Abraham Lincoln in 1865

One of the reason’s that Lincoln’s story is fascinating is that, in a sense, it could be described as a “rags to riches” kind of story. Born in 1809 to a poor farm family in Kentucky, his enjoyment for reading and learning, as well as a hard working attitude, helped him to eventually become a lawyer. His family moved several times during his formative years, eventually settling in Illinois in 1830, where Lincoln would finally leave his family, and set out on his own. In 1831, he settled in New Salem, and lived there for six years. In 1832, he served as Captain of Militia during the Black Hawk War. Although gratified at being elected to the position, he and his men saw no action. It was also while in New Salem that he became interested in politics, and in 1834, he was elected to the state legislature. A prominent Whig, he was reelected three times. In 1839, he met Mary Todd, and the two became engaged the following year, and despite some problems, married in November of 1842, not long after moving to his practice to Springfield, Illinois.

Lincoln retired from the legislature in 1841, and took up his law practice once again. But the call to a political life continued for him, and in 1846, he became a Congressman for the state of Illinois. He would only serve one term, a time marred by the controversies of the Mexican War, of which Lincoln was against. But his views did not sit well with the people of Illinois, who began to taunt him with the name “Spotty Lincoln” after his “spot resolutions” he introduced on the floor of the Senate in December of 1847. His support for Zachary Taylor for President didn’t help either. Under the rotation system, the Whig party candidate for Lincoln’s seat in Congress, Stephen T. Logan, was defeated. Discouraged, Lincoln returned to Springfield and his law practice.

But history was not yet done with the 6’4″ tall, lanky and awkward man. In 1856, Lincoln helped to found the Republican Party in Illinois. and became the party’s leader that May. The party would become a force to be reckoned with in the years to come, and from its fruition, Lincoln would once again return to Washington, D.C., this time as President of the United States. The platform of the Republican Party was founded on the abolitionist notions that slavery was a national sin, and should be done away with. But southern slaveowners and politicians viewed the new party as wanting to destroy their way of life, and vowed secession if a Republican became President. Lincoln was elected President in November of 1860; South Carolina voted to secede the following month.

When Lincoln took the oath of office on March 4th, 1861, he was President of a divided nation. Seven states had already seceded from the Union, and formed the Confederate States of America. Although the Republican Party was against slavery, Lincoln was not for abolition at this time. In his inaugural address, he repeated his previous statements about his wish to only prevent the expansion of slavery to the new territories, and not to bother it in those places where it already existed. But he also promised he would defend the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, and that it was in the hands of the South, and not his, that the “momentous issue of civil war” existed. He would not start the war, unless the south started it first. But by the time of his second inaugural address four years later, he would have overseen the bloodiest conflict in American history.

Much has been written about Lincoln’s time in office, possibly more so than any other president in our history. But probably the most debated moment of his presidency was when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in September of 1862, stating that all slaves in those states still in rebellion were to be free as of January 1st, 1863. This document gave the United States a dual purpose in the war: preserve the Union, and free the slaves. But the question is why Lincoln chose to do this? He had already stated that freeing the slaves was not his intent as President. Why did he change his mind on the subject? Some argue that his sole purpose of making emancipation a war aim was to rob the South of its manpower, since the majority of fortifications and such were built by slave labor. To rob the South of their major work force would cripple them economically. And by making emancipation a war aim, it would also keep European interests out of the war.

However, there are also those who believe that Lincoln’s change of heart came from his religious conversion while in office. When he entered the Presidency in 1861, he was at best an agnostic. But after the death of his son Willie in 1862, it is said that he became a firm believer in God, and may have even felt that God was calling him to end the scourge of slavery.

However, he still was not convinced that black and white could live harmoniously, and planned to have freed slaves colonized either in Africa or Cuba. However, his views were changed once again by the bravery of those men of color who chose to fight for their own freedom. After the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, the first regiment of black troops to fight in the war, showed courage in the face of fire at Battery Wagner in South Carolina, nearly 200,000 African Americans would sign up in order to fight for their own freedom. After this, the colonization idea was scrapped, and Lincoln credited the men of color with helping to turn the tide of the Civil War.

At Lincoln’s second inaugural address on March 4th, 1865, we see a deeply changed man. The four years of war, with over half a million troops dead on both sides, had taken its toll on him. He was frail, looking older than his fifty-six years. But he was also a changed man spiritually and mentally. He had gone to war not wishing to free the slaves, but with the war nearing its end, he was now the “Great Emancipator,” the man who had used the scourge of war to end the scourge of human bondage. He was also closer to his Heavenly Father than ever before, and his speech reflected his changing beliefs. When he spoke, he did not call for vengeance, but for peace. When the war ends, he wanted things to go back to how they were, except for slavery. He did not want to punish the south for the war; both sides had a hand in it, and both sides should share the blame for it. Lincoln wanted the men from both armies to return home, and start their lives anew the best they could, and try to put this awful war behind them. Alas, his views for a peaceful transition were not to be.

So, why is Lincoln such a controversial figure in our history? The Emancipation Proclamation certainly was controversial at the time, and people in his own party viewed it with skepticism. But it was also his decision to suspend Habeas Corpus during the war that has become one of the most controversial decisions of his presidency. But with war brewing, and calls for secession in Maryland, Lincoln knew that to keep the Union from totally collapsing, he would have to take drastic steps in order to do so. While controversial, and against the law in some cases, he did what he thought was right, and in the end, his actions did help to keep the state of Maryland in the Union, preventing Washington from being surrounded by the Confederacy.

The truth is that Lincoln, like all of the great leaders that emerged from the American Civil War, was a flawed man. But what made him great was his commitment to continue the war until the end, despite the heavy casualties. And his decision to make the emancipation of slaves a war aim gave the North a chance to win a moral victory as well, and prevented Europe from coming into the conflict on the side of the Confederacy. He was a fiercely political animal, and used his time in office to great effect. In the end, although stymied by failures and loss, his presidency became one of the most successful, restoring the Union, and helped bring about the end of the institution of slavery. This is why Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest Presidents our country has ever had.

Award-winning Actor Stephen Lang

The task of portraying this controversial and complicated figure in “To Appomattox” has fallen to a man who is, without question, one of the greatest actors of his time: Stephen Lang. Mr. Lang, best known as Colonel Miles Quaritch in James Cameron’s Avatar, is no stranger to the Civil War era, having portrayed the roles of Generals Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and George Pickett in the Ron Maxwell films Gods and Generals and Gettysburg. Mr. Lang will have to bring all of his talent to bear on the role of Lincoln. But given his exceptional range as an actor, there is no doubt that he can pull off bringing one of our nation’s greatest leaders to life on screen when the series hits the airwaves in 2013. We here at this blog wish him good luck and Godspeed on this endeavor.

Works Consulted

McPherson, James M. Abraham Lincoln. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

I had never quite thought about it before, how something as small as this could lead to an entire new way of teaching. Not by way of changing lesson plans or anything like that, but the aid it would provide to teachers visually, whose students are lost after staring at old, grainy black-and-white images for months at a time. While I do agree that B & W can bring out shadows, contrast, and objectivity a hundred times better than color, the mindset of that kind of photography as an art-form would hold no bearing with the majority of middle or high school students. But, all of a sudden, you show them this picture of Lincoln above, and it opens new doors—it actually makes the history more accessible and understandable, and even for us adult history buffs, it just proves to be something really cool!

Various shows and mediums over the years have tried to accomplish such, examples being World War I in Color, which proved to be a disaster in my eyes, because the colors were flat-out ridiculous, and the latest, Death Masks, from the History Channel, did a decent job in bringing figures such as Lincoln, William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, and others, to life, because their heads were made with 3D graphics that allowed for blinking and facial movement. But for an aid to a lesson, nothing can really top this. I suppose colorizing one still-image is much different than doing it for a movie, with the colors having to mesh and blend with each cell. I truly hope that the creators of this picture will transfer more, maybe even some of the aftermath on Civil War battlefields (anyone else want to see the famous Gettysburg sniper photo done up in color?) to really bring the past alive for all!

Although the miniseries hasn’t even commenced filming, “To Appomattox” is already making lists. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) has released a list of upcoming TV shows that look promising, and “To Appomattox” sits at number nine on that list. To view the list, click here. We wish to congratulate the “To Appomattox” team for this success!

First, the casting changes:

• Rob Lowe, who was originally cast as James Longstreet, is now slated to play Ulysses S. Grant.

Rob Lowe as Ulysses S. Grant

• Jeff Hammond, originally cast as George Thomas, is now set to play Confederate General Jubal Early.
  

  Jeff Hammond as Jubal Early.

And now, the latest addition to the cast:

• Academy Award-winning actor Richard Dreyfuss, star of such classic films as Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Goodbye Girl and Mr. Holland’s Opus, has joined the cast as Union General George Thomas.
  

  Richard Dreyfuss as George Thomas.

These are the latest casting updates for now. As soon as word becomes official on other news and casting, it will be posted here.

UPDATE (2/1/12):

Another casting change has been announced:

• D.B. Sweeney, originally cast as George B. McClellan, has agreed to take on the role of General James Longstreet.
  

  D.B. Sweeney as General James Longstreet

Dr. Ronald C. White, Jr.

Steven Hancock: When did you first become interested in the story of Abraham Lincoln?

Ronald White: The Huntington Library put on a large exhibit on Abraham Lincoln in 1993-94.  I was teaching in the History Department at UCLA and decided to offer a seminar on Lincoln and bring my students to the exhibit.  As we read Lincoln’s speeches and letters together we were all overwhelmed.  One day a friend told me, “I could write for a larger audience,” and offered to introduce me to his literary agent in New York.  This resulted in the publication of Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural published by Simon & Schuster in 2002.

SH: What part of Lincoln’s story interests you the most?

RW: I was drawn early to Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address and its surprising religious ideas and language. I say surprising, because Lincoln scholarship has pictured Lincoln as not religious.  This launched me into a quest to understand Lincoln’s faith journey—from Deist or fatalist to one speaking about the providence of God in what he believed was his greatest speech.

SH: As an historical adviser to the upcoming To Appomattox miniseries, what is your role in the pre-production stage of the program?

RW: I have been asked to read the script and offer any counsel on historical matters.

SH: Stephen Lang has been cast as Lincoln in To Appomattox. Will you advise him on his portrayal when production commences?

RW: I would like to do so.  Last evening I read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural before a large audience at a lecture at the Huntington Library.  I have lived with Lincoln for so long, especially with his thinking and speaking, that I would like to offer counsel on how and why Lincoln is our most eloquent president.

SH: Why do you feel that Abraham Lincoln’s story continues to resonate with the American people?

RW: I am sometimes asked how Lincoln might advise President Bush or President Obama about Iraq.  It is not that Lincoln can provide answers to contemporary problems.  It is rather Lincoln’s spirit that we need so much today in our increasingly uncivil society.  What do I mean?  He treated his political opponents with respect—arguing over ideas not over personalities or motives.  He was genuinely inclusive in spirit—including his leading Republican opponents and key Democrats in his cabinet.  He loved his country, but was not into self-congratulation either about the country or himself.  His Second Inaugural is unique among inaugural addresses for he criticizes the nation over the offense of “American slavery.”  Although a man of the 19^th century, his ideas and words still resonate in the 21^st century.  When the people of New York, on the first anniversary of 9/11, sought a poet or politician to articulate their deepest feelings, in the end they recited Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address together.

I want to thank Dr. White for taking time from his busy schedule to answer questions for our blog. His involvement will assure that Lincoln’s story will be portrayed correctly in the upcoming miniseries. To learn more, visit Dr. White’s official website.

Film wise, this is the year the war will return to the screen. Spielberg’s Lincoln film, focusing on the creation of the Thirteenth Amendment in the final months of the war, will be released in December. Before that, the highly-unanticipated Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter will be released in June. But for all of us here, this is the year that production will commence on “To Appomattox.” With the majority of the major characters already cast, and pre-production set to commence in the near future, this is the one that promises to be the definitive Civil War-era project to be released during the Sesquicentennial period.

Since our launch in August, our blog has been the go-to place for series information, and interviews with members of the crew and historical advisers. We have also examined some of the major characters, and began to examine the battles, that will be featured in the series. The response we have received has been great, and it has truly been an honor to be a part of this project.

With 2012, we will continue to do what we do best: offer insight into the people, places and events of the American Civil War that will be depicted in “To Appomattox,” and present any important and breaking news that comes out. We look forward to continuing our work on the blog, as we move closer to the beginning of production on the series.

Beyond the brutality of war, though, were soldiers that did not enlist to kill, but rather show that they wanted to stand with a cause. Though politics differed drastically between the men on both sides, there generally was no hatred between the common soldiers, because when bullets began to rain on a battlefield, everyone was equal—it did not matter where you came from, the bullets knew no identity. There are hundreds, if not thousands of accounts of soldiers on both sides trading with each other in between battles, even if it is something so insignificant as swapping a swig of coffee or bourbon for a few drags of a pipe or cigar. There is even a legend of a rudimentary baseball game being played between enemies, right before the Battle of the Wilderness erupted in 1864. It is the stories like these, not the death and destruction, that bring the past alive and show the human element of war.

We now sit here, in the new year of 2012. Most of us probably had some sort of celebration on New Year’s Eve; hanging out with family and friends, eating appetizers, drinking champagne, and watching the ball drop, however, on New Year’s Eve of 1862, the atmosphere was much different for the soldiers camped near Murfreesboro, Tennessee, as a battle was very shortly about to rage on. With Confederate soldiers under the command of General Braxton Bragg poised near Stone’s River, which ran close to the town, Union soldiers led by William S. Rosecrans marched from Nashville to meet them. Each side, on the eve of the new year was matched up against one another on opposite sides of the river. Christmas had just passed, but there was no joy in the air, because war would not allow for it.

As midnight neared, which would have brought 1863 in with a hail of bullets, the soldiers on both sides, simultaneously refused to fight, perhaps not even knowing that the other side planned the same. This was not the directive of their officers, though, just the common foot soldier, who awaited his possible death the next day. With silence in the air falling over the beautiful river, which the moon’s reflection glowed on, all of a sudden, the quiet was broken. “Hey, Billy Yank, we’re gonna start firing now. Better keep your heads down if you don’t want to get hit!” was a line shouted across the river by a Confederate soldier. The orders to fight had to be obeyed, but not the orders to kill. The Confederate soldiers opened fire, not injuring or killing a man. Next, it was the Union’s turn to do the same thing. “We can still see some of you! Better do a better job of hiding!’ was yelled by different men in various forms. They too fired their rifles, and again, no casualties were to be had.

With their orders to fight obeyed, bands from each army came down by the banks of the river to play. “Dixie” came from the Confederate side while “Battle Hymn of the Republic” came from the Union. The two bands faced off against each other as the men sang along. The scourge of war was soon forgotten. The night came to a close when both bands, in unison, played “Just Before the Battle, Mother”, as many soldiers began to cry when thinking of the lyrics. For just one night, enemies were friends. For all they knew, the war was over. There was no death, just peace. For one night, they could picture themselves back home, reading or sitting by the light of a fire, surrounded by their loved ones. The next day, both sides blew each other off the face of the earth.

The war had to resume, despite the respite. All in all, more than 25,000 men would be killed or wounded in the next two days of fighting, which out of a total combined force of just over 75,000, was the largest casualty percentage for a single battle of the entire war. To this day, even after a year, I can envision the professor I had for my Civil War class telling this story, with his voice so calm, and his manor so serene. For every single person sitting in that classroom, there was not a dry eye to be found, but there was also peace; a feeling that one might feel hearing about something that occurred yesterday, not 149 years ago, the anniversary of which just passed. The past can and will come alive for you if you explore the human side of it, because that is where we are all equal and eternal—it is the only place where the dead and the living can come together once more, and not be forgotten.

One thing that has never changed since our country’s first war, the American soldier is the one who always leaves everything he loves, his wife, his children, and his home, to go and fight in the name of their freedom, and their homes. Whether at war, or during peacetime, the soldiers are always doing their duty, even at this most festive time of the year. For the American soldier, Christmas can be a very lonely time, as they are away from everyone they love, doing their duty as a soldier, and as an American. From the Continental soldiers who marched toward victory at Trenton; to the Confederate and Union soldiers shivering around campfires, reading letters from home and trying to bring a piece of Christmas to their lives; to the Doughboys fighting in the trenches of the Western Front; to the paratroopers surrounded in the Ardennes Forset; to the Marines fighting on inhospitable islands such as Guadalcanal and Peleliu; to the men who suffered through the cold of Korea; the soldiers in the hills of Vietnam, and; to the soldiers who today fight in hot, humid desert regions in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, the men and women of our armed forces have spent many Christmases away from their homes and their loved ones. For all of them, a letter or gift from home can mean the world at this time of the year, while their families struggle to keep their homes together while their loved ones are away.

This Christmas, I ask that each of you who read this article to say a prayer for those men and women who have fought, and continue to fight for our country’s freedom, and to remember those who have died keeping this great nation of ours safe.

To those of you serving in our armed forces, we here at this blog wish you a Merry and Blessed Christmas, and happy holidays, and pray that you will stay safe as you do your duty to your homes, and your country. May God bless all of you!

By mid-June of 1864, the war in Virginia had been fought to a stalemate outside of Petersburg. Despite heavy casualties, Union General Ulysses S. Grant had continued his drive south, forcing Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to maneuver to get ahead of the Army of the Potomac. Attacks against the Confederate defenses outside of Petersburg had ended in failure, and both armies settled in for what would be the longest siege in United States military history. By July, the fields around Petersburg more closely resembled the trench warfare of World War I than the Napoleonic Contest the war had started out as just three years prior.

As both sides settled in for the long siege, Colonel Henry Pleasants of the 48th Pennsylvania, a mining engineer prior to the conflict, presented his commanders with a bold solution. Why not dig a mine shaft to directly underneath the Confederate defenses, place several tons of explosives underneath, and blow it up? This would create a gap in the Confederate line that could be exploited by the Union force, and possibly end the war sooner. Pleasants took the idea to his commanding officer, who then took it to General Ambrose Burnside, commander of the IX Corps. Burnside was excited by the prospect, as it could gain him some reputation lost after failures at Fredericksburg and Tennessee. Although his superiors were not as excited, work began on the mine in earnest. The mine was dug toward a position known as Elliott’s Salient, a portion of the line that stuck out closest to the Union trenches. After weeks of work, the miners reached their objective, and began to fill the mine with explosives.

While the miners were hard at work, interest in the plan for attack gained momentum, and Burnside was given the chance to plan it. For the main assault following the explosion, he chose Brigadier General Edward Ferrero’s Fourth Division, whose two infantry brigades consisted of all black troops, one of the first divisions of its kind in American History. In the weeks leading up to the battle, the black troops were put through a rigorous training. The goal of the division was to go around the Crater, laying enfilading fire on either side of the Confederate defenses, and push toward a position behind the Confederate troops, while the other divisions would assault positions to their left and right. The drill these men went through emphasized this plan. By the end of July, the division was ready. Burnside’s plan seemed destined to succeed.

But just when things were ready to go, Burnside’s plans had to be changed. And as the failure of Fredericksburg showed, he was a man not adept at handling changes to any plan. On July 29th, the day before the attack, George Gordon Meade, who retained command of the Army of the Potomac, ordered Burnside to not have Ferrero’s brigade attack first. He believed that, if the attack by the colored troops failed, it would have serious repercussions on the Lincoln administration, although he might have felt that black troops were inadequate to carry on such a task. Burnside argued with Meade, and asked Meade if he would take the issue to General Grant. Later on, during a discussion with his division commanders, Meade came in and stated that Grant had sided with him, and the black division would be sent in last. It was here that Burnside’s initiative completely broke down. Instead of choosing another division, he had his commanders draw lots from his hat to see whose division would lead the assault. The luck fell upon General James Ledlie and his First Division. Burnside then instructed Ledlie to order his men to go around the Crater, and not in. With the agreed plan, final preparations were made, and the men prepared for battle.

Explosion of the Mine, July 30th, 1864.

At 4:44 A.M. on July 30th, the mine underneath the Confederate line was exploded in what has been called the largest man-made explosion ever created. Hundreds of Confederates were killed instantly. However, the ensuing attack met with disaster. Ledlie gave orders to his commanders, then went off to have a drink. When the men finally moved forward, they were unsure of what to do, because Ledlie was not there to instruct them. So, instead of doing what Burnside had ordered them to do, the division went into the Crater, thinking the impression made by the blast would give them a good place to defend. Instead, they became trapped in the Crater, and Confederates opened fire into them, in what could be described as a “turkey shoot.” The other white troops sent into help also fared poorly. Finally, Ferrero’s division of black troops were sent in. But they were unable to follow the orders originally given to them, and they also went down into the Crater.

What happened next can only be described as racism at its absolute worst. William A. Day, a soldier in Company I of the 49th NC Troops, which was positioned just to the left of the Crater, wrote years later about how he felt about fighting against black troops, which represents the feelings of many of his comrades at the time: “We plainly saw the position we were in, to be captured by negro troops meant death. It meant the capture of Petersburg, and the slaughter of helpless women and children, we knew the negroes would spare neither sex” (Day 83). Although most Confederates in the army were not fighting for the preservation of slavery, it had been the main reason for the split between North and South, and the Confederate government had ordered that any man of color seen in uniform was to be put to death. And racism was rampant on both sides of the conflict. But it was here that racial tensions would boil over. When General William Mahone’s men counterattacked, they did so to the cry of “death to the ni**er!” Not only did Confederates mercilessly slaughter blacks, but even white Union troops, fearing reprisals from the rebels, bayoneted their black brothers in arms. It was one of the most barbarous acts of racial hatred and murder to take place on a battlefield.

Upon seeing the disaster before him, Burnside asked for reinforcements to come to his aide, but Meade ordered a cease to the attack. With that order, the battle would come to an end, and those able to retreat from the Crater did so. Ultimately, the gamble failed to pay off for Burnside and his corps. The Union suffered nearly 3,800 casualties, the Confederates less than 1500. Grant would call this attack the biggest mistake of his military career. Burnside never recovered from the defeat, and was never again assigned to military duty. The Confederates had hundreds of prisoners to contend with, many of whom blamed the black soldiers for the defeat. According to Day, a captured soldier from Rhode Island spoke to them for a while, saying that “their Generals made a mistake when they sent negro troops in to fight us. He said he was a prisoner, asked the way to Petersburg, and walked on in the direction of the city” (Day 85).

For the Confederates, they had successfully held off the Union attack, and reinforced the lines where the Crater stood. For Union forces, the disaster meant the war would continue on. It would be over eight months later, on April 2nd, 1865, before the defenses around Petersburg finally fell, and Confederate forces forced to retreat. Final victory finally came on April 9th, when Lee was forced to surrender to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. After a siege of nearly ten months, and a week-long chase through Virginia, the war was finally coming to an end, and peace restored to the Union.

Works Cited and Consulted

Day, William A. A True History of Company I, 49th Regiment, North Carolina Troops. Newton, N.C.: Enterprise Job Office, 1893.

Slotkin, Richard. No Quarter: The Battle of the Crater, 1864. New York: Random House, 2009.

GC: You are currently slated to play Charles F. Smith in To Appomattox. Have you done any preparation for the role yet? How did you get involved with the project?

PG: A re-enactor on Facebook told me about the project initially.  I’m ashamed to say I can’t remember exactly who but it was followed by information from J. D. Petruzzi and a few others.  Early on, I learned that Hood would not figure in the story arc.  But Michael Frost Beckner, the writer and one of the producers thought there might be something for me.  Actually, Smith is someone who I immediately resonated with.  Smith was one of Michael’s favorite characters – a kind of Obi Wan Kanobi to Grant.  Okay, he’s a Yankee.  But that’s actually great because now my ancestors will be satisfied completely.  Yes, they were on both sides.  Of course, at this stage I’m just reading everything I can get my hands on about him.  Much has been supplied to me from remote resources and that can be useful.  An actor can never play the research but it does inform choices you may make.  You can never say what is going to bring the character alive for the actor but research certainly can help you ask the right questions.  Three people were instrumental in my getting involved: J. D. Petruzzi, Joel Kassay and W.E. Wolf – not to mention so many of my Civil War fans from Facebook who badgered the To Appomattox web site with recommendations in my regard.  I was really moved by that effort.  Now, that said, we’re not yet in production, so I won’t be ‘safe’ till I’m in ol’ Smith’s boots riding to the sound of the guns.  Michael has written a great series of films and folks are going to be amazed at the scope and the care of our history he has lavished on this epic.  It’s definitely not partisan, though Grant is the focal personage, it is fair and accurate.  No one can be totally objective – at least I can’t – but the stories are wonderful, sincere and lovingly crafted.  Again, the criticisms will be minimal and even the ‘button police’ may have difficulty finding fault.