, I totally agree. A great President would have avoided bloodshed and brought the nation back together. I can think of a number of ways to have done that.
“It did it to try to keep slavery. No slavery, no war.”
Sad that you went to public schools and got brainwashed into thinking so shallow.
What name do you think I called you?
I just reread my comments on this thread and don't see where I called anyone names.
Sorry, I went to parochial schools for twelve years. Have a nice day sir.
Ofc there was a fervent desire to punish the south by many in the North. However, the powers that be in the case of Sherman’s March to the Sea (Lincoln, Grant and Sherman) were not in that group. Lincoln, as you should be aware, was busy talking about ways to bring the country back together after the war. And that did not include anything that resembled reconstruction. After the fall of Richmond, when a jubilant crowd came up to the white house for a speech, Lincoln underwhelmed the crowd with his vision for reconciliation and not vengeance.
Sherman used to live and teach and in the south. He didn’t hate them. And his plan was made out of the recognition that the civilians enabled the war. You can’t have men fighting without them being armed, clothed and fed.
Grant, to my knowledge showed no such desire for vengeance. In fact, a quote of his during the Mexican-American war, was that he didn’t want war, but if fighting was to break out, that he hoped it would end as quickly as possible and both sides go back to being friends again. During the civil war, I believe his actions, especially the final surrender terms for the Army of Northern Virginia, showed that his attitude about being friends again, didn’t change.
Was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was it necessary to firebomb Tokyo and Dresden? People will no doubt be arguing such things for generations to come. And so it will be with Civil War. I merely stated that imo, revenge was not the reason it was done.
There was sniping being done on shipping once Vicksburg had fallen and the Union started to use the Mississippi again. Some Confederates decided to deny the north unfettered access to the river and attacked shipping. But they did so secretly. They were using guerilla war tactics. The response was swift. The Union showed up to the nearest town, rounded up 10 able bodied, war aged men at random. And then executed them for the attacks. iirc, the attacks stopped.
General Butler also ordered that hostile women in New Orleans, be treated as prostitutes if they disrespected union forces. At the time, those women were openly defiant and would even go so far as to empty their chamber pots on union soldiers walking the streets below them. For this “atrocity” the South put a bounty on the “beast”, Gen. Butler. I guess this was a pretty severe way to treat women in that day and age, judging by the south’s response. Again, the effect was that the women stopped being openly disrespectful and hostile towards the Union.
FYI, the Wolverines in Germany who were resisting occupation in 1946 that you refer to, also stopped their activity when German men were rounded up at random and executed for attacks against Americans.
You can be mad about such tactics, but in all three cases above, the Union/America achieved its goals with such use of force. As for the German officers being executed for similar acts, I can only say we had a double standard. I guess that is a luxury you have when you are the victor.
I wasn’t referring to the postwar Wolverines of Germany.
I was referring to the Nazi policy of executing villagers in areas where partisans were active.
That was a war crime that resulted in the execution of German officers. And it was no different than the murder of Southern civilians by Sherman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.