Reject the scholar who doesnt give them what they want. It strikes me, in other words they are engaging in some way. Just on their own terms. You know, someone like Steve Mcqueen has an idea and he found this book. He had an idea. His wife found him the book and he put it all together and that is the narrative and the story and he has his ideas and scenes. I was struck powerfully by spielberg having scenes in his mind telling the historians what he saw. Was it possible . Could it be . What was the weather at the gettysburg address . Could the flag have been flying . And the several hundred page screen play gets shrunk down to a few months. So there are ways. Theyre saying can mary lincoln wear this . Can she wear that . Well, she was actually wearing black. She was in mourning. But the larger authenticity of the film was to portray her as a vain shopaholic, someone difficult. So she wasnt accurate. If i had been someone who said, no. She must wear the black, otherwise its inaccurate, you know, i think it would have just trying to give you concrete examples. I dont think it is quite so mean spirited they dont want to lear it but i am saying i found most people doing period pieces have their ideas in mind, have their scripts ready for the stamp of approval. Can you go through and take the three things we will have to eliminate or change . You know, it depends of course. Many other film makers as i said especially documentarians are amazing the way they absorb and they consider they are taking a course and i am very grateful someone like tony did read so widely and was able to bring lincoln to life through words that i felt like i was listening in to the people who i knew but he was interpreting them in ways i didnt know and i think that is a sign of a gift most of us dont have in our writing and should try to admire these moments, these scenes at the beginning of 12 years a slave the opening scene. Im just saying ive had more conversations with people about it and that someone could make a film that so powerfully opens, about gender, about race, about slavery, and yet who is going to tell you what its about . What im trying to get at is i think that can be the power of a work of art and sometimes i think it is very deliberate to not have it reflect good historical practice. To be more complex and open ended and maybe at times just plain wrong like in glory when you have someone riding down the film slashing at watermelons. Really . In massachusetts in april . Once again at the same time the slicing of the water melons by this leader of africanamerican troops has a larger meaning. Sometimes we have to let these people have their fantasies except for the vampires. Its an excellent question because i think the film makers ive met and the ones who write the scripts are really smart people. Theyre really quite intelligent but in a way that theyve been trained differently from the way we have so that they are interested in, you know, the impact visually and what people hear. And the over arching story or theme or thesis they want to put forward and so whenever they come to historians its not as theyre writing the work. It is usually after theyve already worked out in their mind what the opening scene is going to look like. And the story holds together well for them. For what they like to portray in one way and then on the other side of it is working with the producers to find out whether theyll finance so you have to take into consideration what the producers want to see in this film, too. So they kind of are very collaborative and were only one piece, a small piece of the collaboration because they do come in with this. Its interesting because i want to know whether or not Steve Mcqueen actually shot the opening sequence for 12 years a slave which i found horrific because there is nowhere in okay using solomon northrup to masturbate herself. That is totally in somebodys imagination. But i do know most opening sequences are not filmed by the director. There are companies that do only opening scenes for them and closing scenes. They used to just do the titles and credits but now they actually do the opening sequence and of course the director has to say okay. Check that off or whatever and the producer too. I wonder if he himself shot that sequence because usually theyre no longer shot by the directors. Hed have to check it off you know but i wonder if that was something that he in terms of thinking how its going to open that he is going to open in this kind of way or somebody who was in this who does sequences and sort of gets the audience, really draws the audience in says have you thought about putting a scene in like this . They have to get approval but no longer have actually complete control over the opening sequence. One advantage he had is he is drawing entirely on a single source. Right. Single narrative. Single voice, perspective narrative in which he lifts whole scenes. He does. The book is remarkable whereas spielberg and amistad and lincoln are drawing on so much more complex, multifaceted, multi dimensional issues and events where the input of historians i wonder would matter more either to spielberg or any film maker trying to do something. Well, i know steve mcgene is visually driven so people think about his other films. They talk about him as a visual artist behind the camera and that is more important. I think spielberg is much more interested in accuracy than a lot of directors are and that he is in some ways much more like a historian i think in the way in which he decides to depict something on screen than i think Steve Mcqueen is who is really also just about the art of making a visually stunning film. Mostly along with an important story. So recently spielberg was given an award by the lincoln and Soldiers Institute because his film is story telling and history and the speaking and showing of amistad has been a lot of debate ive been involved in i point out that i remember taking my younger son to see amistad and the moment in the film where, which is certainly taken from the case. They throw them over board. The slaves are shackled and thrown overboard is one of the most visually powerful, arresting scenes. When i went to the International Museum of slavery in liverpool they had their own version of that so it is something that we deal in words and powerfully in telling stories but its something that we now in the 21st century back to media have to grapple with. Whos going to look at it . How is it going to feel . I think we have to bring our students and public to understand stories can be told in many different dimensions and i think the power of some of these scenes maybe we can deal with clips rather than the full film and deal with the powerful medium of historical film as something that can bring slavery to a modern audience. That seems like an excellent place to conclude. Thank you all so much for coming and thank you very much to our panelists for their very thoughtful and insightful comments. Our look at hollywoods depiction of the civil war and slavery will continue in a moment. Were showing you some of the American History tv programs normally seen weekends here on cspan 3. Coming up an evaluation of the film lincoln followed by university of Mary Washington professor jeffrey mcclurkin on gone with the wind. Next week special programming on cspan net works. Monday on cspan from glasgow a debate over scottish independence. Then on tuesday issue spotlight on irs targeting of conservative groups. Wednesday night the principal on educating children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Thursday, a House Budget Committee hearing on federal, state, and private antipoverty programs. And friday night, native American History. On cspan 2 next week, book tv in primetime. Monday at 8 30 eastern. A discussion about school choice. Tuesday night at 8 00, writer John Hope Bryant on his book how the poor can save capitalism and wednesday at the author of a biography about neil armstrong. Thursday night at 8 00 a tour of the headquarters of book publisher simon and shuster. On friday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, in depth with former congressman ron fult. On cspan 3 monday the reconstruction era and civil rights. On tuesday, the end of world war ii and the atomic bomb. Wednesday night the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. Thursday, a look at how americans attitudes about world war i changed through the course of the war. On friday, a nasa documentary about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. Find our Television Schedule one week in advance at cspan. Org and let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Call us at 2026263400. On twitter use hash tag c 123 comments cspan. Org. Join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook. Follow us on twitter. Next, Dickinson College professor Matthew Pinsker dissects Steven Spielbergs movie lincoln analyzing what is fact and what is hollywood fiction. This is a portion of the 2014 civil war symposium hosted by the u. S. Capital historical society. Its about 45 minutes. Our next speaker is matt pinsker the associate professor of history and holds the chair in American Civil War history at Dickinson College of course the alma mater of both president buchanan and chief Justice Taney for what thats worth. Matt is the author of a number of books and articles including lincolns sanctuary which is a history of the soldiers home where lincoln would go during the summer and he is the author of a forthcoming book which i think will radically force us to think about lincoln in a new way. Its hard to imagine anything that could force us to think about lincoln in a new way since there is so much on lincoln that what else is there to say . His new book will be called boss lincoln and he is going to look at lincoln as a party and president ial leader. Ill turn the podium over to matt pinsker and also let him talk to us about mr. Spielberg and lincoln goes to hollywood. Well, thank you very much. To paul and don and everyone here, it is an honor to be at a symposium like this and speak about spielbergs lincoln is important for us to do. This is a movie that is now about a year and a half old and not just a biopic about Abraham Lincoln but a really fascinating study of congress. For those of us who care about the history of congress this is a welcome event for Popular Culture to celebrate congress. The title of my talk i connected to mr. Smith goes to washington because i feel there is a dark connection between them in the sense both of these classics, spielbergs lincoln is an instant american classic and mr. Smith is. Both of them depict congress in a very dark way. I think we should acknowledge that. In spielbergs case i want to explore it deeper. It is a year and a half since the movie came out and the historical reception from people in my profession was generally very positive. There were criticisms, important ones, but some of them were large as if the subject matter was wrong. It was the wrong subject or the wrong people to feature in a movie about the abolition of slavery. That is fair but such a big criticism it is hard for a film maker to address. There were a lot of small potatoes criticisms some of which came from capitol hill itself over things like whether or not the congressman from connecticut voted for or against the final amendment. Those criticisms are fair but very precise. Now as a classroom teacher as i prepare to teach this movie and i have to teach it because its such a vivid portrayal of the period, ive been compelled to think a little more deeply about the nature of the narrative itself and in doing so, you know, i cant escape the conclusion that at the end of the day in the passage of the 13th amendment, the abolition amendment in congress in january of 65 at the heart of that narrative there is a conclusion it was passed with bribery. That not only was it passed with bribery but it was passed with bribery that Abraham Lincoln knew about and condoned. And i find that a very disturbing conclusion because theres been a lot of scholarship on this question and the scholarship addresses this question although its far, far more cautious about reaching the conclusions the movie reaches. I dont think people have realized it. I dont think the historians who commented on the movies release in the immediate months after it came out really addressed this in great detail. I think thats because almost all of them from what i can tell watched the movie. They didnt read the script. The script wasnt readily available sex ept to Academy Award voters and it was hard to get ahold of it. Now that i am preparing to teach it and worked with the script in great detail i find examples of other connections to movies like mr. Smith in that i see the fiction that is at the heart of this narrative. This is a work of historical fiction. I dont think anybody should be shocked by that and i dont mean it as an insult but i wanted to talk about that today and sort of diagram it for you. The fictions are very sweeping. Even the spoiler alert. The amendment did pass and slavery was abolished. All of that is true. To get there from the opening of the movie they had to arrange a lot of movies. Ill go through that now. You should be aware it is part of my effort to help teach this movie and i think we should teach it and study it and use it. Ive created an unofficial guide, teachers guide to the movie thats part of something we call Dickinson College the house divided project which i lead, the emancipation digital classroom. So if you google the emancipation digital classroom you will be able to see an unofficial teachers guide to lincoln that includes links to everything im about to talk about with primary sources and images and even links to the script so you can explore this issue for yourself. Let me remind you if you cant remember how the movie begins. Of course there is that great cinematic frame. Youve got the kind of seated lincoln in the Washington Navy yard and the black soldier and white soldier recite the gettysburg address to him. This is part of the poetic frame of the movie and a cinematic lincoln memorial. Seated lincoln with the gettysburg address on one side and at the end of the movie the second inaugural. The heart of the movie narrative opens with him describing a dream to his wife. In that description of the dream you realize in early january of 1865 that he is preparing to push for an abolition amendment to the constitution during the lame duck session of congress. This is a shock. Mary lincoln opposes it. Youll waste your popularity she warns him. When he explains to William Seward and congressman james ashley on capitol hill theyre worried and shocked. This is a dramatic and sort of surprising move. That is all fiction. You know, the reintroduction of the amendment that had been defeated the previous spring is real. It was all telegrafd out in the open. This is not a surprise and something lincoln comes up with in a way that was shocking to people. In his annual message in december of 1864 after he won that sweeping reelection victory he telegrafd it to the public and boasted about it you might say. Im reading from the annual message the state of the Union Address they delivered back then when congress reassembled for its session after the election in december, 64. He says to congress the next congress will pass the measure if this does not. So then he says it is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the states. I read the next line almost as a taunt. You might read it differently. He says, may we not agree the sooner the better . Lets get this done. The telegrafg of this reintroduction of the amendment during the lame duck session was done earlier than the post election annual message. The vote in the house, the previous june in 1864, that had been a vote that was supported by all of the republican members of congress. It failed because they required the super majority and the super majority that they required meant that they needed democrats to vote for it. They didnt have enough democrats but in order to reintroduce the measure, later in the session presumably after the election because they dont reassemble again until december, james ashley the amendments sponsor switched his vote at the last minute so that he voted no. He is the only republican who voted against it in the house. In order that he could bring it back up in january. When he recalls after the war his strategy he makes it clear, right, that they had known all along this would be something that they were making a platform of the now union party in the election of 1864. They were supporting an abolition amendment, going to fight for it during the campaign, and that if they won a sweeping victory as they hoped to do they would reintroduce it in a lame duck session. He spent the next several months after the defeated measure in the house and it already passed the senate that they were going to pin point, target, wavering democrats in the north, try to persuade them to switch their votes, and then afinogenov them in december. This is what lincoln is telegraphing in his annual message. It is now all out in the open. This is not the impression the movie gives. It gives the impression the republicans are bitterly divided over this and early on you get introduced to Montgomery Blair and his father Francis Preston blair. You know, the blair family are opposed. None of thats true, right . There were conservative republicans and there were radical republicans. They argue bitterly over a lot of stuff but by january of 1865 they were not arguing necessarily over the abolition of slavery. There were differences in tactics. So one of the speakers of the symposium is michael bornberg. He is sitting right over there. His book the final freedom which came out a number of years ago offers great detail about the nuances of the debates over how to abolish slafry and how the republicans came to it but by january of 65 the Republican Party was essentially united in the idea slavery had to be abolished and they were more or less agreed it had to be abolished by constitutional amendment and even those who objected to the exact amendment or its language they werent willing to vote against it. The on