Lincoln Scene Analysis
Lincoln, the Academy Award winning movie directed by Steven Spielberg, attempts to chronicle the true nature of the process of President Abraham Lincoln’s attempt to pass the 13th Amendment before the Civil War ended. The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, was not welcome by the vast majority of Democrats,whom were against any social progress of African Americans, and even some Republicans who believed it would only serve to infuriate the Confederates further. The ratification of the 13th Amendment was ultimately left to the House of Representatives. The most explicit uses of rhetoric are found in ‘Scene 11: Equality Under The Law’ (1:18:00), in which a debate in the House between Democratic Representative Fernando Wood and Republican Representative Thaddeus Stevens unfolds before several observing journalists.
Stevens is known throughout the House to be an ardent supporter of the rights of African Americans and the Democrats strategy was to evoke him to state it before the several journalists present. Fellow Republican Representative James Ashley tells Stevens “Say you believe only in legal equality for all races, not racial equality, I beg you, sir. Compromise. Or you risk it all”(1:19:00) utilizing Logos and Pathos [How?] in an appeal to both Stevens sense of reason and his emotion. The journalists had come to get a good story from Stevens ardent support of African American rights and if Stevens gave it to them it would lose the Republican party influence because many people did not agree with giving African Americans the right to vote as made evident by Mr. and Mrs. Jolly in their visit to the president(0:15:00) which might jeopardize the ratification of the 13th Amendment. In addition to appealing to Stevens sense of logic, Ashley uses the word “all” in order to deliver to Stevens the emotional gravity of the situation and what it would cost Stevens, who is in love with a black woman, if he took the Democrats bait.
Wood attempts to draw in Stevens by saying “I’ve asked you a question, Mr. Stevens, and you must answer me. Do you or do you not hold that the precept that ‘all men are created equal’ is meant literally?”(1:19:42). After a dramatic pause in which everyone in the House is silent, a rare event seeing as all previous representations of the House floor had been blaring with noise,the camera cuts to the journalists, Mrs. Keckley, Mrs. Lincoln, and the political two parties.The cinematic cuts during Stevens silence serve to put Stevens in conversation with several different varieties of people who hold differing views on the 13th Amendment and African American rights in general, increasing the pressure to make the right choice.Finally Stevens answers, properly, back with “I don’t hold with equality in all things only with equality before the law and nothing more”(1:20:53). Without changing his views, Stevens was able to answer Woods’ question adequately and abstain from catching the journalists’ attention. In addition, Stevens never specified what “things” he didn’t “hold with equality” which allowed him to utilize a double entendre in order to deliver two different messages. For all the journalists know, Stevens does not agree that African Americans are equal but his response leaves room for interpretation as social commentary on the inhumanity of the Democratic party's anti civil rights ideals.
When Stevens does not give Woods what he wants, it puts the two parties in direct competition with each other over Stevens’ reputation. Woods responds to Stevens surprising answer with “That’s not so! You believe that Negroes are entirely equal to white men. You’ve said it a thousand times!”(1:21:00). Woods utilizes a hyperbole here concerning the amount of times Stevens had verbalized his agreement with Negroe equality in order to convince the journalists of Steven’s reputation as a civil rights supporter, appealing to their sense of Ethos. Democratic Representative George Pendleton joins in and tells Stevens to “stop prevaricating”(1:21:07) to which Stevens responds with the same response he gave Woods. Ashley jumps to Stevens defense and, in order to act as an antithesis to Woods and Pendleton, says that “He’s answered your questions! This amendment has naught to do with race equality!”(1:21:18). In addition to functioning as an antithesis, Ashley clarifies to the journalists what Stevens was unable to say directly. The audience of the scene are the journalists and the two parties are attempting to push Stevens reputation in opposite directions in order to serve their polar purposes. [Also undecided congressmen?] The Democratic party wishes to involve the media in the debate and the Republican party is attempting, through careful word choice, to restrain from giving the journalists anything sustainable to work with.
On the sidelines of the debate is Mrs. Keckler, who is black. She tells Mrs. Lincoln, who is praising Stevens performance, “I need to go”(1:21:35) before leaving the observer stands. The future well-being of Mrs. Keckler and her entire race is being maneuvered through duplicitous schemes by white men as she watches helplessly from the peripheral. Mrs. Keckler’s pride is being tested but she returns to the stands at 1:23:00 showing, without the need for words, that she understands, as Stevens now does, the importance of putting pride aside in order to accomplish a necessary action. Mrs. Keckler acts a parallel to Stevens which solidifies his acceptance of the importance in playing the game of politics.
When broken down, this six minute scene contains immense layers of depth in which several rhetorical appeals and devices are used to both solidify, dismantle, attack, and support several different groups, individuals, and ideals.
Stevens is known throughout the House to be an ardent supporter of the rights of African Americans and the Democrats strategy was to evoke him to state it before the several journalists present. Fellow Republican Representative James Ashley tells Stevens “Say you believe only in legal equality for all races, not racial equality, I beg you, sir. Compromise. Or you risk it all”(1:19:00) utilizing Logos and Pathos [How?] in an appeal to both Stevens sense of reason and his emotion. The journalists had come to get a good story from Stevens ardent support of African American rights and if Stevens gave it to them it would lose the Republican party influence because many people did not agree with giving African Americans the right to vote as made evident by Mr. and Mrs. Jolly in their visit to the president(0:15:00) which might jeopardize the ratification of the 13th Amendment. In addition to appealing to Stevens sense of logic, Ashley uses the word “all” in order to deliver to Stevens the emotional gravity of the situation and what it would cost Stevens, who is in love with a black woman, if he took the Democrats bait.
Wood attempts to draw in Stevens by saying “I’ve asked you a question, Mr. Stevens, and you must answer me. Do you or do you not hold that the precept that ‘all men are created equal’ is meant literally?”(1:19:42). After a dramatic pause in which everyone in the House is silent, a rare event seeing as all previous representations of the House floor had been blaring with noise,the camera cuts to the journalists, Mrs. Keckley, Mrs. Lincoln, and the political two parties.The cinematic cuts during Stevens silence serve to put Stevens in conversation with several different varieties of people who hold differing views on the 13th Amendment and African American rights in general, increasing the pressure to make the right choice.Finally Stevens answers, properly, back with “I don’t hold with equality in all things only with equality before the law and nothing more”(1:20:53). Without changing his views, Stevens was able to answer Woods’ question adequately and abstain from catching the journalists’ attention. In addition, Stevens never specified what “things” he didn’t “hold with equality” which allowed him to utilize a double entendre in order to deliver two different messages. For all the journalists know, Stevens does not agree that African Americans are equal but his response leaves room for interpretation as social commentary on the inhumanity of the Democratic party's anti civil rights ideals.
When Stevens does not give Woods what he wants, it puts the two parties in direct competition with each other over Stevens’ reputation. Woods responds to Stevens surprising answer with “That’s not so! You believe that Negroes are entirely equal to white men. You’ve said it a thousand times!”(1:21:00). Woods utilizes a hyperbole here concerning the amount of times Stevens had verbalized his agreement with Negroe equality in order to convince the journalists of Steven’s reputation as a civil rights supporter, appealing to their sense of Ethos. Democratic Representative George Pendleton joins in and tells Stevens to “stop prevaricating”(1:21:07) to which Stevens responds with the same response he gave Woods. Ashley jumps to Stevens defense and, in order to act as an antithesis to Woods and Pendleton, says that “He’s answered your questions! This amendment has naught to do with race equality!”(1:21:18). In addition to functioning as an antithesis, Ashley clarifies to the journalists what Stevens was unable to say directly. The audience of the scene are the journalists and the two parties are attempting to push Stevens reputation in opposite directions in order to serve their polar purposes. [Also undecided congressmen?] The Democratic party wishes to involve the media in the debate and the Republican party is attempting, through careful word choice, to restrain from giving the journalists anything sustainable to work with.
On the sidelines of the debate is Mrs. Keckler, who is black. She tells Mrs. Lincoln, who is praising Stevens performance, “I need to go”(1:21:35) before leaving the observer stands. The future well-being of Mrs. Keckler and her entire race is being maneuvered through duplicitous schemes by white men as she watches helplessly from the peripheral. Mrs. Keckler’s pride is being tested but she returns to the stands at 1:23:00 showing, without the need for words, that she understands, as Stevens now does, the importance of putting pride aside in order to accomplish a necessary action. Mrs. Keckler acts a parallel to Stevens which solidifies his acceptance of the importance in playing the game of politics.
When broken down, this six minute scene contains immense layers of depth in which several rhetorical appeals and devices are used to both solidify, dismantle, attack, and support several different groups, individuals, and ideals.