Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012) isn’t just a movie—it’s an emotional, intellectual, and cinematic experience. Powered by Daniel Day-Lewis’s Oscar-winning portrayal of Abraham Lincoln, the film zooms in on a short but crucial period of his presidency: the battle to pass the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. But how much of what we saw on screen was true? And where did the Hollywood touch take over?
Let’s dig into 5 things Lincoln got right, and 5 things it got wrong, exploring the real drama behind the reel drama.
✅ What Lincoln Got Right
1. The Fierce Fight to Pass the 13th Amendment
The central conflict of the film—the push to pass the 13th Amendment in the House of Representatives—is historically accurate. Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner didn’t invent the political arm-twisting, backroom deals, and moral wrestling.
Lincoln knew the Emancipation Proclamation could be overturned after the war, as it was a wartime executive order. For a permanent end to slavery, a constitutional amendment was necessary.
The film’s depiction of Lincoln prioritizing the vote before the war ended is also spot-on. Once peace came, the urgency for abolition might evaporate, so Lincoln deliberately delayed Confederate peace envoys until after the vote. It was high-stakes politics, and Lincoln shows it with precision.
2. The Masterful Performance of Daniel Day-Lewis
Historians nearly unanimously agree that Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln is eerily authentic. From Lincoln’s high-pitched voice (not the booming baritone we often imagine) to his melancholy demeanor, folksy storytelling, and deliberate pacing, Day-Lewis captured what historical accounts described.
His long, gangly frame, stooped posture, and quiet moments of introspection reflect what many contemporaries of Lincoln noted in letters and diaries.
Even small mannerisms, like Lincoln taking off his glasses and rubbing his temples while thinking, were reportedly observed behaviors.
3. Thaddeus Stevens as a Reluctant Moderate
Tommy Lee Jones’s portrayal of Thaddeus Stevens, the fiery abolitionist, adds both gravitas and comic edge. The film correctly shows Stevens, a staunch Radical Republican, moderating his rhetoric during the floor debate to help secure the votes needed for passage.
In real life, Stevens had long advocated full racial equality, but in the House debate, he toned it down, stating only that all men are equal “before the law.” This wasn’t hypocrisy—it was political strategy.
Spielberg accurately conveys the tactical necessity of moderation in the service of greater justice.
4. The Backroom Dealings and Political Horse-Trading
From patronage jobs to influence peddling, the film rightly portrays the messy reality of 19th-century politics. Lobbyists like William N. Bilbo (played by James Spader) were indeed enlisted to help sway lame-duck Democrats.
These men offered government jobs, ambassadorships, and other perks in exchange for votes or abstentions.
Though not every conversation shown happened verbatim, the spirit of these negotiations is true to the historical record. Lincoln himself didn’t always get his hands dirty, but he was certainly aware of what his allies were doing.
5. Lincoln’s Relationship with His Son Tad
The film offers several intimate scenes with Lincoln and his youngest son, Tad, and these are deeply grounded in reality. Tad had a speech impediment, adored his father, and often slept in Lincoln’s bed when Mary Todd was unwell.
In one quiet moment, Lincoln tells Tad a story and gazes out the window—a simple act that humanizes the man behind the legend.
These glimpses into Lincoln’s paternal warmth reflect a man who, amid unimaginable pressures, still made time to be a father.
❌ What Lincoln Got Wrong
1. Mary Todd Lincoln’s Role Is Oversimplified
Sally Field plays a fiery and emotional Mary Todd Lincoln—but the film presents her more as a burden than as the complex political partner she truly was.
In reality, Mary was politically astute and deeply involved in her husband’s career. Though she did suffer from mental health issues and intense grief after the death of their son Willie, Mary was also a Southern-born woman who chose to support abolition, a rare and courageous stance.
Reducing her role to mere emotional turbulence does a disservice to her historical importance.
2. The Black Characters Lack Depth and Agency
Though the film is about slavery’s abolition, Lincoln has been criticized for marginalizing Black voices. Key characters like Elizabeth Keckley, Mary Todd’s dressmaker and a former enslaved woman, appear briefly but don’t significantly shape the narrative.
Frederick Douglass, perhaps the most important Black voice of the era, is completely absent from the film.
The result is a story about Black freedom told almost exclusively through white politicians, robbing it of some historical nuance.
3. Speeding Up the Timeline of the Amendment Vote
The film suggests the House vote on the 13th Amendment happened very close to Lincoln’s second inauguration, but in reality, the vote occurred on January 31, 1865, more than a month before the inauguration on March 4.
While this timeline compression isn’t egregious, it does make it seem like all the events were happening simultaneously—when in fact, they were spaced out over weeks.
4. The Depiction of William Seward
David Strathairn plays William Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State and right-hand man. While the film shows him as loyal and competent (which he was), it downplays his independent power and ambition.
In truth, Seward was Lincoln’s chief rival for the 1860 nomination and maintained a strong political machine of his own. He often acted on his own authority, particularly in foreign affairs.
Seward’s collaboration with Lincoln was real, but it was sometimes fraught, with moments of disagreement and behind-the-scenes tension.
5. The Final Scene of Lincoln’s Assassination
The film ends not with Lincoln’s assassination at Ford’s Theatre, but with a scene at a different theater announcing his death. Then it cuts to a flashback of Lincoln delivering his Second Inaugural Address.
While artistic, this choice robs the viewer of the emotional gravity of the assassination moment. More notably, it confuses the historical setting, since Lincoln was shot at Ford’s Theatre, not at the venue shown in the film.
Some historians also argue that skipping the actual assassination sanitizes the brutality of Lincoln’s martyrdom at the hands of John Wilkes Booth.
Final Thoughts
Lincoln is an extraordinary film—a blend of political thriller, historical drama, and philosophical meditation. It gets so much right: the language, the politics, the moral stakes. But no film is perfect, especially one tackling such a monumental subject in just 150 minutes.
For history lovers, it’s a treasure trove. For nitpickers, there’s room for debate. But most of all, it serves as a powerful reminder that the passage of the 13th Amendment wasn’t inevitable—it was won through sweat, strategy, and sacrifice.
History in 5 Minutes or less 
Leave a comment