Movie Review: One Man's Hero (1999)

The Mexican-American War is one of the more overlooked conflicts in America's past. If one tries to find a list of movies on it, there will be about a dozen on the Alamo and one or two on the 1846-1848 war itself. The one I found was One Man's Hero, which tells the story of the San Patricio Battalion, a group of Catholic US Army deserters who fought for the Mexicans. This was meant to be a theatrical picture, but its producer Orion was bought out by MGM, which didn't have much interest in the project and turned it into a direct-to-video release. The movie certainly looks like it was made more for TV than the theater as Orion wasn't in the best financial situation at the time.

First I should provide some historical context. The Republic of Texas desired annexation by the United State. Many in the states themselves also had their eyes on Mexico's northern territories of New Mexico and California. Sensing that Mexico was weak (wracked by internal political turmoil), President James K. Polk sought to bring about a war so that these lands could be added to the United States. He was able to antagonize Mexico into firing on troops in the disputed borderlands, providing a casus belli. The war ended with an American victory. While this expanded the nation, it also drove the political atmosphere into sectionalism as the expansion of slavery became a central and divisive issue.

The Poison Spring Massacre (April 18, 1864) part 2

If you have not read the first half, look here.

Below are two images from reenactments of the battle. I doubt they recreate the massacre for family audiences.

Final Push

On the Union left Companies C and I, 1^st Kansas Colored, saw about a hundred men in blue coats pass along their front. They assumed they were from the 2^nd Kansas Cavalry as well as sharpshooters from the 18^th Iowa. They were soon corrected when hundreds of Confederate cavalry appeared alongside them Cabell had ordered Crawford, who to this point had only skirmished, to move all of his available men forward. Gibbons “immediately ordered the men to fire, which was kept up for a few minutes only, but with such effect as to check the enemy’s advance.” Among the men commended in Gibbons’ report was First Sergeant Berry, a black officer who urged his men to think of freedom and hold their place.[1]

Gibbons ordered his men 60 yards back. They fired a volley, but made another withdrawal when they saw the rest of the regiment in retreat. Crawford’s Confederates “moved rapidly and steadily forward, firing volley upon volley” at the black troops. Gibbons attempted to mount his horse. He tripped on his saber halfway up and the horse “became scared and dragged me about 5 yards.” His infantry left him behind and he was left alone against the on-rush of screaming Rebels. “I need not say I mounted quick and rode away quicker.”[2]

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.

The Poison Spring Massacre (April 18, 1864) part 1

 

On April 18, 1864, the 1^st Kansas Colored Regiment faced its worst day. A foraging expedition turned into a desperate battle, and the battle concluded with their heaviest losses. While many of the former slaves and their white officers fell in combat, the worst came after the battle had been lost. The wounded were targeted for a racial and revenge-motivated killing spree at the hands of the victors. The Battle of Poison Spring was not the largest battle of General Frederick Steele’s Camden Expedition in Arkansas, but it gained an infamous place in Civil War history. Arkansas citizens in the area did not call it a battle, but the Poison Spring Massacre. It helped usher in 1864 as perhaps the cruelest year of the Civil War.

The Northern Hook

The Camden Expedition was in fact part of the Red River Campaign. Major-General Henry W. Halleck, Chief-of-Staff of the Army, was determined to see the conquest of Texas and its cotton bundles. General Ulysses Grant, recently promoted to Lieutenant-General over all Federal forces, had wanted Major-General Nathaniel Banks (one of several notoriously incompetent political generals), to descend upon Mobile, Alabama, one of the last functioning major ports in the South. Halleck, however, won his case for Banks to advance on Texas instead. There were legitimate military objectives. Texas, largely untouched beyond its Gulf coastline, contained vast amounts of cattle and other supplies that it could still slip east past the Union-occupied Mississippi River. Also, the Lincoln Administration still feared that the French, waging their war in Mexico just to the south, might still potentially form an alliance with the Confederacy. A large Federal presence in Texas could dissuade this. More controversially there were political and economic motives as well. Lincoln hoped to install a pro-Union government in conquered Texan territory that would of course in turn hold pro-Lincoln voters. Above all the Federals coveted Texas’ vast amounts of cotton. Since Texas had a land border with Mexico, it could bypass the Union naval blockade and send cotton directly to French and Mexican middlemen.

 

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.

The Battle of Hanover (June 30, 1863)

 On June 30, the eve of the Battle of Gettysburg, three brigades of cavalry under the famed General J.E.B. Stuart clashed with a division of Union counterparts under General Judson Kilpatrick at the town of Hanover, Pennsylvania. This was one of many cavalry clashes on the way to the fateful battle of Gettysburg, but is worth some study for two reasons.

1.      First, this battle came about as Stuart, separated from the main body of Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, tried to reconnect his three cavalry brigades. The Federals at Hanover stood in his way of getting to Gettysburg, where he thought he might find Lee. If he had plowed through Kilpatrick’s rear guard or been fortunate enough to arrive there after the Federals were gone, he would have gotten to Gettysburg at least on July 1, seriously altering the course of events.

2.     Secondly, it was the first battle where George Armstrong Custer, one of the most famous cavalrymen in US history, held field command. He had so far spent most of the war as a capable staff officer. This was his first serious test.