Worth mentioning. 1848 is this wonderful moment where people like Thaddeus Stevens, Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Steven are all young, rising whigs who are supporting taylor and working together. It was stevens who was one of the confederate peace commissioners lincoln is dealing with in the end. When we thing of the civil war in military terms, we talk about the mexican war as a precursor, a prelude, but the congress that lincoln served in has Horace Greely and Alexander Stevens and sidelines waiting to enter. This is part of lincolns story. Its a preview for him of what is to come. You know, i dont imagine that tony kushner or Steven Spielberg could have worked all this background in somehow to the movie. Im not complaining they didnt, but all this background is important to understand what is really going on. And the details matter. They know the details matter. If you look back at the Lincoln Movie, youll realize the purpose of the scene in the kitchen is to give lincoln credit for changing stevens mind. They have this debate in the kitchen and argue over tactics and talk about compasses and maps and stevens is talking about shittin orshitting on the and a week later, and hes being race baited by democrats about what would happen after abolition, stevens says he only supports equality under the law. Thats a powerful scene, and mary lincoln points out who would have thought this old man would have ever come around in that fashion, but the problem with that scene from the historical record is it never happened. Thats all invented. We have a congressional globe and we see the passages from the debate. That scene isnt there. Stevens did Say Something just like that on january 5th, 1865, after they got the official report of the annual message when they come back from the christmas break and hes responding to the debates over lincolns prophecy in december that they would, you know, debate this new amendment, and the republicans on capitol hill are trying to actually, its complicated, but theyre trying to sort of play for a time for a day while they wait for the members show up, and the next day, ashley is going to introduce into the record the abolition amendment, and stevens is race baited on january 5th and he responds all i support is equality under the law. He did that without prompting by lincoln. In the movie, lincoln is the hero. In the movie, stevens is, you know, an important foil. He has more speaking parts than anybody else but lincoln. If you go back to team arrivals, theres only four index entries for Thaddeus Stevens. If you look at mikes book, stevens is there more frequently, but far less frequently than the Senate Author or james ashley. He doesnt play the same pivotal role. Stevens is a marginal figure in that book. You know, we all acknowledge his importance, but in the narrative of the movie, he is so central because hes straight out of hollywood central casting. You know, with the wig and the club foot and the crusty demeanor and even the black mistress. Youve got it all working. Its perfect. But thats why hes there. And thats why this is there. You know, i think the kitchen scene has another profound truth in it. I wanted to point this out and maybe if someone wants to follow up, we can talk about it more in questions. You know, the kitchen scene is really about the politics of reconstruction, and i think that thats an underlying theme in the movie that they bury. They cant really address because theyre talking about the abolition of slavery. Thats why the peace negotiations seem so important, although i think of them more as a side show, unimportant to the final narrative of the war. There are historians who disagree with this, but the reason why i think the abolition amendment is a story of reconstruction is because you cant remember the rules. And this is so important. Right . In order for an amendment to become part of the constitution, of course, it cant just pass both houses of congress by a supermajority. It has to be ratified by the states, by three fourths of the state. There are 36 states at that time. Three fourths of them would be 27. Of course, thats the question, do you count them all . What about the seceded states . What about the confederates . Theyre not counted in the vote for congress, so should they be counted in the vote for ratification. This is what the politics of january 1865 is about because this is where lincoln is pressing his advantage as a party leader where hes building a union party, not just a republican party, for the postwar period because he knows that hes going to be able to take this amendment and press it down the throats of the radicals on the basis that they have to count all 36 states in the math in order to get it as part of the constitution. As he says in his final speech, the one on april 11th, 1865, its the only way this will seem legitimate, if we count the Confederate States in the equation. In order to count them, in order to get the 27 votes they need, theyre going to have to have some of those former Confederate States restored to the union on his basis, on the lower threshold, speedier process for restoration. Not the wade davis process for restoration, not the higher threshold, the one stevens was supporting that would punish the south and revolutionize it. Lincoln is saying to the radicals in effect if you want abolition of slavery to be written into this constitution and irrevocable, were going to have to pursue a policy of reconciliation that goes hand and glove with it. This is what he was fighting over in the final months of the war. The movie doesnt have a chance to convey all of that, and you know, i dont blame them for that and i understand what hollywood has to do. I think spielberg does, too. Again and again, hes been very gracious and modest about pointing out the difference between historical fiction and history, right . His work in lincoln is historical fiction. Sometimes the script writer hasnt been quite as gracious about that. And there is, you know, an exchange he had after the movie came out with congressman courtney from connecticut over this question of how the congressman from connecticut voted on the amendment. In the movie, one of them votes against and all of them voted for it, although one of the lame duck switchers was james english from kektconnecticut, and in th sort of exchange over the complaint, courtney wanted a formal apology from the filmmakers. Horowitz defended the historical accuracy of the movie. He said the 13th amendment passed by a twovote margin in the house of january 1865 because president lincoln decided to push it through using persuasion and patronage to switch the votes of lame duck democrats all the while fending off a serious offer to negotiate peace from the south. None of the key moments from the story our film tells arei . et no altered, nun of them, heklkok r. I guess it depends on what the definition of key is. I think there are a lot of key moment that are altered. The roll call is one of them, but the other one is in the climactic scene on the floor of the house on the day of the vote, january 1st, 1865, they have james spader and john hay running to the white house to get the note from lincoln. None of that happened. The note, we think, is real, though we dont have the original of it. Its a recollection from james ashley, but James Spaders character, william bilbo, was in new york at the time, at the st. Nicolas hotel. The lobbyists were in new york in the final weeks of the fight working the press. The race scene is just a hollywood chase scene. Its no different than the airport race scene in argo and i have no problem with that, like i said, but key moments in this story are altered. And theyre altered for dramatic reasons. We need to understand that if were going to teach it and appreciate it. I call it fiction and i dont mean it as an insult, but i do think people need to appreciate the difference betweenviction and the record. The record is far more complicated. I think its just as interesting, but it is messier. So with that, i wanted to wrap up my presentation and open it up for questions. I know a lot of people have seen this movie. I hope if i didnt cover a topic you wanted to talk up, you feel free to raise it now. Thank you. [ applause ] yes, um, whether youre talking about ken burns and the civil war or godzilla, movies and television are first and foremost about entertainment. If its not entertainment, it fails. Right. This obviously didnt fail. My question, though, has to do with what do you think about daniel daylewis portrayal of lincoln as a person, not necessarily historically accurate words, but his portrayal . I think thats why the movie is called Abraham Lincoln and not the fight for the 13th amendment. Spielberg wanted to give us lincoln. Did he . Well, i was mesmerized. I have studied lincoln for over 20 years and for me, the movie felt like five minutes. You know, so thats hollywood magic. Thats what it does. I cannot do that in my books. Mike wrote a great book about the 13th amendment. Its not as magical as spielbergs lincoln, and he knows it and i know it, and theres magic involved. What i tried to do today is show you behind the curtain, magic involved deception. Theres deception in daniel daylewis performance and theres a lot of assumptions or premiseses that are wrong or shaky, and people who watch the movie and dont realize that might be confused. I dont think daniel daylewis lincoln is a real lincoln, but i think its a really powerful lincoln. I thought it was the best filmed lincoln i had seen, but the man himself despite all i have read, still remains in many key ways a mystery. So i do have two brief questions. The first is, Thaddeus Stevens who well into the 1960s was the image, if you had an image at all, was this man who whatever his moderate origins was traumatized by the burning of his factory and filled with a hatred of the south and buried in a black cemetery. This may be cut out of whole cloth, that is even more fictitious than the movie, but the other is i have heard other talks about this and there was a scene with lincoln slapping robert, his son, and someone said this could never happen. The movie presented it as the deposition of something that had never happened before and would never happen again. My larger question is isnt any historian, however objective he or she may aspire to be, should they not have their own internal spielberg that leaves scenes out that do not conform with their image of their character just as some of jeffersons biographers until quite recently dismissed any notion of a liaison with sal Sally Hemings because this is not something their Thomas Jefferson would ever do . We all make mistakes and we all interpret. However, we have footnotes and theres a transparency to our work that i dont always think script writers or screenwriters like tony kushner acknowledge. Whether or not they acknowledge it, too many of my students get confused. It seems so real. I guarantee you, theyre going to remember Abraham Lincoln saying he is selling himself cheap about that congressman more than anything else, or that scene in the white house right before the vote where he says, i am the president of the united states. Clothed in immense power. Thats probably something he never said. It comes from a recollection from a congressman. He certainly didnt say it before those people in that moment in that way. In the script, they say he rises to what seemed like 8 feet tall. Im studying him and appreciating him as a party leader, boss lincoln. I understand he has a gritty side, but that depiction to me seems off note. You know, historians have off notes, too. But i think the difference is that we at least try to be transparent about how we got there. I just want to add one footnote to all of your wonderful work and youve done all of us an enormous favor by giving us this paper, but next time you give it, there is the scene where the lobbyists drop the money on the floor. Having spent eight years in albany, new york, i can promise you the fixers from albany dropped the money on the floor. Well, ill yield to Paul Finkelman as the expert on corruption. You know, theres so many details like that that are hard to convey, but all of those lobbying scenes, every single one of them, thats all fiction. None of that comes from the record. There are accounts of bribery. None of those accounts are in the movie. Every single one of those scenes is pure invention from Tony Horowitz. I think thats legitimate Artistic License to a degree, but people need to realize what it is. Hey, matt. As a teacher, i mean, we have an important duty to our students. And its movies like lincoln and gettysburg that draw that desire to learn more. And for us the teachers, we have to give them the tools. Right. To help them depict what is fact and what is not fact. But i think lincoln will have a better i think its more of a positive in that it will hopefully draw people to want to learn more about lincoln. Sure, but you agree with me, right . At the heart of the movie, there is this depiction of bribery that lincoln is not only aware of but he condoned. True. Yeah. Thats pretty dark. I know, its very dark, and you compare it to modernday politics where, you know, you have congress thats been doing Insider Trading for years. Yeah. And all of these other things that lends to support what this movie unfortunately is saying. n puts your finger right on it because everyone including Tony Horowitz and Steven Spielberg are comparing this to modernday politics. Its a lesson more about modern day politics in some ways than 19th century politics. 19th century politics were corrupt, but it was different. Theres a scene on the day of the vote where Fernando Wood is waving papers saying i have affidavits. Thats not 19th century congress. Thats what you realize when you see a movie like lincoln. Or think about mr. Smith goes to washington, almost all of what we think we know about past politics comes from movies. And popular culture, and we absorb it so much, we think its real. Thats why its so important to try to sort it out. I dont want to be one of those scholar squirrels that gore vidal used to make fun of, but thats what i have been doing, digging around in the script and pointing out the small differences, but ultimately, they matter. As much as i think youre right, the Lincoln Movie will produce good things, when we teach it, teachers need to be aware of how it departs from what we know about the record. Greg. You need to wait for the microphone. Sorry, how does it skew in terms of younger audiences . Because my experience, which could be which is only anecdotal, when i poll my question classes. Many more have seen django and vampire hunter than lincoln. They see lincoln as a movie for not even their parents, for their grandparents. That could be puculiarities of my students. My line about the vampire hunter is, its not all true. I went to see the Lincoln Movie in the theater three times, and each time i was the youngest one in the room, which i think proves your point, but i do think that even if the kids didnt see it in the theaters, i dont know what the demographics are of the audience, but theyre going to see it in the classroom for a generation if not two. Its going to be powerful and theyre going to get it that way. I teach it and im going to continue to teach it and many others will and its really important that we focus on how they perceive it in the classroom more than anything else. One more question, paul . Okay. If i were you, i would be champing at the bit to try to get the early drafts of the script to see how it developed. I dont think youll get it but it would be really interesting because i bet you anything that those scenes that are less historically accurate were the ones that evolved most. Youre probably right. You know, theres no doubt that the script evolved. According to all the reports we have, it started out as a sweeping narrative of the whole war and i think it was spielberg who said we have to focus on thas moment. Thats why hes such a great story teller. Ill be honest, in my classes, i have had a tendency in the past to pass over the 13th amendment narrative and focus more on the emancipation proclamation. Now because of the movie and because of other works, you know, i feel like im aware in a way that i wasnt of the dramatic potential of the story, even as i note the discrepancies between the record and the film, but thats what great Story Tellers do, they show you drama and moments some of us miss because we dont have those skills. Thats another thing hollywood got right about the 13th amendment, even as they got some things wrong. So thank you very much. [ applause ] this weekend on American History tv, well take a look back 200 years ago this week when British Military forces set the white house and u. S. Capitol on fire. Well also hear about how british admiral George Coburn used washingtons waterways to invade and burn the city. Heres a preview. Coburns idea is to make use of several different waterways in an attack on washington. If the British Force simply sealed up the potomac, everybody would know that washington was the ultimate target. Coburn decides that, or recommends that the force be split up, that one squadron sail up the Potomac River and threaten the capital in the city of alexandria. The main force is going to go up the putuxen river into southern maryland, and the advantage of the putuckson is it would shield the ultimate british intention. It could mean many things. It might mean an attack on washington, but it also could mean an over land attack on baltimore or an attack on annapolis or it could mean that the british were simply chasing after Commodore Joshua Barney who was the american commander of the chesapeake flu toa who had a flatoa of shallow draft barges that were perfect for navigating the shallow waters of the chesapeake