There is a striking line from "Lincoln": "I believe the Constitution gives me war powers, and I believe I have the authority to emancipate the enslaved people held by the rebels, considering it a part of the confiscation of property during wartime. This might lead people to suspect that I am in league with them, as they view enslaved people as personal property, a view I vehemently oppose. I intend to use legal instruments to confiscate war property, understanding that these laws apply only to government property or the residents of warring states. If, according to the law, black individuals are indeed considered personal property, do I have the right to take these individuals from the Union forces? As state laws determine whether black individuals can be bought or sold as personal property, and since there are no federal regulations, at least not currently, black people in those states are deemed enslaved people, personal property. How can I strictly adhere to state laws and legally use the Emancipation Proclamation to free them? Unless I abolish state laws. I feel that the war necessitates these actions, and my oath requires me to do so. I believe I am right, and I hope my actions are legal. I still hold onto this hope. Two years ago, I declared they could rise and gain their freedom forever. Will those I have already liberated be forced back into slavery? That's why I'd like to get the Thirteenth Amendment through the House, and on its way to ratification by the states, wrap the whole slavery thing up, forever and aye. As long as I‘m able,, I’d like you to stand behind me."
Firstly, it's crucial to understand several fundamental principles in the American policy. The Constitution stands as the supreme law, the personal property of citizens is inviolable, and the relationship between the federal government and states is one of equality, with states retaining the right to secede from the union at any time. These three principles are the significant obstacles facing Abraham Lincoln. If the Thirteenth Amendment could not be passed before the war's end, the American Civil War he initiated might be deemed illegal, potentially nullifying any prior achievements.
Historically, Abraham Lincoln was not a steadfast abolitionist, at least not as vibrant as Thaddeus Stevens appears in the film. Essentially, Lincoln was a white supremacist, and his initial intent for the Civil War was not the emancipation of enslaved people but the preservation of national unity. However, based on the Constitution, Southern states had the right to secede and form their nation, which they did. From this perspective, the Civil War, for the South, was an aggressive invasion by the North. This is why General Robert Lee, a staunch abolitionist, fought for the South — to defend their homeland. Thus, the North did not hold the moral high ground in this war, as their actions were unconstitutional. Abraham Lincoln had to navigate both morally and practically, ultimately achieving the "eternal appeal" — the emancipation of enslaved people. A battle for human liberation! This high moral ground garnered widespread support, tipping the balance of the war.
However, as mentioned earlier, this was standing on the moral high ground, forcefully driven by war machinery, making it unlawful. If the civil war wasn't seen as an aggressive invasion by the North but rather a civil war, Southern state laws remained valid. Black individuals were considered property, and emancipating them equated to depriving personal property, which the Constitution does not allow. Simultaneously, states and the federal government are equal entities; the President and Congress cannot abolish state laws unless these laws are found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In reality, these laws weren't unconstitutional; Lincoln's war was unconstitutional. Thus, Lincoln had to turn the advocacy for abolishing slavery into a constitutional amendment. Only then would his war be endowed with legality, and only then would there be a possibility of abolishing state laws. All of this had to be accomplished before the end of the war; otherwise, upon the return of Southern states, he might lose control of the legislature and face impeachment risks.
In pursuit of the timeless quest to abolish slavery, Abraham Lincoln spared no effort, even resorting to many unsavoury methods, to facilitate the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. This transformed the war into a civil war fought for justice and the liberation of enslaved people. Although achieved through war rather than procedural justice, Abraham Lincoln's actions demonstrated his greatness, distinguishing him from a dictator. Firstly, he firmly believed in resolving issues through legal means rather than the powerful authority at his disposal — a fundamental difference between an elected president and a dictator. Additionally, Abraham Lincoln believed that only the Constitution could "permanently abolish the entire institution of slavery." Dictators often face the peril of their regimes collapsing after their demise.
Indeed, despite relying on war rather than procedural justice, Abraham Lincoln left a lasting impact. The Thirteenth Amendment was imposed on the Southern states. As a consequence, it faced fierce resistance, with the immediate result being the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The protracted consequence was decades of racial segregation in the Southern United States — referred to in the Southern states as separate but equal. They acknowledged the legal equality rights of black people but refused to live with them.
Sitting in front of the screen observing this piece of history, we can freely evaluate the characters' virtues and vices. However, if we were to think back to that era and put ourselves in their shoes, we would undoubtedly feel the power of human conscience — the pursuit of equality, the defence of individual rights, and the reverence for the law. This film constantly echoes these values. Therefore, I must respond with a salute to the great Abraham Lincoln!
Share your thoughts!
Be the first to start the conversation.