Q & A from readers July 2024
Questions and Comments from readers. These are a few I received last year. I answer them all.
Q: I recently watched a movie on Amazon Prime (I believe) called “Manhunt” which told the story of the search for Lincoln’s assassin and other conspirators. Did you watch it, and if so, how accurate was it?
A: I did watch it. Like all dramas, there were parts which displayed an event historically, parts which either exaggerated or deemphasized historical information, and parts, unfortunately, which were totally made up. Overall, it was probably better than most such movies or TV shows about this period. The characterization of Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War covered all three parts; some accurate, some partly accurate, and some dead wrong. For example, I do not understand why he was depicted as a slender, clean-shaven, younger, and courteous man than he was. Actually, Stanton was large, imposing, had a great bushy beard with two streaks of white, intimidating, and gruff. It is true that he was involved in directing the strategy of the manhunt, however, he did not personally search throughout Maryland and Virginia for the assassin. He pretty much left the horse-back riding to the military and stayed in his Washington office. After all, the president was dead, replaced by an unqualified vice-president, and a war was still going on. Also, I thought the depictions led the viewer to believe that Dr. Samuel Mudd and Mrs. Surratt, were, without a doubt, certainly guilty in the conspiracy, and was at best an exaggeration as most historians believe they were unaware of the assassination plot. But, possibly aware of the earlier kidnap plot. Finally, most of the dialogue between Booth (the assassin) and his companion as they eluded authorities, was made-up by the writers, and I felt some of the conversations made Booth appear more noble than I believe he was. On the other hand, the depiction of Stanton’s efforts to follow Abraham Lincoln’s ideas on re-construction after the war, and the conflicts he had with new President Johnson over the matter, were generally historic. Johnson was impeached over these differences.
Q: You wrote in a recent article that you thought the Northern blockade of Southern ports was effective. How can you believe that when the Confederacy was able to maintain a continuing battlefield presence for nearly four more years. I would call that ineffective. They never caught the Alabama or Savannah, and hundreds of blockade runners successfully ran around the blockade.
A: I did not say the blockade stopped all supplies coming into the Confederacy, but that it slowed the importation of both military and consumer supplies more and more as the war continued. I give credit to the Union Navy for what they accomplished in squeezing incoming resources and I give credit to the Confederate logistical managers for keeping their fighting forces operating in the field with dwindling supplies. Confederate consumers, however, were nearly cut off from ordinary necessities and suffered greatly from the embargo. As to the two Confederate War ships you mention, the Alabama and Savannah, they were not deployed to break the blockade but to search for and destroy Union shipping, and they compiled a remarkable record. I have researched their accomplishments, and their respective ends and have even drafted an article about them. Your question may cause me to dust off the draft and publish it. So, thank you, although we disagree on the effectiveness of the embargo.
Q: One of my favorite Civil War historians is Shelby Foote. I especially enjoyed his commentary on the series Civil War by Ken Burns. Have you read any of his books or articles? Do you respect his work?
A: I have and I do. But Mr. Foote was first a novelist (usually with historical undertones) before he was recognized as a historian. His book “Shilo” weaved history and fiction so seamlessly that for years I believed some episodes were true. (Not his fault, mine.) But then, over about ten years, he produced a three volume work “The Civil War”, in which he dropped fiction, and created a compelling narrative. He still embellished some events with drama, but I understand that made the books more readable to a larger audience. I did (and do) the same in my stories. However, in my view, he did write with a certain bias for the Confederate perspective and did play favorites. One example, in my opinion, is that he almost single-handedly made Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest a household name and made him out to be a more heroic figure than he deserved. The guy was a slave merchant, rabid white supremist, and an early leader of the Klu Klux Klan, although he later rejected their more violent and illegal actions. It is true that he was a daring and successful cavalry officer and willingly used his own money to pay his troops. However, he once allowed his men to massacre defenseless wounded Black soldiers. Mr. Foote was aware of these facts, but chose to instead write and talk about the brilliance of Forrest’s successful cavalry exploits. I do not think that omission (and bias) disqualifies him as a historian. Actually, I have been accused of the same errors in my research and writing as I tend to favor the Union side. I usually try, however, to show the “warts and all” when describing Union leaders. Shelby Foote became famous in the early 1990’s as one of the contributors, and primary narrators, of the Ken Burns series The Civil War. Burns said Foote’s casual mannerisms and deep Southern drawl made him perfect for the part. Shelby Foote passed away at 88, in 2005. He was a veteran, having served as an Army officer in Europe during WWII. He certainly has my respect as a veteran and historian.
Q: I was moved by your recent post about the sinking of the Sultana in the Mississippi River in 1865, with the tragic loss of so many recently released Union prisoners of war. Besides the crew, I know the ship also carried some other civilians, because a distant relative of mine from St. Louis was killed and a friend injured when the ship went down. In my family, there was always some suspicion that it may have been torpedoed, bombed, or otherwise sabotaged? Do you know anything about that?
A: Of the more than 2,300 people, there were about 300 civilians on board. Your relative’s surviving friend must have had some story to tell. Many of those who were rescued gave accounts to local papers and a few to the official military inquiry. The numerous rumors of outside reasons were found to be false by those hearings. The facts around the hasty boiler repair and descriptions of the way the blast damage occurred were clear evidence of the cause. Conspiracy theories have always been developed after tragedies; the old “I know a guy who knows a guy” kind of stories usually surface. The “conspiracy” crowd is even more prevalent today with the internet. I find it sad because it clouds real history.
Contact the author at gadorris@gmail.com and find other articles under Blogs at the website www.alincolnbygadorris.com