Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > History in Films and on Television
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

History in Films and on Television History in Films and on TV - Documentary Films, Historical Dramas, and history programs on PBS and the History Channel


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 27th, 2012, 04:05 AM   #31

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by skizzerflake View Post
I thought it was pretty good at accuracy FOR A MOVIE. That's an important distinction. Movies by necessity must condense dialog, events and characters in order to tell a story in 2 hours, not bore movie goers and not confuse people who don't already know who all the characters are. Lincoln was bordering on being too talky for contemporary audiences that are used to vampire hunters, but DD Lewis's characterization seemed mesmerizing enough to make it work.

Whatever details were missed in things like who was in a meeting or how many people knocked on the White House door on Feb 2, 1865 are made up for by an epic characterization of Lincoln and his associates and a clear exposition the craziness of the political process. That's as good as it gets in movies. I wish they could all do it as well as Lincoln.
I agree completely. The "inaccuracies" I know of in the movie are simply a matter of making it work on a limited size movie screen and in a limited timeframe. As in the example I cited earlier of Lincoln's conversation with Grant about letting the Confederate leaders escape the country, the raw details were altered, but the general historical context was adhered to.

But that's not to say there couldn't be more significant inaccuracies that I don't know of. A lot of the action was behind the scenes stuff that doesn't appear in the history books. I thought perhaps the poster I was responding to knew something that I didn't.
Rongo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 27th, 2012, 05:24 PM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,628

The acting and scenes were great. Generally pretty realistic. Agreed where it was inaccurate it was mostly for effect and the make it work as a movie.

Story was a little disjointed and focus was on 13th Ammendment rather than conduct of the war. Think it was a good movie, but not great.
betgo is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 03:25 AM   #33

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Was the scene about the peace group accurate? Did the Union Army send Black soldiers to greet them? And were the men shown in the movie the men who went in real life? I guess I am wondering if Judah Benjamin was part of that group?
Yankee is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 03:49 AM   #34

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Was the scene about the peace group accurate? Did the Union Army send Black soldiers to greet them? And were the men shown in the movie the men who went in real life? I guess I am wondering if Judah Benjamin was part of that group?
I don't know if black troops were sent to greet them, but there were a lot of black troops in the Army of the Potomac at this time, mostly serving in behind the lines detail like this. So it would be very possible black troops were there.

The peace commissioners shown were correct: Stephens, Hunter and Campbell, and nobody else.
Rongo is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 03:07 AM   #35

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

I see the movie has prompted our neo-Confederate friend, Thomas DiLorenzo, to come out with more of his infamous fraudulent claims. I'll quote his lies in this post, then post the truth in the following post.

Here's DiLorenzo:

Quote:
Steven Spielberg’s new movie, Lincoln, is said to be based on several chapters of the book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns-Goodwin, who was a consultant to Spielberg. The main theme of the movie is how clever, manipulative, conniving, scheming, lying, and underhanded Lincoln supposedly was in using his "political skills" to get the Thirteenth Amendment that legally ended slavery through the U.S. House of Representatives in the last months of his life. This entire story is what Lerone Bennett, Jr. the longtime executive editor of Ebony magazine and author of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, calls a "pleasant fiction." It never happened.

It never happened according to the foremost authority on Lincoln among mainstream Lincoln scholars, Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, the recipient of several Pulitzer prizes for his historical writings, including a biography of Lincoln. David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s. On page 545 of his magnus opus, Lincoln, Donald notes that Lincoln did discuss the Thirteenth Amendment with two members of Congress – James M. Ashley of Ohio and James S. Rollins of Missouri. But if he used "means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteeth Amendment," the theme of the Spielberg movie, "his actions are not recorded. Conclusions about the President’s role rested on gossip . . ."

Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that even one Democratic member of Congress changed his vote on the Thirteenth Amendment (which had previously been defeated) because of Lincoln’s actions. Donald documents that Lincoln was told that some New Jersey Democrats could possibly be persuaded to vote for the amendment "if he could persuade [Senator] Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy [New Jersey] Railroad, but he declined to intervene" (emphasis added). "One New Jersey Democrat," writes David Donald, "well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change" (emphasis added). Thus, according to the foremost authority on Lincoln, there is no evidence at all that Lincoln influenced even a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, in complete contradiction of the writings of the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Steven Spielberg’s movie (See my review of Goodwin’s book, entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").


Source: Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment by Thomas DiLorenzo
Again, the above quoted material is a pack of LIES. Now for the REAL story:

Last edited by Rongo; December 13th, 2012 at 04:02 AM. Reason: formatting
Rongo is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 03:10 AM   #36

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

This is what David Herbert Donald (who DiLorenzo now accepts as "the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s") really said about Lincoln and the 13th Amendment in his "magnum opus", IN CONTEXT:

Quote:
In the spirit of conciliation Lincoln reached out for the support of Democrats as well as Republicans. His annual message contained an earnest plea to political opponents to support the proposed constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the United States. In the previous session of Congress his measure had failed to secure the required two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives, because all but four of the Democratic members voted against it. At Lincoln's urging, the National Union convention had made the amendment a central plank in the platform on which he and a heavy Republican majority in the next Congress were elected. He now asked the lame-duck session of the Thirty-eighth congress to reconsider the amendment. "Without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition," the President urged the Democrats to rethink their position. "Of course," he admitted, "the abstract question is not changed: but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not." Since adoption was simply a matter of time, he asked, "may we not agree that the sooner the better?" Arguing that "some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority, simply because it is the will of the majority, " he appealed for support of the amendment now.

Not content with rhetorical exhortation, Lincoln used his personal authority and considerable charm to influence Democratic and border-state congressmen whose votes were in doubt. Not since 1862, when he tried hard to persuade border-state congressmen to support his gradual emancipation plan, had the President been so deeply involved in the legislative process. He worked closely with James M. Ashley of Ohio, the principal sponsor of the amendment in the House, to identify members who might be persuaded to support the amendment and invited them to the Executive Mansion. For instance, he had a long talk with Representative James S. Rollins of Missouri, who had voted against the amendment in June, and entreated him as an old Whig and follower of "that great statesman, Henry Clay," to join him now in supporting the measure. When Rollins said that he was ready to vote for the amendment, Lincoln pressed him to use his influence with the other congressmen from his state. "The passage of this amendment will clinch the whole subject," the President assured him: "it will bring the war, I have no doubt, rapidly to a close."

If Lincoln used other means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment, his actions were not recorded. Conclusions about the President's role rested on gossip and later recollections like those of Thaddeus Stevens, who remarked, "The greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America." Lincoln was told that he might win some support from New Jersey Democrats if he could persuade Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy Railroad, but he declined to intervene, not on grounds of priciple but because, he said, "I can do nothing with Mr. Sumner in these matters." One New Jersey Democrat, well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change.

Whatever the President's role, in the final ballotting more than two-thirds of the House members voted for the Thirteenth Amendment and submitted it to the states for ratification. Celebrating, the House adjourned after inadvertently sending the resolution to the President, who happily signed it on February 1. He was untroubled when senators pointed out that, according to a Supreme Court decision of 1798, presidential approval was not required for constitutional amendments. He was convinced that, with or without his signature, the Thirteenth Amendment would root out "the original disturbing cause" of the rebellion and would fully settle all questions about the legal validity of the Emancipation Proclamation. Finally the country had "a King's cure for all the evils."


Source: David Herbert Donald, Lincoln, pp. 553 - 554
Lincoln - David Herbert Donald - Google Books
Whew, that's a lot of typing by hand! But it's worth it to set the record straight and expose the fraudulence that some people will engage in. That a learned, knowledgeable man would stoop to such lows only shows how desperate he is to make his pathetic case.

Last edited by Rongo; December 13th, 2012 at 04:03 AM. Reason: formatting
Rongo is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 03:42 AM   #37

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
This is what David Herbert Donald (who DiLorenzo now accepts as "the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s") really said about Lincoln and the 13th Amendment in his "magnum opus", IN CONTEXT:



Whew, that's a lot of typing by hand! But it's worth it to set the record straight and expose the fraudulence that some people will engage in. That a learned, knowledgeable man would stoop to such lows only shows how desperate he is to make his pathetic case.
Thank you for going to that trouble. This is what I'm talking about. This is why I get so frustrated. I was a neo-confederate for a long time because I believed what these people said. Many of them tell outright lies. Then people unknowingly repeat those lies. Then it becomes accept wisdom. I know everyone got upset when I was seeking factual dirt on the confederacy and specific confederates but this is why. I'm so tired of hearing about this spotless lamb that was slain by savage Yankees. If that means fighting dirty(so long as I'm not spreading false info) then I'm fine with that. They do it all the time, but with lies. They are trashing good men's reputations and it's annoying. I spend some time hating Grant and Sherman only to find out later that they were good men and great generals.
Yankee is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 03:53 AM   #38

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Thank you for going to that trouble. This is what I'm talking about. This is why I get so frustrated. I was a neo-confederate for a long time because I believed what these people said. Many of them tell outright lies. Then people unknowingly repeat those lies. Then it becomes accept wisdom. I know everyone got upset when I was seeking factual dirt on the confederacy and specific confederates but this is why. I'm so tired of hearing about this spotless lamb that was slain by savage Yankees. If that means fighting dirty(so long as I'm not spreading false info) then I'm fine with that. They do it all the time, but with lies. They are trashing good men's reputations and it's annoying. I spend some time hating Grant and Sherman only to find out later that they were good men and great generals.
Yes, but as we've demonstrated, the "neo-Unionists" spread just as egregious lies about Robert E. Lee, for the same purpose. Fraudulence is fraudulence, no matter what side of the Mason-Dixon line it advocates.

I think your best bet is to get away from the "neos" on both side, and learn the HISTORY.

Last edited by Rongo; December 13th, 2012 at 04:24 AM.
Rongo is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 04:34 AM   #39

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Yes, but as we've demonstrated, the "neo-Unionists" spread just as egregious lies about Robert E. Lee, for the same purpose. Fraudulence is fraudulence, no matter what side of the Mason-Dixon line it advocates.

I think your best bet is to get away from the "neos" on both side, and learn the HISTORY.
I am trying to learn the read history. I'm not interested in spreading fraud. And I think the debate is lopsided. There are Neo-Unionists out there who spread lies, but they are usually rejected by the hoi polloi. There are many many more Neo-Confeds out there and their info is acceptable as universal truth. I don't want to get off topic, so perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up. I only wanted to point out my pov, and that I see more Neo-Confed lies printed as fact in legit outfits than I do the reverse. A lie is wrong no matter who tells it, but it seems the confederates are much more successful.
Yankee is offline  
Old December 13th, 2012, 06:09 AM   #40

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,626
Blog Entries: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
This is what David Herbert Donald (who DiLorenzo now accepts as "the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s") really said about Lincoln and the 13th Amendment in his "magnum opus", IN CONTEXT:



Whew, that's a lot of typing by hand! But it's worth it to set the record straight and expose the fraudulence that some people will engage in. That a learned, knowledgeable man would stoop to such lows only shows how desperate he is to make his pathetic case.
Excellent post Rongo. The sad thing is, DiLorzeno's sycophants won't be bothered by this in the slightest.
Viperlord is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > History in Films and on Television

Tags
lincoln, movie


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lincoln, the movie skizzerflake History in Films and on Television 58 December 11th, 2012 08:21 PM
Abraham Lincoln HistoryBuffBenjamin History Help 7 November 15th, 2010 12:07 PM
Abe Lincoln Awesomated88 American History 37 October 17th, 2010 10:14 AM
Lincoln sundance American History 15 October 26th, 2009 06:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.