New Lincoln Biopic

[Jedi Master Carr]

I just read on on the Londan Sunday Times site that 9here is the link www.sunday-times.co.uk/ne...e.html?999 (http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/Sunday-Times/frontpage.html?999) ) Dreamwork has just bought the rights to a forecoming book by Doris Kearns Goodwin, which Spielberg will direct. This book/movie will show Lincoln as a racist and a insane and how he nearly lost the civil War. First off I think Spielberg is nuts to do such a project. Being a historian myself I have read many books on Lincoln and I have never seen any historical interpentation that paints Lincoln this way. First off she says in the modern sense that Lincoln was a racist, how can you judge a 19th century person by todays standards, you just can't. Next she claims she found this in the white house archives and she concluded this from them. Mostly likely she just changed things around to get to this conclusion. Also, how can she psycholanize a person who is dead and at the same time she is an historian not a psychologist. It think she is one of these nobody historians who is trying to make it rich by writing a controversal book. The historical proffession has seen this before unfortuntely that is what sells today instead of the truth. Hopefully Spielberg will come to his senses and not make this idiotic book into a film.

[Jedieb]

Doris Kearns Goodwin is actually a fairly respected and reputable presidential historian. I've seen her commentary on NBC and MSNBC quite a few times. I've read a few quotes from Lincoln that if were judged by today's standards would certainly paint him as racist. But JMC's point is valid, "how can you judge a 19th century person by todays standards"? Was Lincoln an abolitionist? No, but he was an avid opponent of the institution of slavery. He not only thought it was an injustice to blacks, but damaging to the soul of our nation. Frankly, it sounds like the kind of project Oliver Stone would get mixed up in, not Spielberg.

[Doc Milo]

I agree with both of you, Jedieb and JMC.

One of the quotes I heard, and just in passing today, that is used to paint this picture, is in a letter where Lincoln said: "If I could save the Union and not free any slaves, I would do it."

But that quote, as it turns out, is incomplete. It is taken out of context. Sure, taken out of context, that quote can be used to paint anyone as a racist. But the complete quote paints an entirely different picture: "If I could save the Union and not free any slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union and free every slave, I would do it. If I could save the Union and only free some slaves, I would do it."

To me, the complete quote shows that Lincoln's primary goal was to "Save the Union" in any way he could accomplish it. That quote cannot be used to divine his feelings or thoughts about the institution of slavery (indeed, other quotes show that he abhored it) or his feelings or thoughts about black people in general.

I think one of the problems that face us today -- and why this biopic, should Spielberg make it (and I hope he doesn't) will have the effect of painting Lincoln as a racist -- is because too many people today think that the Civil War was fought to abolish slavery. Which of course, is way too simplistic an explanation, and merely takes an undercurrent of the events of the time and raises it to "Primary" status in the reasons why the Civil War was fought.

Ask someone on the street, why was the Civil War fought, and they will tell you: To abolish slavery. And that is not the truth -- or should I say, the entire truth -- of the reasons for the Civil War. Slavery was a mere undercurrent. A spark, even.

[Jedieb]

Living in the south you find yourself immersed in Civil War history. My state of Virginia has several Civil War battlefields and the state host reenactments all the time. To say the Civil War was fought primarily to abolish salery is as Doc said an oversimplification. In fact, Lincoln didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation until the war was in its second year. Lincoln's primary goal was always to preserve the Union. His election sparked the quick sucession of 7 southern states. (States like Virginia would eventually secede after voting on the matter more than once.) They feared Lincoln would set about to make sure all new territories and states would be free. While this would not end slavery in the short run, it would tip the precarious balance between free and slave states the country had been desperately trying to keep in place for decades. The south also saw Lincoln's election as a real threat to their economy, an economy that invested heavily in slavery.

As for comment that Lincoln made, I've heard and read some that are far worse than his statement of purpose for the war. I've read statements in which he plainly states that he did NOT see blacks as his equal. You add in early criticisms from abolitionist leaders like Frederick Douglas (Douglas went so far as to describe Lincoln as "preeminently the white man's president") and you've got the makings of damning Lincoln bio pic. But these things have to be taken in context. For example, after his assasination Douglas had great respect for Lincoln and his leadership. There's enough material out there to make a one sided biography of ANYONE, even Lincoln. During his time Lincoln was both revered and despised by Northerners and Southerners alike. Actually, I wouldn't say too many Southerners revered him but you get my point. I really do hope such a one sided portraint of one the U.S. most important leaders doesn't get made in this fashion.

[Hart Kenobi]

Whether or not Lincoln was a great individual or not, as a hero to the United States of America, I hope that they at least give him the respect he deserves.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I had never heard of Kearns before (my field is french history) I just figured she was one of these historians trying to make a buck by taking a major historical figure and creating a contraversy. She still could be maybe she is in some dire fiancial straights. Also has she done any biographies on 19th century presidents? I looked up her name and all that was mentioned was Johnson and Kennedy. Back to Lincoln I agree with you that he was a complex man and not a saint but this book swings the pendilum the other way. The best biopic I have seen on Lincoln is Gore Vidal's version, it showed Lincoln as a very complex character showing his trouble feelings over the war and slavery. It also dealt heavily with the death of his children which is why his wife went mad (she had to be instutionalized after Lincoln's death). This version just doesn't set right for me I know the Ameirican Historical Association will condemn it when it is published and I am sure some major Lincoln historian will write a book condeming it (thats happens quite often in a controversal matter like this), but if the movie is made it will be bad because it will show an inaccurate view of history just like JFK. That is why I cannot believe Spielberg will want to touch this maybe he will come to his senses after reading the book and let somebody else direct it.