Apotheosis of Lincoln and Washington 1860s
How they did it:
First, detaching Lincoln from the (Hamiltonian) Republicans to reattach him to (Jeffersonian) Jacksonian Democrats: the Andrew Jackson administration was famous for initiating the “spoils system” and by promising Democrats federal jobs as a reward for supporting the Thirteenth Amendment, Spielberg’s Lincoln affixed Honest Abe to the Jeffersonian faction. (Contrasting Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians is one route to making sense of U.S. political history: see Stephen F. Knott’s book on the Hamilton myth.)
Second, the 2012 movie, with its positive portrayal of Lincoln, vindicated the power of the Executive branch today. There is a hidden link to New Deal propaganda, for progressives Gordon Allport and Henry A. Murray recommended in their nationally circulated notebooks on “civilian morale” that FDR be joined with Lincoln and Washington, as strong leaders and father figures. See https://clarespark.com/2011/03/27/progressive-mind-managers-ca-1941-42/, or https://clarespark.com/2011/09/29/the-abraham-lincoln-conundrum/. The latter takes up Bill O’Reilly’s efforts to render Lincoln as the pre-eminent healer, one like himself, the good father who is “looking out for you.” (See https://clarespark.com/2011/03/30/eric-foners-christianized-lincoln/.)
Third, the unnecessary death scene linked Lincoln to Christ and to national redemption, a tactic that was effective in the North, but certainly not in the South. See http://tinyurl.com/acbqkza on the religious response to Lincoln’s assassination, the paragraph possibly derived from Michael Rogin.
Fourth, by emphasizing the widespread Congressional resistance to the Thirteenth Amendment, the impression reinforced the New Left line that racism is the overarching theme of American history, and that blacks are owed reparations. (See https://clarespark.com/2011/03/26/race-class-and-gender/. I do not intend to minimize the importance of “race” and “race relations.”)
Fifth, the flashback to the Second Inaugural Address, coming immediately after the assassination serves to bind the Nation as an organic entity. This is the most reactionary feature of the movie. In truth, we remain fragmented, and neo-Confederate flags still fly. By relying upon Doris Kearn Goodwin’s book, Spielberg portrayed Lincoln as the moderate man who could unite warring factions, even within his own party. I.e., all conflicts are reconcilable. The irony is the American Civil War (the “irrepressible conflict”) as the primary locale for this “moderate” strategy of manipulation and compromise. (See https://clarespark.com/2010/11/06/moderate-men-falling-down/, or https://clarespark.com/2012/11/19/abandonment-anxiety-and-moderation/.)
Sixth, Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens was turned into a pragmatist, like Lincoln, not a wild-eyed ideologue like Charles Sumner. This was another reactionary move, designed to counter Stevens’s rehabilitation in the neo-abolitionist historiography. (See https://clarespark.com/2008/05/03/margoth-vs-robert-e-lee/. There is much detail here on Sumner and Stevens as they fought to prepare the freedmen for economic and political independence.)
Seventh, the producer-director chose John Williams to score the movie. With the exception of some plausible period fiddle tunes, Williams looted Aaron Copland, except for George Root’s The Battle Cry of Freedom. Ignored was most popular music of the period in question. Also missing in action were Stevens’s and Sumner’s program for Reconstruction, too sizzling for today’s audiences. (On slanderous depictions of Sumner, and by extension Stevens, see https://clarespark.com/2012/01/03/the-race-card/.) Moreover, by focusing strictly on a narrow period of the Lincoln presidency, there was no opportunity to demonstrate land reform by some of the Northern generals (Sherman!) as they marched through the South.
Taken all in all, I can only suggest that the emphasis on the organic Nation, as led by the moderate men (delineated above), demonstrates how the South won the cultural battle for how we remember the American Civil War. Think of the stately brief portrayal of Robert E. Lee, riding away from Appomattox on his horse Traveler, preceded by horrific shots of the Confederate dead in Petersburg, Virginia. That the 2012 LINCOLN movie was done skillfully and under the radar speaks to the propaganda skills of the better Hollywood producers and directors.
D.W. Griffith Lincoln 1931
BIBLIOGRAPHY (highly recommended)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs6cIi_mKfg Adlai Stevenson reads text of Copland “Lincoln Portrait” (1942) 15 minutes and well worth comparing the Lincoln of the “fiery trial” with the Lincoln of the Spielberg movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Portrait (1942)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_(2012_film) , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution,
http://tinyurl.com/avdpq2x (James McPherson’s review of Doris Kearn Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: the political genius of Abraham Lincoln)
http://tinyurl.com/b7kh6ak (Michael Rogin essay on D. W. Griffith and racism in American culture)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_cultural_depictions
The Clare Spark Blog 
[…] https://clarespark.com/2013/02/09/lincoln-the-movie-as-propaganda/ […]
Pingback by Gossip and the gullible | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — December 26, 2013 @ 9:36 pm |
[…] https://clarespark.com/2013/02/09/lincoln-the-movie-as-propaganda/ […]
Pingback by Index to blogs on Lincoln, Sumner, Reconstruction « YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — February 18, 2013 @ 4:10 pm |
I suspect the scriptwriters relied on Holzer’s Lincoln and Freedom (2007).
Comment by Stephen D. Hoy (@subtilizeit) — February 17, 2013 @ 2:55 am |
I believe that a Congressman from Connecticut has pointed out that the movie portrays two Congressmen from Connecticut voting to oppose the 13th Amendment, and this is entirely false. Kushner’s excuse is that he wanted to emphasize the opposition to the 13th Amendment – so his movie is a lie.
Comment by PAthena — February 14, 2013 @ 5:56 pm |
Thank you for the enlightening perspective, Ms. Sparks.
Comment by roboslater — February 11, 2013 @ 8:49 pm |
Actually, the film relies hardly at all on the few paragraphs devoted to the 13th amendment in Goodwin’s book. More relevant by far is the work of historian Michael Vorenberg, a respected scholar and a graceful writer, whose book “Final Freedom” apparently provided Tony Kushner with considerable material for his screenplay.
Comment by Donald Dreyfus — February 10, 2013 @ 8:31 pm |
Thanks to Donald Dreyfus. A close analysis of Kushner’s screenplay and its possible modifications by the director would be most welcome. Personally, I am most curious about the primary source materials consulted, and how much of the dialogue was invented. That would be a fascinating doctoral dissertation subject. The subject surely deserves such close examination.
But more, Kushner and Spielberg could have profited from the example of Erik Erikson’s Young Man Luther, as reported by Peter Gay in his Freud For Historians: “[the task of the screenwriter is] to concentrate on the character and fortunes of an influential personage who…reflects and articulates the deepest tensions of his time and the underlying temper of his contemporaries with exemplary lucidity or with neurotic but instructive intensity.” (Oxford UP, 1985):178.
Comment by clarespark — February 10, 2013 @ 8:41 pm |