OPINION: Not the ‘fiscal cliff,’ but the tale of another legislative battle

Of course, countless books and some movies have centered on Lincoln’s life. There was even the recent flick portraying the 16th president as a “vampire slayer.” I’m pretty sure he didn’t chase the undead around with a wooden stake.

But he did pursue the passage of the 13th amendment to abolish slavery. And Steven Spielberg’s attempt to dramatize that legislative battle was really powerful. Naturally, any historical fiction is subject to questions of authenticity. In fact, any depiction of “history” should be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism. We know that no one alive now was there for the backroom negotiations in 1865. We know that long-gone conversations are somewhere in the vast beyond and attempts to make things “real” require the imagination of writers.

But we know, too, that a real legislative fight took place at the end of the Civil War regarding the end of slavery. The issue was this: Could the war end and slavery remain? Or would lawmakers in the North pass the 13th amendment to eliminate slavery for good? That was a central fight in the final days of the four-year war. And a number of Northern legislators simply wanted the war over. Quite a few didn’t care about ending slavery.

Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” is widely known and considered the big moment regarding freeing the slaves. But that document was a presidential decree during wartime. It had no legislative teeth. And the Supreme Court may have shot it down without action by Congress to permanently outlaw slavery.

The tale of legislative gamesmanship regarding the amendment was entertaining. We see Lincoln in the movie as a politician who was not opposed to buying off opposing legislators to get his way on the 13th amendment. He works through proxy salesmen, who approach opposing legislators with promises of jobs. Some take up the offer. Others don’t. One even pulls out a gun and tries to shoot one of Lincoln’s salesmen.
Nowadays, we see Lincoln as the great stone monument in Washington or the face on a penny. We know the lines of his countenance, but he seems more national trophy than human being.

But I enjoyed the portrayal by Daniel Day-Lewis, seeing Lincoln lie down on the floor next to his young son who fell asleep at the fireplace. Sally Fields as Mary Todd Lincoln tells her husband that people will only remember her for “being crazy.” That seems about right. But her portrayal in “Lincoln” is much more nuanced, such as when she is humorously sharp with a legislator at a dinner party, or when she accurately interprets one of her husband’s dreams.

We see Lincoln offering long-winded anecdotes to make his points. And we see him on horseback taking in the horror of a landscape of corpses.

With such slaughter surrounding him, he had to weigh two starkly different views: if slavery didn’t end as a result of the war, what would be the point of all that bloodshed? But on the other hand, the bloodshed was utterly horrific. He, too, had sons. Did he have a duty to end all the suffering no matter the cost, which could be abandonment of the 13th amendment and the continuance of slavery?

We know our nation was founded with two major moral conflicts: the murder and forced removal of Native Americans from their lands, and the enslavement of fellow human beings for cheap labor that benefited many Northern and Southern whites — at least economically — but created generations of misery and oppression for American blacks. The institution required the reduction of human life to a dollar value to be bartered and sold. It was an abomination. It had to end.

Thankfully, the Civil War, which claimed over 600,000 lives, ultimately ended with the death of slavery. But what if it hadn’t? What if all those deaths didn’t bring the great moral wrong to a close?

Without that contentious, terrible legislative fight for the 13th amendment, which finally nailed the coffin shut on the institution of slavery, our nation would have extended its central moral dilemma for years, perhaps decades. The founders actually didn’t mean “all men” when they said “all men are created equal.” But now, “all men” means what it should.

No doubt, the “fiscal cliff” battle has been depressing. We see millions spent to get more of the same: gridlock. Finally, we saw a breakthrough the other night, but it had the feel of a college sophomore congratulating himself after putting off his work all semester, then pulling an all nighter on a term paper.

On very rare occasions, people break through the political game playing and actually do the right thing. I sort of felt like crying watching the portrayal of one legislator who sat in silent turmoil as he was called on to vote. He recognized his potential political doom, but he rose to offer his “aye” in favor of ending slavery.

I’d like to think that some of today’s legislators saw that movie and were reminded that their political welfare is ultimately secondary to the nation’s well being.

Or perhaps I’m just dabbling in modern fiction.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.