"The greatest measure of the 19th century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America."
Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones, delivers the above line in the 2012 movie Lincoln. It comes after the House of Representatives passes the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President Lincoln and his allies, using unscrupulous tactics, successfully advance the Amendment that abolished slavery. At least that's the narrative director Steven Spielberg presents in the historical drama.
Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens in Lincoln
Stevens is a congressman from Pennsylvania and a staunch opponent of slavery. He joins others to do whatever is necessary to get the required two-thirds of the House of Representatives to vote for the Amendment. Their actions suggest that the "end justifies the means," but that proposition is not without controversy.
In his statement, Stevens notes that Lincoln is the "purest" man in America. Is he saying that all humans, no matter how principled, are susceptible to corruption? Or is Stevens suggesting only the purest man with the best intentions can be excused for using any means necessary to achieve a noble goal? Or perhaps he states that the Amendment was "the greatest measure of the 19th century" because even the purest man was willing to use corruption to pass it.
Thaddeus Stevens
No one will doubt that the abolishment of slavery was a great measure. Unless, of course, you are one of the countless Americans today still waving the confederate flag and wishing to make America great again. And that's the problem with the "end justifying the means" argument. There is no universal truth or universal agreement on justice and decency. If there were, slavery would not have existed in the first place. And unfortunately, impure men routinely use corruption to promote what they consider are "great measures."
In an April 2016 interview with the Washington Post, Trump claimed he was the second greatest President ever because "you can't out-top Abraham Lincoln." In December 2019, after reassessing his accomplishments, Trump changed his mind, tweeting that he is the "greatest of all presidents." And his supporters agree. In a February 2021 Economist/YouGov Poll, Republicans considered Donald Trump the best President in U.S. history with 36% of the votes. Ronald Reagan came in second with 18%, Lincoln, the "purest man in America," was third with 13%, and poor George Washington got only 11% of the votes.
But ranking presidents is an imperfect science. When Siena College conducted a survey of 159 presidential scholars in 2019, the results were markedly different. Lincoln remained the third-best President in history, but the top two spots changed, with Washington ranking first and Franklin D. Roosevelt coming in second. Trump ranked 42nd, only ahead of James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. And the survey was conducted before the botched pandemic response, the Big Lie, and the Capitol insurrection.
But who is right? The "silent majority" of Trump supporters or the "academic elites?" If, for the sake of argument, Trump is indeed the greatest President ever, garnering almost three times the votes as Lincoln, how much corruption is acceptable to keep him in office? If the Congressmen complicit in passing the 13th Amendment are heroes, how will history judge those who helped spread the "Big Lie" in a desperate attempt to keep the greatest President in history in office? Will Steven Spielberg's great-grandchild make a movie entitled Trump? If so, who will play a similar role to Thaddeus Stevens? Perhaps Josh Hawley or Ted Cruz. Maybe Lindsey Graham will end the movie by stating that "the greatest measure of the 21st century was attempted by corruption, aided and abetted by the greatest man in America."
The end justifies the means argument is difficult to reconcile. Politicians and citizens can use corruption for both good and evil, and the corrupt may be in no position to decide which side of history they are on. There is no doubt that the insurrectionists that stormed the Capitol felt justified. After all, they were trying to keep a President in office who is a better leader than Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Who can blame them?
Lincoln is an interesting examination of the political process. Spielberg brings to question lawmakers' unsavory tactics in the name of justice. Few would disagree that corrupt behavior for personal gain is wrong. But it seems more palatable to use corruption to "aid and abet" a noble cause. But who is to decide what is a "great measure?" Perhaps Lincoln was driven by a desire to elevate his legacy. Knowing that only the most despicable person would boastfully claim that he is "the greatest of all Presidents," Lincoln may have wanted to build a resume that would lead others to do his bidding.
Daniel Day Lewis in Lincoln
Lincoln is thought-provoking but quite disturbing. The most unsettling part of the narrative isn't that Lincoln's administration was corrupt. It's that he had difficulty convincing two-thirds of the House of Representatives (that did not include the Confederacy) to vote against slavery. Similarly, the worst part of the current political situation is not that Trump is corrupt. It's that so many Americans still consider him the greatest President in history. Furthermore, his followers believe that the entire academic community, who considers Trump as one of the worst Presidents ever, conspires to discredit Trump's greatness.
The Thirteenth Amendment's passing was an important milestone in American history, but we are far from the "promised land." When politicians required corruption to accomplish something so clearly justified, it's no surprise that America has yet to achieve equality for all its citizens.
Andrew’s Grade: B
コメント