Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012) gives a feeling of ambiguity. On the one hand, it is an impressive biopic full of memorable acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, David Straitharn, and Sally Fields, and with an intricate story line revolving around the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. On the other hand, it is a film full of historical inaccuracies, distortions, and Lincoln cult. MAIN CLAIM: From the perspective of historical value, Lincoln (2012) is more hurtful than helpful because of a series of distortions and inaccuracies as well as because of its key message forcing the audience to perceive President Lincoln as the Great Emancipator.

The main hurtful thing about Lincoln (2012) is its distorted portrayal of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. Whereas Lincoln aggressively pushed the Thirteenth Amendment, he did it predominantly not because he was so much concerned about black people’s rights but because he wanted to achieve the reunion of all states (Schwartz 91). Indeed, during the first half of the nineteenth century, slavery was the main source of discord between the North and the South. Still, no war took place. It was only after the eleven states seceded that Lincoln decided to go to war. Historically, it is clear for scholars that Lincoln would have used military force to make the eleven states go back even if there was no such reason as slavery (Schwartz 294). In this way, the states’ secession rather than the need to emancipate black slaves was the key point in Lincoln’s advancing the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (Schwartz 238).

The focus on this pseudo-motive of Lincoln’s comes as a great distortion in the movie. When one understands this, one will perceive certain scenes in the film as artificial and even far-fetched. For instance, the Cabinet scene in the film, in which Lincoln is insisting that the Thirteenth Amendment should be passed immediately, appears to aim to convince the audience that Lincoln was so hostile toward black people’s plight that he could not wait to see them liberated. Yet, the evidence from the historical sources allows claiming that Lincoln had different concerns (Schwartz 294). Indeed, restoring the Union was Lincoln’s oath and his biggest duty. That is why he used the best tools to preserve the national unity: protecting freedom and establishing racial justice (Schwartz 91).

In the film, there is evidence of Lincoln’s ambiguous position towards abolition. If earlier in the movie, unsure Lincoln seeks support of Congressional members with regard to abolition (for example, he recalls how he helped as a young lawyer to an old black woman who killed her husband), later he displays passion and even haste in abolishing slavery. For example, he surprisingly says, “I can’t end this war until we cure ourselves of slavery. This amendment is that cure.” Another example that shows that ending slavery was not Lincoln’s major preoccupation is his silence in response to Elizabeth Keckley’s question about what African Americans, these former slaves, will do once they get freedom.

Even though in the film, Lincoln’s silence is explained in the light of his inability to imagine how black people might organize their lives, in reality this silence indicates Lincoln’s key objective was to bring the states together rather than settle all practical issues arising from the need to help black people adapt to the new reality. Hence, even though the movie provides a relevant portrayal of Lincoln’s steps towards abolishing slavery, it fails to leave its audience some space to see that his primary motive was the reunion rather than black people’s emancipation and welfare.

Another point against seeing this film as a historically helpful work is a multitude of historical distortions that may leave the viewer confused. For example, throughout the film, the audience is exposed to Lincoln’s cult. The film makes us believe that Lincoln was immensely popular during his presidency and people loved him so much that no one could beat his prestige. In reality, Lincoln, of course, was admired by many citizens and soldiers, but he was despised by many as well. Specifically, in 1860, Lincoln got less than 40% of the total popular vote. Later, in 1864, he with uncertainty defeated George McClellan (Blum & Harvey 120). There is historical evidence that when on Good Friday Lincoln was killed, there were people in the North who liked the news (for example, radical Republicans).

The reasons were different: some disagreed with how Lincoln warred, others compared him with Washington and Jefferson, and still others did not like his (poor) manners (Hodes 91). Another historical inaccuracy is the use of the s and f words. It seems unlikely that Thaddeus Stevens could have said, “I s*** on people.” Likewise, the phrase by one of House representatives when Lincoln visits them, “Well, I’ll be f*****!” looks unlikely. It seems that in Lincoln’s time, people were more likely to use phrases like “Oh, Jesus!” Other scenes that seem inaccurate and hard to believe is Lincoln’s taking to the theater his wife’s dressmaker Elizabeth Keckley; Lincoln’s slapping of Robert’s face; Mary Todd Lincoln’s presence at the debates in the House, and others.

Overall, whereas film has its own artistic and cinematographic value, its value as a historical film is minimal. It teaches that history cannot be cooked and served as if it were restaurant meals. Instead, one should carefully study and analyze it in order to get as close as possible to truth. The distortion of history at the mass level may bring about unexpected responses and start unprecedented processes in a society, so one should be careful when using history to advance one’s own values or making it support his or her convictions.