Frontier Feud

Searching for the causes of the War of 1812… will invariably lead to the Indiana frontier.  William Henry Harrison was granted power by President Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Indian nations (13 treaties and over 1 million acres.)   Harrison orchestrated the Treaty of Ft. Wayne in 1809, granting US settlers unlimited access to the Wabash river valley.  Three of the major Indian nations signed the treaty, but the Shawnee and their leader, Tecumseh, did not.  Harrison suspected trouble from the Indian upstart and moved quickly for a conference in August of 1810.  Tecumseh arrived at Harrison’s frontier home, Grouseland, with over 400 warriors in full battle garb.  Tensions were high as the Shawnee war chief declared the treaty of Ft. Wayne illegitimate.  Tecumseh argued that all Indians spoke with one voice, therefore, all tribes had to agree with the treaty.  Harrison refuted this notion, pointing out that the Great Spirit gave all Indians different languages, or ‘tongues.’  As Tecumseh continued to shout threats at Harrison, warriors and soldiers alike made ready for combat- Harrison drew his sword (legend has it, he promised to kill Tecumseh) …cooler heads prevailed, but Tecumseh was determined to reach out to the British.

Fighting words, in any language

Two subsequent meetings did nothing to ease…tensions between the two men.  American settlement continued, the Indian alliance grew, and British intervention only further alienated the two sides.  News of the Anglo/Indian alliance prompted Harrison to march an army North to disperse an alliance settlement along the Tippecanoe creek.  Tecumseh was not with his followers that November in 1811.  He was on a recruiting mission to the south, leaving his inexperienced brother in command.  Shawnee approached Harrison’s camp on November 5 to propose a meeting;  Harrison accepted, but shortly after, the warriors launched an attack.  Militiamen and US regulars defended the camp for over two hours, before dragoons charged into the retreating warriors turning the battle into a rout.  Harrison’s forces pursued and later burned the Indian settlement.  The Tippecanoe legend was born.

Tyler who?

William Henry Harrison became a national hero… as news of the battle spread to the East.  The British intervention outraged American politicians, a clear sign of yet another violation of American sovereignty.  The frontier feud was far from over.  Tecumseh took his confederation North to strengthen the bond with Britain.  Harrison would get another chance to kill his nemesis.

1 Comment

Filed under Ephemera, Uncategorized

Movie Review

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford… 2007, Produced by Ridley Scott, Brad Pitt/ Directed by Andrew Dominik/ Distributed by Warner Bros. 

 

Sparse, bleak, brilliant….

A rare example of historical fiction… truthful to its source material.  Based on the 1983 novel of the same name by Ron Hansen, this film is sparse, bleak and absolutely riveting.  The story dramatizes the relationship between James and his killer, Ford.  Not a shoot’em up western like most Jesse James films are, this psychological portrait details the final months of the man’s life.  Hansen crafts the best parts of his novel into a script that is remarkably historically accurate.  Andrew Dominik’s patient direction and Roger Deakins’ stunning photography bring the period into stunning view.  The landscapes  of Alberta, Canada which serve as late 19th century midwestern America, are moving in their emptiness.  The scenery all but becomes a cast member it is so prominent.  The longer running time (160 minutes) allows characters to be properly introduced and developed.

   Brad Pitt is menacing in the title role… with minimal screen time.  His James is outwardly cunning and deadly, while warm and protective of his personal life.  Pitt’s presence on the screen elicits fear from the other characters, except for Casey Affleck’s break out performance as Robert Ford.  Ford grew up idolizing James and lived his childhood dreams of riding with the famous outlaw.  Torn between making a name for himself and gaining recognition from his idol, Ford ultimately betrayed James and was forgotten.  Affleck’s performance is skillfully unsettling, capturing the socially awkward Ford and his dangerous brand of hero-worship.  A masterful sequence features Ford confronting a folk singer (Nick Cave) during a rendition of “Jesse James” and correcting the history behind the lyrics.  The onlookers aren’t interested in the story behind the song, just as they care little about the man who killed the legend.  It is difficult to find historical film making at this level.

    A strong supporting cast… including Jeremy Renner, Paul Schneider, and Garret Dillahunt give strong performances.  The only disappointment is an early departure of Frank James, gruffly portrayed by Sam Shephard.  James Carville makes an enjoyable cameo as Thomas Crittenden, Governor of Missouri.  The film lags in spots, and the images of landscapes can feel repetitive.  The film is meticulous with its recreation of the pre-industrial midwest; as well as the accurate depictions of life in post-bellum America.  Violence is depicted sparingly, but when shown it is fierce, realistic, and unsettling.

Many critics compared this movie… to revisionist westerns like McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Dead Man.  In many ways, this is a true western.  Its care for historic realism elevates it above traditional conceptions of the genre.  The strong performances (especially by Affleck) secures it a  place among  the very best westerns ever made.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Movie Review

Rob Gibson Photography

If you are ever visiting Gettysburg…pay a visit to Rob Gibson’s photography studio.  Gibson offers ambrotypes, tin-types, and archival prints all taken with 19th century equipment.  Gibson hand mixes the period chemicals used in the glass plate imaging process to guarantee a truly authentic look.

In July, I had the pleasure of sitting for Rob along with members of my reenactment unit, Co. D 62nd PA Vols.   It was a difficult outdoor shoot and Rob delivered a superior product.  Below is a hazy photograph of the excellent tin type.

www.civilwarphotography.com

RJ Gibson image of 62nd PA

Leave a Comment

Filed under Ephemera

Book Review

Crawford, Allen Pell, Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson, Random House, 2009,

  • ISBN: 0812969464

“A remarkably disciplined scholar… Jefferson spent money on books the way less purposeful young men spent it on whisky or women.”   Allen Pell Crawford begins his study of Jefferson’s retirement at Monticello by reiterating long-established traits in the Sage of Monticello’s character.  Crawford spends the first 50 pages concisely detailing Jefferson’s life through the presidency.  No new ground is broken and it is clear that the author included this introduction to fit with the book’s overriding structure, chronology.

Crawford crafts a detailed and …readable account of Jefferson’s retirement following 1809.  Ample time is spent exploring the personalities in Jefferson’s extended family including his intricate relationship with his daughter Martha.  Family was vital to Jefferson’s being and all the heartbreak he experienced is recounted in painstaking detail.  Crawford misses a real opportunity to examine loss, one of the accepted but underdeveloped themes in Jefferson scholarship.  Rather, Jefferson’s much maligned finances are retold as Crawford does his best to link them to some character flaw, though he never is able to attribute it to more than carelessness.  Readers unfamiliar with Jefferson’s retirement will read with disillusion of the attempted murder of his beloved grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph.  More examination of the crucial relationships with Madison and Adams could have brought much-needed depth to Crawford’s analysis of Jefferson’s intellectual character.  This remains the book’s weakest element, the examination of Jefferson’s mind.

Jefferson’s mind eludes Crawford… despite his best efforts to explain its inconsistencies.  “Jefferson’s view of himself as an empiricist may also suggest how little self-knowledge he possessed…”   Crawford’s error is applying traditional analysis to a mind like Jefferson’s.  Biographers long ago discovered that Jefferson possessed diametrically opposed psychological features.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the discussion of Jefferson and slavery.  Volumes have been written about Jefferson and the contradiction of his slave owning.  Crawford falls prey to the politically correct pseudo-scholarship that dominates current Jefferson discourse.  This brand of scholarship deals in absolutes forged in modern racial attitudes leaving no room for nuance or ambiguity.  “That Jefferson could not act when urged to do more to end an institution that he acknowledged to be a moral wrong indicates the extent to which he was lacking in moral imagination.”  Crawford ignores the clear and well documented evidence to contrary to make the socially acceptable conclusion.  The urgency with which Crawford recounts the rumors regarding Jefferson’s alleged affair with Sally Hemings nearly draws the narrative to the level of tabloid storytelling.  Readers familiar with the controversy can’t ignore the fact that Sally stopped having children after Jefferson started residing at Monticello fulltime.

Allen Pell Crawford never actually… decides what kind of book he is writing.  At times Twilight at Monticello is a chronological account of Jefferson’s retirement, while also trying to examine complex features of Jefferson’s psychological makeup.  The result is a confused narrative filled with interesting tidbits and politically correct platitudes.  Readers unfamiliar with Jefferson’s later years could find some use for Crawford’s study, but students of history won’t find much use for the book off their E-readers.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review

Movie Review- “Lincoln”

Epic performance

Minutes into Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln”…. it is clear this is not an ordinary biopic.  Abraham Lincoln, (the uncanny Daniel Day-Lewis) casually chats with departing Union soldiers on a cold, damp January evening.  Some of the soldiers are black, others are white, all are drawn to their Commander-in-Chief; he inspires while he charms, and the audience is shown the essential Lincoln.  Spielberg’s film triumphs on all levels, avoiding the pitfalls of preachy biographical films, while achieving justice for historical figures portrayed by a stellar cast.

Focusing only on the tumultuous final…  four months of Lincoln’s life, Tony Kushner’s script (heavily influenced by Doris Goodwin’s Team of Rivals) artfully illustrates the bitter process of pushing the 13th amendment through the House of Representatives; as well as, Lincoln’s tireless efforts to bring the War to an end.  19th century politics are on full display as Thaddeus Stevens (the scene stealing Tommy Lee Jones)  wages a spirited battle with Democrats and Conservative Republicans on the House floor.  If only our current Representatives were this passionate about anything.  Historical perspectives are not only respected by the filmmakers, they are ingeniously integrated into the script.  Suspense is not manufactured, but presented by the powerful nature of the subject matter.  Kushner and Spielberg  bring the complex political battle over ending slavery to life in Congress and in the smoke-filled rooms of Washington.  Actors effortlessly meld into roles, many are unrecognizable (James Spader has a hilarious cameo as a political operative) with the aid of an entertaining and historically accurate script.

Steals every scene

Daniel Day-Lewis leaves no doubt he is… the greatest living actor.  His performance is nothing short of Oscar-worthy.  Bringing iconic historical figures to life typically leads to posturing and overacting, but Day-Lewis’s portrayal is understated, humorous, and heartfelt.  He perfectly captures the frontier wit of the country lawyer, and the keen political craftmanship that won over the famed team of rivals.  Lincoln’s humor provides several laugh-out-loud moments, with Day-Lewis’s skillful delivery bringing depth to the performance.  Sally Field brings genuine emotion to Mary Lincoln.  The death of Willie  in 1862 haunts the troubled couple, as displayed in the most  heartbreaking scene.  A complete portrait of Lincoln emerges and is the backbone of the film.  Whenever characters, scenery,  or events threaten to weigh down the story, Day-Lewis commands the screen- not in caricature- he brings Lincoln to life.  This stands as the greatest historical performance since George C. Scott in “Patton.”

Breathing life in to the icon

Historical films are often plagued by…  unnecessary narration, overly ambitious scripts, and cheesy performances.  Biopics fall victim to rambling storylines and politically correct history lessons.  “Lincoln” is a focused and historically disciplined piece of filmmaking.  Spielberg never allows the film to become a civics lesson, nor does the script preach its message.  As the roll call vote is called during the climactic scene, Speaker of the House  Schuyler Colfax breaks tradition and casts his vote, “This is history” he proclaims to Democratic opposition.  Spielberg’s film is indeed history crafted as a political thriller that brings our most beloved President to life.  The limited focus of the film could have fallen on any part of Lincoln’s presidency with the same effect.  The strength of the performances and earnest telling of a pivotal moment in history make this one of the best historical films of all time.  Steven Spielberg now joins Ken Burns as great chronicler of American history.

1 Comment

Filed under Movie Review

Lincoln Should be in the News

Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ is an instant classic… as the topic of secession once again poisons American discourse.  Lincoln never recognized secession and always considered the Confederate states as lost children (warlike toddlers at that.)  Despite what confused Libertarians think, Lincoln’s opposition to secession was every bit as logical as it was political.  It’s very difficult to take the lawyer out of the man….

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it?”    

“Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

“Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them.”

Can we still call upon our better angels?

Leave a Comment

Filed under News

Context Does Matter

Critics of the movie “Lincoln” … continue to hammer home a contentious point about the film’s depiction of slavery.  So-called experts are critical of the notion Lincoln freed the slaves(the film never implies this.)  As the Academy Awards approach, the concerted effort to discredit “Lincoln” have reached a fever pitch.    Frederick Douglass is often cited as proof that slaves never cared for Lincoln or his deeds.  Ignoring context, Douglass is cited as the authoritative critic of Lincoln…. “you (white people) are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children.”

Uncanny

Uncanny

This disingenuous, lazy, line of reasoning…  has created a terrible myth about the creation of the civil rights movement.  Failure to place words in a proper context have terrible implications on historical interpretation.  In the same speech, Frederick Douglass explained to his predominately white audience, his true feelings for Abraham Lincoln:

Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined…. infinite wisdom has seldom sent any man into the world better fitted for his mission than Abraham Lincoln.”  Frederick Douglass  April 14, 1876

The hour and the man of our redemption had met in the person of Abraham Lincoln.”

“The hour and the man of our redemption had met in the person of Abraham Lincoln.”

1 Comment

Filed under Ephemera, Movie Review, News