Lincoln Boo-Boos

Posted on February 6, 2013 by Brooks D. Simpson

This blog entry offers an overview of various errors and slip-ups in Lincoln. Which ones seem important to you?

About these ads
Categories: Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Post navigation

14 thoughts on “Lincoln Boo-Boos”

  1. Michael Confoy

    None any worse than having Pakistanis speaking Arabic in Zero Dark Thirty.

    Reply
  2. wgdavis

    Geez! What is the matter with those folks? Ear lobe holes? Are you kidding me? Nobody ever docked Van Johnson for the forehead scar from an auto accident. As for the Connecticut congressmen, well, an error, and one that I’d guess 99% of the people who saw the film would not catch if they watched it a hundred times. Stevens in bed with Lt. VanBuren from Law and Order certainly did not inspire any thoughts of that relationship being Stevens motivation…good grief he was a staunch abolitionist and had been for decades, and definitely longer than his relationship with Lydia Smith lasted. Perhaps those who singled this out as an error should have a blog post about their error!!! The scene in Richmond was a composite scene to show the human cost of the war. Artistic license.

    And the unknown conversations portrayed in the film are as good a guess as to what was said, by whom, to whom, and when, where and why. So there is no record of May Lincoln visiting the House. Good grief! Mary Tyler Moore did a fantastic job portraying a woman who was rent in two by the tragic loss of her children, and the horrible toll the office and the war were taking on her husband, and on occasion, giving him a boost when his spirits flagged. Those are reasonable and yet they are likely aspects of Mrs. Lincoln few have ever considered.

    Lincoln was, among other things, a tragic figure, and Spielberg filmed him darkly, in fact much of the film is without daylight. The symbolism in that is intentional, it was a dark period in American History, and Lincoln was the man who charted the course out of that darkness, even at the cost of his own life. I can think of no other person who could have walked and talked the political line that Lincoln did from his first Inauguration to his last speech, hours before his death.

    All in all, this is, in my opinion, perhaps the most accurate historical depiction Hollywood ever produced. I did not expect it to be 100% accurate, and was pleasantly surprised that it was as accurate as it was.

    I came away warmed at witnessing a depiction of Congress actually doing something good and right. I came away with a higher regard for Mary Todd Lincoln than I previously had of her White House years. I came away with a respect for Mr. Day-Lewis’s acting skill, for he made me forget, from his first scenes to the end of the film, that I was not watching and listening to Abe Lincoln, and watching him do what he had to do in order to achieve his goals. Lincoln was definitely a manipulator of people, and the film clearly showed this. But Lincoln used that skill to accomplish positive results to his political and personal philosophy. Day-Lewis, and Spielberg, were quite successful.

    I give it a big “thumbs up!”

    Reply
  3. Andy Hall

    Rep. Courtney’s complaint about the film mus-characterizing the vote of the Connecticut delegation seems like a fair criticism, if he’s correct that all that state’s House members voted for the amendment. But his own assumptions are just as flawed:

    How could congressmen from Connecticut — a state that supported President Lincoln and lost thousands of her sons fighting against slavery on the Union side of the Civil War — have been on the wrong side of history?

    I haven’t been able to find a member-by-member roll call of the vote, but one of Connecticut’s four House members was a lame-duck Democrat, James E. English, who should not be simply assumed to have voted in support of the measure. There were, in fact, dozens of House members, all from Union states, who voted “on the wrong side of history” that day.

    Reply
    • Andy Hall

      Update: Apparently English did vote for it, and dramatically so:

      In 1863 President Lincoln, by virtue of his authority as Commander-in-Chief, issued his Emancipation Proclamation. This was a military measure, and the general question of slavery had still to be met by legislative action. Mr. English had voted for the bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, and he had told the President and others that he would vote for a constitutional amendment which should forever put an end to slavery in the United States. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in May, 1864, by Mr. Ashley, of Ohio ; but even the Republicans were not yet united on the measure, and it was defeated — Mr. English, by the advice of Mr. Ashley himself, voting against it. But in February, 1865, the Amendment was again proposed. The Thirty-eighth Congress was shortly to expire, and, although the next House would be strongly Republican, President Lincoln was deeply anxious to have the measure passed during this session. Mr. English had been recalled to New Haven by the serious illness of his wife, and he was in attendance upon her sick-bed when word was sent him from Washington that the Thirteenth Amendment was to come up on the following day.

      He set out at once for Washington, arriving in time to hear the final speeches of the debate, and to vote with the ten Democrats who helped to carry the bill by the required two-thirds vote.

      “Well, English,” Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York, said to him when they met, “I am afraid that I cannot vote for the Amendment.”

      “Ah,” said Mr. English. “Well, I intend to vote for it.” When the count was called and his emphatic ” Yes ” rang forth, applause sounded throughout the House.

      The announcement that the Amendment had been passed by a vote of 119 to 56 was received by the members on the floor and the visitors in the galleries with an outburst of enthusiasm rarely witnessed in the Capitol. Republicans sprang from their seats, and, regardless of parliamentary rules or the Speaker’s efforts to enforce silence, cheered and applauded. The men in the galleries joined in the uproar, while ladies clapped their hands, waved their handkerchiefs, and uttered exclamations of delight and enthusiasm.

      Mr. English remarked to a New Haven friend, while talking over this experience, ” I suppose I am politically ruined, but that day was the happiest of my life.”

      That’s a neat story.

      Reply
  4. John Foskett

    None. It’s a movie, not a documentary. If somebody wants to look at an error-laden, cinematic turdfest, there’s always Gods and Generals.

    Reply
  5. Corey Meyer

    It really is a small mistake..but they should have gotten that right. However, that being said, I don’t think in does the movie any harm. But the usual suspects are having fun with it and calling for some type of apology for the mistake as if I or anyone else had something to do with it.

    Reply
  6. Alan

    I for one would never criticize Hal Holzer. He’s solid, reliable and good.

    Who I do criticize is Hollywood. One, for the dumb inaccuracies of Lincoln going over a battlefield strewn with dead bodies. He never did this, even when going into Richmond right after its capture; and two, Daniel Day-Lewis is very good – for an Englishman.

    IF Sam Waterston wasn’t so “old” he’d be THE LINCOLN. He played him before, is an open admirer of Lincoln, and under Holzer’s tutelage has become a bit of an expert on the life and story of Lincoln too – and the Civil War (he enjoyed the copy of my childrens book on the subject that I sent home a few years back).

    Trouble is, Hollywood cannot put out an American actor to play the role of our Greatest President to save its life. Huston, Raymond Gillespie (Canadian, true),Waterston – they were head and shoulders above Day-Lewis.

    If you want to go and see an ACCURATE movie about Lincoln, go and see Sal Litvak’s “SAVING LINCOLN” (out in selected theatres next week).

    Reply
    • Brooks D. Simpson

      Moviemakers do not always heed the advice of historical advisers, and sometimes they don’t ask. But Harold Holzer makes his mistakes, as I’ve documented. No one’s above criticism.

      You might look into Lincoln’s ride to the front after Fort Stedman, and we know he saw dead bodies during his visit to Fort Stevens … as even Saving Lincoln shows.

      Reply
      • Alan

        Yes, Brooks…and I agree that Holzer isn’t above criticism, but the points made about the movie bear out. And while Lincoln did see dead bodies as noted as Fort Stevens (and maybe I should have made myself much clearer on this, the various accounts of Early’s raid on Washington bear this out) and during the ride to the front (he may have seen them too, on earlier visits to the Petersburg battlefield, it isn’t documented that he did see them in front of just conquered Richmond, just the warm greetings he received from Richmond’s Black population, the visit to George Pickett’s home, and his sitting at Jeff Davis’s desk.

        Reply
        • Brooks D. Simpson

          There’s no doubt that the movie took liberties (and sometimes unnecessary ones) with the historical record. It would be interesting to learn exactly what role the historical advisers had to play in the making of the movie.

          Reply
          • SF Walker

            The basic problem with historical movies is the fact that the director has the final say, and he’s usually more concerned with what works for him cinematically than what’s historically accurate. You could have the most knowledgeable advisor in the world involved with a film, but if the director of “The Patriot” wants to depict British Regulars locking civilians inside a church and setting fire to it, that’s what’s going to happen.

            Reply
  7. Michael Weeks

    I’m not going to get into the source material here, but according to Noah Andre Trudeau in The Last Citadel, Lincoln was indeed on the Petersburg battlefield on April 3, and in one of the most horrible areas of that field.

    According to Trudeau, Lincoln took the train from City Point with Adm. Porter, his son Tad, and others to meet son Robert and an escort at Hancock Station, where they rode on horseback to meet with Grant. On the way, they took the Jerusalem Plank Road and stopped at Fort Mahone, which, that morning, must have still looked like the bloodbath that it was the previous day. (Page 410 in my paperback copy.)

    Trudeau’s description actually matches the scene in the movie very well, except for a quote from one of the cavalry escort that Lincoln actually wept at the scene. I don’t remember the movie mentioning that the scene was supposed to be Richmond, as I think I would have noticed that. Couldn’t it be this scene that’s portrayed in the movie?

    And finally, it’s a movie… I’m a real film buff, from the silents all the way through today. I expected to see flaws. For me, the most notable aspect of the picture was not what they got wrong, but the amazing amount that they got right.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Adventure Journal by Contexture International.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 187 other followers

%d bloggers like this: