#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.

[todaysdocument]

Happy Juneteenth! 

General Order No. 3, June 19, 1865. 

Record Group 393: Records of U.S. Army Continental Commands

Series: General Orders Issued

File Unit: General Orders Issued

Transcription: 

[stenciled or stamped (?) ; page numer; near upper-right corner:] 1

{"OldBook[...]" below seems to have been added]                                                                                                                                                           [text below handwritten:]

Old Book 33.13 ac [? (unclear after "a"]                                                                                                                                                                              Head Quarters District of Texas

[blue [circular] stamp  [:; seen in left margin; following text:]  ]    [above central line:] WAR RECORDS                                                           Galveston Texas June 17th 1865.

                                                                                                                             [central line (larger letters):] COPIED

                                                                                                                             [below central line:]         1861-1865   [/stamp (transcribed lines from "Galveston[...] to bracketed header transcribed below seen to right of stamp in Image]                                                                                                                                     

General Orders}

No. 1                }

---------                        [short separating line extended to right of left margin line]

  I Pursuant to orders from the Head Quarters Military Division

of the South West, dated New Orleans, June 13th 1865, the undersigned assumes

command of all troops within the State.

-------------  [another short separating line]

   II No passes or permits will be recognized on the coast of Texas except

by authority from Head Quarters Military Division of the South West, or from

these Head Quarters.

                                                                                      [signature:} G., Granger [/signature]

                                                                                    Major General Commanding.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [long (separating) line from left margin to right edge]

Printed [handwritten in red ink[; seen in left margin] ]

[ [stamp also to left of left-margin line in Image:] [circular] blue stamp[with following text within it:] ] [above & below center; inside perimeter:] WAR RECORDS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ��                                                                            1861-1865

                                                                                                                                                                   [between the 2 lines transcribed just above; in larger letters:]     COPIED           [/stamp]

          [following 4 transcribed lines seen to right of stamp in Image:]  

                                                                                            Head Quarters District of Texas

                                                                                                            Galveston Texas June 19th 1865

General Orders}

No. 2                }

                                                                               The Staff of the District is announced as follows:

Major [underlined:] F. W. Emery[/underlined],    U. S. Vols.          Asst. Adjt. Genl.

Lieut. Col. [underlined:] J. C. Palfrey[/underlined], U.S. Vols.           Asst. Insp[']r. [abbreviation for "Inspector"] Genl.

Lieut. Col. [underlined:] R. G. Laughlin[underlined],   94th ["4" faint] Ill's  [abbreviation for "Illinois"] Vols.   Provost Marshal Genl.

Lieut. Col. [underlined:] J. G. Chandler[/underlined],  U. S. Vols.           Chief Quartermaster

Captain [underlined:] F.G. Noyes[/underlined],          U.S. Vols.           Chief Comy. [abbreviation for "Commissary"] of Subsistence

Surgeon [underlined:] C. B. White[/underlined],        U.S. Vols.           Medical Director

Captain [underlined:[ G. W. Fox [/underlined],           26th N. Y. Battery, Chief of Artillery

Captain [underlined:] S. Howell[/underlined],  [?]          6th Mich. Hy. [abbreviation for "Heavy"] Artillery   Chief of Ordnance

1st Lieut [underlined:] J. L. Baker[/underlined],     23[']d Wis. Vols.  Commissary of Musters

Major [underlined:] W. L. Avery[/underlined],           U. S. Vols.           Aide-de-camp.

Captain [underlined:] C. S. Sargent[/underlined],  U. S. Vols.           Aide-de-Camp.

                                                                                             G, Granger [signed]

                                                                          Major General Commanding.  [this line written in same writing as the writing above the signature]

Printed. [handwritten in red ink [in left margin]]

                                                                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [separating line in Image from left margin to right edge]

                                                                                                                                             Head Quarters District of Texas

                                                                                                                                                            Galveston Texas June 19th 1865.

[blue stamp of WAR RECORDS COPIED 1861-1865]  

General Orders}

No. 3                }

                           The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a proclamation

from the Executive of the United States, "all slaves are free". This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former

 [continued]

[page 2]

[continued]

masters and slaves and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes

that between employer and hired labor.

                                                                              The freedmen are advised to remain quietly

at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will

 not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported

in idleness either there or elsewhere.

                                                                        By order of Major General Granger

                                                                         F.W. Emery [signed]

                                                                       Major A.A. Genl.

Printed [handwritten in red ink]

                                                                                               Head Quarters District of Texas

                                                                                                      Galveston Texas June 19th 1865

General Orders

No. 4

[blue stamp of War Records Copied 1861-1865]

                            All acts of the Governor and Legislature of Texas since

the Ordinance of Succession are hereby declared illegitimate.

                                                          All military and civil

officers and agents of the so-called Confederate States Government or of the State

of Texas, and all persons formerly connected with the Confederate States Army,

in Texas, will at once report for parole at one of the following places, or such

other as may be designated hereafter, to the proper United States officers to be

appointed:

                   Houston, Galveston, Bonham, San Antonio, Marshall and Brownsville.

                                       Although their long absence from their homes, and the

peculiar circumstances of their State, may facilitate their desertion from their organizations,

this order will be strictly and promptly complied with.

                                                                 The above mentioned, and all other

persons having in their possession public property of any description whatever, as arms

horses, "munitions", etc., formerly belonging to the so called Confederate States, or State

of Texas, will immediately deliver it to the proper U.S. Office, at the nearest

of above mentioned places.

                                    When they cannot carry it, and have not the means of

transporting it, they will make to the same officer a full report of its character,

quantity, location, security, etc.

                                         All persons not complying promptly with the order

will be arrested as prisoners of war, sent North for imprisonment, and their

property forfeited.

                 All homeless persons committing acts of violence such as bandits,

guerillas, jay-hawkers, horse-thieves, etc., etc., are hereby declared outlaws, and enemies of

the human race, and will be dealt with accordingly.

                                                                                                             (carried forward)

[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.

[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.

[originaljediinjeans]

TIL that the very last shots of the U.S. Civil War were fired in Alaska (still owned by the Russians) by a Confederate privateer whose crew did not learn about Lee’s surrender until June of 1865 and surrendered to the British Royal Navy (in England) in November. 

[otherhistoricalthings]

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

[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.

[racefortheironthrone]

Guessing not the only one, but I just toke it for granted that Ulysses S. Grant was a hard drinker. Now learning it was often exaggerated by his rivals and the press during his lifetime, but especially grew in the rise of "Lost Cause" movement?

It certainly was exaggerated, but Grant was a (mostly functional) alcoholic who had a tendency to hit the bottle hard when he was depressed (something he suffered from pretty badly, and arguably his alcoholism was a form of self-medication) or bored or frustrated or isolated. However, he was capable of going cold turkey for long periods of time when he had a good support system around him (most notably his wife, and his aide-de-camp Rawlins, whose presence could keep him clean). Despite what was alleged in the press, Grant never drank during combat - indeed, it tended to be during periods of inactivity that his alcoholism manifested, likely due to that exacerbating his depression.

[lonestarbattleship]

USS ROANOKE (1855) was originally built as one of the Merrimack class screw frigates. She is the sister-ship to USS MERRIMACK. (The same ship which went on to be razed during the civil war, captured and converted into the CSS Virginia by the Confederates.) She served as flagship of the Home Squadron in the late 1850s and captured several Confederate ships after the start of the American Civil War in 1861.

"Lithograph depicting the ship during the final stages of her conversion from a steam frigate to a triple-turret ironclad, at the Novelty Iron Works, New York City, circa the first half of 1863. The original drawing of the scene was done by G. Hayward for Valentine's Manual, 1863. Note the large derrick at left, and the Novelty Works' building at right."

"Lithograph published during the Civil War era, depicting the ship after her conversion to an ironclad."

In 1862, she was selected to be transformed into a monitor, as it would be faster to convert an existing steam powered ship than coming up with a new design. She was planned to be an ocean-going multi-turret monitor. Although, design flaws, such as the weight of her armor and turrets causing her to roll excessively and deep her draft, prevented her use to only harbor defense.

"Sepia wash drawing by R.G. Skerrett, 1899, depicting the ship underway after her conversion to an ironclad, circa 1863-65."

After her conversion was complete, local politicians in New York City lobbied to have her assigned to New York harbor. However, the Navy ordered her to Hampton Roads, Virginia, to join the blockading squadron there.

"Watercolor by Oscar Parkes, depicting the ship after she was converted to an ironclad, circa 1863-1865. Courtesy of Dr. Oscar Parkes, London, England, 1936."

She remained there through the end of the war. Roanoke was placed in reserve after the war and sold for scrap in 1883

"At the New York Navy Yard, Brooklyn New York, probably following her decommissioning in June 1865. The ship of the line in the left background is USS Vermont, which was receiving a ship at the Navy Yard until September 1865."

U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command: NH 45364, NH 57813, NH 50462, NH 59548, NH 48105

[todaysdocument]

Marguerite Lacroix freed her mother Olivette from slavery on March 25, 1863. 

Marguerite had purchased Olivette with the intention of freeing her. 

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United States

Series: Case Files

Transcription: 

To the Honorable Charles A Peabody Judge of the United States Provisional Court for the State of Louisiana

The petition of Marguerite LaCroix, who resides in New Orleans, respectfully represents that she is the owner of a female slave named Olivette a mulatress aged about forty two years, whom petitioner purchased on the thirty first day of May 1862, by a public act before C. V. Foulon, A Notary public of the city of New Orleans.  

Now Your petitioner further shows that the said slave Olivette is her mother, and was purchased by her with the sole design of conferring freedom upon her which petitioner now desires to do.  

Wherefore petitioner prays, the premise being considered, that a decree may be passed by the Honorable Court, declaring the above named slave Olivette to be a free person, and so such entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities conferred on free persons by the laws of the United States: and she prays for all general relief.  

Marguerite Lacroix

Durant T Hornor of Counsel

[page 2]

No 118.

W. L. Provisional Court

Marguerite Lacroix praying for the emancipation of the slave Olivette

Petition

Durant T. Hornor of Counsel

Filed March 25th 1863

Aug. D. [illegible] Clk

The Court considering the allegations of the within petition & the proof thereof contained in the Authentic Act of Sale of 31st May 1862 before C . V. Foulon Notary Public, by Marguerite arsine to petitioner; it is now ordered, adjudged, & decreed that the Slave libera, Olivette, be declared emancipated & to be henceforth Free; and as such Free person, entitled now & hereafter to all the rights, privileges & immunities of a Citizen of the United States.  

New Orleans 24 March 1863.

Ch. A. Peabody

Judge U. S. Provincial

Court of Louisiana

[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.

[47thpennvols]

Ulysses S. Grant, half-length portrait, photograph by Barr & Young, published by J. C. Buttre, 1864 (U.S. Library of Congress, public domain)

As he penned his memoir in 1885 during the final days of his life, United States President and American Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant made clear the significance of the Battle of Opequan, Virginia, which took place on 19 September 1864:

"Sheridan moved at the time he had fixed upon. He met Early at the crossing of Opequon Creek [September 19], and won a most decisive victory – one which electrified the country. Early had invited this attack himself by his bad generalship and made the victory easy. He had sent G. T. Anderson’s division east of the Blue Ridge [to Lee] before I [Grant] went to Harpers Ferry and about the time I arrived there he started with two other divisions (leaving but two in their camps) to march to Martinsburg for the purpose of destroying the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad at that point. Early here learned that I had been with Sheridan and, supposing there was some movement on foot, started back as soon as he got the information. But his forces were separated and … he was very badly defeated. He fell back to Fisher’s Hill, Sheridan following."

[deadpresidents]

"Johnson is an insolent, drunken brute in comparison with which Caligula's horse was respectable."

-- Senator Charles Sumner (R-Massachusetts) on President Andrew Johnson

[eachlittlebird]

Bon Iver sang "The Battle Cry of Freedom" at the Harris-Walz rally in Wisconsin and OMG, it would make me deliriously happy if this became an anthem of their campaign.