How much of the conspirator is true

In theatres on April 15, The barrage marked the opening shots of the Civil War, a national tragedy that killed more than , people, destroyed the South economically and left a legacy of divisiveness that persists to this day.

Timeless, and for the most part, historically accurate. Which is not the case with most films about the War between the States. Filmmakers "don't ever get it right from the historical point of view; inaccuracies always creep in," adds Brian S. Movies have to create something that's plausible and realistic, but they also have to appeal to the audience, so they don't want to go through the complications of history. What this means is that everything from the intricacies of tactics, to what uniforms looked like can be historically incorrect.

This even extends to battlefield sequences in films like "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals," which used Civil War re-enactors as extras, many of whom, said Gallagher, "are too old and larger than the average Civil War soldier. But it's not just this historical minutiae that Civil War films get incorrect. There's also a question of interpretation, themes about the war that have come and gone over the years. Interpretation is not just a historical word, it's a creative word, too. This was what Gallagher calls " Hollywood 's default interpretation" into the s, when more nuanced treatments began to appear.

She, of course, is Mary Surratt, alleged collaborator in the Lincoln assassination, the first woman to be executed by the U. Released years after Lincoln's death, the film is an attempt to rehabilitate Surratt's reputation, or at least to give her a fair trial. A quick briefing on the facts of the case: In the chaotic aftermath of the assassination, John Wilkes Booth is killed in a shootout in a barn with Union soldiers, Washington enters a state of de facto martial law, and eight of Booth's associates are arrested and charged with conspiring to murder not only the president, but also Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward.

Mary is left to stand trial before a military tribunal of nine Union generals, headed by one of Lincoln's pallbearers. Maryland senator General Reverdy Johnson Tom Wilkinson sums up the bleak situation: "No presumption of innocence, no burden of proof, no jury of peers, and no appeals.

As Surratt says from her cell, "They've left nothing to chance. Redford's film focuses on Aiken's slow realization that his client might be innocent, and his more horrifying realization that, unless the tribunal is placated with the swift arrest of her son, Mary's innocence may be irrelevant.

As she senses the futility of her case, she becomes simultaneously more defiant—"I am a Southerner, and a Catholic, and a devoted mother, but I am no assassin," she avows—and more withdrawn, starving herself and gazing off in the distance, like the wife of a shipman gazing out at the sea.

Aiken, meanwhile, becomes more impassioned in his defense, procuring an affidavit, deftly cross-examining witnesses, and slowly turning the seemingly intractable minds of the tribunal. Too many of us have laid down our lives to preserve them. Is it possible to produce a credible film about the Civil War without mentioning slavery? This very question provides one of the many elements that make this film such a superb vehicle for teaching and for public conversation on the Civil War.

And remember: for the next five years there will be a lot of public conversation about the Civil War. The Conspirator focuses on the trial of Mary Surratt, a Washington boardinghouse keeper accused of participating in a conspiracy that successfully assassinated President Lincoln, produced an attack on Secretary of State Seward, and failed to implement a planned assassination of Vice President Johnson. Care has been taken to ensure historical accuracy. Names, places and events may have been changed for creative license purposes only.

My concerns have been about one big issue: slavery.