"The Conspirators"

[+ beethoven]

Are we allowed to talk about movies here? (I haven't seen any discussed; pardon me if I'm out of bounds.) I'm a Civil War student (amateur), and I'd just like to say that this movie about Mary Surratt and the conspiracy to kill Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and William Seward is excellent! Wonderfully directed and acted -- and not one factual error that I could find. I know one of the historical consultants, and she submitted six pages of suggestions to the writers, and it seems that most of them were accepted. I highly recommend this movie to everyone.

[gcursor]

that sounds good and what about.

 

That sounds like a good film. I recently watched a DVD I had bought called ICE STATION ZEBRA which was made quite some time ago. I particularly like Patrick McGoohan because of how he used to play his "secret agent character" in the SECRET AGENT MAN series.

gc

 

Are we allowed to talk about movies here? (I haven't seen any discussed; pardon me if I'm out of bounds.) I'm a Civil War student (amateur), and I'd just like to say that this movie about Mary Surratt and the conspiracy to kill Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and William Seward is excellent! Wonderfully directed and acted -- and not one factual error that I could find. I know one of the historical consultants, and she submitted six pages of suggestions to the writers, and it seems that most of them were accepted. I highly recommend this movie to everyone.

[ChiTown]

I'm looking forward to seeing "The Conspirators" myself. I'm a bit of a history buff and have always enjoyed reading about the Civil War era and Lincoln.

[+ beethoven]

Chitown, as a history buff, you'll be glad to know that every event portrayed in the movie is accurate. I had some doubts about one scene at the end, so I contacted one of the historical consultants, who pointed me to several books about the trial, books which I happen to own. It's rare that a movie like this sticks to the facts. I'm reminded of "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson, about the Revolutionary War in South Carolina, which was so fictional, it was laughable.

[uwsman2]

I enjoyed this movie tremendously. But I found a website pointing out numerous historical errors, especially about the depiction of Mary Surratt's daughter and about the role played by Stanton, the Secretary of War, which is supposedly quite exaggerated in the film. Also, lots of little niggling details were wrong. But perhaps the biggest change from historical fact is the depiction of Fred Aiken as sole attorney for Mary Surratt. According to this website, he had a co-counsel who was present throughout the trial and who worked with him on drafting the writ of habeas corpus. Also, according to this website, the film misrepresents the behavior of Mary Surratt during the trial and the execution. And evidently Aiken was a somewhat more complicated character than depicted in the film - it is documented that he actually first offered his services to the Confederacy before enlisting in the Union Army, and a year after the trial he was prosecuted for passing a bad check, which had something to do with him leaving the legal profession and becoming a journalist.

 

All that said, the main lines of the story are true. So this is a film that is "based on" a true story, with various changes for dramatic purposes, but the main lines of the story are true. And it certainly provides a strong argument for questioning the appropriateness of using military tribunals to try civilians.

[+ beethoven]

Glad you liked the movie. Yes, they tinkered with history a bit, but not to the detriment of the movie. And, yes, there were two counsels for the defense; I think the other was named Clampitt? Just streamlining the story. I thought Kevin Kline was excellent as Stanton, who was really one tough motherfucker! His taking charge right after the assassination comports with ev erything I've read about it. The New Yorker's review said that the only reason Kevin Kline got the part was because Donald Rumsfeld wasn't available! They decided to omit the mysteriously missing recommendation for clemency for Mary Surratt that was supposedly delivered to Andrew Johnson. Joseph Holt swore up and down that the recommendation was on top of the pile of papers delivered to the president, but Johnson said it wasn't there. This will forever be a mystery of history; I tend to believe both of them, and I believe that Edwin M. Stanton removed that clemency recommendation. (Sort of like the missing 18 minutes of tape in Nixon's White House.)

[uwsman2]

Obviously, this is a bit of history as to which there are mysteries and arguments. What we have to remember is that at the time of the assassination the main Confederate Army under Lee had surrendered but there were still active Confederate units in the field, Jeff Davis was not yet in custody, and there were concerns that attempts were being made to reverse the military result through terrorism and subversion. So it would be natural for the Secretary of War to step into the vacuum created by the sudden death of the commander in chief.