'Lincoln' film rife with inaccuracies (at least about Connecticut)

BY Alyssa Kleven  on February 7, 2013 @ 9:12 am (Updated: 10:45 am - 2/7/13 )

filmlincoln_ap640.jpg
While a movie can rarely be taken for historical fact, KIRO Radio's Dave Ross acknowledged many audience members with little background on the time period will reference the film as just that. " | Zoom
Congressman Joe Courtney has a problem with Steven Spielberg's blockbuster, Academy Award nominated film "Lincoln."

"I think it's a wonderful movie," Courtney told Seattle's Morning News, who watched it with his wife on Saturday night.

When it came to how Connecticut's members of Congress voted in the film, one representative voted in favor of the thirteenth amendment and two did not.

It was a red flag for Courtney. "I thought, that cannot be right."

So the representative from Connecticut's 2nd district did some research the way most of us do - he Googled it.

On Monday, when he returned to Capitol Hill, he took his research to a more official level. He asked his congressional research assistant to pull up the file.

"Sure enough, Connecticut, which actually had four house members in 1865, all voted unanimously in favor of the 13th amendment. Three Lincoln Republicans and one Democrat. So it was actually one of the opposition party members that crossed the aisle and voted in favor of the 13th amendment."

Courtney said his constituents were bothered by the mistake. After losing 5,000 union soldiers in the war, it seems like a blow to portray the state as not being on board with the cause.

So Courtney wrote a letter to Steven Spielberg. While he hasn't yet heard back from the iconic filmmaker about the historical inaccuracies, he said he has heard indirectly from the some of the screenwriters.

According to Courtney, they say they took artistic license in an effort to create more drama - make it appear as though there was more opposition to the 13th amendment.

"Connecticut, alphabetically, was first in the call of the states," said Courtney. "That's really the fallback they've been claiming."

He hasn't just been trying to stir the pot in Connecticut. The story has piqued the interest of others too now that it's gone national.

Much like another amendment, the first, Courtney said he feels no need to force Spielberg's or Dreamworks' hand and change the scene of the film. But he said it's still not too late. The DVD release is just around the corner and it could right some of the wrongs.

While a movie can rarely be taken for historical fact, KIRO Radio's Dave Ross acknowledged many audience members with little background on the time period will reference the film as just that. "I think it's actually a big deal," Ross told Courtney.

And at least if "Lincoln" is taken as fact, it's not as bad as some other scenarios. Like "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter." Said Courtney, "There are hopefully very few members of the audience that naive to treat it as history."

Alyssa Kleven, MyNorthwest.com Editor
Alyssa Kleven is an editor and content producer at MyNorthwest.com. She enjoys doting over her adorable dachshund Winnie - named for Arcade Fire front-man Win Butler.
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Miracle
    Seattle native is only person ever cured of HIV and returns home to boost the cure

  • Back In Business
    A temporary bridge span across the Skagit River is set to open Wednesday

  • High Altitude Upgrade
    The state's highest outhouse atop Mount Rainier is getting a badly needed upgrade
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (9)


  • Add A Comment

  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    From the article: "Courtney said his constituents were bothered by the mistake. After losing 5,000 union soldiers in the war, it seems like a blow to portray the state as not being on board with the cause. "
    February 7, 2013 9:58 am
    The abolition of slavery was never the primary "cause" of Lincoln or the Union Army. I thought we had progressed beyond teaching school kids that the Civil War was "fought to free the slaves".

    Lincoln said that if he could "end the war and save the Union without freeing a single slave, that is what I would do. If I could end the war and save the Union by freeing all the slaves, that is what I would do. If I could end the war and save the Union by freeing some of the slaves and leaving the rest in bondage, then that is what I would do."

    Freeing the slaves was a laudable and commendable byproduct of the civil war, but the war was not fought to abolish slavery or free the slaves.

    As agricultural technology continued to advance, slavery was on the brink of extinction by the 1860's, anyway.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    What difference at this point does it make?
    February 7, 2013 10:00 am
    Sorry, Dave. But apparently what happened 148 years ago IS relevant. ... So, perhaps, Ms. Clinton was a bit too flippant on Benghazi.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    I like the...
    February 7, 2013 10:59 am
    term, "Lincoln Republicans." Because, as we all know, current day Republicans are all racists.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Its Hollywood
    February 7, 2013 11:58 am
    They will take a great book and ruin it. They always say "BASED ON" then they re-write it to the point it doesn't even come close to the book.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DesertRez wrote...
    Lincoln
    February 7, 2013 12:14 pm
    I don't like to see Lincoln or any other figure from history elevated to a ridiculous level. He achieved great things but was no friend of the blacks and not perfect, but then most people are complex... Look up some of his quotes or speeches. The Civil war was about money.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • AtheisticallyYours wrote...
    Roll call of the states?
    February 7, 2013 12:37 pm
    Since WHEN did members of Congress have a "roll call of the states", as opposed to voting as individual members? Sounds like ANOTHER historical "inaccuracy"! And THAT kind of portrayal makes me NOT want to see the film. I hate it when episodes of historical importance are MISCONSTRUED, or downright made INACCURATE, in the name of "artistic license"!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Jason wrote...
    Inaccurate
    February 8, 2013 5:26 am
    If a movie is made about a historical figure, personally I feel they should not take artistic license when making it. As the article pointed out near the end, those who are easily mislead (most of the general population) will treat it as fact. The civil war was not fought for the end of slavery. That was a by-product of the war. The civil war was fought as a result of the federal government dictating to states what they can/can't do. In this case I think it was Kansas that was the matchstick. To gain statehood they had to be a "free" state. This irked others as an overreach of power and that individual states should be the ones deciding one way or the other. Regardless, nobody will believe it as we have been brainwashed that the sole reason for the war was slavery. And for one of the very few times I've been posting on this site, I agree with Chuck's post.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }