#U.S. Civil War

[thumbdrivethoughts]

I have never had loyalty to this country (the U.S.)

I have never thought it was ever that great.

This country lost me at an early age - in elementary school, actually.

In elementary school I learned about the Civil War.

When I discovered that a large portion of its population resisted the abolition of slavery by literally fighting a war to preserve it - I mentally checked out of this country right then and there and ever since.

As a young kid in elementary school, the subject of war was always fascinating but as soon as I heard about the U.S. Civil War and understood what they were fighting about, I thought it was the dumbest most boring war ever. I immediately lost interest and have little interest in the U.S. Civil war (except for its celebrated and correct outcome) to this day.

I immediately recognized and couldn't quite believe how dumb a large enough percentage of the U.S. population had to be in order to wage a freaking major civil war, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, to preserve, wait...what?...slavery?

Are you freaking kidding me?

I mean, what kind of moral high ground do you think you're standing on there? What kind of noble purpose did you think you possessed? Racism? That's your cause?

So yeah, not a fan of the U.S. Civil War (except for the fact the North won yay!) and never been much of a fan of a country with so many citizens so excruciatingly stupid...and frankly, allowed to be that stupid. I still think there should be some kind of law against admitting openly you're a racist but that's another debate, I guess. Why, I have no idea.

This country - or at least a large portion of it - has always been on probation with me since I learned about the Civil War. I don't fly its flag, my heart is not truly in the national anthem at sporting events. And as long as it shows signs of similar levels of stupidity and a penchant for recidivism, this country will always remain on probation with me.

[stone-cold-groove]

A study in uniformity and shared identity.

[the-ablest-navigators]

That’s 1861-1865. Grand Army of the Republic (US Civil War)

Also, two Oddfellows markers.

[ljones41]

"THE LOVE LETTER" (1998) Review

"THE LOVE LETTER" (1998) Review

Twenty-seven years ago, CBS's "HALLMARK HALL OF FAME" anthology series aired a television movie titled "THE LOVE LETTER". This movie was an adaptation of Jack Finney's 1959 short story of the same title and has become a big favorite of many television viewers over the years.

"THE LOVE LETTER" begins when a computer games designer named Scott Corrigan and his fiancée Debra Zabriskie stumble across an old desk at an antiques store in a suburb outside of Boston, Massachusetts. Being a Civil War history buff as well, Scott buys the desk and later, discovers a letter written in 1863, hidden inside a secret compartment. The letter's writer is a woman in her late 20s named Elizabeth Whitcomb, who conveys her secret feelings and desires to no one in particular. Scott shows the letter to his mother, who believes he may actually be able to communicate with Elizabeth across time. Mrs. Corrigan encourages him to reply with his own letter. She also gives Scott a postage stamp from the mid 19th century, and suggests he mail it from a local post office that had been constructed back in 1857. After Scott follows his mother's suggestions, Elizabeth receives his letter from the local postman, setting in motion a line of communication and developing emotions between them that crosses the boundaries of time.

I might as well put my cards on the table. I am not into television movies from the "HALLMARK HALL OF FAME" series. In fact, I can only think of two or three productions that I found interesting. By the time I had come around to watching "THE LOVE LETTER", I did it for only two reasons - I love time travel stories and I am a Civil War buff. Despite having Cameron Scott and Jennifer Jason Leigh in the leads, I did not have any high hopes for this production. I also discovered that "THE LOVE LETTER" was not a faithful adaptation of Finney's short story. Instead of being set in and around both 1998 and 1863 Boston, Finney's story was set in and around 1959 and 1880s Brooklyn, New York. Whereas the Scott Corrigan character was engaged in the 1998 movie, the lead in Finney's story was a single man. Finney's tale also lacked a mother character for his leading man . . . whereas the 1998 television featured a mother character. The Elizabeth Whitcomb character was plagued by headaches and Finney's leading lady was not. In the 1998 movie, Elizabeth was an aspiring character. But the Elizabeth Worley character in the short story was not.

However, I never found it important for a movie or television series to be completely loyal to its source material, especially if the production in question managed to capture its true essence. Being just as good or even better also helps. I have never read Finney's short story, but I have read the synopsis. Personally, I believe the 1998 movie proved to be just as good as the former. Dare I say . . . perhaps slightly better? I believe the additions created by James S. Henderson's screenplay had added more oomph to Finney's tale. Changing the 19th century from 1880s Brooklyn to 1863 New England and making the leading man a Civil War buff really appealed to my sense of history. But what made this movie even more poignant for me was the addition of lookalikes for the two leads in the story. Scott eventually met Elizabeth's lookalike, a dog owner with whom he becomes acquainted in the movie's end; and Elizabeth met Scott's doppelgänger, Union Army officer Colonel Caleb Denby during the movie's second half. Is it any wonder that I was not surprised to learn Henderson had won the Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Long Form – Adapted.

But what made "THE LOVE LETTER" really worked for me was the developing romance between the two character via the exchange of letters. I also enjoyed how their letters affected their lives. Elizabeth's correspondence with Scott had encouraged her reconsider a marriage proposal from one of her father's neighbors - a man she did not love. Their correspondence also led Scott to reconsider his feelings for his fiancée, a very nice woman with whom he seemed to be going through the motions. After Scott's mother had pointed out that his correspondence with Elizabeth seemed equal to emotional cheating, the movie featured one well-done but painful scene in which Scott revealed the true nature of his obsession with the desk to his fiancée. "THE LOVE LETTER" featured other memorable scenes - Scott and Elizabeth sensing each other's presence on the staircase, inside the Whitcombs' house; Scott's biking accident; Elizabeth's romance with Caleb Denby; the old post office fire in 1998, Elizabeth's journey to Gettysburg, and the battle's aftermath; and Scott's first meeting with Elizabeth's doppelgänger. But the after effects of the protagonists' correspondence is what I remembered most about this television movie.

I certainly did not have a problem with the movie's production values, much to my surprise. Although the 1990s did feature some period television movies with decent production values, I never really considered them top notch. One had to turn to television miniseries for that. And although I found the production values for "THE LOVE LETTER" pretty decent, they did not exactly blow me away. I must admit that I found Dorothy Adams' costume designs very impressive. I was also impressed by Bill Blunden's editing, as he alternated the scene shifts between 1998 and 1863 with such ease. I was especially impressed by Blunden's handling of the sequence, which alternated between Scott's biking accident and Elizabeth's first meeting with Colonel Denby.

As much as I had enjoyed "THE LOVE LETTER", I did have a few issues with it. I had a minor issue with the hairstyle worn by actress Jennifer Jason Leigh. I had no problems with her costumes. But why on earth was her hair worn in such a loose and vague fashion . . . as if the movie's hairstylist tried to create some hybrid fusion between 1860s and 1990s hair styles? I really hate it when a production crew tries to infuse modern fashion, dialogue, music and yes, even hair styles in a period setting. But my main issue with the film focused on Scott's communication with Elizabeth. All the latter had to do was write a letter and shove it inside the desk's special compartment in 1863. As the desk's current owner, Scott was bound to discover it. But Scott's method of communicating with Elizabeth struck me as . . . well, contrived. Thanks to his mother's instructions, he had to use a 19th century U.S. stamp on his letters' envelopes and mail them through an old post office constructed in the mid-19th century. This method enabled his letters to magically transport back to Elizabeth in 1863. I realize that the movie's screenwriters had adapted this method of time traveling from the original short story. But why utilize such a contrived method in the first place? Scott was not a wealthy man. The movie made this clear when he found himself bargaining with an antiques store owner in order to purchase the desk. Nor was he a business owner. Scott was an employee at a video game design company. An unused 19th century stamp would have probably be worth a good deal of money, even in 1998. Considering the number of letters that Scott had sent to Elizabeth, I can only wonder how much money he had spent to purchase more 19th century stamps. Would it have been easier for the screenwriters (or even Jack Finney, who wrote the original short story) to allow the desk or its secret compartment to be some kind of magical entity that allowed objects - including letters - transport through time?

But there is one thing I had no complaints about was the movie's cast. "THE LOVE LETTER" featured some solid performances from the likes of David Dukes, Kali Rocha, Myra Carter, Laurie Kennedy and Richard Woods. But I must admit that I found myself especially impressed by supporting performances from Daphne Ashbrook, Estelle Parsons, Irma P. Hall and Gerrit Graham. But why beat around the bush here. The pair who really carried the film . . . who really made this story worked were the movie's leads, Campbell Scott and Jennifer Jason Leigh. I thought Scott (the actor) did an excellent job in conveying his character's penchant for hiding or suppressing his passion for history, along with his growing obsession toward and love for Elizabeth with subtle reactions and a dry wit. Scott also had the additional task of portraying Colonel Caleb Denby, the Union officer who managed to woo Elizabeth with a charismatic charm. Leigh had never received the opportunity to delve into the personality of Elizabeth's 1998 doppelgänger. But I thought she gave a superb performance as the more openly emotional Elizabeth, who reacted with surprise and joy at the idea of corresponding with a mystery man who understood her, and who found herself struggling with a loving family determined to keep her constrained within a social straight jacket.

Over the past two-and-half decades, "THE LOVE LETTER" has become something of a cult favorite among fans of science-fiction/fantasy and period drama. After my recent rewatch of this television drama, I can see why it has remained very popular. I thought director Dan Curtis and screenwriter James S. Henderson did an excellent job in adapting Jack Finney's short story. And their efforts were enhanced by the excellent performances from the cast led by Campbell Scott and Jennifer Jason-Leigh.

[claudia1829things]

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1970) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1970) Review

It is very rare to find a British adaptation of an American novel. It is even rarer to find more than one adaptation. Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel, "Little Women" must have been very popular with the BBC network. The latter had adapted the novel four times. Several years ago, I had seen the network's 2017 version. I thought it was the only version adapted by the BBC . . . until I had stumbled across the 1970 adaptation.

Set during the 1860s decade, "LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of the four March sisters of Concord, Massachusetts and their coming of age stories during and after the U.S. Civil War. With second daughter Josephine aka Jo serving as the story's main protagonist, the miniseries focused on the sisters' struggles with the family's diminished finances, their personal ambitions and especially their love lives. Early in the story, the March sisters become acquainted with their neighbor, one Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence, grandfather Mr. Lawrence and his tutor, John Brooke. Whereas third sister Beth develops a friendship with the elderly Mr. Lawrence, oldest sister Meg falls in love with Mr. Brooke, and the youngest Amy develops from a slightly vain and coddled child to a mature and self-assured young woman. As for Jo, the story focused on her development from a temperamental and stubborn girl, who learns to maintain her hot temper, navigate through her relationships with two men and adhere to her ambitions to become a writer.

Another surprising aspect of "LITTLE WOMEN" that I had learned was that it was the longest adaptation of Alcott's novel with a total running time of 225 minutes. This gave screenwriters Alistair Bell and Denis Constanduros to be as faithful to Alcott's novel as possible. Were they? Somewhat. The pair did take care to explore Laurie's volatile relationship with his grandfather - something that a good number of the other adaptations had failed to do. And it allowed glimpses into his growing relationship with Amy in Europe. Also, the early stages of Meg's marriage to Mr. Brooke ended up being explored, something that only the 2019 movie adaptation had repeated. I believe the miniseries did a very solid job of conveying these aspects of Alcott's novel.

But the miniseries left out Meg and Laurie's experiences at Annie Moffat's party. The miniseries also left out the sisters meeting with Laurie's English friends - something only the 2017 adaptation had included. Bell and Constanduros had changed the time period of Amy's near drowning at Walden Pond from the winter to either the spring or summer, allowing a rickety pier to send her into the pond, instead of thin ice. And it never touched on Amy's violent encounter with her schoolteacher over pickled limes. Did these aspects of the screenplay harm the production? Hmmmm . . . perhaps not. But I do feel that the miniseries' increased emphasis on the Lawrence men's relationship came dangerously close to overshadowing the March sisters' own relationships. I am relieved that the miniseries managed to focus somewhat on Jo's relationship with Professor Bhaer. However, I do have a problem with the sexist manner in which Constanduros and Bell had the professor viewed his future marriage to Jo. Whatever admiration Professor Bhaer had for Jo's writing skills seemed to fly out of the window in his anticipation of her being a good wife. Superficially, I had no problems with the brief focus on Meg and John's marriage, even if it could have been somewhat more thorough. But I believe it exposed what I believe was one of the miniseries' main problems.

"LITTLE WOMEN" did have its share of problems. Like the 1978 television adaptation, it is clear to see that it suffered somewhat from a low budget. If I must be frank, that seemed to be more obvious in this adaptation. Aside from Amy's near drowning at Walden Pond and some of European settings featuring Amy and Laurie, all other scenes had obviously been shot inside a studio. Very disappointing, considering a good number of BBC productions featured a mixture of interior and exterior shots. I found the actresses' makeup and hair - especially the latter - to be inconsistent and frankly, a big mess. Betty Aldiss' costume designs seemed solid enough, but not particularly earth shattering. Although the cast solely featured British performers, I believe a handful of them managed to handle American accents quite well - especially Stephen Turner, Stephanie Bidmead and Martin Jarvis. But despite their solid or excellent performances, the rest of the cast seemed to struggle maintaining one. And could someone please explain why three of the actresses who portrayed the March sisters seemed to be incredibly loud? Nearly every time one of them spoke, I had to turn down my television's volume. Some have explained these scenes featuring quarreling between the four sisters. They have even gone as far to claim this adaptation was the only one that featured the sisters often quarreling. Well, they would be wrong. Nearly every adaptation (I am not certain about the 1933 movie) of Alcott's novel featured quarrels between the sisters. So, this explanation does not strike me as a good excuse for the loud voices.

Judging from the previous paragraph, one would assume I have a low opinion of the majority of performances featured in "LITTLE WOMEN". Not really. Most of the performances featured in the miniseries struck me as pretty solid. Actresses Angela Down ("Jo"), Jo Rowbottom ("Meg"), Janina Faye (Amy) and Sarah Craze ("Beth") all gave solid performances and managed to capture the nuances of their individual characters in a competent manner. As I had stated earlier, I had a problem with most of them - with the exception of Craze - resorting to loud and histrionic voices in their portrayals of the March sisters at a younger age or in the case of Rowbottom, engaged in a heated quarrel. I thought Jean Anderson gave a solid performance as the stuffy Aunt March. Frederick Jaeger gave a very likeable performance as Jo's love interest, the intellectual Professor Friedrich Bhaer. And I believe the actor had a solid screen chemistry with Down. I really had a problem with actress Pat Nye, who portrayed the family's housekeeper, Hannah. Nye's handling of Hannah's American accent struck me as ridiculously exaggerated . . . to the point that her accent almost seemed Southern. Patrick Troughton, a talented actor in his own right, had more or less been wasted in his role as the family's patriarch, Mr. March. I do not believe he had spoken more than three to five lines in this production.

I can think of at least four performances that really impressed me. It seemed a pity that not one of them came from the four actresses who portrayed the sisters. Oh well. John Welsh has my vote as the second best version of Mr. James Lawrence, the March family's wealthy neighbor. I thought he did an excellent job of developing his character from a strict and curmudgeon guardian to a warm-hearted man who learned to develop a relationship with his grandson. Most portrayals of John Brooke, Meg's future husband, have never impressed me. But I must say that I found Martin Jarvis's portrayal of the character more than impressive. The actor was given an opportunity to delve more into Mr. Brooke's personality and he ended up giving one of the better performances in the miniseries. If given the chance to vote for the best performance in "LITTLE WOMEN", I would give it to Stephen Turner for his portrayal of the sisters' close friend, Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence. I suspect Turner had greatly benefited from Bell and Constanduros's script, which seemed more interested in Laurie as a character than the four leads. But judging from Turner's performance, I suspect his would have overshadowed everyone else's due to the actor's superb handling of the character. I also have to compliment Stephanie Bidmead's portrayal of the March family's matriarch, Mrs. "Marmee" March. Not only did I find her performance warm and elegant, but it also lacked the dripping sentimentality of the earlier versions and the heavy-handed attempts to make the character "modern" - relevant to today's movie and television audiences.

"LITTLE WOMEN" had its flaws. I cannot deny this. But I feel its flaws - which included a limited budget and some questionable American accents - were not enough to dismiss the nine-part miniseries as unworthy. I believe the 1970 miniseries proved to be a lot more solid and entertaining than some fans of Alcott's novel believed, thanks to Paddy Russell's competent direction, a damn good screenplay by Denis Constanduros and Alistair Bell, and a first-rate cast led by Angela Down.

[todaysdocument]

Map of the Civil War Siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi., August 20, 1863. 

Record Group 77: Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers

Series: Published Maps

Image description: Map of Vicksburg, Mississippi, and surrounding areas, including a loop of the Mississippi River and the terrain around the city. Cross-sections show the Federal and Rebel batteries, and colored lines show the locations of opposing forces. 

[47thpennvols]

"On the Advance to Fisher's Hill: Forward the Skirmishers" (Alfred Waud, 22 September 1864, courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress, public domain)

American Civil War artist Alfred Waud's depiction of Union Army troops advancing on Confederate forces during the Battle of Fisher's Hill, Virginia on 22 September 1864.

[moshedayanslebanesetradwife]

civil war fanart guys

Sherman poisoning Lee.

[filosofablogger]

♫ The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down ♫

For no apparent reason, this song just popped into my head last night and as is usually the case, I could only remember two or three lines of the lyrics, but the song just kept looping through my head … over and over and over!  So, I went in search of some background and lyrics, and found that it had actually been quite popular in its day.  Then I searched the archives, just to make sure I hadn’t…

[otherhistoricalthings]

We used to have a childrens book about him called "Mr. Benjamin's Sword" by Robert D. Abrahams.

[deadpresidents]

"There was a time when slavery was not profitable, and the discussion of the merits of the institution was confined almost exclusively to the territory where it existed...But when the institution became profitable, all talk of its abolition ceased where it existed; and naturally, as human nature is constituted, arguments were adduced in its support. The cotton-gin probably had much to do with the justification of slavery.

The winter of 1860-1 will be remembered by middle-aged people of to-day as one of great excitement. South Carolina promptly seceded after the result of the Presidential election was known. Other Southern States proposed to follow...The South claimed the sovereignty of States, but claimed the right to coerce into their confederation such States as they wanted, that is, all the States where slavery existed. They did not seem to think this course inconsistent. The fact is, the Southern slave-owners believed that, in some way, the ownership of slaves conferred a sort of patent of nobility -- a right to govern independent of the interest or wishes of those who did not hold such property. They convinced themselves, first, of the divine origin of the institution and, next, that that particular institution was not safe in the hands of any body of legislators but themselves.

Meanwhile the Administration of President Buchanan looked helplessly on and proclaimed that the general government had no power to interfere; that the Nation had no power to save its own life. Mr. Buchanan had in his cabinet two members at least, who were as earnest -- to use a mild term -- in the cause of secession as Mr. [Jefferson] Davis or any Southern statesman. One of them, [John B.] Floyd, the Secretary of War, scattered the army so that much of it could be captured when hostilities should commence, and distributed the cannon and small arms from Northern arsenals throughout the South so as to be on hand when treason wanted them. The navy was scattered in like manner.

The President did not prevent his cabinet preparing for war upon their government, either by destroying its resources or storing them in the South until a de facto government was established with Jefferson Davis as its President, and Montgomery, Alabama, as the Capital. The secessionists had then to leave the cabinet. In their own estimation they were aliens in the country which had given them birth. Loyal men were put into their places. Treason in the executive branch of the government was estopped. But the harm had already been done. The stable door was locked after the horse had been stolen."

-- Ulysses S. Grant, on the inaction of President James Buchanan as states began to secede following the 1860 election, and pointing out the fact that high-ranking Southern members of President Buchanan's cabinet -- including the Secretary of War -- actively worked to prepare the embryonic Confederacy for Civil War while still holding office in the United States federal government.

This passage from The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- the book that Grant completed just days before his death in 1885 -- is a great example of how lucid and readable General Grant's writing was and still is, even 140 years later.

[angryrdpanda]

Whitfield Lovell's "Passages" exhibit, which just made its final tour stop in San Antonio, TX.

Deep River

Evokes Civil War-era Camp Contraband (Chattanooga, Tennessee), once the location of a vibrant community of more than 5,000 freedmen and escaped slaves whose labor created much of the city's infrastructure.

During the Civil War many runaway slaves made the dangerous journey across the Tennessee River to a Union Army site referred to as “Camp Contraband.” There they were given asylum and shielded from being captured or returned to their owners.

A spiral of 56 circular wooden foundry molds of various sizes bears the true-to-life portrait (1860s - 1950s) of an African American whose identity has been forgotten. In the center of the room, a large, fragrant mound of earth is strewn with personal effects suggestive of the artifacts carried and left behind by people inhabiting transitional, liminal spaces. Large video images of the Tennessee River cover the walls of the space.

“I see the so-called ‘anonymous’ people in these vintage photographs as being stand-ins for the ancestors I will never know. I see history as being very much alive. One day, 100 years from now, people will be talking about us as history. The way I think about time is very different – I don’t think it really was very long ago that these things happened, it wasn’t that long ago that my grandmother’s grandmother was a slave.”

Visitation: The Richmond Project

Pays tribute to the African American community of Jackson Ward (Richmond, Virginia). An exquisitely rendered mural-sized tableau suggests some of the individuals who inhabited this community. Boxes of Lincoln pennies on the floor reference Jackson Ward's St. Luke Penny Savings Bank, the 1st bank to be founded by an African American, and the 1st bank to be founded by a woman. The bank provided Black-owned businesses with an avenue to success, despite Richmond's oppressively discriminatory practices.

Entering the furnished parlor/dining room transports visitors back in time. Newspapers are stacked on a piano bench, a stack of letters waits to be opened, the table is set for supper, and a radio plays quiet, period music. Drawings of a smartly dressed man and woman on the walls of the room suggest the inhabitants of this intimate space. You feel as if you're in the presence of ghosts.

The Reds (2021–22)

Drawings of Black individuals rendered on vibrant red paper in black shadowboxes. They are presented alongside a red rotary telephone that allows visitors to listen to the Black National Anthem; composed in 1900, the hymn's lyrics speak to adversity, optimism, and triumphant resilience.

“The ancient Native American principles say it takes seven generations to overcome a tragedy, so in this context of generations we can begin to grasp why we are at this point we are living in now.”

[ljones41]

Top Five Favorite Episodes of "COPPER" (2012-2013)

Below is a list of my five favorite episodes from the 2012-2013 BBC America series, "COPPER". Created by Tom Fontana and Will Rokos, the series starred Tom Weston-Jones, Kyle Schmid and Ato Essandoh:

TOP FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF "COPPER" (2012-2013)

1. (1.02) "Husbands and Fathers" - In this brutal episode, New York City detective Kevin "Corky" Corcoran set about rescuing child prostitute/abused wife Annie Sullivan from a Manhattan brothel and her perverse customer, a wealthy businessman named Winifred Haverford.

2. (2.05) "A Morning Song" - Major counterfeiter Philomen Keating takes over the Sixth Ward precinct and hold hostages in an effort to retrieve his confiscated counterfeiting plates back.

3. (1.09) "A Day to Give Thanks" - Following the reappearance of his missing wife Ellen in an asylum, Corky tracks down her former lover in order to learn what really happened to their dead daughter, while he was in the Army. Meanwhile, Confederate agents blackmail Robert Morehouse's wealthy father into helping their plot to set New York City on fire, following the re-election of Abraham Lincoln.

4. (2.03) "The Children of the Battlefield" - While Kevin searches for the person responsible for the kidnapping and murder of young Five Points men, Robert Morehouse and the widowed Elizabeth Haverford exchange wedding vows before the latter reveals an unpleasant surprise.

5. (1.06) "Arsenic and Old Cake" - Corky investigate the death of the dentist of one of his men, who died by arsenic poisoning. Widow Elizabeth Haverford tries to discipline an unruly Annie and return the latter to her abusive husband, a Mr. Reilly. An exhibition boxing match between a young African-American and an Irish-American local politician end with racial tension.

[claudia1829things]

"LINCOLN" (1988) Review

"LINCOLN" (1988) Review

Can anyone recall the number of Abraham Lincoln biopics seen in movie theaters or on television? I certainly cannot. In fact, I do not know how many Lincoln biopics I have seen. Perhaps this is not surprising. Hollywood has created more productions (both movie and television) about the 16th President of the United States than any other who has occupied the White House. One of those productions was the 1988 two-part miniseries, "LINCOLN".

Based on Gore Vidal's 1984 novel, "Lincoln: A Novel", "LINCOLN" followed Abraham Lincoln's years in the White House, during the U.S. Civil War. Actually, both the novel and the miniseries began with President-elect Lincoln arrival in Washington D.C. in late February 1861, at least a week before his inauguration. Although the limited series covered his complete four years in office, the majority of the production only covered his first years in the nation's capital. During those years, Lincoln not only faced his struggles in conducting a civil war against those Southern states that had succeeded, but also his political enemies (from both parties) and the mental condition of his wife, First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln.

Without a doubt, I believe "LINCOLN" is one of the better Hollywood productions made about the 16th president. I would place it up there with Steven Spielberg's 2012 movie of the same title and the 1974-1976 limited series, which starred Hal Holbrook. In regard to the 1988 miniseries, director One aspect of this series that struck me as innovative was the cynical tone that seemed to surround Lincoln's portrayal and the miniseries' narrative. Past productions have touched on Lincoln's political oratory skills. Yet, these productions could not help but tried to portray the 16th president as some ideal statesman. Which would explain why I had occasional trouble finding him interesting in these productions.

This did not seemed to be the case in both Gore Vidal's novel and the 1988 miniseries. I tried to recall any moment in which Ernest Kinoy's screenplay and Gore Vidal's novel had dipped into some kind of sentimental idealism toward Lincoln, his Administration and even his family. The closest to any kind of idealism I could find proved to be two scenes. One included a conversation in which the First Lady revealed her abolitionist views to the biracial modiste, Elizabeth Keckley. Another also featured Mrs. Lincoln's militant response to Confederate troops attacking Union installations on the outskirts of Washington D.C. Instead of the noble and ideal statesman forced to guide the country through a civil war and a social revolution, Vidal's Lincoln seemed to be an astute and at times, cynical man who seemed to be a bit possessive about his presidential power. Part One featured one marvelous scene in which Lincoln smartly nipped in the bud, his Secretary of State William Seward's attempt to transform him into a powerless head of state. And there were those moments in Part Two that featured Lincoln's clashes with the Army of the Potomac's commander, George McClellan.

Lincoln's pragmatic nature seemed to permeate his dealings regarding emancipation and with his family. Many are now aware of the president's initial support of the American Colonization Society, an organization formed to encourage free African-Americans to immigrate to and form colonies in West Africa. His support had continued during the early years of the Civil War and the miniseries featured it in an interesting and emotionally complex scene that involved Lincoln's White House meeting with a delegation of African-American leaders during the summer of 1862. What made this scene even more interesting was Lincoln's disappointed response to the delegates' refusal to convince many Blacks as possible to resettle in Chiriquí province of Panama. Lincoln's interactions with his immediate family proved to be more emotional, especially with his wife and younger sons. Yet, even in some scenes with the First Lady, the President could be cool, sardonic and sometimes dismissive. I find it even more interesting that the next major production about the President - namely the 2012 Spielberg movie - seemed to have adopted some of the miniseries' ambiguous portrayal of him.

One of the major issues I have with "LINCOLN" is its production values. I found them to be a mixed affair. I certainly had no problems with R. Lynn Smartt's Emmy nominated set decorations. They struck me as a strong recreation of mid-19th century interior decor. However, William Wages had received an Emmy nomination for his cinematography. I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss at this nomination. I never found his photography particularly mind-blowing. Not even the photography featured in various montages featuring well-known Civil War battles. And I disliked his use of natural lighting in many night time shots - both interior and exterior. Both Joseph G. Aulisi and George L. Little had received Emmy nominations for the miniseries' costume designs. I believe both had deserved the nominations, namely for those beautiful costumes worn by the female characters. Aulisi and Little did excellent jobs in re-creating the fashions worn by high-ranking women during the early and mid-1860s. As for those costumes worn by male characters . . . I was not that impressed. The men's costumes looked as if they had arrived directly from a costume warehouse for second-rate stage productions.

I thought the casting director did a pretty decent job in finding the right actors and actresses for the roles. Mind you, I noticed that a good number of the cast bore little or no similarity to the historical characters they had portrayed. This seemed to be the case for the likes of Deborah Adair (Kate Chase), John McMartin (Salmon P. Chase), Richard Mulligan (William H. Seward), Ruby Dee (Elizabeth Keckley), James Gammon (Ulysses S. Grant), and especially Mary Tyler Moore (Mary Todd Lincoln). But . . . I cannot deny that all of them either gave solid or excellent performances. I was especially impressed by Adair, Mulligan and Moore. The miniseries also featured first-rate performances from the likes of Stephen Culp as one of Lincoln's secretaries, John Hay; Gregory Cooke as the Lincolns' oldest son Robert; Jeffrey DeMunn as William Herdon, Lincoln's former law partner; Robin Gammell as Stephen Douglas; Cleavon Little as Frederick Douglass; and John Houseman as Winfield Scott.

I had a problem with two particular performance. I had a problem with Thomas Gibson's portrayal of Kate Chase's future husband, William Sprague IV during Part One. I thought Gibson gave an exaggerated performance that was further marred by a questionable New England accent. And although Ruby Dee had received an Emmy nomination for her portrayal of Elizabeth Keckley, I could not find anything particularly outstanding about her performance. Do not get me wrong. The actress gave a very solid performance as Keckley. But the miniseries gave Dee little opportunity to truly display her skills as an actress. Because of this, I found myself more impressed by Gloria Reuben's portrayal of the modiste in 2012's "LINCOLN".

Mary Tyler Moore had also received an Emmy nomination for her portrayal of First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. And I can honestly say that she had more than deserved it. Moore did an excellent job of conveying the First Lady's volatile personality, sharp wit and political astuteness. And while I had a small issue with the transcript's portrayal of Mrs. Lincoln, a part of me wishes that Moore had won that Emmy. I was astounded that Sam Waterston did not receive an Emmy nomination for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln. Astounded and disappointed. Perhaps the competition for the Emmy's Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series category had been too heavy for Waterston to garner a nomination. You know what? I still believe the actor had deserved that nomination. I believe Waterston gave one of the best on-screen interpretations of the 16th president I have ever seen on film. And his portrayal of Lincoln had fortunately avoided the usual sentimental idealism that have dangerously come close to making Lincoln a one-note saint. Waterston's performance sharply reminded me of Lincoln's real skills as a politician.

Aside from two performances, I have few other issues with "LINCOLN". What film stock was this miniseries shot on? Because visually, it did not age very well. I already had a problem with Wages' use of natural lighting. But the miniseries looked as if it had aged a good deal over the past thirty-six years in compared to other television productions filmed during the same decade. Over the years I have learned to tolerate historical inaccuracies in dramas like "LINCOLN". But there were three inaccuracies that did not sit well with me. One of them featured black activist/abolitionist Frederick Douglass at the August 1862 White House meeting between Lincoln and five leading members of Washington's black community regarding colonization. One, Douglass did not live in Washington during the war years. And two, he was never at that meeting.

The other two inaccuracies involved former law clerk-turned-Union officer and close friend of the Lincolns, Elmer E. Ellsworth. Following his death at the hands of a Virginia tavern owner, the miniseries had the First Lady having an emotional fit during his funeral. I believe this scene was supposed to indicate Mrs. Lincoln's mental instability. The thing is . . . this never happened, especially since Ellsworth was closer to the President than the First Lady. And it was Lincoln who had emotional difficulty accepting the officer's death, not his wife. The miniseries also indicated that following Ellsworth funeral, Mrs. Lincoln had passed out and remained unconscious for three days, waking up during the outbreak of the First Battle of Bull Run. I have already pointed out that the First Lady had never been traumatized by Ellsworth's death. I would also like to point out that Ellsworth had been killed in May 1861. The First Battle of Bull Run occurred on July 21, 1861. So, Mrs. Lincoln had remained unconscious . . . for two months? Seriously? One more thing, why did most of the miniseries' narrative occurred during the twelve months between February 1861 and February 1862? By the time the miniseries had moved beyond this time period, one-quarter of Part Two had played out. By the time the narrative had reached 1863, only 45 minutes had remained of the production. And the next two years were practically rushed. I believe this problem had stemmed from the 1984 novel, in which the majority of it had only covered those twelve months.

As I had just pointed out, "LINCOLN" was not a perfect production about the 16th president. The miniseries had its flaws. But I cannot deny that I believe it was one of the better ones ever produced by Hollywood. Based on Gore Vidal's novel, "LINCOLN" gave a deep and lively account of Abraham Lincoln's four years in the White House. And one can credit Ernest Kinoy's transcript, Lamont Johnson's Emmy winning direction and excellent performances from a cast led by Sam Waterston and Mary Tyler Moore.