zunguzungu

Or, “If you stole my maize, I pull your teeth.”

  • ZZ is an abbreviation for zunguzungu

    • Another year groaning under the dull tyranny of bossa nova and reasonably priced delicious tri-tip sandwiches. Tudo Bem! 5 days ago
    • *Stepin* Fetchit and *Muhammad* Ali, jeez. But he was his "strategic adviser": http://tiny.cc/HDC7C 1 week ago
    • When Muhommed Ali beat Sonny Liston, Stepan Fetchit was actually in his corner with him (yeah, *that* Stepan Fetchit).Weird world. 1 week ago
    • "the biggest self of self is self." 1 week ago
    • Italy PM Berlusconi on not hiring prostitutes for nude parties at his villa: "it interferes with the pleasure of conquest." 1 week ago
    • Extend the Appalachian Trail to Buenos Aires! 1 week ago
    • The difference between 140 characters and, say, 250 is an order of magnitude; why only 140? If I de-twitter, it'd be only for that reason. 1 week ago
    • Though, more basically, we are *all* unwitting hosts for our bacterial overlords. 2 weeks ago
    • ...that as a species, we have been *both* cat people and dog people. We only imagine that we must choose (or that dogs and cats fight). 2 weeks ago
    • ...to be reminded that we are capable of both powerfully controlling natural and also of being wholly irrelevent to it. 2 weeks ago
    • Comforting: when nature enters the home (when we make homes in nature) we want both flattering servility *and* alien opacity. 2 weeks ago
    • Where did I read this? And that dogs have "learned," in evolutionary terms, to project human emotion; cats never tried, never wanted to. 2 weeks ago
    • While the many different dog breeds indicate the different uses to which dogs are put, housecats are all the same because they are useless. 2 weeks ago
    • I was huge into Benno von Archimboldi, before he was cool. 2 weeks ago
    • Fourteen pages in, and I'm intensely nonplussed by the fact that 2666 appears to be a novel about academics. 2 weeks ago
    • NPR: "He was the father I always wanted. He was Marlene Dietrich's gynecologist." 2 weeks ago
    • For instance, The Hangover; its second half is completely unacquainted with its first half. also, Stagecoach. 2 weeks ago
    • There should be a word for the Hollywood convention of first asking dark questions but giving cheery answers that don't quite match. 2 weeks ago
    • The Savage Detectives in graph form: http://tiny.cc/lduHt 2 weeks ago
    • So. I'm sure you're wondering why I called you here. 2 weeks ago

Dismembering and Remembering the Young Mr. Lincoln

Posted by zunguzungu on March 9, 2008

The Young Mr. Lincoln is so over-determined as to be a complete cipher, and in the hands of a less expressive actor than Henry Fonda, the title character would be completely crushed by the heavy weight of the dead president’s mythology. That’s all in the future, of course; here, in 1939, John Ford only addresses the years when young Abe was a lawyer in Springfield, when his political ambitions were still well masked by a layer of self-doubt and country humility. But the events that will come after are so incredibly present throughout the film that it only really signifies, proleptically, through reference to that context.

As I wrote here, Ford’s The Prisoner of Shark Island did something similar from a different angle, replaying and re-mixing the civil war in order to resolve its aftermath. In that film, the firing on Fort Sumter is reincarnated as the very act by which Mudd, the confederate scapegoat, can be re-admitted into the union, for it turns out that only he can order the recalcitrant black soldier to do what needs to be done. Only southerners, you see, have the necessary knack of command, so as freed slaves are re-cast as the divisive factor that must be overcome if the union is to be reborn, the special talent that a white Virginian brings to the table is what allows him to file for citizenship.

In The Young Mr. Lincoln, on the other hand, African-Americans are striking by their almost complete absence. This is the way it has to be, I think; since neo-confederate fantasies like Shark Island would re-imagine the racial other as the divisive cause of the civil war, a movie that is set in the period before the civil war can’t allow itself to be populated with racial others without skipping the record ahead. So when the first piece of law that the young Abe Lincoln reads is on a man’s liberty to own property, he can sit and marvel at its transparent self-evident truth status precisely because there are not, yet, any black people to muddy the waters. The problem of man as property, the question of people’s claims to own other people, has not yet emerged.

In this sense, the movie makes racial purity into the object of a kind of pastoral nostalgia: since we’re all aware of the hidden significance of his words–in ways that he, himself, is not–the film’s wish fulfillment is for a world without black people, where something like rights to property can be a kind of uncomplicated first principle. So, to hear this Abe Lincoln tell it, his family left Kentucky not to get away from slavery as a system, but to get away from the slaves themselves. Kentucky’s a mighty fine place to live, he says, “but with all the slaves coming in, white folks had a hard time making a living.” So, he moved north.

David Blight has written a great book on popular memories of the civil war, where he makes the point that national reconciliation (and the roll back of reconstruction) was a project of misremembering the causes of the civil war, small issues like the citizenship of black people which could (after being forgotten) be allowed to slip under the radar. Instead of focusing in on the basic issue that still divided the country, therefore, people like Horace Greeley retrospectively recast the conflict as been caused by hot tempers and mis-applied patriotism, and not by slavery at all. In sharp contrast to the ways that Lincoln himself reluctantly, but firmly, made slavery the central issue in his second inaugural address, general reunification actually proceeded only after slaves and freedmen had been erased from the historical narrative, and, in effect, the north turned its military victory into a political defeat by folding like a lawn chair on every important issue, allowing the South to re-establish a violent racial hierarchy familiar in its outlines if not exactly the same as slavery. This transcendence of partisan bickering by renouncing anything resembling a principle would have made today’s congressional democrats stand and salute, of course, but I digress.

In The Young Mr. Lincoln, containing and regulating overzealous enthusiasm is the central problem, and Abe Lincoln strides forth not as a steadfast man of principle but as a kind of “Great Mediator” whose folksy ways, gentle humor, and willingness to use violence can solve every disagreement. From a pie-eating contest to his law practice, Lincoln’s principles are far less important than his Solomon-like ability to broker compromise: instead of compromise, everyone magically comes away satisfied whenever Abe Lincoln hands forth a decision.

So it’s exactly right that the film’s central event is Lincoln’s prevention of a lynching of white people by white people. In a movie made at a time when the lynching of black people in the South was still a relatively common occurrence, when the Ku Klux Klan was still a real political force, the inextricable racial element in the practice of lynching has been extricated, exactly as the centrality of slavery in the civil war had to be forgotten in post-bellum mythologies of The Lost Cause.

In this movie, therefore, rebellion becomes the problem of keeping public order, not of resolving a real dispute, and the man who is the man for the job is a guy who plays Dixie on his Jews Harp (called that because of David’s harp, he informs us). When his companion notes that the song makes you want to march, he simply muses; imperturbable, the young Mr. Lincoln keeps his passions in check, and because he can, he succeeds in keeping the passions of Springfield’s overzealous citizenry in check as well.

And so, when the time comes, he is a Solomon. A man is dead, and two brothers stand accused of killing him. Neither will speak, so after Lincoln stops a mob from lynching them, he becomes their attorney. And when the prosecution offers him the choice of letting one brother live and one brother die (if one will confess, the other can go free) he makes the inexplicable choice to go for broke, risking all in the effort to save them both. Like Solomon, who offered to let the baby be cut in half and in doing so saved it, and like President Lincoln, who preferred war to sacrificing the South, this young Mr. Lincoln refuses the choice, saves them both, and everybody is happy. There are no losers here, because the problem of race has been erased from the movie before it began. And, as a fitting coda, his accomplishment wins him the attention of a young southern belle named Mary Todd, who tells him she admires his conduct during this recent “deplorable uprising.” Indeed.

2 Responses to “Dismembering and Remembering the Young Mr. Lincoln”

  1. [...] Dismembering and Remembering the Young Mr. Lincoln [...]

  2. [...] movies speak to the present day in ways Ford himself could never have seen (see Ford on GWOT here, here, here, and here) not also imply that, maybe, we see those movies with a kind of epistemological [...]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>