Manhunt: A New Miniseries

After almost two decades in developmental hell, a miniseries based on James L. Swanson’s 2006 book Manhunt: The Twelve-Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer is finally going to become a reality. While reports said that filming on the project had been completed in 2022, nothing about the series’ possible premiere date was forthcoming until an article was published on December 13, 2023, in Vanity Fair. The article, titled “Manhunt: First Look at the Long-Awaited Show About Hunting Lincoln’s Killer” can be read in full here.

This article announced that the miniseries will premiere on March 15, 2024, on the streaming platform Apple TV+. Two episodes will be released on that day, followed by weekly releases of new episodes until the finale on Friday, April 19, 2024. This makes seven episodes of the series in all.

The Vanity Fair article provided an overview of the series, highlighting the efforts of those involved in bringing this project to life. I applaud Monica Beletsky, the showrunner and writer, for her dedication to shedding light on the unknown aspects of the assassination. The focus of the miniseries will be on Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, and his role as a catalyst for justice. It is refreshing to see Stanton portrayed in a heroic light, especially given the numerous conspiracy theories that have attempted to implicate him in Lincoln’s death.

The role of Secretary Stanton is played by British actor Tobias Menzies. Images provided by Apple TV+ give us our first official look at the protagonist. While I do not believe that actors have to look very much like the historical figures they emulate, I have to state that I am disappointed to see that Menzies was not given a beard for the role. Edwin Stanton wore a very recognizable beard. I understand not wanting to cover up Menzies’ handsome face, but, in my opinion, portraying Stanton without his long skunk beard is like depicting Abraham Lincoln without his iconic stovepipe hat. I suppose it’s a good thing the miniseries won’t be debuting for another three months as that will give me time to slowly come to accept this clean-shaven man as Edwin Stanton.

In addition to covering the process of creating the series, the Vanity Fair article hints at several characters and scenes we can expect in the series. I was excited to read how the character of Mary Lincoln will be portrayed. Showrunner Beletsky states in the article that Mrs. Lincoln “was owed a different portrayal” than prior characterizations of her as merely being crazy, or a burden to President Lincoln. I believe that prior media interpretations (and many historians, for that matter) have been unnecessarily hard on Mrs. Lincoln. Beletsky seems to agree, relating how the loss of her children occurred, “pre-psychology, pre-therapy, pre-understanding of trauma. I asked the question of, ‘How would you behave had you suffered so much loss?’” It will be interesting to see how actress Lili Taylor takes on the role of the First Lady during one of the most traumatizing times in her life.

The article also shows us other interesting visuals, such as comedian Patton Oswalt in the role of Col. Lafayette Baker. The leader of the National Detective Poice was a key ally to Stanton during the hunt for Booth, but his methods and character were considered extreme even to jaded politicians. I’m excited to see how Oswalt is able to capture this scoundrel of a man.

There are also a few historical inaccuracies to be found in the article (aside from Stanton’s beard). Some are small nitpicks, such as an image of Stanton and his son, Edwin Lamson Stanton, apparently on horseback on the hunt for John Wilkes Booth. While Stanton was instrumental in helping to organize the manhunt for the conspirators, he did not take part in the search himself. As the Secretary of War during wartime, he had many other duties to perform as the search was going on. While Stanton occasionally interviewed prospective witnesses, his schedule of cabinet meetings, preparing Lincoln’s funeral arrangements, and sending off telegrams to various generals in the field about the remaining Confederate forces kept him confined to Washington during the manhunt. It’s possible that the caption for the image is merely mistaken and does not actually show Edwin and his son hunting for Booth but merely riding somewhere together. Time will tell.

Another critique I have is the characterization that John Wilkes Booth’s actions may have been motivated by a sense of professional rivalry between himself and his brother, Edwin (or his deceased father, Junius Brutus Booth). This belief comes up often enough, with many others playing on the idea that Lincoln’s death was the result of some intense sibling rivalry between John Wilkes and Edwin. I think many people fail to realize that, in 1865, John Wilkes and Edwin were pretty much on equal footing in terms of fame. Granted, Edwin had some advantage over his brother because he had started his career earlier and he had ingratiated himself into New York City society. In addition, just prior to the assassination, Edwin had finished his historic run of 100 nights of Hamlet. In time, Edwin would be known as one of the greatest actors of his day and is still considered by many as the greatest Hamlet who ever lived, but his legacy was still many years in the making in 1865.

John Wilkes Booth was also a very successful actor, and it was mostly due to his own choice to stop acting in 1864 and 1865, that caused him to cede so much ground, as it were, to his older brother. There was undoubtedly some rivalry between the siblings who were engaged in the same profession, but both brothers enthusiastically supported each other. They performed together on many occasions and celebrated each other’s histrionic achievements. While the two brothers were very far apart politically, I don’t believe that John Wilkes Booth felt too overshadowed by Edwin’s success. Nor do I believe that sibling rivalry had any real influence on Wilkes’ decision to kill Lincoln. However, I accept that this is a valid interpretation for someone to have.

There is also some shakiness regarding the layout of Ford’s Theatre in the article. It states that “Lincoln’s killer could have been lost to history if Booth had quietly slipped away, backed into the corridors of Ford’s Theatre, and escaped anonymously out into the streets of Washington, DC” rather than jumping to the stage in full view of the audience as he did. Anyone familiar with Ford’s Theatre knows there was nowhere else for Booth to go after barricading himself into the corridor leading to the President’s box. A jump from the box to the stage was his only option. Even if he had removed the wooden bar he had placed to prevent entry into the box, he would still have been surrounded by angry audience members until he could get to the back of the house. There was no scenario in which Booth could have “quietly slipped away” after shooting the President as he did. Retracing his steps out of the box would have meant his instant capture.

When I first read the article, the names of the owners of the house across the street where Lincoln died were the “Petersons.” I’m glad to see that someone has since fixed the spelling of their name and the house to Petersen.

Minor issues aside, the article does include one substantive bit of historical inaccuracy that could result in some misinformation. This is associated with the fugitives’ time at the home of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. The article provides the following image of actors Lovie Simone and Antonio Bell as Mary Simms and her brother Milo.

A good deal of the article discusses the figure of Mary Simms, a young woman who had been enslaved by Dr. Mudd and testified against him at the trial of the conspirators. Mary Simms’ testimony connected Dr. Mudd to Confederate activities during the war and was a key part of establishing his disloyal sympathies. The inclusion of Black witnesses in a criminal trial against white defendants was a historic case, and Stanton worked hard to ensure this would happen. Mary Simms was a brave woman who risked a lot to give her testimony. Her brother Milo (who believed he was only about 14 or so in 1865) also testified about conditions on the Mudd farm.

Both Mary and Milo Simms have a role in the Lincoln assassination story, and I’m happy to see them in the Manhunt miniseries. However, the caption under the images states that the two “grapple with their orders to provide aid and comfort to the fugitive assassin.” In the main article text just below the caption, it states the following:

During Mudd’s treatment, Booth crosses paths with Mary Simms (played by Greenleaf’s Lovie Simone), who was enslaved by Mudd and later testified in the investigation into Lincoln’s killing. “Mary Simms is someone that I came across in the transcript of the conspirators trial,” says Beletsky. “I found her extremely compelling. I knew that she kept house for Dr. Mudd and that her brother was considered Dr. Mudd’s carpenter. So with that in mind, when Booth needs a crutch, I have Milo, her brother, making the crutch.”

The big issue with the caption and the quote above is that Mary and Milo Simms were not at the Mudd farm in 1865. Both Mary and Milo are clear in their testimony that they left the Mudd property in November of 1864, just after the new Maryland state constitution abolished slavery, freeing them. Mary and Milo had no interaction with John Wilkes Booth during his escape, and none of their testimony at the trial had to do with the assassin himself. While the showrunner may have decided to have Milo Simms make Booth’s crutch in the miniseries, in reality, Dr. Mudd stated that the crutch was made by himself and an English handyman who resided on the farm named John Best.

Based on the descriptions in the article, we will have to see how truthful the scenes involving Mary and Milo Simms turn out to be. Any interaction between Mary Simms and John Wilkes Booth would be completely fictitious since she was no longer residing at the Mudd farm when Booth shot Lincoln.

I want to clarify that my intention is not to minimize the effort and creativity of those involved in Manhunt. I understand that historical dramas often take creative liberties to enhance the narrative. Even so-called “documentaries” are often fast and loose with the truth nowadays. However, when these liberties stray too far from the established historical record, they can have a negative impact on the viewer’s understanding of the past and cause more harm than good. It is frustrating as a historian when this happens since there are often just as creative ways of telling the story in ways that are accurate. For example, while Mary Simms was far from the Mudd farm at the time of the assassination, other men and women who were formerly enslaved by Dr. Mudd were there when the fugitives arrived. Thirteen-year-old Lettie Hall and her eleven-year-old sister Louisa Cristie had been enslaved by the Mudds, stayed with them after emancipation, and were at the home when Booth showed up. The two girls cooked and served breakfast to Booth at the Mudd home on April 15. Frank Washington had likewise been enslaved by the Mudds and was still at the farm working as a plowman in 1865. Washington was there when Booth and Herold arrived, and he personally put their horses in the doctor’s stables. When he testified at the conspirators’ trial, Washington was very nervous and was clearly conflicted about how he was supposed to testify. His desire to tell the truth was undoubtedly being challenged by his fear of retribution by his white neighbors if he spoke against the Mudds. These figures and the internal conflicts they had regarding their activities on April 15 would have been very interesting to see represented on screen. But, perhaps they still will be, and I’m getting all concerned about Mary Simms for nothing. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Despite Stanton’s missing skunk beard and the unknown accuracy of the Mary and Milo Simms portions, I remain excited about the series’ potential to reach a new audience and contribute to increased interest in this pivotal event. Though it will mean shelling out for yet another streaming service, I’m willing to throw a few bucks to Apple TV+ to watch a miniseries that I truly thought would never come. Come March 15, 2024, I’ll settle in to watch Manhunt for what I hope will be an engaging and thought-provoking viewing experience that stays true to the spirit of history.