made a lot of money which did well commercially. i take your point. i remember watching all the made for tv movies many of them dealing with the south -- freedom road with mohammed ali written by howard fast. a lot was made during -- >> biography of miss jane pitt. >> right. during the '70s you did have a lot of these films and some of the portraits of the period i thought were very wrenching and amazing. i certainly remember the first lynching on the small screen and thinking, you know, this is an amazing moment. at the same time when i think i was in the 1990s and i was often pitching stories and ideas i remember very distinctly which shocked me so much being told nah, a story we were trying to put across was too dangerous for

television because black and white. a con cue period but not modern. anything even in the 1990s might offend southern advertisers. that was the idea. in some ways i think television is a medium that responds so commercially and waits for, you know, like something happens in film and then five to ten years later it becomes okay. i'm thinking of this, i've been oust the country for almost ten years and i notice it in the language on television what is now acceptable. wait. they can see that on tv? that kind of thing. >> on the other hand it used to be to get anything made with black characters historically as the prominent characters, the center piece, had to be done on television. thinking about maia angelo's the caged bird singing. not a feature film.

back in the '80s i guess tv was a backup where you could afford to do things like that. "roots" of course. >> the last, i guess, the last episode of the first series of "roots" still had more viewership than any other mini series period in u.s. television history. that was really the moment. you also have to think about the social, the time in which it was done. it was in the civil rights movement and people wanted to know more about african-american history. they wanted more ability to talk in a way they didn't have to go and read ten books or whatever so people would look at those film and it was really a moment as was the history itself in which there was a lot of discourse across the racial divide, you know. and everyone was talking about various things. so now we have a time, very odd in terms of the way it is

represented on television. we can have something like scandals for example but then we can't necessarily have a film about nat turner. you know. and so it's really interesting that you could have this black woman in the white house in many ways running the white house, the dream of sally hemmings but you can't have, you know, you can't have a film about nat turner -- on the small screen again for pds. we're in this kind of odd place politically i think and socially with regard to race that i wouldn't know whether the figures you gave about the large screen now the small screen

producers want to take a chance doing those kind of films so often times the small screen takes the cue from the large screen. it would be interesting to see. >> and i know they were going to make a mini series about the children of pride which was derailed by "roots". "gone with the wind" was shown for the first time on television in the fall of 1976. in november. not on thanksgiving weekend but another weekend. and its two showings are still in the top ten of broadcast audiences but "roots" the last episode was higher. i think in terms of the dialogue and popular#du,"+4culture you h "gone with the wind" rearing up again just a cultural icon and roots coming along and replacing it and interestingly the children of pride scuttles back into -- also when are we going to get the many more complex stories to tell both sides so we don't have the evil master.

>> right. >> and as we know all the mistresses were evil because we watch all these films. we see their roles and there isn't any portrait that isn't stereotyped. that's why mandingo has such power because it is taking gone with the wind and turning it inside out and making it a grand saga. i did see more hands. >> i have to go back and see mandingo. i haven't seen it since the '70s. oh, my gosh. how did that get on television? >> get letters from parents about the tuition they pay. >> i know we're all interested in scholars that we want film makers to be interested in us but i have a hunch the film makers are in fact really interested. the reason they want you as a consultant is they actually want

that to be authentic and real. so when i watch a lot of these films i'm struck by did they have a kind of strange engagement but it is often a little bit off. when i watch a film it feels like a damage argument to me. when i watch jango i feel like okay. this is agency. not what i meant but in some kind of strange way there is something going on in the popular culture that kind of busted open a lot of the way we've written history and it is about breaking up the kind of cannon where you had two traditions, and it came to me in james mcbride's novel where he

portrays fredrik douglass as a buffoon. so i think part of when we watch these things, we feel like they are just busting a cannon open and in some ways maybe that is a good thing but something about it is really disturbing. i wanted to hear people talk about do you feel like -- how does it relate to the way we write history? >> it is interesting you mentioned mcbride's novel. you all know good lord bird that within the national book award this year. i haven't taught it yet but i have a number of former students reading it and getting in touch saying it is one that ought to be taught. it's been optioned and is going to be made into a film. might be the next film on slavery. it's a 12-year-old boy disguised as a girl taken in by john brown in kansas and follows him all the way through. we see harper's ferry and

meetings with douglass through the eyes of this 12-year-old boy, will smith's son is going to play it on the screen so it is going to get done. it is interesting. what they choose to option, take a fictional book and sort of a parody, almost looks like more in the line of jango more than 12 years a slave. interesting to see what they'll do with john brown on film. >> i hate to disagree with you, anthony, but i think if we brought film makers in to hear our panels to hear people talk and promote their views and scholarship don't you think there's a lot of disagreement among people of interpretations? i am taking this seriously. when the film makers call you they don't want the complexity, the historiography and will reject the scholar who doesn't 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. they're 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 wasn't accurate. if i had been someone who said, no. she must wear the black, otherwise it's inaccurate, you know, i think it would have -- just trying to give you concrete examples. i don't think it is quite so mean spirited they don't 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 didn't know and i think that is a sign of a gift most of us don't have in our writing and should try to admire these moments, these scenes at the beginning of "12 years a slave" the opening scene. i'm just saying i've 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 it's about? what i'm 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 african-american troops has a larger meaning. sometimes we have to let these people have their fantasies except for the vampires. >> it's an excellent question because i think the film makers i've met and the ones who write the scripts are really smart people. they're really quite intelligent but in a way that they've 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 it's not as they're writing the work. it is usually after they've 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 they'll 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 we're only one piece, a small piece of the collaboration because they do come in with this. it's 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 somebody's 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 they're no longer shot by the directors. he'd have to check it off you know but i wonder if that was something that he in terms of thinking how it's 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 i've 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 it's something that we now in the 21st century back to media have to grapple with. who's 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 hollywood's depiction of the civil war and slavery will continue in a moment. we're showing you some of the american history tv programs normally seen weekends here on c-span 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 c-span net works. monday on c-span 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 c-span 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 c-span 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 c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. on twitter use hash tag # c 123 comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. next, dickinson college professor matthew pinsker dissects steven spielberg's 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. it's 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 that's worth. matt is the author of a number of books and articles including lincoln's sanctuary which is a history of the soldier's 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. it's 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 presidential leader. i'll 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 spielberg's 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, spielberg's 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 spielberg's 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 it's such a vivid portrayal of the period, i've been compelled to think a little more deeply about the nature of the narrative itself and in doing so, you know, i can't 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 there's been a lot of scholarship on this question and the scholarship addresses this question although it's far, far more cautious about reaching the

conclusions the movie reaches. i don't think people have realized it. i don't think the historians who commented on the movie's release in the immediate months after it came out really addressed this in great detail. i think that's because almost all of them from what i can tell watched the movie. they didn't read the script. the script wasn't 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 don't think anybody should be shocked by that and i don't 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. i'll 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. i've created an unofficial guide, teacher's guide to the movie that's 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 teacher's guide to lincoln that includes links to everything i'm 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 can't remember how the movie begins. of course there is that great cinematic frame. you've 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. you'll waste your popularity she warns him. when he explains to william seward and congressman james ashley on capitol hill they're 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 re-election victory he telegrafd it to the public and boasted about it you might say. i'm 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? let's 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 didn't have enough democrats but in order to reintroduce the measure, later in the session presumably after the election because they don't reassemble again until december, james ashley the amendment's 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 that's 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 weren't willing to vote against it. the only votes they were targeting were democratic votes, not conservative republicans. the conservatives and radicals were arguing over reconstruction, over what happens next after the union has reconciled. those arguments were fierce and bitter and they're real but when the movie portrays this tension between conservative and radical republicans with lincoln in the

middle, it's conflating two different issues that should be separated. you know, this plays out in a host of different ways. i don't have time to go into all of it. classic scene, arguably the most teachable scene in the movie at least for a college professor. so there is this meeting of the cabinet where abraham lincoln defends his emancipation policy and explains to skeptical cabinet officers why they need to push for this abolition amendment and it is like a cinematic version of the famous painting by francis carpenter which you see on the senate side of the capital on the cover of the book "the team of rivals" and this is teachable, abraham lincoln bringing to life complicated constitutional arguments. i've seen people, historians thrilled in their reviews celebrating this. we should.

okay? that scene, circa summer of 1862, has nothing to do with the politics of the moment in january of 1865. what they're talking about in the summer of '62 is about the threat of the supreme court still at that point controlled by roger taney and the votes they need aren't clear but by january of '65 taney is dead. simon chase is the next chief justice, the fugitive slaves' lawyer. this is a court they now have the votes to control. they are still worried about the ultimate legality of the emancipation proclamation and the slaves there but the dynamic has shifted dramatically. there is a lot that's changed. in january of '65 maryland has abolished slavery by popular vote. missouri is about to by constitutional convention. the confederates are talking about offering limited emancipation for service in the army. things have changed. this is not a debate they would

have in the cabinet in the way that steven spielberg envision it and portray it. it is such a wonderful thing to see. a film, you know, addressing such complicated issues but the timing is all wrong. they've conflated everything. the reason they've done that from a dramatic perspective from an artistic license perspective is totally understandable. right? they need to create drama and tension and set up conflict. act one. screen writing 101. you set up tension a know then resolve it. need to do that. but in getting to the resolution of this conflict between the conservatives and the radicals, they have to introduce something that doesn't actually appear in the book that's the basis for the film. so the film is supposedly built around the team of rivals. doris kearns goodwin's book. in the team of rivals the so-called seward lobby doesn't

appear. these are the lobbyists that were hired by secretary of state william seward to help secure passage of the 13th amendment. they're not even in the team of rivals. they're in the book "final freedom" and in other books. there is a really terrific, detailed depiction shun of the seward lobby in an old book pie john cox, politics, principle, and prejudice. if you want to read it the chapter on the seward lobby is masterful and freely available online through the internet archive. this lobby was real. the characters depicted in the movie are real. james spader the actor plays the tennessee attorney, real guy. okay? there is robert lathum and richard shell. these are real figures. but the actual behavior of the seward lobby is totally different from the po trail on screen. so for example you remember if you saw this movie these are like shakespearian characters.

this is james spader is fallstaff, funny guys, drinkers, gamblers, seedy, at this squirrel infested hotel in these dark rooms, bribing congressmen, the worst kind of, you know, stereotypical lobbyists. but in reality, okay, in reality bilbo, straight out of the cox chapter, he was known for his elaborate waist coats, long side burns and elegant manners. you remember james spader in that movie. he did not have elegant manners. bilbo was this prominent wig attorney from tennessee who switched sides in the mid of the war. he is interesting and elusive and nefarious in some ways but also not obscure. he knew abraham lincoln. we have letters in the lincoln papers. they had met each other and discussed strategy in november and december of 1864. he didn't live in a squirrel infested hotel. when he was in washington he roomd with another congressman

and when he was in new york where he spent most of the time, in january of 1865, he stayed at the st. nicholas hotel, the finest hotel at the time in manhattan. robert lathum and richard sell were old friends of william seward. they have a long history with him. they're prominent businessmen and investors. a little shady i'll admit but who in wall street isn't or wasn't? but nonetheless they're prominent, familiar guys. and when they were engaged in the lobbying effort, you know, the work they did was almost exclusively in new york, not in washington. when you read books like mike warnberg's or the coxes you realize what they were doing was mostly influence the democratic press in new york. because if you could influence the democratic press in new york, through the operations of the governor, you could affect

those swing votes, the swing democratic votes in the state of new york. it turns out at the end of the day the lame duck democrats they're going to switch over, 2/3 of them are going to come from new york and pennsylvania and what they're trying to do in january of '65 is affect the climate that allows democrats in states like new york and pennsylvania and connecticut to switch their votes. in the movie they're bribing these guys. you know, in the worst possible way. you know, james spader says at one point, congressmen come cheap. he makes all of these jokes about it. in practice we don't really know. we don't really know. if you read scholarship on this question they're very reluctant to draw conclusions. you at one point robert lathum one of the seward lobbyists writes in a letter we actually have where he says, about the passage of the amendment and the targeting of the lame ducks, he says, money will certainly do it if patriotism fails. money will certainly do it if patriotism fails.

that is a line that should have been in the movie. of course it wasn't. i don't understand why not. i can't tell from the letter whether he was kidding or not. it is quite possible it's tongue in cheek and also possible he was serious. you know, the scholars who looked at this will point out that there is all kinds of evidence that they had money available and of course we know there was corruption in the 19th century congress. but at the end of the day they denied they were bribing congressmen. there is this letter from richard shell after it was all over. he gets approached by somebody who is sent from secretary of state seward's office to get an accounting of their expenses. and he responds indignantly to this in a letter that we have to frederick seward the secretary's son and top assistant. he says, a gentleman called to have me give an account of expenses which amount to

nothing, he said. at any time i could be of service to the honorable secretary of state or yourself i will do all i can, but at my own expense. he goes on to talk about the importance of the issue and the patriotism of the moment. it could mean he bribed people out of his own pocket. we don't know. almost all of the stories of the bribery that allegedly occurred in january of '65 are accounts of recollected years after the fact. i in fact don't give them most credit. it's certainly not clear at all that any of them were apparent to abraham lincoln. the seward lobby that seward had activated is actually in motion in new york on his own initiative in many ways. i'm not clear lincoln was involved much at all in that business. he was lobbying border state representatives like james rollins who doesn't appear in the movie but was one of the swing votes. seward is operating in new york

at this moment without even the apparent partnership of philip weed. he thought this was a misfake. not clear at all he was involved even in this much of the operation. now, i think there's something else going on with seward, and i'll talk about that a little bit later. but this is not the impression the lincoln movie gets. you remember in the lincoln movie, the seward lobbyists hired and they operate independent of lincoln and at a certain important, he meets with them in their swill infested seedy attic of a hotel room, and he makes a comment on how to get things done, and later when he hears about their efforts to bribe a congressman from ohio named clay hawkins, he says, this is the guy who goes bird hunting with james spader and he's got this dopey look on his face through most of the movie, sort of young, foolish congressman from ohio who's bribed with a post mastership from millersberg, ohio.

that's the deal, he's going to be a post master. lincoln says in the movie, he is selling himself cheap, ain't he. selling himself cheap. this is the impression my students are going to have of abraham lincoln for years to come, but you know, there's no congressman named clay hawkins. there's a congressman from ohio, a lame duck democrat who switched his vote on the amendment. his name was wells hutchens. he was not a fool. and he wasn't bribed, as far as i can tell. there's no patronage position for him after he switched. this is a very independent minded tough democrat, kind of a hero in some respects in the wars, from ohio. he's votes to abolish slavery in the district of columbia in 1862. he supports habeas corpus. that's why he was a lame duck. he had principles and he acted on them and that's why he was

leaving office, but he's not a fool who goes bird hunting with james spader or william bilbo and gets bribed to the post mastership, and certainly nng lincoln knew about, but yet that's the impression the movie leaves them. you know, like i said, it's understandable that they take artistic license and have comic relief. i can appreciate that as long as people realize what it is. it's also true that's why the tension between the radicals and the conservatives is really hammered home with their very memorable depiction of thaddeus stevens. tommy lee jones. you know, tommy lee jones as thaddeus stevens is one of the stars of the movie. i in particular was -- have been riveted by the scene you might remember in the middle of the movie, stevens and lincoln end up in the white house kitchen after a reception where mary lincoln has a confrontation with

him. the reception is real. this is in the middle of january, but the scene in the kitchen is all invented. the scene in the kitchen, the script writer has lincoln and stevens engage in a debate about tactics. for me, this is in a nutshell what you see hollywood do so well and also do so wrong. so in the scene in this debate about tactics, there's a profound insight that lincoln offers to stevens, a kind of lesson about the difference between pragmatism and radicalism. and they're debating tablctics d lincoln says to him, a compass, i learned when i was surveying, it will point you true north from where you're standing but it has no advice about the swamps and deserts and the chasms. you know, that's true. okay. but i don't think that's anything that lincoln and stevens would have said to each other. you know, we have this cartoonish view of stevens and the popular culture from movies like the birth of nation and now from lincoln that depict him as

this radical, wild-eyed figure, but he was a pragmatic politician just like abraham lincoln. he doesn't come from the new england states. he comes from lancaster, pennsylvania, where he's representing a congressional district near the mason dixon line that had produced james buchanan. this is not a place where he's immune to popular pressure. he says i shit on the people, he says that, he wouldn't do that in real life. lincoln and stevens had known each other for years. i could document that in a way that would be really special at a symposium like this because they first met in the summer of 1848, and they met when abraham lincoln was a congressman. he served in congress for one term, and during that one term, he spent almost his entire service in congress trying to get zachary taylor elected as president. that was his ambition. and he goes to the whig national

convention in philadelphia and he meets stevens who had at to time was a lawyer from lancaster, but who was about to become a candidate for congress and about to enter congress as a whig, and lincoln writes him a letter in september, right before he's about to leave. it's so revealing and it shows them, i think, in such a rich light that it's worth reminding ourselves about. he writes him on september 3rd, 1848. d dear sir, you may possibly remember seeing me at the philadelphia convention, introduced to you as the lone whig star of illinois. i have remained here so long in the whig document room, now, there are people in the room who know what he's talking about, but this is such an insightful reference. he's been in the whig document room in the summer of 1848. what is he doing? he's literally sitting in a small room here in the capitol,

signing his name to political pamphlets that they're franking out at taxpayer expense for the whig campaign operation. he's the workhorse of the whig congressional committee which is run by a congressman from connecticut, and lincoln as the first-term congressman from illinois, the only whig from illinois, the lone star, he's proving his worth to the national operators by being their workhorse. he sits in the document room and franks out 15,000 pamphlets. he's got to sign his name to all of them. he is the most or one of the most frequent users of the franking privilege burg that session of congress. that's why he's rising as a political operative, because he's a workhorse. he's writing articles, correcting mistakes in the general whig newspapers across the country. he writes horace greely from the new york tribune and corrects one of his mistakes and he's reaching out to people, they didn't have rolodexes, but he's

working his rolodex, reaching out to people he met. he asks stevens, i'm about to start for home. i desire the experienced opinion of a politician as to how the vote of that state for governor and president is likely to go. and listen to how smooth this is. in casting about for such a man, i have settled upon you. and i shall be much obliged if you could write me in springfield, illinois. this is abraham lincoln working his network, and stevens responds just as fluidly. he responds by calling abraham lincoln the wise one and asking for him about information for his state, and stevens at that time was a abolitionist, a supporter of the underground railroad, but his advice was utterly pragmatic. we have to reach out to the know nothings, the nativists, the anti-catholics and infuse with them. this is a