Friday, November 30, 2012
Video: 2011 Antietam Memorial Illumination
To follow up my last post - I found this video today on Antietam National Battlefield's Facebook page. Enjoy.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
A Must Visit: Antietam Memorial Illumination
![]() |
Photo by Phil Romans. Creative Commons Licensing. |
![]() |
Photo by Phil Romans. Creative Commons Licensing. |
Before arriving at Gettysburg - I had never heard of this amazing tradition. Each year on the first Saturday of December, Antietam National Battlefield honors the casualties of the battle with an incredibly moving light show: volunteers light up the fields outside of Sharpsburg with 23,000 luminaries, one for each soldier killed, wounded, or missing during the battle.
I still remember clearly my first Illumination experience in 2001, traveling with Gettysburg College's Civil War Club - which made the trek with two college vans each year. As we approached the battlefield along the Boonsboro Pike (Route 34), I discovered the popularity of this event. We pulled the vans off to the side of the road several miles short of the primary event entrance--Richardson Avenue--and joined the long line. Typically the wait to enter the Park stretches up to two hours. If you go - make sure you bring along some food and drink, and something to entertain yourself as you wait.
We made it to the front of the line and turned on to Richardson Avenue eventually. Here signs directed drivers to use only parking lights, and our driver began to play Ashokan Farewell (a bit of mood music I suppose). At first, the luminaries simply lined the road in pairs, but as our van took one of the first corners a vast field filled with lights came into view. You might imagine what 23,000 lights looks like in your mind, but until you see it there is no way to describe it adequately. I remember too that in addition to the amazement of seeing the vast fields lit up, I also came away astonished by the distance covered by these lights: the tour stretches nearly 5 miles in length.
![]() |
Photo by Eric Gilliland. Creative Commons Licensing. |
I was hooked after my first experience, and returned twice more during my college years. I missed one year due to an early season snowstorm. In my opinion, the Memorial Illumination is an incredibly unqiue way to take a moment during the busy holiday season to honor those who fell long ago, and to contemplate the human toll of war. It's also heartening--given the numbers that turn out each year--to see how many people agree with me.
Since college I have not had the opportunity to attend an Illumination. I hope one day to make it back. But until I do, each year at this time I take a moment to think about my experiences attending the Illumination, and to remember those who gave the last full measure of devotion.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The Case of Coffroth vs. Koontz
By now the reviews have all come in - and there were a lot of them. Indeed, some seem exasperated by the amount of coverage Lincoln received from historians and bloggers. I've had my say as well on the movie - I liked it. But after weighing in a bit, I've personally found myself more interested in digging into primary sources to learn about the real story than debating what Spielberg got right or wrong. And it seems I've gotten myself a bit side-tracked exploring one of the more interesting side-stories.
A few days back I posted a bit on what I had found about Alexander Hamilton Coffroth's decision to switch his vote - he opposed it in June of 1864 but voted for it in January of 1865. The movie has its take on the flip-flop: Coffroth's reelection that fall was under considerable dispute, and voting with the administration would presumably pull some strings to ensure that he could remain at his post. In the film, Coffroth agrees to vote for the bill, and switch to the Republican Party in the next session.
In real life, such a party switch did not materialize - and Coffroth was seated in early 1866 only to lose his seat to his Republican challenger in July. I decided to dig a bit deeper into this election - and discovered that it has some Gettysburg connections. In the next series of posts I will use primary sources to take a look at the controversy surrounding the election, and the resulting decisions that led to Coffroth taking his seat in January, 1866, and subsequently losing it in July.
--------
Alexander Hamilton Coffroth first earned election to Congress in the wave election of 1862 that swept many Republicans out of power. Coffroth ran in the 16th district, and narrowly unseated Edward McPherson, a Gettysburg native who had studied law under Thaddeus Stevens. Most remember McPherson today for the farm that he owned on the first day's battlefield (though he rented it out at the time of the battle). McPherson does make a cameo appearance in Lincoln as well, played by Christopher Evan Welch. In 1865 McPherson was serving as the clerk of the House Representatives.
The sixteenth district Coffroth served was composed of Adams, Bedford, Franklin, Fulton, and Somerset counties. In the election of 1864, Coffroth ran against Republican William H. Koontz. The result - as the film tells us - came under dispute, and received a great deal of coverage in Gettysburg newspapers, both Republican and Democratic. In reading about this dispute, those of you who closely follow modern politics will recognize that not much has changed in regard to election controversies in our country.
The central question of the controversy revolved around the certification of the soldiers' vote. In this election - the Republican Party counted on strongly favorable margins from soldiers at the front, and went to great lengths to ensure those votes counted. On the other hand, Democrats sought to disqualify the soldiers' vote on technical grounds where they could.
On November 1, 1864, The Republican Adams Sentinel reported on the controversy:
A few days back I posted a bit on what I had found about Alexander Hamilton Coffroth's decision to switch his vote - he opposed it in June of 1864 but voted for it in January of 1865. The movie has its take on the flip-flop: Coffroth's reelection that fall was under considerable dispute, and voting with the administration would presumably pull some strings to ensure that he could remain at his post. In the film, Coffroth agrees to vote for the bill, and switch to the Republican Party in the next session.
In real life, such a party switch did not materialize - and Coffroth was seated in early 1866 only to lose his seat to his Republican challenger in July. I decided to dig a bit deeper into this election - and discovered that it has some Gettysburg connections. In the next series of posts I will use primary sources to take a look at the controversy surrounding the election, and the resulting decisions that led to Coffroth taking his seat in January, 1866, and subsequently losing it in July.
--------
Alexander Hamilton Coffroth first earned election to Congress in the wave election of 1862 that swept many Republicans out of power. Coffroth ran in the 16th district, and narrowly unseated Edward McPherson, a Gettysburg native who had studied law under Thaddeus Stevens. Most remember McPherson today for the farm that he owned on the first day's battlefield (though he rented it out at the time of the battle). McPherson does make a cameo appearance in Lincoln as well, played by Christopher Evan Welch. In 1865 McPherson was serving as the clerk of the House Representatives.
The sixteenth district Coffroth served was composed of Adams, Bedford, Franklin, Fulton, and Somerset counties. In the election of 1864, Coffroth ran against Republican William H. Koontz. The result - as the film tells us - came under dispute, and received a great deal of coverage in Gettysburg newspapers, both Republican and Democratic. In reading about this dispute, those of you who closely follow modern politics will recognize that not much has changed in regard to election controversies in our country.
The central question of the controversy revolved around the certification of the soldiers' vote. In this election - the Republican Party counted on strongly favorable margins from soldiers at the front, and went to great lengths to ensure those votes counted. On the other hand, Democrats sought to disqualify the soldiers' vote on technical grounds where they could.
On November 1, 1864, The Republican Adams Sentinel reported on the controversy:
Bold Attempt to deprive Gen. Koontz of his ElectionOn November 7, 1864, Gettysburg's Democratic organ, The Compiler, responded. It began by outlining all of the guidelines required by law for the counting of the soldiers' vote. Then, one by one, it took up the rejected returns:
The Return Judges met on Friday to receive and count the Returns of Soldiers' votes. These returns gave Koontz 292--Coffroth 115. Majority for Koontz, 177. During the day, it was whispered that the Democratic Judges had held a caucus at the Globe Hotel, with three of our young Democratic lawyers, and determined to exclude a portion of the Soldier vote. But nobody seemed disposed to credit the rumor. On Friday evening the town was much excited by the announcement that the Democratic Judges had actually rejected eight Returns, which had given Koontz 108 majority. As the telegraph from Harrisburg had announced Koontz's majority in the district to be only 72, this exclusion of the soldier vote, if recognized by the Governor, would of course give the Commission to Coffroth--a defeated candidate. We learn that the Union Judges protested against the outrage--and drew up a calm, dignified Protest, which was forwarded to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and a copy of which will be found in to day's Sentinel.
We have been curious to know the reason of this singular and bold attempt to disenfranchise over 200 of our gallant heroes, and have been surprised to learn that the objections were all of a most frivolous character--all matters of informality.
The Prothonotary did deliver to the Return Judges copies of 31 returns, of these twenty-four were received and counted. Seven were not received, they appearing, as the Prothonotary cetified, to be in violation of the Act of Assembly, and his copies of them showing for the information of the Board and the public also, wherein they were defective and illegal. These he need not have certified at all, but he did so doubtless to let all have an opportunity of seeing and judging their illegality.As these sources tell us, The Return Judges divided over the decision to reject soldiers' votes. As a result, conflicting certifications were sent to Governor Curtin. I'll continue this story in a later post.
The first not received was the return attempted to be made of election held by Co. K, 184th Regt., which included a voter of Franklin county. This of necessity vitiated the whole return. It could not be told how that Franklin county elector voted. The officers of that election had made an illegal return. They had disregarded the law and no man can show how the Board could have counted the votes of such a return. The Return Judges are sworn and they must act in accordance with law.
The next was of Co. C, 202d Regt. In this case but one Judge was elected, and but that same one Judge acted and made the return. This was not an election held and a return by the three Judges, as directed positively by the law. It was a return unknown to the law and could not be received.
Returns for Mower U.S. Gen'l Hospital, Cuyler U.S.A. Hospital and McClellan U.S.A. Gen'l Hospital, the two former giving each one vote, the last three votes, were not received, because they did not contain the oathes and certificates of oaths of the Judges and Clerks. There was nothing to show that the officers holding these elections were qualified according to law.
A return of election held at one poll, before one set of election officers, by Companies B and G, of 138th Regt., was sent to the Prothonotary. This was in glaring opposition to the law, which, as has been seen, directs emphatically that "a poll shall be opened in each company." No excuse could be given for the admission of such a return and it could not be received.
Duplicate returns for Co. I, 210th Regt., containing names of voters of Adams, Franklin, Fulton, Bradford, Columbia and Perry counties. There was no certificate of the oath of two of the Judges and the Clerks. If the Board of Return Judges is a machine to count votes, not to examine what is before them, but to "go it blind," as some of the opposition wanted them to do, then of course these double returns of this Co. must be counted. They were not according to law and the Board did not receive them.
The Return for Co. B, 21st Regt. Cavalry was so defective and illegal that the Prothonotary could not and did not certify a copy of it. It contained names of voters of Franklin, Adams and York counties, and a return of votes for the different officers voted for in the three counties. An election was attempted to be held by Judges and Clerks who were qualified by a person not an election officer, in violation of the law. The effect was the same as if they had not been qualified at all. Therefore those Judges and Clerks had no right to hold an election or make a return of it. It also appears that there were in this return more votes cast for Coffroth and Koontz than there were Adams County voters. The Judges could not, for the reason given, count those votes. There was no legal paper before them to enable them to do it.
Not a solitary argument worthy of the name was or could be presented in support of the illegal returns. The election officers were amply provided with blanks, by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, for conducting the elections according to law. $15,000 was appropriated by the Legislatures for the purpose and to carry the law into effect, but in many cases its provisions have been disregarded.
Mr. Sweeney, the Return Judge of Gettysburg, offered a motion to throw out the returns of Franklin and Cumberland townships, for some alleged "inconsistencies between the certificates and tally lists, but his motion was properly declared by the Board out of time and out of order. The day for the district returns had passed, and those returns are governed by the general law. Mr. Sweeney's motion was sustained by the seven Republican Judges, and the right the Board had to examine the returns and not receive such as were not returns under the law, was by the course of the seven Judges on this motion, not only conceded but unanimously ratified.
Notwithstanding, these seven, "a rebellious minority," only one-third of the whole number, refused to sign the certificates, refused even to sign a certificate showing the action of the Board in not receiving the eight returns, but left the Court House in the wake of a few Abolition leaders to do their bidding.
It was objected by one of the seven that the Act provided that no mere informality shall invalidate the elections under it. Certainly not, and not a single return was not counted on the ground of "mere informality." Informality is want of form. Illegality is another thing.... The Judges are to count legal returns and such only, intolerant McPherson and his vile slanders upon good men and the wrath of a few other intolerant bigots, to the contrary notwithstanding.
The action of the Board is right in the opinion of eminent legal counsel of different parts of the State, and of law abiding people. Illegal returns were not even laid before the Return Judges of Bedford co. The Prothonotary could not certify any but such as were in accordance with law. There is no "military necessity" compelling the Return Judges to suspend the operation of a law so recent as the 25th of August, 1864. Although it is to be sincerely regretted that any of the returns of the soldiers' vote, or their elections, were not legal, adherence to the law was the only right and safe course for the Judges.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Lincoln vs. the Primary Source Evidence
Historians and bloggers have written a lot over the past week regarding Lincoln. Quite a bit has centered on the historical accuracy of the film, and for the most part I've seen positive responses.
Personally, I judge the success of a historical movie by its ability to encourage viewers to learn more about its subject. In this sense, Lincoln succeeded for me. I have not to this point read much about the passage of the 13th Amendment, but I found myself digging around on the internet the last few days. I thought I would continue to take a look at some of the history behind the film here on Backstories. The film portrays several floor debates in the House of Representatives, which provides us with a great opportunity to compare fact and fiction. The Library of Congress website, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, features the Congressional Globe, where you can find the debates of the 38th Congress on the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Today I have been looking into one of the interesting side plots of the movie - the story of Congressman Alexander Hamilton Coffroth. In the movie, Coffroth (played by Boris McGiver) initially states his opposition to the amendment. Involved in a contested election in his home district, the administration arranges for Coffroth to visit Thaddeus Stevens, who essentially tells the Democratic congressman that he will vote for the amendment as a Democrat, and that his reelection bid will be taken care of somehow. Stevens then explains to Coffroth that, at the appropriate time in the new congress, Coffroth will announce that he has switched to the Republican Party.
I wondered how much truth this story contained, and I went in search of some evidence. First, I went to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, where I learned that Coffroth was indeed involved in a contested election in 1864. I also learned that Coffroth was seated in the 39th Congress on February 19, 1866, and served until July 18, 1866, when he was succeeded by William H. Koontz, who had contested the election. So the story has some semblance of truth about it. It appears however that Coffroth never switched parties, and certainly never intended to.
What then, of Coffroth's position on the amendment? For that, we can go to the primary sources.
On June 14, 1864, Congressman Coffroth rose to explain his initial stance on the amendment. He would vote against it:
He continued, explaining that he did not deny the right of Congress to amend the Constitution, but rather, "I do deny the right of Congress to amend the Constitution to the destruction of the right of the people to hold property." Coffroth closed:
On January 31, 1865 - the day of the second vote - Coffroth rose again to address the House, and to explain his change of heart. This time, he argued that this action by Congress was not as drastic as some of his Democratic colleagues had made it out to be - pointing out that Congress had no power to amend the Constitution, but rather to recommend amending the document to the people.
One wonders about the inner-workings of the contested election that saw Coffroth seated in February, 1866 but then unseated in July. However - one need only read his words to discover that this is not a man who would switch to the Republican Party. Taken on the whole though, the film does a nice job portraying this Congressman and the difficult situation he found himself in in January, 1865.
Personally, I judge the success of a historical movie by its ability to encourage viewers to learn more about its subject. In this sense, Lincoln succeeded for me. I have not to this point read much about the passage of the 13th Amendment, but I found myself digging around on the internet the last few days. I thought I would continue to take a look at some of the history behind the film here on Backstories. The film portrays several floor debates in the House of Representatives, which provides us with a great opportunity to compare fact and fiction. The Library of Congress website, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, features the Congressional Globe, where you can find the debates of the 38th Congress on the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Today I have been looking into one of the interesting side plots of the movie - the story of Congressman Alexander Hamilton Coffroth. In the movie, Coffroth (played by Boris McGiver) initially states his opposition to the amendment. Involved in a contested election in his home district, the administration arranges for Coffroth to visit Thaddeus Stevens, who essentially tells the Democratic congressman that he will vote for the amendment as a Democrat, and that his reelection bid will be taken care of somehow. Stevens then explains to Coffroth that, at the appropriate time in the new congress, Coffroth will announce that he has switched to the Republican Party.
I wondered how much truth this story contained, and I went in search of some evidence. First, I went to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, where I learned that Coffroth was indeed involved in a contested election in 1864. I also learned that Coffroth was seated in the 39th Congress on February 19, 1866, and served until July 18, 1866, when he was succeeded by William H. Koontz, who had contested the election. So the story has some semblance of truth about it. It appears however that Coffroth never switched parties, and certainly never intended to.
What then, of Coffroth's position on the amendment? For that, we can go to the primary sources.
On June 14, 1864, Congressman Coffroth rose to explain his initial stance on the amendment. He would vote against it:
The mere abolition of slavery is not my cause of complaint. I care not whether slavery is retained or abolished by the people of the States in which it exists--the only rightful authority. The question to me is, has Congress a right to take from the people of the South their property--or, in other words, having no pecuniary interest therein, are we justified in freeing the slave property of others?
He continued, explaining that he did not deny the right of Congress to amend the Constitution, but rather, "I do deny the right of Congress to amend the Constitution to the destruction of the right of the people to hold property." Coffroth closed:
The liberty of speech, the freedom of the ballot-box, and the inalienable rights of the citizens are worth preserving. If defending them on this floor makes this side of the House, in the opinion of the gentlemen on the other side, sympathizers with the rebellion, we know we do our duty, and that unborn generations will rise to bless the memory of the men who have preserved for them the rights and privileges of their fathers.
On January 31, 1865 - the day of the second vote - Coffroth rose again to address the House, and to explain his change of heart. This time, he argued that this action by Congress was not as drastic as some of his Democratic colleagues had made it out to be - pointing out that Congress had no power to amend the Constitution, but rather to recommend amending the document to the people.
The members of this House assume no responsibility, they enact no amendment, but as faithful Representatives they submit to the people, the source from whence their power comes, the proposed amendment. 'Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.' All political power is invested in the people. At their will constitutions can be remodeled and laws repealed.Coffroth also explained that his opposition in June stemmed from his sympathy for the loyal slave states, noting that the amendment would take away the slave property of loyal citizens. Since that time, Maryland and Missouri had abolished slavery, and Kentucky's governor had advocated for gradual emancipation, thus removing one of his primary sticking points. He also justified his vote by asserting his desire for peace, and his belief that removing the slave question for all time would perhaps hasten peace. Finally, understanding that his vote would make him an unpopular man within his own caucus, Coffroth defended his Democratic credentials firmly:
Mr. Speaker, I desire above all things that the Democratic party be again placed in power. The condition of the country needs the wise counsel of the Democracy. The peace and prosperity of this once powerful and happy nation require it to be placed under Democratic rule. The history of the past demonstrates this. The question of slavery has been a fruitful theme for the opponents of the Democracy. It has breathed into existence fanaticism, and feeds it with such meat as to make it ponderous in growth. It must soon be strangled or the nation is lost. I propose to do this by removing from the political arena that which has given it life and strength. As soon as that is done fanaticism 'Writhes with pain, and dies among its worshipers.' Then the rays of truth will be unshaded, and once more our people will rejoice in the salvation of their country, and of the reinstating in power of that party which made this country great, and which has done so much to secure to man civil and religious liberty.
Many of the honorable gentlemen of this House with whom I am politically associated may condemn me for my action to-day. I assure them I do that only which my conscience sanctions and my sense of duty to my country demands. I have been a Democrat all the days of my life. I learned my Democracy from that being who gave me birth; it was pure; it came from one who never told me an untruth. All my political life has been spent in defending and supporting the measures which I thought were for the good of the party and the country. My energy, my means, and my time were all given for the success of the Democratic cause. I am no Democrat by mere profession, but I have always been a working one. If by my action to-day I dig my political grave, I will descend into it without a murmur, knowing that I am justified in my action by a conscientious belief that I am doing what will ultimately prove to be a service to my country, and knowing there is one dear, devoted, and loving being in this wide world who will not bring tears of bitterness to that grave, but will strew it with beautiful flowers, for it returns me to that domestic circle from whence I have been taken for the greater part of the last two years.
One wonders about the inner-workings of the contested election that saw Coffroth seated in February, 1866 but then unseated in July. However - one need only read his words to discover that this is not a man who would switch to the Republican Party. Taken on the whole though, the film does a nice job portraying this Congressman and the difficult situation he found himself in in January, 1865.
Friday, November 23, 2012
A Direct Response to Kate Masur
Since I've focused quite a bit on the Lincoln over the last week or so, and referenced Kate Masur's critique of the film, I'd thought I'd post a response written by Hari Jones of the African American Civil War Memorial Freedom Foundation and Museum. Point well taken.
Library Corner: Midnight Rising

By Tony Horwitz
Published in 2011
Picador
Yesterday before the onslaught of family I managed to finally put away the epilogue of Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid that Sparked the Civil War. Horwitz, an American journalist and writer, is best known as the author of several travel narratives with a historical spin, including Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War and A Voyage Long and Strange: On the Trail of Vikings, Conquistadors, Lost Colonists, and Other Adventurers in Early America.
With Midnight Rising, Horwitz goes in a different direction: narrative history. Yet you shouldn't worry about the author leaving his comfort zone. If you enjoyed reading Confederates in the Attic, you will instantly recognize his riveting writing style once again.
This book is not a full biography of Brown . Horwitz uses the first fifty pages to introduce the reader to Brown and set the context of his story. He then launches into a rich and full narrative of Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry - from the planning and fundraising stages all the way through to the trial and execution of the conspirators. This book serves as an attempt by Horwitz to grapple with the meaning of Brown's raid - what did the abolitionist really intend to accomplish with this grandiose plan?
In the introduction to the book, Horwitz argues that most histories gloss over the Harpers' Ferry Raid, treating it as a "speed bump"--to use his own words--on the road to Fort Sumter. He then lays out what he views to be the raid's importance:
Harpers Ferry helped propel Lincoln to the White House, where he would ultimately fulfill Brown's mission. The midnight rising in Virginia also embroiled a host of future Confederates. Robert E. Lee and J.E.B. Stuart led troops against Brown; Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson guarded the abolitionist. So did John Wilkes Booth, who loathed Brown but took inspiration from his daring act of violence. Meanwhile, in Congress, Jefferson Davis cited the attack as grounds for Southerners to leave the Union, 'even if it rushes us into a sea of blood.' Harpers Ferry wasn't simply a prelude to secession and civil war. In many respects, it was a dress rehearsal.
This was true not only for participants but for the millions of Americans who followed the events from afar, through telegraphic dispatches that made Harpers Ferry one of the first breaking news stories in the nation. The debate and division stirred by the crisis unsettled decades of compromise and prevarication. On the subject of John Brown, there was no middle ground. North and South, citizens picked sides and braced for conflict that now seemed inevitable.
I found the detailed, almost minute-by-minute account of the raid itself the most engrossing portion of the book. In all my readings on the Civil War era, I cannot remember reading an actual narrative of how the raid unfolded. Most accounts provide only two basic details: 1) Brown and his men took control of the arsenal, fortifying themselves in the engine house; and 2) Townspeople surrounded the engine house, and eventually U.S. Marines stormed the "fort."
Horwitz's narrative provides a much fuller picture of the raid, and raises some important questions. Examining the historical evidence, including various eye-witness accounts and Brown's own writings from before and after the raid, Horwitz attempts to discover what Brown truly intended. He makes a strong case that the plans understood by Brown's conspirators, and the actions Brown took on the day of the raid, do not sync with each other.
The author's conclusions leave open an intriguing question: did Brown intend to fail all along? Certainly, the book makes a convincing case that once the abolitionist had failed, Brown keenly understood that he could accomplish a great deal by becoming a martyr to the abolitionist cause.
To sum up - I would highly recommend this book. If you like historical narratives, you will find Horwitz's description of the raid enthralling. In addition to the enjoyable read, the author succeeds in putting the raid back into its rightful place as a central event of the secession crisis. After all, the 1860 Democratic Convention, which famously featured a walkout of Southern delegates, took place just 5 months after Brown's hanging, and only one month following the hanging of Albert Hazlett and Aaron Stevens, the last of Brown's raiders executed.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Lincoln
It's been a busy couple of days for me.
This weekend I headed down to Philadelphia to run in my first marathon along with my friend Will. We drove down Saturday to pick up our race packets, and had to be up at 4:30 a.m. to make it downtown, find parking, and be at the starting line around 6 a.m. at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The race was awesome - a beautiful course that stretched through downtown Philly, through Fairmount Park, and then along the Schuylkill River to Manayunk and back. I finished in 4:01:18. About a minute behind my goal, but I'm entirely happy.
After the race, the original plan called for my fiancée Emily and I to head down to Wilmington, Delaware to meet up with my college friend Ryan, and then head off to see Lincoln Sunday night. Needless to say - having gotten up at 4:30 and run 26.2 miles, I decided to postpone our Lincoln viewing. Luckily - all three of us had taken Monday off. And so yesterday morning we headed off to an 11:50 a.m. showing.
Ryan and I have a history of being let down by Civil War movies. We became friends on our first day of college in 2001 when we started talking about how excited we were about the making of the upcoming film, Gods and Generals. Two years later, we found ourselves walking out of the theater wondering if we had ever seen such a bad film. This time around - we tried to temper our expectations.
Having said all that - we all walked out agreeing that this film was excellent - and the acting superb. Obviously the buzz has surrounded Daniel Day-Lewis and his amazing performance as Lincoln, but I find it hard to think of any actor/actress in this film who doesn't deserve special mention. In addition to Day-Lewis as Lincoln, I particularly enjoyed David Strathairn as Seward, Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens, Jackie Earle Haley as Alexander Stevens, and James Spader as political operative W.N. Bilbo. If you enjoy the Civil War - or really if you just enjoy history, you will like this movie.
Now for the history behind it. Like any historical movie, Lincoln at times uses artistic license, compresses time, and gets a bit fuzzy or details and fact, but I found very little in the way of glaring historical errors that often annoy the ardent history buff. On the flip side - I enjoyed some of the small historical details that went into the film - and the effort to portray faithfully specific personality traits of many of the main characters. Without giving away too much of the ending, I found the depiction of Lincoln's assassination a fresh take on a storyline that Hollywood has attempted many times.
The historical criticisms of this film so far have rested on one point: the film overly-dramatizes the central plot - the passage of the 13th amendment. Historian Eric Foner has argued that the movie gives far too much credit to Lincoln for the passage of the amendment, and portrays its passage in early 1865 as a crisis situation, when in reality it was not.
Foner's point is absolutely correct, but every Hollywood film based on a historical story overly-dramatizes the plot. We should always take Hollywood portrayals of history with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them. Slavery was for all intents and purposes already dead before the passage of the 13th amendment, and if the amendment had not passed in January of 1865, it surely would have passed in March. Nonetheless, its passage was a big deal.
Kate Masur offered another critique of the film, taking issue with Steve Spielberg's focus on Lincoln, Stevens and other white characters, while relegating African American characters to minor, passive roles. In her review Masur assures readers that her criticism is not mere "nitpicking." I tend to think that it is. The film is a political drama with Abraham Lincoln as its central figure. Unfortunately, the historical reality of this drama is that African American figures for the most part did remain on the margins of this fight in congress - a product of the social system of the time. I also felt as though Spielberg did a nice job of trying to bring the voice of black characters into the story as much as possible - including William Slade and Elizabeth Keckley. I would agree with Masur though that not finding a way to work Frederick Douglass into the story was a major omission.
In all - I would highly recommend the film. And if it succeeds in encouraging viewers to pick up a book on Lincoln, then it has to rate as a historical success as well as a cinematic success.
This weekend I headed down to Philadelphia to run in my first marathon along with my friend Will. We drove down Saturday to pick up our race packets, and had to be up at 4:30 a.m. to make it downtown, find parking, and be at the starting line around 6 a.m. at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The race was awesome - a beautiful course that stretched through downtown Philly, through Fairmount Park, and then along the Schuylkill River to Manayunk and back. I finished in 4:01:18. About a minute behind my goal, but I'm entirely happy.
After the race, the original plan called for my fiancée Emily and I to head down to Wilmington, Delaware to meet up with my college friend Ryan, and then head off to see Lincoln Sunday night. Needless to say - having gotten up at 4:30 and run 26.2 miles, I decided to postpone our Lincoln viewing. Luckily - all three of us had taken Monday off. And so yesterday morning we headed off to an 11:50 a.m. showing.
Ryan and I have a history of being let down by Civil War movies. We became friends on our first day of college in 2001 when we started talking about how excited we were about the making of the upcoming film, Gods and Generals. Two years later, we found ourselves walking out of the theater wondering if we had ever seen such a bad film. This time around - we tried to temper our expectations.
Having said all that - we all walked out agreeing that this film was excellent - and the acting superb. Obviously the buzz has surrounded Daniel Day-Lewis and his amazing performance as Lincoln, but I find it hard to think of any actor/actress in this film who doesn't deserve special mention. In addition to Day-Lewis as Lincoln, I particularly enjoyed David Strathairn as Seward, Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens, Jackie Earle Haley as Alexander Stevens, and James Spader as political operative W.N. Bilbo. If you enjoy the Civil War - or really if you just enjoy history, you will like this movie.
Now for the history behind it. Like any historical movie, Lincoln at times uses artistic license, compresses time, and gets a bit fuzzy or details and fact, but I found very little in the way of glaring historical errors that often annoy the ardent history buff. On the flip side - I enjoyed some of the small historical details that went into the film - and the effort to portray faithfully specific personality traits of many of the main characters. Without giving away too much of the ending, I found the depiction of Lincoln's assassination a fresh take on a storyline that Hollywood has attempted many times.
The historical criticisms of this film so far have rested on one point: the film overly-dramatizes the central plot - the passage of the 13th amendment. Historian Eric Foner has argued that the movie gives far too much credit to Lincoln for the passage of the amendment, and portrays its passage in early 1865 as a crisis situation, when in reality it was not.
Foner's point is absolutely correct, but every Hollywood film based on a historical story overly-dramatizes the plot. We should always take Hollywood portrayals of history with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them. Slavery was for all intents and purposes already dead before the passage of the 13th amendment, and if the amendment had not passed in January of 1865, it surely would have passed in March. Nonetheless, its passage was a big deal.
Kate Masur offered another critique of the film, taking issue with Steve Spielberg's focus on Lincoln, Stevens and other white characters, while relegating African American characters to minor, passive roles. In her review Masur assures readers that her criticism is not mere "nitpicking." I tend to think that it is. The film is a political drama with Abraham Lincoln as its central figure. Unfortunately, the historical reality of this drama is that African American figures for the most part did remain on the margins of this fight in congress - a product of the social system of the time. I also felt as though Spielberg did a nice job of trying to bring the voice of black characters into the story as much as possible - including William Slade and Elizabeth Keckley. I would agree with Masur though that not finding a way to work Frederick Douglass into the story was a major omission.
In all - I would highly recommend the film. And if it succeeds in encouraging viewers to pick up a book on Lincoln, then it has to rate as a historical success as well as a cinematic success.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
An Interesting Critique of Lincoln
Yesterday The New York Times published an interesting critique of Lincoln, written by Kate Masur. Having not seen the film yet, I'll hold my own judgement of Masur's op-ed. If you have seen it - feel free to weigh in.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Excited for Lincoln
It has been a while since my last post. Unfortunately I've had a great deal on my plate recently. For one, much of my spare time was consumed with following the election (in addition to studying the Civil War I am a bit of a political junkie). Add in several weekend events to plan and execute at work, a marathon to train for, and an article to get in shape for submission by the end of the month, and you can imagine how I've had a difficult effort finding time to write a new post.
I've got a number of posts ready in my head when I do find a spare moment though. I still have one more post to write about the 14th Connecticut. I am also nearing the end of Tony Horowitz's book Midnight Rising, and hope to write a review upon completion.
Most of all, I am looking forward to finally seeing Lincoln, and I'll share my thoughts when I do. I am sure I will not be the only Civil War blogger to do so. The movie had a limited release this weekend, and the reviews out so far have raised my expectations. Here are a few reviews in case you missed them:
NY Times
NPR
The full release is next weekend. Next Sunday I will find myself running (and hopefully finishing) the Philadelphia Marathon - my first attempt after having run several halfs over the past 4 years. I hope that I will celebrate Sunday evening by heading off to the movie theater, but I guess we'll see what shape I'm in!
I'd love to hear the thoughts of others when they see the movie.
I've got a number of posts ready in my head when I do find a spare moment though. I still have one more post to write about the 14th Connecticut. I am also nearing the end of Tony Horowitz's book Midnight Rising, and hope to write a review upon completion.
Most of all, I am looking forward to finally seeing Lincoln, and I'll share my thoughts when I do. I am sure I will not be the only Civil War blogger to do so. The movie had a limited release this weekend, and the reviews out so far have raised my expectations. Here are a few reviews in case you missed them:
NY Times
NPR
The full release is next weekend. Next Sunday I will find myself running (and hopefully finishing) the Philadelphia Marathon - my first attempt after having run several halfs over the past 4 years. I hope that I will celebrate Sunday evening by heading off to the movie theater, but I guess we'll see what shape I'm in!
I'd love to hear the thoughts of others when they see the movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)