On 22 Jan. 2013, Louis Proyect wrote: > [Tom Franks wrote in] the February 2013 Harper's: > > Spielberg . . . goes well beyond justifying compromise: [the > film] justifies corruption. Lincoln and his men, as they are > depicted here, do not merely buttonhole and and persuade > and deceive. They buy votes outright with promises of > patronage jobs and (it is strongly suggested) cash bribes. The > noblest law imaginable is put over by the most degraded means. > * * * Spielberg & Co. have gone out of their way to vindicate > political corruption.
Uncharacteristically for Franks (and, if/insofar as his posting implies that the may agree, maybe for Proyect), Franks does not actually say that what he criticizes in the film in this connection is not a basically accurate historical depiction. Although Eric Foner's public critiques of the Spielberg/Kushner film itsdelf have not focused on this -- he paid more attention to their almost complete disregard of the role of The People not least including of slaves and former slaves and Abolitionists -- his Pulitzer Prize winning "The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery" seems clearly to suggest (see especially pp. 313-14 of the paperback edition) that he believes the claim of a Unionist congress member that Lincoln instructed procuring votes in any way one chose, that (as in the film) Lincoln conveyed the view that he was "clothed with immense power" to justify this, and that the means used included having Seward and others of Lincoln's minions promising and later delivering patronage appointments in exchange for votes implicitly including (Foner strongly suggests) cash bribes. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
