NF Lincoln movie

[major bill]

Watching the movie Lincoln and the movie is just starting. i have seen it once before. What do people htink of this movie?

 

[rpkennedy]

Watching the movie Lincoln and the movie is just starting. i have seen it once before. What do people htink of this movie?

I enjoyed it when I saw it.

Ryan

 

[major bill]

Two weeks ago I was in Springfield and they have items from the movie in the train station.

 

[samuel orris]

I enjoyed it. Bought the dvd. A good bit of Lincoln humor thrown in. Mary Tyler Moore as Mary was good also.

 

[AndyHall]

The scene where Lincoln explains to his cabinet why he chose this moment (January 1865) to push for a constitutional amendment ending slavery is just about the clearest and most concise explanation of the legal and political landscape of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment I've ever seen or read. I know it's fictional dialogue, but I think it explains the subject better than almost anything else out there.

JOHN USHER
Then why, if I may ask are we not concentrating the nation's attention on Wilmington? Why, instead, are we reading in the Herald that the anti-slavery amendment is being precipitated onto the House floor for debate – because your eagerness, in what seems an unwarranted intrusion of the Executive into Legislative prerogatives, is compelling it to it's… to what's likely to be its premature demise? You signed the Emancipation Proclamation, you've done all that can be expected –

JAMES SPEED
The Emancipation Proclamation's merely a war measure. After the war the courts'll make a meal of it.

JOHN USHER
When Edward Bates was Attorney General, he felt confident in it enough to allow you to sign. . .

JAMES SPEED
Different lawyers, different opinions. It frees slaves as a military exigent, not in any other –

LINCOLN
I don't recall Bates being any too certain about the legality of my Proclamation, just it wasn't downright criminal. Somewhere's in between.

Back when I rode the legal circuit in Illinois I defended a woman from Metamora named Melissa Goings, 77 years old, they said she murdered her husband; he was 83. He was choking her; and, uh, she grabbed ahold of a stick of fire-wood and fractured his skull, 'n he died. In his will he wrote "I expect she has killed me. If I get over it, I will have revenge."

No one was keen to see her convicted, he was that kind of husband. I asked the prosecuting attorney if I might have a short conference with my client. And she and I went into a room in the courthouse, but I alone emerged. The window in the room was found to be wide open. It was believed the old lady may have climbed out of it. I told the bailiff right before I left her in the room she asked me where she could get a good drink of water, and I told her Tennessee.

Mrs. Goings was seen no more in Metamora. Enough justice had been done; they even forgave the bondsman her bail.

JOHN USHER
I'm afraid I don't –

LINCOLN
I decided that the Constitution gives me war powers, but no one knows just exactly what those powers are. Some say they don't exist. I don't know. I decided I needed them to exist to uphold my oath to protect the Constitution, which I decided meant that I could take the rebels' slaves from 'em as property confiscated in war. That might recommend to suspicion that I agree with the rebs that their slaves are property in the first place. Of course I don't, never have, I'm glad to see any man free, and if calling a man property, or war contraband, does the trick… Why I caught at the opportunity.

Now here's where it gets truly slippery. I use the law allowing for the seizure of property in a war knowing it applies only to the property of governments and citizens of belligerent nations. But the South ain't a nation, that's why I can't negotiate with 'em. So if in fact the Negroes are property according to law, have I the right to take the rebels' property from 'em, if I insist they're rebels only, and not citizens of a belligerent country? And slipperier still: I maintain it ain't our actual Southern states in rebellion, but only the rebels living in those states, the laws of which states remain in force. The laws of which states remain in force. That means, that since it's states' laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property – the Federal government doesn't have a say in that, least not yet, then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate 'em as such. So I confiscated 'em.

But if I'm a respecter of states' laws, how then can I legally free 'em with my Proclamation, as I done, unless I'm cancelling states' laws? I felt the war demanded it; my oath demanded it; I felt right with myself; and I hoped it was legal to do it, I'm hoping still.

Two years ago I proclaimed these people emancipated – "then, thenceforward and forever free." But let's say the courts decide I had no authority to do it. They might well decide that. Say there's no amendment abolishing slavery. Say it's after the war, and I can no longer use my war powers to just ignore the courts' decisions, like I sometimes felt I had to do. Might those people I freed be ordered back into slavery? That's why I'd like to get the Thirteenth Amendment through the House, and on its way to ratification by the states, wrap the whole slavery thing up, forever and aye. As soon as I'm able. Now. End of this month. And I'd like you to stand behind me. Like my cabinet's most always done.

As the preacher said, I could write shorter sermons but once I start I get too lazy to stop.

JOHN USHER
It seems to me, sir, you're describing precisely the sort of dictator the Democrats have been howling about.

JAMES SPEED
Dictators aren't susceptible to law.

JOHN USHER
Neither is he! He just said as much! Ignoring the courts? Twisting meanings? What reins him in from, from. . . .

LINCOLN
Well, the people do that, I suppose. I signed the Emancipation Proclamation a year and half before my second election. I felt I was within my power to do it; however I also felt that I might be wrong about that; I knew the people would tell me. I gave 'em a year and half to think about it. And they reelected me.

And come February the first, I intend to sign the Thirteenth Amendment.​

 

[major bill]

I enjoyed it. Bought the dvd. A good bit of Lincoln humor thrown in. Mary Tyler Moore as Mary was good also.

Sally Fields was Mary?

 

[AndyHall]

Mary Tyler Moore played Mary Lincoln in the television miniseries with Sam Waterston.

 

[John Hartwell]

Loved it. I think Daniel Day Lewis was channeling Lincoln.
And Tommy Lee Jones' Thad Stevens ... Wow! (most of his lines were actual quotes!)

 

[huskerblitz]

It's a good movie. No one else in my household will watch it. Too much talking. Daniel Day Lewis was amazing.

BTW...I like the Sam Waterson Lincoln as well.

 

[unionblue]

Great movie, excellent learning tool for further study.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I tried to watch it when it first came out, but didn't understand enough of the politicking which made it very 'dry' for me. Turned it off after about a half hour. I borrowed it again just a couple of weeks ago, after becoming much more widely read on the issues, and found it fascinating...I could actually understand the intricacies involved in the decisions being made! It was quite an all round movie in the sense it showed his pressures at home, as well as in politics. Being President at that time was one 'tough gig', and I'm not sure anyone else could have handled it as well as Lincoln did in the end...

 

[AshleyMel]

I've yet to watch it. It's been on my list for a while! Thanks for all the good recommendations!

 

[MaryDee]

I was wondering which Lincoln movie, too! There were at least two titled "Lincoln." I really liked the Spielberg film with Daniel Day-Lewis--the role took a lot of study and he was outstanding. So was Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. We talk about inflammatory speeches in Congress today, but today's are really mild compared to back then! Oops, straying on that forbidden subject again! Sally Fields obviously put on some weight (and padding?) for her role, but IMHO it wasn't one of her better performances. I thought that the Seward and Stanton roles were well done. Lots of little details that probably only a history buff would appreciate, such as a glimpse of Dirty Dan Sickles' leg!

I have seen the other one, with Sam Waterston and a very weak (and much too thin) Mary Tyler Moore. Not awful, but can't hold a candle to the Spielberg movie.

I also just finished Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, the last part of which was (sort of) the basis for the Spielberg movie. It's an excellent book, well worth reading. We can't have a full understanding of the war without studying the civilians at the top.

 

[Buckeye Bill]

My favorite part of this excellent movie is the opening scene!

Bravo....

Bill

 

[samuel orris]

Sally Fields was Mary?

You're right. Sorry. Man, getting old is for the birds.

 

[JeffBrooks]

For me, it would have been far better for Spielberg to have made a film about Lincoln during the late summer of 1862 rather than early 1865. This time frame would certainly have allowed for much more dramatic intensity. In mid-1862, unlike early 1865, the outcome of the war was still very much in doubt. The Confederacy had beaten back Union efforts to capture Richmond and embarked on grand counter offensives in Maryland, Kentucky, and northern Mississippi. The possibility of Britain and France extending diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy was very real. Most importantly, it was during this time that Lincoln made the momentous decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

By early 1865, the outcome of the war was not in doubt. The fall of Atlanta and the reelection of Lincoln in the 1864 election had driven the final nail into the heart of the Confederacy. The knowledge that the war was virtually over deprived Lincoln from much of the dramatic tension it might otherwise have had. Had it been set in 1862, scenes of Lincoln in the telegraph room receiving news of Union defeats at the hands of the Confederacy would have given Daniel Day-Lewis much more to work with.

Similarly, the Emancipation Proclamation was much more touch-and-go in the summer of 1862 than was the 13th Amendment in early 1865. For all the drama depicted in the movie, it was obvious to all observers after the 1864 elections that the 13th Amendment was going to pass. This was certainly not the case with the Emancipation Proclamation. He knew it would be tremendously unpopular in many areas of the North, would cost him badly needed support in the critical border states, would help the Democrats in the 1862 mid-term elections, and might well solidify Confederate resistance to the Union. There were fears that it would trigger a anarchy and an out-and-out race war in the South. Simply put, the decision on whether or not to issue the Emancipation Proclamation tormented Lincoln, while the decision to push for the 13th Amendment was just a logical next step in the abolition of slavery, which by then had been underway for years.

Put all that together and I think a fair case can be made that Lincoln would have been a far better movie had it been set in the summer and fall of 1862 than in early 1865.

I also thought the credits should have rolled as Lincoln walked down the stairs on his way to Ford's Theater. We all went to 8th grade social studies and we all know he's going to his death. I felt that the final scenes depicted the news of the assassination were clunky and unnecessary. In fact, I'm all but certain that Spielberg intended to end the film at the moment Lincoln walked down the stairs and was pushed into changing it because of test audiences or something.

Of course, it's rather silly of me to complain about this. Lincoln is a fabulous film and we should be ever thankful to Steven Spielberg and his team for making it.

 

[Booklady]

From "Lincoln" (Spielberg):

"I decided that the Constitution gives me war powers, but no one knows just exactly what those powers are. Some say they don't exist. I don't know. I decided I needed them to exist to uphold my oath to protect the Constitution. Which I decided meant that I could take the Rebels' slaves from them as property confiscated in war. That might recommend to suspicion that I agree with the Rebs that their slaves are property in the first place. Of course, I don't. Never have. I'm glad to see any man free, and if calling a man property or war contraband does the trick, why I caught at the opportunity.

"Now here's where it gets truly slipperty. I use the law allowing for the seizure of property in a war knowing it applies only to belligerent nations. Well, the South ain't a nation. That's why I can't negotiate with them. So if, in fact, the Negroes are property, according to the law, have I the right to take the Rebels' property from them, if I insist they're rebels only, and not citizens of a belligerent country?

"And slipperier still, I maintain it ain't our actual Southern states in rebellion, but only the rebels living in those states, the laws of which remain in force. 'The laws of which remain in force.' That means that since it's states' laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property, the federal government doesn't have a say in that. At least not yet. Then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate them as such, so I confiscate them. But if I'm a respecter of states' laws, how then can I legally free them with my Proclamation as I done? Unless I'm cancelling states' laws?

"(pause) I felt the war demanded it. My oath demanded it. I felt right with myself, and I hoped it was legal to do it. I'm hoping still.

"Two years ago, I proclaimed these people emancipated. 'Then, thenceforward, and forever free.' Now let's say the courts decided I had no authority to do it. They might well decide that. Say there's no amendment abolishing slavery, say it's after the war and I can no longer use my war powers to just ignore the courts' decisions like I sometimes felt I had to do. Might those people I freed be ordered back into slavery? That's why I'd like to get the 13th Amendment through the House, on its way to ratification by the states. Wrap the whole slavery thing up, forever and aye, as soon as I'm able. Now! End of this month. And I'd like you to stand behind me, like my Cabinet's most always done.

"As the preacher said, I could write shorter sermons, but once I start, I get too lazy to stop."

Most amazing and instructive (to me) speech I ever heard in a movie. I saw the movie in the theater and as soon as I could I got hold of the DVD, just so I could put on the captioning and copy it down word for word. I was educated in California, back in the day it had some of the best schools in the country, but there were an awful lot of true things we weren't taught, and an awful lot of false ones we were.

ETA: I was typing this as Mr. Brooks was posting his message. Coincidental timing about the EP.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Good movie.

 

[Bruce Vail]

There are so many good things about the movie that I hesitate to say anything critical. This sort of approach to historical movie making needs to encouraged!

 

[9th tn dancyville grays]

I like it even this some stuff is out of place but good over all Daniel day Lewis awsome guy