Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #17: Jeremiah Johnson (1972)

Jeremiah Johnson is, quite simply, a movie about Jeremiah Johnson, one of the most legendary mountain men of the old American West. Going west to tough it out in the gold and fur trades, he somehow got into a blood feud with the Crow. He earned the nickname “liver-eating Johnson,” based on the rumor that he would cut out the liver of each Crow warrior he killed. The movie doesn’t include the liver part, so don’t worry about any violence in that respect.

Jeremiah Johnson is based on two books, the non-fiction Crow Killer: The Saga of Liver-Eating Johnson and Vardis Fisher’s historical novel Mountain Man, with a few inventions of its own. The real Jeremiah Johnson’s life is sketchy in areas, with gaps often filled by possibly legendary inventions and embellished facts. The movie definitely adjusts his beginnings. He’s simply portrayed as a Mexican War veteran, when in real life he actually deserted and changed part of his name. The movie likely does this to make him start out as a more innocent and out-of-his-depth man.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #13: The Buccaneer (1958)

 

Famed Hollywood director Cecil DeMille had smashing success with the remake of his own Ten Commandments. He sought to also remake his 1938 film The Buccaneer, adding color and more lavish production values. Unfortunately he fell ill, and would die a year after this movie’s release. His son-in-law Anthony Quinn (yes, that Anthony Quinn) would direct. DeMille was now just a producer, though he does show up at the start of the film to provide historical context.

The titular buccaneer is Pierre Lafitte, a French pirate who operated along the Gulf Coast. Lafitte was actually quite popular with the citizens of New Orleans, as the goods he stole or smuggled were sold at cheaper prices. He also engaged in slave trading, a fact the movie conveniently ignores. He didn’t actually buy recently captured slaves, but intercepted Spanish ships carrying them. While one may argue that the unfortunates were already on their way to enslavement, Lafitte still profited off their misfortune. Historical memory of Lafitte has been helped by his participation in the defense of New Orleans during the War of 1812.

Yul Brynner plays Lafitte. He doesn’t have a French accent, but he does manage to look dark and intriguing. Brynner also sported a wig for this movie! Charles Boyer plays his right hand man Dominique You, a real life French privateer who turned full pirate after arriving in New Orleans. Other historical figures include Governor William Claiborne (E.G. Marshall) and more famously Andrew Jackson. Charlton Heston returned to the role five years after The President’s Lady. He does a good job providing real gravitas to his role while still having some down-to-earth interactions with his diverse array of soldiers. He’s the only authority figure to really command Lafitte’s respect.

The main tension of the movie is whether Lafitte will help the American cause in the War of 1812 or not. National control of New Orleans in the 18^th-early 19^th Century had changed hands several times, with the French, Spanish, and Americans each having mastery over it at different times. Understandably, Lafitte and his pirates are more concerned with making money, and it makes no difference which of the revolving imperial powers claims to rule their turf.

Lafitte (Yul Brynner) sits amongst some of his pirates

The movie’s plotline is actually pretty accurate in following the course of historical events. Even moments like Lafitte coming through a window to meet with Jackson have their basis in reality. Lafitte meets the British, who want his aid in navigating Louisiana’s numerous waterways and swamps. When he says he needs time to think it over, the British land troops in his area anyways. The United States then attacks and imprisons most of his men, but Andrew Jackson gets them back on the same side for the Battle of New Orleans.

The only major inaccuracies come from the female characters, both of which are fictional. Claire Bloom plays Bonnie Brown, the fiery daughter of another pirate who wants Lafitte to focus more aggressively on piracy. Inger Stevens plays Annette Claiborne, one of two daughters of Governor Claiborne. The real Claiborne only had one daughter and she was a toddler in 1815. The fictional Annette serves as a love interest for Lafitte, and is depicted as the reason he’s leaning towards the United States. Actually, when it comes to all the made up romances on my watchlist, this one’s not too bad and has some tragic drama around the corner involving another pirate's assault on a US vessel.

Andrew Jackson (Charlton Heston) stands amongst the defensive line at New Orleans (https://commentaramafilms.blogspot.com/2012/04/guest-review-buccaneer-paramount-1958.html)

I was surprised by how much I was entertained by this movie, considering that despite its claims to being a swashbuckler romp, there’s barely any real action. We keep showing up in the aftermath of actual moments of violence, such as a rogue pirate’s attack on an American ship and the assault on Lafitte’s pirate base. The only sizeable action we get is the Battle of New Orleans itself, and even then I felt a bit teased. The buildup is marvelous. We really feel the tense atmosphere, with historically accurate fog obscuring the view of the approaching British Army. Andrew Jackson’s army has to be filled out with civilians and pirates with a shaky reputation (I’m glad that this movie, made in the 50s, accurately shows that Native Americans and black civilians helped out). There’s a warm up duel between British rockets and American artillery. Then the assault happens, heralded by bagpipes…and the main action of the battle lasts less than a minute before we fade into a victory party.

Despite failing to deliver on the action front, The Buccaneer is a fun film to watch thanks to its popping colors and great cast. Brynner has a lot of natural charisma and Heston kills it as Andrew Jackson. A fun, but not great movie.

Rating: 6/10

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #12: The President's Lady (1953)

 

After suffering a series of inserted love interests and love triangles, it’s time for a real historical romance. The President’s Lady, adapted from Irving Stone’s 1951 novel, tells the story of Rachel Donelson Robards, who would become the wife of President Andrew Jackson. She would not make it into the White House, but is considered a First Lady because her husband never remarried.

Of the presidential marriages, this one certainly earns dramatic attention. Rachel was in an unhappy marriage with Lewis Robard when she met Andrew Jackson. Thanks to a misunderstanding, cause by spotty late 18^th Century communications, they thought her husband had granted a divorce when they married. Now they were dogged by accusations of adultery, which fell more heavily on Rachel because she had been married.  The President’s Lady focuses not only on this, but the challenges of being married to a man who often has to be gone for long periods of time in service of his country.

I’ve formed something of a trilogy on my watchlist. I somehow ended up with three 1950s films with Charlton Heston in them. Thankfully his portrayal of Andrew Jackson is much better than his turn as William Clark in Far Horizons. I never imagined anything close to Heston’s voice for the tough military and political figure, but he manages to look the part and balances Jackson’s toughness and quick-tempered moments with his absolute loving behavior towards his wife. Heston did such a good job that he would reprise the role in old man makeup for the next entry on my list: The Buccaneer. Of course, many people today despise Jackson, so they may not like his more positive portrayal. But then again, this movie doesn’t delve deeply into his political career and more into his very close relationship with his wife.

Andrew Jackson (Charlton Heston) write home to Rachel from one of his military campaigns

The actual main character is Rachel Donelson (Susan Hayward). Susan Hayward was known for her real-life dramas, so this movie is right up her alley. She was also in her 30s, which meant she could pull off playing the character from her youth in the 18^th century to her death in 1828. She provides narration which both helps us get into her mind and also understand the flow of history. After all, this is an hour-and-a-half film covering four decades.

Rachel (Susan Hayward) as she
appears at the start of the movie

We don’t get many historical figures outside the main couple, and while it would be nice to see all the political machinations and struggles, that isn’t the point of this story. The first act of the film has Rachel’s first husband cheat on her with the slave women (the only real life information we have is that the marriage was unhappy). Thus she more easily fall in love with frontier lawyer Andrew Jackson. She keeps up with him both verbally and in escapes from hostile Indians, proving that she’s the best match for him.

When it’s revealed that she unwittingly committed adultery and bigamy, the real drama starts. They manage to get a proper divorce and marriage, but Jackson’s critics and rivals keep bringing up her past mistakes to get at her husband. As Andrew rises further in political life, other prominent wives refuse to socialize with her, forcing Rachel to live a somewhat lonely life in their big Tennessee home The Hermitage. This is made worse as Andrew Jackson literally has to leave for months to years at a time as he fights in wars and serves in Congress. Things come to a head at the climax during the 1828 election. People in the John Quincy Adams campaign start attacking Rachel to undermine Jackson’s chances for the presidency. Andrew wins anyways, but Rachel dies. In both the movie and real life, Andrew Jackson, already a fiery man who would get into duels, blamed it on the stress caused by his opponents, even claiming that his wife was murdered.

The President’s Lady is not the type of movie I would go out of my way to rewatch, but I have to say it’s not bad. Because the narrative sticks close to history, the romance is more believable and interesting than what I’ve been getting with a lot of these older films. I really cared about Rachel to the point that I forgot about some of Andrew Jackson’s more heinous moments like the forced removal of the Cherokee. This is a nice, old film that’s not over-long.

Rating: 7/10

Here's a very simple old trailer with some of Alfred Newman's music.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #11: The Far Horizons (1955)

The Lewis and Clark Expedition is one of the most fascinating adventures in American history. President Thomas Jefferson had just overseen the Louisiana Purchase, an incredibly cheap acquisition of French lands to the west. Eager to have it explored, he had his secretary, Meriwether Lewis, lead a collection of soldiers and civilians to explore the new American lands. They would map out the territory, describe and collect flora and fauna, and forge peaceful relations with the various Indian peoples. William Clark, a former soldier, would help lead this group, known as the Corps of Discovery.

Surprisingly, the Lewis and Clark Expedition received little attention for much of America’s history, but exploded in recognition in the 20^th Century. There have been numerous novels, documentaries, and references, not to mention Stephen Ambrose’s bestseller Undaunted Courage. However there has been only one actual movie, the 1955 Far Horizons, and boy, could we use another attempt.

Far Horizons is based on a novel called Sacajawea of the Shoshones, written by Della Gould Emmons. I cannot say how closely the movie follows the novel, so I won’t rag on Emmons, but this could explain some of the issues with the story. The movie begins with an ahistorical love triangle (I’m getting a lot of love triangles on this watchlist) between Lewis, Clark, and Julia Hancock. Meriwether Lewis (Fred MacMurray), gets permission to court Julia (Barbara Hale), but when he’s called in by the President, William Clark (Charlton Heston) unknowingly steals her from him. I can’t speak too much about the actors’ abilities to play Lewis and Clark, because the script doesn’t dwell on their actual real-life personalities.

The movie then skips the entire first act of the Expedition to get them to the Minnataree camp, where Shoshone Sacagawea is a slave. After she helps them avoid an ambush, she joins the expedition, where she and Clark fall in love (in real life Clark was affectionate towards her, but not in that way). And that’s the rest of the movie. Everybody is trying to get their hands on Sacagawea or commenting on how Clark is love with her. Oh, and the young Shoshone woman is played by a mid-30s Donna Reed in brown face. If the filmmakers couldn’t find a Native American actress to their liking, they could have at least gone for an Asian or Latina. To make things worse, Donna Reed’s brown eyes still aren’t dark enough, so the brown face is more noticeable. Many know that the real Sacagawea was pregnant at the time and would give birth in the middle of the expedition. The pregnancy is conveniently omitted, even though the fact that she went on the expedition with a child is what makes her even more awesome as a historical figure.

Clark gets mushy with Sacagawea

But I suppose the pregnancy was too inconvenient for Hollywood, who wanted her free for romantic plotting. As a result her real-life husband Charbonneau, a French trapper, is reimagined as a greasy, fat villain who is trying to make her his wife while also sabotaging the expedition. I’m all for a Sacagawea-centric movie, as she was legitimately a badass who turned out to be invaluable to the expedition. But what we get here is an emotional, weepy character. If you want a cool Sacagawea, check out the Night at the Museum movies. There she’s a wax figure brought to life at night, and she ends up as a couple with Teddy Roosevelt. Now that’s a power couple.

Back to this crummy movie. History buffs will notice that most of the real-life members of the expedition are absent. Aside from the aforementioned characters, we have Sergeant Glass (William Demarest), who’s more of a stock sergeant character than anything. Most notable by his absence is York, Clark’s slave. As a black man, York was fascinating to the Indians and very popular with the ladies (I’ll spare you the details). The filmmakers might have been trying to sanitize Clark by removing the presence of a black slave.

Almost every moment of this movie left me frustrated. Historically inaccurate movies can be good or even great if the changes lead to an engrossing story (special shout-out to Last Samurai). But this one was just painful. The Lewis and Clark Expedition famously suffered only one fight with the Indians and one fatality, a poor soldier who got his appendix ruptured. It’s incredible how almost nobody died when they faced grizzly bears, sickness, dangerous rapids, and tense confrontations with the Natives. Actually, a ruptured appendix sounds like a far worse way to go. The movie has several shootouts with the Natives, and to add tension at least a few of the explorers are killed.

The true story was so fascinating and exciting that it’s just baffling how Hollywood had to make so many changes. We get barely anything about the Expedition’s objectives. Nobody is observing animals, we get barely any time on the scenery, and literally the only discussion of mapping out rivers has to include the romance. Upon hearing that Clark named one branch of a river Sacagawea, Lewis reminds him of his engagement by naming the other branch Julia.

Lewis and Clark meet with a chieftain (https://mubi.com/en/us/films/the-far-horizons)

I’m noticing that most of the weaker movies on my watchlist are from the 50’s. One could say that Hollywood was too formulaic and risk-averse in this period, churning out uninteresting historical films that failed to stand the test of time, but this was also the era of the big swords-and-sandal epics.

Anyways, this movie was trash. For a history buff it’s torture, and I imagine it’s boring for anybody who doesn’t care. The plot was so mind-bogglingly inaccurate and awful that I’ll describe it after my rating.

Rating: 1/10

So Lewis is depressed after learning that Julia Hancock went for Clark. Despite having the top billed actor, Lewis turns into a supporting character for Clark. At the Minnataree settlement, Charbonneau agrees to lead the expedition into a trap so the Minnataree men can kill them. Sacagawea escapes enslavement to warn the explorers, who set up a trap of their own. She gets to come along, as she can guide them.

The box of maps falls overboard during a rough moment on the river. Sacagawea dives into the river to save it. She did this in real life (while still pregnant) and earned massive respect from the men. Unfortunately the movie has her caught in a current so Clark can save her, undermining her defining moment of bravery.

Sacagawea starts to bond with Clark. He nicknames her “Janey” (an actual accurate touch from history), but Charbonneau wants his paws on her. After a knife fight, Charbonneau gets kicked off the expedition (in real life he went with them the whole way). Lewis is starting to get angry about Sacagawea, as she’s making Clark unfaithful to Julia. They reach the Shoshone. As in real life the Shoshones and Americans establish firm relations since Sacagawea was brought back to them. The movie has other plans, too. It turns out that Sacagawea was promised to a young warrior named Wild Eagle (Larry Pennell). Uh-oh!

Lewis demands that Sacagawea stay behind, because he doesn’t like the effect she has on Clark. Sacagawea runs along the bank like a dog who doesn’t want to be left behind. She tires out and has to be brought back on board. At the same time Wild Eagle, who wants Sacagawea back, stalks the Expedition, picking off men when they separate from the main body. It gets to the point where Wild Eagle helps out with an assault on the Expedition while they’re on the river. After a big shootout, we skip forward to the Pacific Ocean (and we don’t’ see any interactions with the native peoples there).

Then we zip right to Washington DC. Since Charbonneau has been separated from Sacagawea by the plot and she has no baby boy, she’s free to come back with Lewis and Clark. Julia Hancock doesn’t like how Clark has fallen for this Indian woman, but fortunately for her Sacagawea realizes she doesn’t fit in white society and after tearfully breaking things up heads back west.

Don’t watch this movie.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #10: Tripoli (1950)

 America’s first major war after gaining independence was not its rematch with Britain in 1812, or any prolonged war with a Native American people, but the Barbary Wars, a series of attempts to get North African states to cease piratical operations against American shipping. The states of Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli (current day Libya), were Islamic Ottoman-supported states that, operating under the doctrine of Jihad, constantly attacked European shipping. The pirates would attack merchant and passenger vessels, seizing any goods and enslaving the crew and passengers. European nations would have to pay ransoms to free the slaves. The British government had willingly paid heavy sums to protect their merchant ships, which meant their economic competitors would suffer more seizures. Independent of Britain, the United States merchants were now fair game. After several humiliations, the US formed a proper navy and conducted the Barbary Wars, forcing the African states to stop.

This long paragraph provides background for Tripoli, a historical adventure film that, like many older Hollywood films, steers clear of the heavier elements of the story. We don’t hear about European prisoners being turned into slaves until they can be ransomed (the slave trade in this part of the world was actually quite massive, though by 1800 it had turned more into a ransom racket as the Islamic world was in decline) and there is nothing about the religious justification used by the state of Tripoli. Instead we get a typical, though exotic, adventure flick with a heavy infusion of ahistorical romance.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #9: The Patriot (2000)

 

The last of my American Revolution movies is The Patriot, the “largest” film portraying the conflict and one of the more controversial. Its director, Roland Emmerich, is famously a German who fell in love with the United States (perhaps not unlike Prussian officer Baron von Steuben!), so this movie is right up his alley. The Patriot is a semi-fictionalized account of Francis Marion’s guerilla war in South Carolina. Marion had already been an officer in the Continental Army, but rose to fame as a guerilla leader when the British mounted its major southern campaign in 1780. His effective hit-and-run attacks on British and Loyalist forces earned him the moniker “The Swamp Fox.”

Earlier drafts presented a more accurate and less black-and-white picture of the fighting in the South, but Emmerich insisted that he be allowed to make changes for a more crowd-pleasing good vs. evil narrative. This explains why Francis Marion is renamed Benjamin Martin. The historical Marion and his men sometimes engaged in can be considered war crimes. Marion was also a slaveholder, and had orders from above to execute any black man found fighting for or aiding the British.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #8: Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor (2003)

 

Benedict Arnold is the Judas of America’s national history. One of the Continental Army’s best generals, he faced frustration as other generals and members of Congress took credit for his accomplishments or passed him over for promotion. After marrying into a Loyalist family and being accused of profiteering, he decided to work with the British and almost gave them the important location of West Point. Discovered, he escaped to join the British Army and would die much later in England, reviled by the United States and treated with contempt or indifference by most of the British.

Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor was an A&E television film that sought to give Arnold (portrayed by Aidan Quinn) a sympathetic portrayal. The Movie is for the most part accurate, but almost everything just feels…off. One major culprit is the rushed narrative. A two to three hour film could have better fleshed our Arnold’s psychology so we actually feel something when he turns on his country. Of course, it would need better dialogue and some better casting choices as well. A&E was able to make low-budget historical films like The Crossing and Shackleton look great, but you can really feel the low budget with this one.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #7: John Paul Jones (1959)

 

John Paul Jones was the first of a string of big budget productions from Samuel Bronston. Bronston really wanted colorful spectacle on the big screen, but this came back to bite him when he produced two major bombs in the 60s. Surprisingly, his career wasn’t killed in the crib by John Paul Jones, which made one quarter of its budget back. It's not too hard to see why this movie wasn't a major hit with audiences.

John Paul Jones was the first major naval hero of the United States, scoring victories, taking daring ventures such as an actual raid on home British soil at Whitehaven, and, most famously, shutting down a surrender demand by shouting, “I have not yet begun to fight!” This energetic figure is poorly served by his biopic. The first problem is that it’s one of those “greatest hits” films in well under two hours. It’s hard to create a gripping character arc or build up suspense when you’re bouncing around between times and locations. The movie itself begins aboard a modern American war vessel, where an officer with a “golly gee” voice starts a narration of Jones’ life. From there we see him as a child in Scotland, a regular merchant captain, a Virginia planter, and finally a naval officer sparring with British ships, making amphibious raids, and rubbing elbows with major political figures.

The other problem is the performance of Robert Stack. Stack looks too bored to be such a thrilling character. Then again, he doesn’t have much character beats to work with. The film does threaten us with a love triangle between him, Patrick Henry, and governor’s daughter Dorothea Danders (for some reason they altered her historical name Dandridge), but it’s quietly put away as the governor is dead set against him courting his daughter anyways.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #6: The Crossing (2000)

 

When I was growing up, A&E, the Arts & Entertainment Channel, used to produce TV movies, many on historical events and figures.  These films were of course low budget, but many turned out quite good (Shackleton, starring Kenneth Branagh, is one I’d recommend). The Crossing, adapted from a Howard Fast novel, is about the famous crossing of the Delaware River, when General George Washington launched a surprise Christmas attack on a Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey.

In 1776 Washington presided over a series of defeats in New York. By the time his army escaped into winter quarters, enlistments were almost up and morale was horrendous. Washington was desperate to do something to raise morale and also show that the fledgling American nation could win battles. He led an audacious night march in freezing weather, which included the crossing of the Delaware River. He strategically hit the Hessians (German soldiers hired by the British) just after they had partied for Christmas. The result was a clear, one-sided victory wherein the Americans suffered only a few wounded (though a couple died from the cold on the march) and the enemy about a hundred wounded and killed, with hundreds more taken prisoner.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #5: 1776 (1972)

 

1776 is, pending any changes I make later in the year, the only musical on my list. It’s a big screen adaptation of the Broadway play of the same name, with dialogue and lyrics written by Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards. Peter H. Hunt directed the cinematic transfer, which surprisingly was timed jus a few years short of America's 200th birthday. The adaptation is very faithful to the play, and even uses many of the same actors. In fact, you won’t find familiar movie or television actors here, though many of the leads are big names in Broadway history. I first saw this movie way back in 2002 as part of my home school classes. I remember finding parts entertaining, but eventually being frustrated and bored by the end of it (it’s a long movie). My rewatch over 20 years later was much better, though the pace does start to drag in the last half hour, as well as one bafflingly long sequence focused on Thomas Jefferson and his wife.

The plot is that the Continental Congress can’t agree on whether or not to break with Britain and start a new nation. For a musical with plenty of comedy, there is an incredible amount of research involved. Much of the dialogue and even the song lyrics are lifted straight from the letters, speeches, and quotes of the Founding Fathers. It also accurately shows the compromises needed to bring differing interests together in a common cause, particularly when it comes to the issue of slavery.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #4: The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

 

The Last of the Mohicans is the best known of James Fennimore Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales. Cooper was the first American novelist to achieve international popularity, and for an author writing in the early 19^th Century was notably fait and complex in portraying American Indian characters, though sometimes slipping into noble savage tropes. Last of the Mohicans has been widely adapted onto screen, but Michael Mann’s 1992 offering is the most popular and enduring, thanks to its great cast, good music by Trevor Jones, and well-shot scenery.

The setting is the French and Indian War, which was a colonial theater of the global Seven Years War. The British and French fought each other with a mix of regular troops, militia, and Indian allies. Last of the Mohicans in particular focuses on events around the Siege of Fort William Henry. Colonel Edmund Monro put up a dogged defense against the Franco-Native force under General Louis-Joseph Montcalm. Reinforcements failed to arrive, so Munro surrendered under generous terms from Montcalm. However, the French’s Indian allies then set upon the disarmed soldiers and the civilians (women and children included), massacring them in one of the most controversial moments of the war.

Mini-Series Review: Death by Lightning (2025)

 

As far as the general public is concerned, one of the most least known parts of American history is what occurred in the eastern part of the nation between the Civil War and the rise of Theodore Roosevelt. This is ironic, because the most filmed part of American history is probably the Old West of the same period. So imagine my pleasant surprise when, just a week before its release, I learned there was a four-part Netflix series on President James Garfield and his assassin Charles Guiteau!

James Garfield is one of the most fascinating and over-looked figures in American political history. Born into a poor Ohioan family and raised for most of his childhood and youth by a single mother, He became a voracious reader and was noted for his vast knowledge as an adult. Initially a teacher, he entered politics as a Republican and an Abolitionist. In the Civil War Garfield joined the Union Army and, with quite a bit of good fortune, rose to the rank of brigadier-general before leaving the army to become a US Representative as well as a lawyer. In 1880 he went to the Republican Convention in New York to support John Sherman as presidential candidate, but surprisingly found himself nominated after he gave a rousing speech defending certain delegates from expulsion (the speech is one of the more historically altered moments in the show).

The Last Battle: Palmito Ranch (May 12-13, 1865)

 

https://digital.utsa.edu/digital/collection/p9020coll008/id/3031/

For many, the end of the Civil War comes with the surrenders of Robert E. Lee’s and Joseph Johnston’s Confederate armies in April of 1865. Indeed, these events sealed the death of the Confederacy. However, the war did not properly end until early summer. There are two reasons for this. First of all, news traveled slower back then, even with the recent introductions of new railroads and the telegraph. Thus it took some time for Confederate forces further west to receive word that their war had been lost. Secondly, defiant elements in the Confederate government, President Jefferson Davis among them, refused to admit defeat. Since the head of government never confirmed an overall surrender, the still sizeable Confederate force west of the Mississippi was unsure as how to proceed. Some steeled themselves for a final stand, but most got the sense that things were indeed coming to an unfortunate conclusion. They were keen not to start any hostile actions which could prove to be unnecessary wastes of life. Yet such an unnecessary battle would occur.

On May 12-13 a Federal colonel who had managed not to see any action in his four years of service led three regiments along the Rio Grande, his purposes still up for debate. The result was the last proper battle between the forces of the Union and the Confederacy. It was light in hard casualties of killed and wounded, but lasted hours and generated controversy. This was the Battle of Palmito Ranch, fought in the most backwater theatre of the war.

 

The Border Front

Perhaps “backwater” would not be an entirely accurate term. The Rio Grande, as it does today, forms the boundary between Texas and Mexico. It was the one border of the Confederacy that the Union Navy could not blockade. If they dared send ships up the river, they would violate Mexico’s neutrality. This neutrality was only in regards to the American Civil War itself, for Mexico was undergoing its own civil war at the same time, one injected with a strong dose of foreign invasion as well. Eager to capitalize on the United States’ internal conflict, French Emperor Napoleon III sought to expand his nation’s global influence by intervening in Mexico’s always volatile politics. He backed the conservative Mexican faction, who wanted a monarchy, against the republican Juaristas.

Kurz & Allison Part X: 1865

 The Confederacy died in 1865. The major battles of that year were all Union victories and mercifully shortened the war. Louis Kurz shows three of the significant actions which spelled out the death knell of the Confederacy. He also produced a fourth lithograph that to my knowledge has been absent from illustrated histories, likely because it was printed without color and does not encapsulate a battle.

Capture of Fort Fisher

By 1865, the only Confederate port able to receive blockade runners and keep the Confederate forces, especially Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, alive was at Wilmington, North Carolina. The Union had held off on closing this port because the formidable Fort Fisher stood in the way. In early 1865 they finally made a move on it. The Navy under Admiral David Dixon Porter and a Corps of infantry under General Alfred Terry coordinated a controversially unchallenged landing on January 13 and an assault on January 15. Not properly supported by Confederate units miles away, the Confederate garrison under General George Whiting put up a stout defense, but eventually felt compelled to surrender. This cut the last major lifeline to Trans-Atlantic trade.

Movie Review: Hearts in Bondage (1936)

 

Hearts in Bondage is an old black and white film about the birth of the Ironclad warships Merrimac and Monitor and their duel at the Battle of Hampton Roads in March 1862. I believe it's in the public domain, as one can easily find it on Youtube, and at 71 minutes long it should not be a large time investment. The title might cause some head scratching. I believe it refers to the torn allegiances of the main characters. Lieutenant Kenneth Reynolds (played by Oscar winner James Dunn) and fellow officer and friend Raymond Jordan are both Virginians (northern accents notwithstanding), but the Reynolds family stays with the Union while the Jordans choose their home state. Kenneth is engaged to Raymond's sister Constance and she ultimately stays with her fiancée despite loving her family. Thus one can say the title is about people are torn apart because their hearts are bonded to separate causes; Kenneth to the Union, Raymond to the Confederacy, and Constance to her love.

The Sack of Athens

On May 2, 1862, a brigade of Union soldiers descended on Athens, a small town and transportation hub in northern Alabama. What ensued was one of the earliest incidents of hard war against civilians, at a time when Union military policy stressed policies that would win ostensibly reluctant Secessionists back into the Union. The man at the center of this controversy was Colonel John Turchin, known by his detractors as the Mad Cossack.

 

The Mad Cossack

John Basil Turchin was the Americanized name of Ivan Vasilyevich Turchaninov. Turchaninov was born in the Province of the Don (the historical domain of the Cossacks) on January 30, 1822. His father was a major in the Imperial Russian Army and a lower-ranking noble. Ivan thus got into a good school, where he excelled. At the age of 14 he followed his father into the military, rising to colonel of the Imperial Guard in 1841. In 1849 he helped quash a revolution in Hungary. One historian notes that the soldiers’ large scale theft of food from the peasants was approved of as initiative by their commanders, as they were having trouble bringing their own stores of food up to the front. This might have played a role in Turchin’s mindset 30 years later.

During the Crimean War (1853-1856) he first earned a position on the personal staff of crown prince Alexander and then established defenses along the Finnish coast (Finland was at this time part of the Russian Empire). In 1856 Turchaninov married Nedezhda Lvova, an aristocrat’s daughter he had met in Poland. Around this time Turchaninov began to chafe at the military system in Russia. It promoted men through the ranks by nature of their birth and connections rather than merit. It also got in the way of much needed reforms. As a competent officer unable to rise any higher because of his comparatively modest background, Ivan was especially frustrated by the Russian Imperial order. He and Nedezhda, both liberal Russians, decided to move away from their homeland and its firm class system. They sought life in the United States. There the ex-soldier gained his Anglicized name while running a farm in New York. Once he and his wife learned English they moved to Chicago where he used his military experience to become an engineer.[1]

Kurz & Allison Part I: Indian Wars

 Introducing Louis Kurz

Louis Kurz

This is the first part of a series where I look at the historical lithographs of Louis Kurz. I was going to start with his Civil War works, but I saw a particularly baffling depiction of an event in 1890 and decided to start with his three portrayals of Indian War battles. Louis Kurz was an Austrian immigrant who got into lithographic art with Alexander Allison (they co-ran an art firm in Chicago). His colored works utilized chromolithography, where ink is printed onto black and white drawings. These cheap forms of art could be reproduced and purchased for display in family homes.

Louis Kurz was a Union Civil War veteran and produced a series of battle depictions. His aim was to instill patriotism and there is a definite Unionist slant. Despite his actual involvement in the war he did not strive for accuracy. Despite the simplistic nature of the art and numerous inaccuracies, his work has somehow grabbed the attention of many (myself included) and frequently adorns book covers and illustrated histories. Though known for his Civil War works, he also depicted battles from other events, foremost the Spanish-American War.

My objective in this series is to display Kurz’s art and make a few comments, especially on the inaccuracies. One general inaccuracy is the lack of diversity among uniforms and faces. Most of the soldiers have the same face with differing amounts of facial hair. They also are neatly attired. This is more noticeable in his depiction of Confederate soldiers, who historically had to improvise their garb and often wore butternut instead of gray (the common color for them in these lithographs. Now let’s look at Kurz’s three Indian War pieces.

Battle of Tippecanoe

I’m not as familiar with this event. The Battle of Tippecanoe saw Governor William Henry Harrison (famous as the shortest-running president) defeat Tecumseh’s Confederacy of American Indians. Tecumseh surprise attacked the American force, but the battle ended in the latter’s victory and the burning of Prophetstown, the center of the Indian Confederacy. Though this set back Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa’s dream of ending American expansion, they were able to rebuild their forces and participate in the War of 1812.

Harrison can be seen at left on horseback, urging his men on. The only major inaccuracy I can discern is the uniforms of the Americans. Here they are wearing caps from the Mexican War era instead of shako hats.

Battle of the Big Horn

The Battle of Little Bighorn was the last big hurrah for the Sioux Indians. Custer set out to strike at Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse’s assembly of warriors (from several Indian groups). Lieutenant-Colonel George Armstrong Custer made the mistake of splitting his force in two against a larger force. While he had some men hold off Marcus Reno’s wing, he sent the bulk of his force against Custer’s and encircled it, killing every man. It’s one of the famous last stands in history and cemented Custer as an American icon.

Naturally Kurz would take a stab at Custer’s Last Stand. Custer can be seen dual-wielding revolvers and is surprisingly not wearing his famous jacket and red scarf. The American cavalrymen also look a bit too fancy. The most unusual aspect of this depiction is the terrain. The battle was fought on grassy plains and hills. Here the Indians are issuing forth from rocky mountains.

Capture & Death of Sitting Bull

Even for a Louis Kurz work this is an astonishingly inaccurate portrayal of a historical event. It might have been based off propaganda that obscured a nasty pair of linked incidents in American history. Here Sitting Bull dies in battle leading his Sioux warriors from their camp of teepees. The Federal cavalry is backed by artillery. The problem is that most of the violence occurred at the Wounded Knee Massacre. Sitting Bull was killed days earlier. Kurz is merging his death with the Wounded Knee event. Also the reservation-bound Sioux would not have had such a full military force complete with mounted warriors.

Here’s what really happened. The Indian Agent on the Sioux Reservation feared that Sitting Bull would lend his credibility to the new ghost dance movement. The Reservation police (actually fellow Sioux) went to his house and arrested him between 5 and 6 in the morning. Sitting Bull and his wife refused to go and woke up the rest of the camp with their protests. The police finally tried to force Sitting Bull to come with them. An angry man intervened and shot the leading policeman. Instead of turning on his attacker, the officer pointed his revolver at Sitting Bull and shot him in the chest. Another policeman finished him off with a bullet to the head. A full shootout broke out, with eight policemen and at least several Sioux dying. It was an ugly incident where the police and Sitting Bull's supporters let their emotions run loose, hardly an epic battle between Sioux warriors and Federal soldiers. The Wounded Knee Massacre did see the Sioux shoot it out with Federals, but it was also a far cry from Kurz’s depiction, which does not show the women and children who were gunned down in the fracas. Of course such accuracy would not have been a pleasant thing to mount on the wall of one’s home.

Alan Taylor's American Republics

Taylor, Alan. American Republics: A Continental History of the United States, 1783-1850. W.W. Norton & Company, 2021.

American Republics is the third entry in Alan Taylor's ongoing history of the United States (following American Colonies and American Revolutions). He uses the plural form of Republic because he argues that the United States was hardly a united front, with various ideas for what the nation should be. The most obvious divide was between free-soiler Northerners and pro-slavery Southerners. However many reformers, religious outliers, Abolitionists, and others further added to a dazzling array of variants on the American ideal. Many Americans, and Indian Peoples as well, even struck out to create their own independent republics (Mormons, Texans, and Cherokees are among the notable examples), though all eventually fell into the United States anyways. Taylor also shows how shaky the American Republic was in its early years. It struggled economically and was battered by established empires, foremost Britain's. Internal strife frequently led it to the brink of disunion as different geographic and political sections pursued differing agendas. The book ends with the Compromise of 1850, which did ward off Civil War, but also heightened tensions to the point that it caused one anyways ten years later.

Taylor also gets into the history of America's neighbors, such as Canada and Spanish Florida. These are among the strongest parts of the book, contextualizing America within a wider continental history (as the title promises), and providing some inroads into other countries' histories for more curious readers Another strength is the collection of various unique characters, many little known even to history buffs. In addition to well-known monumental figures ranging from Henry Clay to Frederick Douglass to Andrew Jackson, Taylor treats us to would-be republic founder William Bowles (77-80) to humanitarian slaveholder Zephaniah Kingsley, Jr. (150-155) to William and Ellen Craft, a slave couple who posed as male master and valet to escape to the North (374-375). This makes for an expansive and colorful collection of characters and stories within 400 highly readable pages. American Republics serves as a wonderful starting point to find topics to investigate.

 

Hippensteel, Scott. Myths of the Civil War: The Fact, Fiction, and Science behind the Civil War’s Most-Told Stories. Lanham: Stackpole Books, 2021.

Scott Hippensteel is an associate professor of earth sciences at the University of North Carolina. If one wonders why a scientist wrote a book on the Civil War, it should be noted that his specialties include geoarchaeology and micropaleontology. Hippensteel himself is a Civil War buff and has sought to apply his specific field to this historical era. Myths of the Civil War does not deal with social issues like slavery’s importance or strategic ones like who was really responsible for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, but primarily with how historians and others who present the Civil War have uncritically accepted soldiers’ metaphors as literal fact or the objectivity of early photojournalism. Injecting his short book with bits of humor, Hippensteel is able to scientifically challenge claims about the Civil War in an engaging and entertaining fashion.

The first myth he challenges is that of the Civil War sniper, that thanks to advances in weapon technology, crack shots were able to hit generals like Sedgwick at Spotsylvania and Reynolds at Gettysburg with pinpoint accuracy. Studying physics and the capabilities of firearms at the time, Hippensteel convincingly argues that Civil War sharpshooters were not the equivalent of snipers and would either target clusters of men or work in teams to fill a general area with bullets.

8 Inaccuracies in the Movie Gettysburg (1993)

 Ted Turner’s Gettysburg is the 1993 film (with a successful mini-series performance on TNT) that got me interested in the Civil War. It’s my favorite Civil War movie period, even if technically there are better entries on the subject. While it will always hold a special place in my heart, I have noticed, through the observations of others and my own expanding knowledge of history that there are a few inaccuracies. Some are carried over from Michael Shaara’s Killer Angels, the historical novel on which the movie is based on. Others were mistakes or intentional cinematic choices on the part of the filmmakers. This is not a heavy criticism, as the inaccuracies are for the most part harmless and in a couple cases help make a better viewing experience. I will not list the soldiers’ well-fed and often older appearance, as the movie’s budget required the voluntary efforts of reenactors rather than meticulously selected extras or hired soldiers to fill out the battle scenes. Let’s start with a couple light ones.

#1. The 14th Brooklyn is at the Wrong Place

When General John Reynolds falls to a sharpshooter’s bullet, a regiment wearing red kepi hats and trousers stops to gather around him. Several units in the Army of the Potomac had colorful uniforms, but none were present for the first day’s battle around McPherson’s Ridge. The 14th Brooklyn, actually part of the 84th New York, was part of Reynold’s Corps, but fought at the Railroad Cut to the north. They were popularly known as the “red-legged devils” and were known to be Abolitionist in their politics. They were originally supposed to be off in the distance to show some scale to the battle scenes. Director Ron Maxwell, however, tired of shooting a sea of blue uniforms, decided to have them front and center for a big scene.