i just watched the movie and everything this critic said wasn't represented was. Thaddeus Stevens 1st appearance covers the people and views of the abolitionist in the republican party and how easy it would be to pass it if the waited for the next congress. they even give and in-depth view of their views on Lincoln and his policies, did he go to the bathroom during that part? the bulk of the movie shows all the people who fought to get it passed, what makes it seem he did it alone? shallow review but that's what CNN is. Shallow
The decisive element in the ending of slavery was the Army. It was the Army that crushed the confederacy. It was the Army that elected Lincoln and which continued to elect Republican Presidents up till the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Without the occupation of much of the South, no Republican victory in 1866; Without this, no radical Reconstruction, and no Grant victory in 1868.
@@JRobbySh Judy S. your kidding yourself. we drafted the army, they were not volunteers. and we didnt have a real large standing army like we do now till after ww1
Amen to that. The movie gives tremendous credit to Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Repubs for the 13th Ammendment. Stevens of course was an ideologue, even if his compass always pointed true north. He needed the counterpart of a man like Lincoln who was a political genius to actually steer the bill to its passage by 2/3rds of both Houses. There were pitfalls to its passage. Whenever you need 2/3rds of any body, politics must be played, especially when one is ridding the nation of a part of its founding culture where 4 of its states (Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky) are immersed in that culture. I should also include West Virginia, but frankly until recently I thought West Virginia remained in the Union as a free state.
@@mesa1893they’re correct in the statement that the occupation of the south, allowed the 13th amendment to pass. That is correct. Had the democrat party from the southern states been allowed to sit in on congress, during the ratification process, it surely would’ve failed. In the movie, the vice president of the Confederacy said as much. “Will we be accepted into the union fast enough to block this here 13th amendment?” That was paraphrased btw.
@@dovbarleib3256I don’t believe they give enough credit to Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans. Sure they highlight his attempts at abolition which (as the movie states) was the cornerstone of his entire career in politics. I think they have too much credit to president Lincoln, and not nearly enough to the republicans and specifically the radical faction.
I feel like a historian worth his or her salt would understand that this movie remarkably covered a lot of people’s moral conundrums, not just Lincoln, let alone within two and a half hours. We’re all very aware that the process of abolition was much longer than this and many more people were involved, but I consider the movie to be about the politics of the proposed amendment bill and the outside forces at play. What else would he have said anyway? The movie’s great, fabulous, generally historically accurate, no glaring issues? He just wanted a cute little headline it seems.
Once again, a historian misunderstands the importance of subtext. Subtext, subtext, subtext. All they can ever do is nitpick the accuracies of minutiae, but never do they understand that Lincoln captures the national mood of the country and the thoughts/feelings of Abraham Lincoln more than any of their books.
@@IamBrixTM Depends on your definition, I guess. Lincoln was a moderate politician, while he didn't believe in slavery, he couldn't outright say so for fear of losing his standing with the public. That was why he claimed for so long the Civil War was a fight about the rights of states and the preservation of the Union. Nevertheless, he became more vocal by his second term and made sure the Thirteenth Amendment was passed before the war ended so that Southern states wouldn't have a chance to debate and bring it down. In essence, Lincoln prolonged the war and the continued deaths of thousands of soldiers just to make sure future generations of African-Americans were free. So if you ask me, no, he was not racist.
Chris Gagnon it is very wrong and in places where Spielberg shouldn’t have gotten it wrong if they actually did their research. I looked up the recorded vote on the amendment and found that the individual members of Congress they showed were wildly inaccurate. The only reason it would be acceptable is for the potential liability of using the name of the congressmen without consent of the living family members, but they could have just slightly altered the names like they did with a few and kept all other information accurate but they didn’t do that. In the first second of voting they label all representatives from Connecticut as democrats and all but one of them pro-slavery. however the democrat they portrayed as voting yes was actually the only democrat in he Connecticut delegation at the time. The rest were republicans and all thus voted in favor of the amendment. What possible reason could Steven have for that inaccuracy?
@@steakismeat177 I saw your comment, looked it up and it appears you are correct. (and even the 2 phony votes had phony names) Thank you for mentioning this. Then of course the Hollywood guys try to minimize it...sheesh. Another point that I discovered is that the "Peace envoy" left out a big thing. Preston Blair had proposed that the North and South form a truce and join forces to invade Mexico to stop European control of Mexico (google Second Mexican Empire). I always had a problem with "Munich" (another Spielberg) in that they totally ignored the "lilleheimer affair" (google it) where they murdered a completely innocent man. That was actually the reasons for stopping the mossad's targeted assasinations. Leaving this out was obviously done on purpose. But why not tell the truth? It would have added to the movie? It goes to show that many in Hollywood would rather lie when the truth would actually be preferable. Anyway, thanks for mentioning this
The "historian" just seemed salty. He never said the events didn't happen he said they still would have if they hadn't. That is actually what was said here The movie explains those motivations. So as CNN does this is certainly not a review nor a serious critique it is nonsense.
Eric Foner is what is called a 'hater'. Ok you have your book, great, now go take it to a director and producer since you are the writer and make it a movie. Steven Spielberg to my knowledge did not claim to be a historian...It is a movie at the end of the day...
At the end, Mr. Foner says exactly what I was thinking. I saw the film, liked it but did not take it as a complete history, and have since been reading Civil War history and listening to lectures by Civil War historians on TH-cam.
Also they forget to mention the film is riddled with inaccuracies about Congress. The democrats they portray as the yes votes didn’t exist but for 2. Coffroth and Yeaman, but Yeaman wasn’t a Democratic yes vote. He was a unionist. Whether he was originally going to vote no I don’t know but the movie didn’t portray his affiliation accurately. Also in regards to Coffroth he never actually switched his political affiliation though he did vote for the amendment. Clay Hawkins is fictional, but based on the real Wells Hutchins of Ohio and fits him quite well. Most people do have corresponding congressman though they are not always obvious. Some one just has to guess and assign a movie character to a congressman that fits the bill of info we are given. Also the state of Connecticut is shown to be full of democrats voting no and one of them votes yes however of the four reps from Connecticut all but one was a democrat and they, including the dem, unanimously voted in favor of abolishing slavery. One might consider these inaccuracies minute, but considering this is generally just names and votes cast it seems disgraceful for people trying to promote historical accuracy to be inaccurate at a time when the film presents them with the best opportunity to be 100% accurate. Source: www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/38-1/s134
Critics : wow!! You couldnt condense 4 years of complex events taking place across the east coast , with over 100 significant people , and whos main characters deserves 4 part movie into 3 hours , pathetic.
@@JRobbySh I find that Marxist thought can be helpful and I say that as a conservative history buff. Acknowledging the class dynamic is critical and they understand things like why Hamilton is not a liberal though liberals have tried to claim him in recent years. That said a Marxist is prone to bias, especially when seeing everything as a class struggle and thus the inevitability angle comes into play.
I think Lincoln was a great man and truly loved the idea of America. But I believe he did say that if he could keep the Union whole by not freeing the slaves he would. That is paraphrased.
Historian: “slavery was dying anyway.” Black Union soldier forced back into slavery because slavery was still not abolished but was dying: “……” Fucking people man
A good move probably; bad history according to historians. But the problem is that many people don't know hisotyr and this will become "fact" to them. I'm guessing Hollywood won't know the difference and will make it best picture. It seems to me that, at least for movies dealing with history, best picture ought to carry with it the rule of thumb that historians should agree with it its presentation of events. I'm sure Lewis will get another Oscar; and he is fantastic at impersonations.
There was a Confederate peace offering that would have ended the Civil War before the abolition amendment was passed. Lincoln could not have that. If the north and south came back together before the 13th amendment was passes it may have taken years to pass after the southern democrats came back as part of the United Stares of America. It was extremely tough to pass as it was with just the northern democrats. This was an excellent move by Lincoln.
Foner is such a pompous pain in the ass. The movie went out of its way to mention a few times that the election yielded a better shot in early spring of 1865. Lincoln wanted it done before the war ended as, contrary to Mr. Foner, slavery was not dead nor dying. The only reason it was one the wain was due to the war in general. Did he completely forget the whole part of tenant farming post-war?
I agree. The abolitionists had been working on ending slavery long before this. Also, people don't like to acknowledge that Cristianity played a vital role in this process.
it was still one of the greatest movies ever made, and should have won the Oscar for the Best Picture of the Year
Moses Cordovero it didn’t!!!! That is some bull!!!
The movie never comes close to implying that Lincoln ended slavery single-handedly
Incomplete? What does this guy want? A 15 hour movies?
Exactly, it's a movie.
Not a 30 hr PBS docu series
Froner is wrong in downplaying Lincoln’s role,
i just watched the movie and everything this critic said wasn't represented was. Thaddeus Stevens 1st appearance covers the people and views of the abolitionist in the republican party and how easy it would be to pass it if the waited for the next congress. they even give and in-depth view of their views on Lincoln and his policies, did he go to the bathroom during that part? the bulk of the movie shows all the people who fought to get it passed, what makes it seem he did it alone? shallow review but that's what CNN is. Shallow
The decisive element in the ending of slavery was the Army. It was the Army that crushed the confederacy. It was the Army that elected Lincoln and which continued to elect Republican Presidents up till the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Without the occupation of much of the South, no Republican victory in 1866; Without this, no radical Reconstruction, and no Grant victory in 1868.
@@JRobbySh Judy S. your kidding yourself. we drafted the army, they were not volunteers. and we didnt have a real large standing army like we do now till after ww1
Amen to that. The movie gives tremendous credit to Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Repubs for the 13th Ammendment. Stevens of course was an ideologue, even if his compass always pointed true north. He needed the counterpart of a man like Lincoln who was a political genius to actually steer the bill to its passage by 2/3rds of both Houses. There were pitfalls to its passage. Whenever you need 2/3rds of any body, politics must be played, especially when one is ridding the nation of a part of its founding culture where 4 of its states (Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky) are immersed in that culture. I should also include West Virginia, but frankly until recently I thought West Virginia remained in the Union as a free state.
@@mesa1893they’re correct in the statement that the occupation of the south, allowed the 13th amendment to pass. That is correct. Had the democrat party from the southern states been allowed to sit in on congress, during the ratification process, it surely would’ve failed. In the movie, the vice president of the Confederacy said as much. “Will we be accepted into the union fast enough to block this here 13th amendment?” That was paraphrased btw.
@@dovbarleib3256I don’t believe they give enough credit to Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans. Sure they highlight his attempts at abolition which (as the movie states) was the cornerstone of his entire career in politics. I think they have too much credit to president Lincoln, and not nearly enough to the republicans and specifically the radical faction.
Still a Great Movie though. Daniel Day-Lewis was Spectacular as Lincoln. A great tribute to a great man.
I feel like a historian worth his or her salt would understand that this movie remarkably covered a lot of people’s moral conundrums, not just Lincoln, let alone within two and a half hours. We’re all very aware that the process of abolition was much longer than this and many more people were involved, but I consider the movie to be about the politics of the proposed amendment bill and the outside forces at play. What else would he have said anyway? The movie’s great, fabulous, generally historically accurate, no glaring issues? He just wanted a cute little headline it seems.
Once again, a historian misunderstands the importance of subtext. Subtext, subtext, subtext. All they can ever do is nitpick the accuracies of minutiae, but never do they understand that Lincoln captures the national mood of the country and the thoughts/feelings of Abraham Lincoln more than any of their books.
Dickens was not an historian but he certainly gives us a picture of the :”mood” of the Revolutionaries in Paris in his book. A tale of Two Cities.”
Wasn't he a racist? Didn't come off that way in the film.
@@IamBrixTM Depends on your definition, I guess. Lincoln was a moderate politician, while he didn't believe in slavery, he couldn't outright say so for fear of losing his standing with the public. That was why he claimed for so long the Civil War was a fight about the rights of states and the preservation of the Union. Nevertheless, he became more vocal by his second term and made sure the Thirteenth Amendment was passed before the war ended so that Southern states wouldn't have a chance to debate and bring it down. In essence, Lincoln prolonged the war and the continued deaths of thousands of soldiers just to make sure future generations of African-Americans were free. So if you ask me, no, he was not racist.
Bullshit... The movie never claims that Lincon was the author of the 13th amendment.
Spielberg does his research - Schindlers List anyone?
The dude here basically said it's wrong but watch it 😂
Happy?
Chris Gagnon it is very wrong and in places where Spielberg shouldn’t have gotten it wrong if they actually did their research. I looked up the recorded vote on the amendment and found that the individual members of Congress they showed were wildly inaccurate. The only reason it would be acceptable is for the potential liability of using the name of the congressmen without consent of the living family members, but they could have just slightly altered the names like they did with a few and kept all other information accurate but they didn’t do that. In the first second of voting they label all representatives from Connecticut as democrats and all but one of them pro-slavery. however the democrat they portrayed as voting yes was actually the only democrat in he Connecticut delegation at the time. The rest were republicans and all thus voted in favor of the amendment. What possible reason could Steven have for that inaccuracy?
He said it's inadequate and people should see it then read a book about it.
@@steakismeat177 I saw your comment, looked it up and it appears you are correct. (and even the 2 phony votes had phony names) Thank you for mentioning this.
Then of course the Hollywood guys try to minimize it...sheesh.
Another point that I discovered is that the "Peace envoy" left out a big thing. Preston Blair had proposed that the North and South form a truce and join forces to invade Mexico to stop European control of Mexico (google Second Mexican Empire).
I always had a problem with "Munich" (another Spielberg) in that they totally ignored the "lilleheimer affair" (google it) where they murdered a completely innocent man. That was actually the reasons for stopping the mossad's targeted assasinations. Leaving this out was obviously done on purpose. But why not tell the truth? It would have added to the movie?
It goes to show that many in Hollywood would rather lie when the truth would actually be preferable.
Anyway, thanks for mentioning this
Just enjoy Daniel day lewis’ portrayal and introduction of lincoln to those who missed how great this man is, through this Movie
The film doesn’t make the claim that Lincoln originated the 13th Amendment.
Its my #1 movie of all time
The "historian" just seemed salty. He never said the events didn't happen he said they still would have if they hadn't. That is actually what was said here
The movie explains those motivations.
So as CNN does this is certainly not a review nor a serious critique it is nonsense.
Lincoln was still the president and he said he hated slavery. Without him it would have been different
Eric Foner is what is called a 'hater'. Ok you have your book, great, now go take it to a director and producer since you are the writer and make it a movie. Steven Spielberg to my knowledge did not claim to be a historian...It is a movie at the end of the day...
One historical mistake is Mary calling it The White House. That name wasn’t used until teddy Roosevelt was president
At the end, Mr. Foner says exactly what I was thinking. I saw the film, liked it but did not take it as a complete history, and have since been reading Civil War history and listening to lectures by Civil War historians on TH-cam.
The book “team of rivals” is AMAZING. Any Lincoln biography will blow your mind. What a unique human he was.
Also they forget to mention the film is riddled with inaccuracies about Congress.
The democrats they portray as the yes votes didn’t exist but for 2. Coffroth and Yeaman, but Yeaman wasn’t a Democratic yes vote. He was a unionist. Whether he was originally going to vote no I don’t know but the movie didn’t portray his affiliation accurately. Also in regards to Coffroth he never actually switched his political affiliation though he did vote for the amendment.
Clay Hawkins is fictional, but based on the real Wells Hutchins of Ohio and fits him quite well. Most people do have corresponding congressman though they are not always obvious. Some one just has to guess and assign a movie character to a congressman that fits the bill of info we are given.
Also the state of Connecticut is shown to be full of democrats voting no and one of them votes yes however of the four reps from Connecticut all but one was a democrat and they, including the dem, unanimously voted in favor of abolishing slavery. One might consider these inaccuracies minute, but considering this is generally just names and votes cast it seems disgraceful for people trying to promote historical accuracy to be inaccurate at a time when the film presents them with the best opportunity to be 100% accurate.
Source: www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/38-1/s134
Critics : wow!! You couldnt condense 4 years of complex events taking place across the east coast , with over 100 significant people , and whos main characters deserves 4 part movie into 3 hours , pathetic.
Historian just want his book bought
Yeah, and I think a little jealousy that he wasn't one of the "experts " Spielberg used for the film.
Eric is one of the foremost American historians who has written 9 books on slavery so ya’ll better recognize!
then tell him to make a book a movie... Spielberg is not a proclaimed historian
He is also a marxist and his bias is in favor of inevitability rather than the sheer weight of contingencies and personal decisions.
@@JRobbySh I find that Marxist thought can be helpful and I say that as a conservative history buff. Acknowledging the class dynamic is critical and they understand things like why Hamilton is not a liberal though liberals have tried to claim him in recent years. That said a Marxist is prone to bias, especially when seeing everything as a class struggle and thus the inevitability angle comes into play.
Doesn't make his silly whining for attention valid.
@@David-fm6go Marxists have no real "thoughts". They are real good at fooling people and then killing them.
I think Lincoln was a great man and truly loved the idea of America. But I believe he did say that if he could keep the Union whole by not freeing the slaves he would. That is paraphrased.
You can't get me to poo poo any movie with Daniel Day-Lewis
The point of the Movie WAS to focus on the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Historian: “slavery was dying anyway.”
Black Union soldier forced back into slavery because slavery was still not abolished but was dying:
“……”
Fucking people man
A good move probably; bad history according to historians. But the problem is that many people don't know hisotyr and this will become "fact" to them.
I'm guessing Hollywood won't know the difference and will make it best picture. It seems to me that, at least for movies dealing with history, best picture ought to carry with it the rule of thumb that historians should agree with it its presentation of events. I'm sure Lewis will get another Oscar; and he is fantastic at impersonations.
i knew i could not trust hollywood.
If it was going to happen anyway, why the gang of three? Was that made up?
All true spielberg would not have it any other way oh this guy anyone can be a historian but one that is honest
There was a Confederate peace offering that would have ended the Civil War before the abolition amendment was passed. Lincoln could not have that. If the north and south came back together before the 13th amendment was passes it may have taken years to pass after the southern democrats came back as part of the United Stares of America. It was extremely tough to pass as it was with just the northern democrats. This was an excellent move by Lincoln.
Foner is such a pompous pain in the ass. The movie went out of its way to mention a few times that the election yielded a better shot in early spring of 1865. Lincoln wanted it done before the war ended as, contrary to Mr. Foner, slavery was not dead nor dying. The only reason it was one the wain was due to the war in general. Did he completely forget the whole part of tenant farming post-war?
lol
I agree. The abolitionists had been working on ending slavery long before this. Also, people don't like to acknowledge that Cristianity played a vital role in this process.
Yes, true, but the democrats were Christians, then, too, and came to different conclusions.
Good im glad they talked about Lincoln's indifference to slavery
Lincoln was not i different to slavery, he simply recognized the political realities surrounding it.
Given that both his career and that of Seward were founded on anti-slavery arguments, this makes no sense at all.
Damn Jews
Gee another historically inaccurate movie. WTG Hollywood.
A gross oversimplification.
For Hollywood it is accurate.
From Lincoln to Dolt 45. Wow, now that's just sad.