Well to be fair, few people knew that Hitler was assassinated in a movie theatre until that movie came out.
Substantive reply. Thanks for the input.
Regardless of how Connecticut may have voted in 1865, I have to imagine the majority of its citizens are against slavery today. So, not much of an issue for me.
Nevertheless, I prefer as much accuracy regarding known events as possible in my historical fiction. If not, I’m worried that pretty soon we’ll end up with museums full of dioramas showing Nazi dinosaurs fighting the Allies, like in Idiocracy.
I wouldn’t use the word “slandered,” but its simply a fact that Connecticut was made out in the movie to be a pro-slavery state. If anyone in Connecticut takes umbrage at this, as the congressman does, how can you say that they’re wrong?
On the other hand, the screenwriter is saying, “Relax! I just changed a historical fact to make a more interesting movie!” I have no problem with some artistic license in historical fiction, but revising facts and then getting all uptight when called on it is a move worthy of a pain-in-the-ass teenager. I bet the movie would have been even better if Lincoln had managed to overcome all the racist opposition that the 13th Amendment was able to pass unanimously: now THAT would have been a good movie ending. Do you suppose the screenwriter considered that?
Then I’ll put a sharper point on it, then: anyone associated with the Luwig von Mises Institute lacks credibility on issues regarding race and the Civil War. The author of the article you quoted is cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be one of those “at the core of the modern neo-Confederate movement.”
Well, it was more than you deserved, to be sure. But I hate to less racism pass unnoticed.
Who is being racist?
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . . . I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race.”
- Lincoln
Go finger yourself to Lincoln hagiographies if you want, but your self-righteousness will not get a pass.
Please, let’s not derail this thread into yet another “libertarians stand up for the Confederacy and against Lincoln” debacle.
I simply posted a quote pointing out that the film and its source material is flawed in more important ways. The other poster decided to bring up racism and Lew Rockwell without addressing the content of my post.
Geez, talk about a tempest in a teapot.
There is zero question that Lincoln strongly supported the Thirteenth Amendment, that he lobbied aggressively for its passage, and that he instructed his lieutenants and allies to do so as well using techniques up to and including patronage, deception, and quid pro quos on unrelated legislation. The out-of-context quote from Donald, above, does not change this. Donald, with a historian’s caution, correctly notes that no vote change can be proven to be due to Lincoln’s intervention. This is hardly surprising. Politicians who make quid pro quos explicit end up like Rod Blagojevich, in jail.
The most detailed recent biography of Lincoln is Michael Burlingame’s two-volume Abraham Lincoln: A Life (2008). He discusses the lobbying behind the Thirteenth Amendment at length over pages 746-749 of the second volume. This should be read by anyone interested in this issue, but I will quote one excerpt:
Of course, Lincoln was dead by August, so Yeaman was appointed by Johnson. Was Johnson honoring a Lincoln promise? We don’t know. We can’t know. But Burlingame cites pages of similar “coincidences”.
As for Connecticut–Connecticut had three Republican Representatives in 1865, and one Democrat. There was no question the Republicans would support the amendment. Every Republican did. The Democrat, James E. English, was one of the swing votes who changed to support at the last minute.
I would prefer that a serious historical drama get details like this right. I can accept it if they get a few wrong. I can’t accept the screenwriter’s petulant response to being corrected. He’s a tool.
Ron Paul sucks
We’ve politicized that much-beloved chinese food fortune cookie game, “Between The Sheets”.
… in Connecticut!
First, Tony Kushner is Tony Kushner, so really his reactions aren’t that surprising. For what it’s worth, I can sort of see his side though. He’s changing history for the purposes of drama, and while I don’t blame the guy from Connecticut for being upset at what he sees as a slur on his state, given the choice between accuracy and drama, the good playwright and screenwriter goes for drama each time. I mean, I don’t think the historical Macbeth saw a ghost of the guy he murdered, either, but it makes for a good scene.
Second, Thomas DiLorenzo is a neoconfederate asshole whose statements about Lincoln have been proven wrong time and time again, who’s perfectly willing to distort facts to make his argument, and who shouldn’t be trusted if he says it gets dark at night.
As I alluded to in the other thread about this: If you have a movie like “Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” or some other such thing that everyone knows is absolute fiction, feel free to make up facts, law, physics, and anything else. Say that CT’s Senators were vampires that Lincoln killed. Who cares? We all know it is fiction.
If you make a movie like “Lincoln” which bills itself as being historically accurate, feel free to help the plot along with made up conversations and the like which are reasonably construed from history. Even insert and delete characters to help the story line.
But do not insert known, historical inaccuracies. I’m proud of the fact that my home state of West Virginia, a slave holding state, had two Senators that voted in favor of the 13th amendment. It would be an insult to portray them (as the film did CT’s Senators) as voting against it for some unknown reason, and certainly no plot-advancing or cinematic reason.
Why put that stigma on CT and claim historical accuracy?
Very, very little of Shakespeare’s MacBeth is historically accurate. MacBeth didn’t murder Duncan, for one - he killed him in battle during an open conflict instigated by Duncan.
Same goes for Richard III, and probably most of the other ‘Histories’.
So, Kushner has rather seriously outdone the Bard on the accuracy front.
Sometimes. I don’t think most of us have problems with a movie changing history for the sake of drama, if it’s true to the overall narrative.
The Connecticut vote wasn’t for the purpose of drama, it was just a random change, and probably unintentional.
No big deal, but he was a douche about someone pointing it out.
I thought WV broke away from Virgiania because they WEREN’T slaveholding.
No, WV broke away from VA because we were loyal to the Union. (At least the group of people who gathered in Wheeling and were recognized by the US Government were loyal to the Union).
Slavery was legal in the western counties and in WV until the Thirteenth Amendment passed. It wasn’t very popular because there weren’t large plantations that made slavery beneficial.