Edward Lotterman

We as a country are more politically divided now than at any time since the Civil War. More so, I’d say, even than the turbulent Vietnam Era 1960s.

Because even then the foundations of our system were still generally accepted.

We are now eight months from a presidential election with two unpopular candidates, one of whom — along with many of his followers — openly question Constitutional norms and the objective rule of law.

And the platforms of both campaigns face monetary policy issues. Which leads us to discuss the influence and fate of the Federal Reserve.

Democrat Joe Biden is blamed for ongoing inflation in his first term but does not want a recession to combat inflation before or after the election. This delicate balance has been deftly handled by the Fed, at least so far.

Republican Donald Trump proposes to use executive power to impose 10% tariffs on all imports into our country — except for those from China that would face a 60% rate. If actually implemented, these tariffs would be the largest tax increase both in absolute and relative terms in the history of our country.

Taken alone, such tariffs would force the general price level higher — a fact conveniently ignored by Republicans who pin inflation on Biden’s policies.

Our central bank, the Federal Reserve, could moderate such price rises, but whether and how it does so might depend on the degree it is controlled by either the president or Congress. For now, this appears to be a moot point. The reality is that, to the extent its leaders are willing to stand to their guns, no one at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue can tell the Fed what to do. That is no guarantee of stable prices or stable output, but it does mean that, excluding the power to appoint, no politician can make key monetary decisions.

The U.S. central bank has a uniquely odd governance system that sprang from a series of events and political compromises that go back to when George Washington was president. The Fed is partly government, though not exactly a government institution, yet it also is not entirely private. The president does appoint members of a key seven-member Board of Governors. These must be confirmed by the Senate like Cabinet members or federal judges. They are subject to the same salary limits as Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress and Supreme Court justices. They serve 14-year terms that start in January of even numbered years.

But these governors do not have power to make monetary policy on their own. Moreover, politicians have no statutory power to fire the chair of the Board of Governors, currently Jerome Powell — and there actually is a historical case in which a Fed chair refused to step down at the direction of a president.

So whatever plans Trump aide Stephen Miller, who got into government as an aide to former Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachman, or others have in planning a drastic Trump II Inauguration-afternoon restructuring the federal government decide, the Fed would be a hard nut to crack.

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act, with significant amendments in 1935, establishes the current governance.

So either Biden or Trump, elected in 2024 but inaugurated in January 2025, will not have even one appointee voting until January 2026. They will not get a second until January 2028, 10 months before the following presidential election. Since neither could serve a third term, that would end their influence on the board.

But couldn’t Trump simply fire the whole board the afternoon of his inauguration, or thereafter, and name their replacements? Such an act certainly would create a Constitutional crisis. President Ronald Reagan could fire all striking air traffic controllers despite their civil service status, because a statutory clause forbade their going on strike. But there is nothing in any statute that gives the president the power to remove Fed board members. Certainly, if Trump or Biden called for Powell or any other board member to step down, as Trump hinted during his term, they would be under tremendous pressure. But if they refused to do so, the president has no legal recourse.

Of course, couldn’t one simply send U.S. Marshals to physically remove the defiant governor from the premises and usher in a replacement, as U.S. agents walked Black students into Little Rock High School and Old Miss decades ago in defiance of states’ segregation laws? But that defiance of a structure created very deliberately 90 years ago would throw financial markets into a tizzy worldwide.

And even if the chair or other governors stepped down in the face of pressure from the Oval Office, the White House still would not be able to dictate interest rates or the money supply — even by proxy through loyal replacements.

That’s because these decisions are made by a Federal Open Market Committee that includes the presidents of five of the 12 district Federal Reserve banks serving in a rotation. These bank presidents are not government employees or appointees in any way. They are hired by the private corporations that these 12 banks legally are. They are chosen by boards of directors of these private businesses and usually are the conservative element on policy decisions.

If a U.S. president had convinced all of these governors to step down and had replaced them with flunkies, there would be a 7-5 majority that might do the president’s bidding. Again, such a revolutionary and reckless act to give a president control of monetary policy would throw global financial markets into turmoil.

And yes, if a president has filibuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress, they could rescind the Federal Reserve Act entirely and create a new central bank to their liking, even one run out of a cubby hole in the West Wing. Even these most radical actions might happen at some very low level of probability.

Yet people should rest with some assurance.

When President Richard Nixon took office in January 1969, he called Fed Chair Willian McChesney Martin into the Oval Office and told him to resign because Nixon was naming Arthur Burns as a replacement. Martin responded that he had another year in his term as chair and was not going to resign. Burns did not take over until a year later and that is where our era of great inflation began. Nixon was angered, but knew it would roil financial markets and rile key Wall Street campaign donors if he started a public fight to fire a Fed chair. Whether Trump has such trust or awe of such institutional norms is an open question.

Powell — appointed chair by Trump, by the way — has a four-year term as chair that runs into 2026. He well might follow Martin in declining any order to resign that post.

Powell’s term as a member of the board runs into 2028. Because of resignations, five of the seven current governors are Biden nominees. One of the others, Christopher Waller, a Bemidji State grad who came out of the St. Louis Fed, is not likely to be a Trump lackey.

So a new president could seize control of monetary policy by a series of unprecedented extra-statutory acts or by having a rubber stamping Congress. Anything could happen. But citizens, voters and Wall Street do not want financial chaos that becomes economic chaos. Expect even the most reckless president to shy away from overthrowing the Fed.

Related Articles

Real World Economics: Trump’s stated trade policy would have bad tradeoffs

Real World Economics: Why drug monopolies are bad medicine

Real World Economics: 75 years of wisdom on national defense should not be discarded

Real World Economics: Craig’s Social Security bill flawed, but pay attention anyway

Real World Economics: The tango of bond prices and interest rates

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.

The Chicago Bears are working on a deal to hire Shane Waldron as their new offensive coordinator, multiple league sources confirmed Monday morning.

Waldron has been the Seattle Seahawks offensive coordinator for the last three seasons and helped quarterback Geno Smith to a comeback season in 2022. Before that, Waldron spent four seasons with the Los Angeles Rams as the passing game coordinator, quarterbacks coach and tight ends coach.

He is well-respected inside league circles as a young, energetic coach on the rise and a strong teacher with a creative mind and — especially important to the Bears — three seasons of play-calling experience.

NFL Network first reported the Bears are planning to hire Waldron.

The Bears reportedly interviewed at least nine candidates for the opening, including San Francisco 49ers passing game coordinator Klint Kubiak, former Baltimore Ravens offensive coordinator Greg Roman, former Carolina Panthers offensive coordinator Thomas Brown and former Arizona Cardinals head coach Kliff Kingsbury.

Waldron would replace Luke Getsy, whom coach Matt Eberflus fired earlier this month after two seasons at the helm of the Bears offense. In the search for Getsy’s replacement, Eberflus emphasized his desire to find a new offensive coordinator who is a “great teacher.”

“That’s important because you know he has to coach the coaches to coach the position, and I think that’s the No. 1 trait of any great coach,” Eberflus said. “You have to be able to have the innovation to really look at the players you have and be able to help enhance and put those guys in position to succeed and to get explosive (plays) and to move the ball down the field.”

Waldron would take over a Bears offense that has major decisions ahead this offseason at quarterback. General manager Ryan Poles must decide whether to use the No. 1 draft pick to select a quarterback — potentially USC’s Caleb Williams — or to stick with Justin Fields, the Bears starter for the last three seasons.

Poles said he expected to ask candidates for their plans to coach different kinds of quarterbacks.

“I love it because what are you going to do for these four different types of quarterbacks,” Poles said. “I want to hear that, and I think it’s really important to hear the versatility and adaptability in their teaching, in the way they implement a plan, scheme, adjust. It actually makes it pretty dynamic in terms of the interview process.”

Waldron called plays in 2021 for a Seahawks offense piloted by Russell Wilson. In 2022, after Wilson was traded to the Denver Broncos, the Seahawks pivoted to Smith and won nine games while earning a wild-card berth.

Smith, in his 10th NFL season, was honored as the league’s Comeback Player of the Year after throwing for 4,282 yards and 30 touchdowns. Both marks would be single-season franchise records for the Bears.

This season the Seahawks ranked 21st in total offense (322.9 yards per game) and 14th in passing (230 ypg). They averaged 21.4 points, ranked 17th. That was down from 2022, when they averaged 351.5 yards (13th) and 23.9 points (ninth).

The Seahawks staff is looking for new jobs after the organization and coach Pete Carroll parted ways after a 14-year union.

In addition to working closely with Wilson and Smith, Waldron worked with quarterback Jared Goff for three seasons with the Rams.

Waldron served as an offensive assistant with the New England Patriots (2008-09) and Washington (2016) and worked in operations with the Patriots early in his career. He also has coached in college, high school and the UFL.

Waldron and the Bears must hire assistants to coach the quarterbacks, wide receivers and running backs after the team dismissed Andrew Janocko, Tyke Tolbert and Omar Young earlier this month. Offensive line coach Chris Morgan and tight ends coach Jim Dray remain on the staff.

The Bears also are seeking a defensive coordinator, and NFL Network reported Monday they will interview Tennessee Titans defensive pass game coordinator Chris Harris. Harris played safety in the NFL for eight seasons, including two stints with the Bears, and started for the 2006 Bears team that went to the Super Bowl.

More Bears news

Bears Q&A: Did GM Ryan Poles miss a chance at a big-name coach? How desirable are the coordinator openings?
Column: Keeping Jaylon Johnson is paramount for the Bears — but will they make him the NFL’s highest-paid cornerback?
5 player decisions besides QB facing the Bears, including Jaylon Johnson’s contract and Darnell Mooney’s future
Bears GM Ryan Poles staying ‘open-minded’ as he evaluates whether to keep Justin Fields or draft a QB at No. 1
Caleb Williams declares for the NFL draft — and the Bears, picking No. 1, ‘can’t be scared of the unknown,’ analyst says
Column: How can GM Ryan Poles fix the cycle that has plagued the Bears forever? Pick the right quarterback.
Bears President Kevin Warren says building a ‘magnificent’ downtown stadium remains a possibility

Words have meaning — and it varies

The “semantic debate” about Minnesota’s End of Life Options Act is worth having. Semantics deals with the relationship between the definition of words and how different people interpret their meaning. In the realm of death and dying, we should acknowledge that language cannot speak with exactitude to every case, culture, faith, and person.

As a writer and suicide survivor, I have far too much experience making the attempt.

My first exposure to suicide was as a child discovering a neighbor’s body in his driveway, a rifle at his side. In the language of the times, he died while “cleaning his gun.” My great grandmother drowned at a family picnic. For many years, “drowning” softened the intentionality of her death.

My father’s death at age 58 shocked an entire community. His faith had for centuries called suicide a mortal sin and in a previous decade would have denied him a Catholic funeral mass. He received a service, but scarcely a personal mention from the presiding priest who knew him.

These deaths were not inevitable. Proper mental health treatment might have averted suicidal impulses and meant more good years of life. But the language of shame, sin, and euphemism offered no respite from their psychological pain or comfort to the survivors.

Language in the End of Life Options Act does not encourage suicide. It offers personal agency over how individuals can face death. It brings together family, caregivers, friends, and spiritual advisors in support of this profound and final choice.

Charlie Quimby, Golden Valley

 

The word that matters

Kudos to the Pioneer Press and reporter Alex Derosier for finding a new way to look at one of the most important bills facing the Minnesota Legislature this year (“Aid in dying or physician-assisted suicide? As MN lawmakers weigh bill, advocates and opponents choose different terms”, March 10).

It’s true that the terminology for the process by which a terminally ill person can end their suffering with medication has changed: from “death with dignity” in Oregon, to “medical aid in dying” in some other states, to “end of life options” in Minnesota.

To me the one simple word that matters is “choose.” If I am suffering from one of the many diseases or conditions that modern medicine has not yet conquered, I want to choose how and when I die, with the help of a knowledgeable and compassionate medical provider. Those who oppose end-of-life options seek to deny me that simple option.

My body, my relationship with my doctor, my dying, my choice. Our DFL majority has made it clear that body autonomy and choice matters when it comes to reproductive health. Why not at the end of life?

Patricia Ohmans, St. Paul

 

Words to scare

Words like “suicide” and “slippery slope” are being used to stop action on approval of the End-of-Life Options Act under consideration by the Minnesota Legislature (“Words matter in ‘End of Life’ debate,” March 10). Once again, a minority of the populace is playing with words to ensure others don’t have choice.

New words come into being every day. Words change meaning over time. When someone uses the word “suicide” most of us think of those who take their life for reasons such as depression or mental illness. Taken before their time, they were people who could have been helped.

But isn’t that different from a person, who in the very last days of life, wishes to be released from the rounds of hopeless treatments, the hospital bed, the drugs, the pain, the suffering? That person wants to go home and be surrounded by family and be released from this world. There is no choice for life. If they could, they would hang on to life. Shouldn’t this have its own word?

We’ll hear consternation that such a bill will lead to killing the disabled, or encouraging suicide. No, it won’t. It’s been legal in other states for years with no “slippery slope.” They are just using words that have no meaning except to scare. It’s a useful tactic, but it is not based in fact.

“Choice” seems to be the operative word when discussing the End-of-Life Options Act. Let us ensure this choice for all Minnesotans.

Mary Alice Divine, White Bear Lake

 

Monumental trivializing

While I appreciate reporter Alex Derosier spotlighting the fast-growing movement in Minnesota to legalize medical-aid-in-dying for terminally ill people, I wonder at the focus on the argument over terms: suicide versus medical aid in dying. The ongoing semantic dispute between proponents and opponents of the bill may be relevant because words do matter, but the argument monumentally trivializes the circumstances of people facing an imminent, horrific death. The terminal oral cancer sufferer who no longer allows his grandchildren even into the house because of the awful stench from his externalized tumors … the dying ovarian cancer patient whose fluids and bowel matter leak and flow between disintegrating bodily canals … the ALS patient who is drowning in her own saliva because she can no longer swallow.

That opponents of the law — including some bioethics professors — who are not seated at that hellish bedside have the arrogance and time to advance intellectual arguments over semantics, is an insult and time-waster for every one of these dying people. To leisurely opine that such patients are “engaging in the dictionary definition of suicide,” and that “calling it aid is a euphemism that obfuscates the seriousness of the choice,” indicates a grotesque misunderstanding of the word “choice.” These are dying people who were robbed of choice on the day of their diagnosis. They are running out of time. Let’s restore to those who wish it one final choice: the grace and peace of a good death surrounded by those they love.

Tara Flaherty Guy, Roseville

 

‘Those of us living nearby object’

The University of St. Thomas intends to build a 5,000-seat arena on their campus in a residential area without providing commensurate parking capacity. Those of us living nearby object.

As U.S.T.’s own transportation study blithely noted, the university’s parking shortfall will be alleviated by parking in our residential neighborhood. When a private institution faces a shortfall, is it right for it to just help itself to a public resource?

St. Thomas actually is going backward in that regard. This and other recent construction on south campus sacrificed 392 parking spaces. The University has not offered to increase the capacity of their parking ramp to make up the difference nor provide for their additional demand.

Cutting parking requirements is often defended as a motivation to use public transit. In this case, an alternative to waiting outside for the bus is readily at hand – just drive to the game and park in our neighborhood! Offering the public transit option is an empty excuse.

Residents living near campus are themselves criticized for moving to the neighborhood knowing that U.S.T. is there. But is that an adequate excuse for bad policies? Further, many neighbors arrived when the campus was a medium-sized and stable school. It was in recent years that the institution changed into a growth-oriented Division 1 campus crammed onto a small footprint. Neither St. Paul nor St. Thomas asked surrounding neighborhoods to approve such a strategic change.

In short, St. Thomas has offered nothing to mitigate the problem that the university itself is causing.

The University of St. Thomas Web page claims “All for the common good.”

Really?

Joel Clemmer, St. Paul

 

Like they have a lock on democracy

I am really tired of the Democrats’ mantra of “save democracy.” Like they have a lock on democracy.

Elections should be about ideas and policies. Pick the candidates who support your ideas (at least mostly) and vote for them.

The polls I have seen about voters’ concerns never list democracy. It’s immigration, inflation, crime and so on. In fact, given the dysfunction in our current government, I don’t think that “democracy” is a very good sell at all.

Bruce Montgomery, St. Paul

 

Respect their service and sacrifice

On page A12 of the March 13 paper you see the picture of Shannon Gooden on the left and Paul Elmstrand, Matthew Ruge, Adam Finseth on the right. This is a huge tragedy yet there was no worldwide outrage at this injustice. These three men loved their families and the community they served. They were selfless in their service to the community to the length of giving their lives for it. This is the second tragedy that virtue, love, and service are not valued and celebrated in our world.

Veterans, military, service providers, clergy, medical personnel, police, state troopers, firefighters, paramedics, multiple morally upstanding citizens every day make sacrifices, sometimes including their lives, to protect us and provide for us. We need to respect, honor and be grateful for their sacrifice and service to our communities. Give back to your community in a positive way to honor these men and their families.

Kathleen Hoffman, Hudson

 

Good. And we need to do more

I’ve owned a house in St. Paul for 33 years, and am proud to call this city my home. Most of all I like our many neighborhoods, the mix of races, ethnicity, income levels and languages. I believe that all of us can live together and thrive.

Mayor Carter’s State of the City speech underscored how a well-focused administration, along with a strong City Council (past and present), can put us on a path to equity, growth and opportunity. Current city programs have improved safety and reduced crime, encouraged at least six major housing/commercial developments, provided more youth opportunities, and laid plans for revitalizing downtown.

But we need to do more. Several of my long-term St. Paul friends have had to move out for lack of affordable housing, We need to push for more at all levels and discourage absentee owners and investment-minded landlords who only want to make high profits off our city. Our citizens need and deserve stability.

We need to attack climate change with more urgency, by weatherizing and decarbonizing our residences as well as our commercial buildings.

And yes, we need revenue to make all we want happen. We have been fortunate to have more money from the state and feds, as well as generous contributions from local foundations. But I also want to congratulate Mayor Carter for proposing the 1-percent St. Paul sales tax and then spearheading the campaign for its passage. As a resident, I look forward to enjoying the rewards of this tax in park upgrades and street improvements.

It is my hope that all St. Paul residents take heart from our current leadership, share a justified pride in the achievements of our city, and continue to contribute their time, talent, and money to build strong, stable neighborhoods that serve us all.

Duane Johnson, St. Paul

 

Some lament Cousins’ departure

Some are lamenting Kirk Cousins leaving the Vikings, but over six years, at $185 million, Kirk gave us one playoff win. The goal is the Super Bowl, not just barely making the playoffs. Harrison Smith, a should-be Hall of Famer, took a pay cut two years in a row to be a Viking. Cousins instead admitted tampering with Atlanta early in negotiations, and got them to buy that he’s next year’s Tom Brady. They guaranteed Kirk $100 million — no matter what. I doubt Kirk guaranteed any playoff wins. Without that ridiculous salary hanging around the Vikings’ neck to a 36-year-old with an Achilles tear repair, Kwesi, Kevin O’Connell, and Brian Flores have been busy putting together a stellar new team with RB, Edges, DL, OL, and kicker — with more to come — along with a new franchise QB in the draft that could actually take us to the Super Bowl. Thank you, Kirk!

Geoffrey Saign, St. Paul

 

A question regarding Ms. Greene

Marjorie Taylor Greene recently Interrupted President Biden’s State of the Union address to demand his response to the killing of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered last month allegedly by an undocumented immigrant released on parole. As he should, Biden immediately expressed his condolences to the Riley family and decried the culture of violence in our country which leads to so many senseless deaths.

My question is this: How many hundreds (thousands?) of deaths of innocent people, including children, are Ms. Greene and her MAGA cohorts responsible for because they continue to kowtow to the gun lobby and refuse to support even the most reasonable levels of gun control?

Rick Gavin, Eagan

 

Catch and keep?

The DNR is announcing new limits for walleyes on Mille Lacs, this has awakened a pet peeve of mine about the importance that some fisher folk give to sport fish over game fish. Most Minnesotans like to eat what they catch, namely walleyes. The muskie people return what they catch, those released muskies possibly to go on and eat the walleyes that we like to eat. I know of few recipes for the eating of the muskie, although I’ve been told that it forms the basis for a Wisconsin Bouillabaisse.

What if the DNR would put a moratorium on “catch and release” for the muskie population for several weeks or a month on Lake Mille Lacs and offer prizes for the largest and the most caught?

This would accomplish two things; the resorts on the lake would prosper, and the post mortems on the catch would tell us if the muskie is eating more walleye then the rest of us.

Tom Obst, Wyoming

Related Articles

Behind the chair for 60 years: Twin Cities barber reminisces on clipping locks, telling stories

New program gives St. Paul-Ramsey County sex assault victims more options — and control

Crime, housing, education and more: Here’s how St. Paul compares to a decade ago

Photos: St. Patrick’s Day parade in St. Paul brought the luck and the wind

Joe Soucheray: ‘If you would shoot at a cop, you would shoot at anybody’

Told in a mere seven hourlong installments and focusing primarily on the handful of days between President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination and the locating of his killer, John Wilkes Booth, “Manhunt” impressively paints a more sprawling portrait of a time in our country’s history.

The highly compelling limited series, debuting this week on Apple TV+ with its first two episodes, is based on the 2006 bestselling and Edgar Award-winning nonfiction book from historian James L. Swanson, “Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer.” Making liberal use of flashbacks and no doubt taking some liberties while filling in the blanks, the adaptation offers a window into the days and even years leading up to the murder of the legendary figure and extends through to the trial in which the government attempted to prove that a conspiracy involving several people was behind it.

The show is the creation of showrunner Monica Beletsky, who wrote or co-wrote each episode, lending the consistency you’re looking for with such a series even as its directorial duties have been divided up among three: Carl Franklin, John Dahl and Eva Sorhaug.

“Manhunt” is told largely from the perspectives of two men: Booth (Anthony Boyle), an actor who aspires for what he sees as a level of greatness the stage can’t offer him; and his hunter, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Tobias Menzies), a close Lincoln confidant during the president’s final years who operates with purpose and determination.

We are introduced to both of them on April 15, 1865, just hours before the moment Booth will shoot the president from behind in a box at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., where Lincoln (Hamish Linklater) and his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln (Lili Taylor), are taking in a play.

On this day, men exchange whispers — and a handgun — and an attempt also is made on the life of Secretary of State William H. Seward (Larry Pine) in his home in a related attack.

“Manhunt” soon moves us back a few days, to Lincoln and Stanton receiving the greatly awaited news that the Civil War is ending with the surrender of the forces of the Confederate States of America to its Union counterparts.

Tobias Menzies portrays Edwin Stanton, U.S. secretary of war, in the limited series “Manhunt.” (Apple TV+/TNS)

“The Confederacy is dead,” Stanton declares, dictating a message to the press. “The Union is saved.”

During this time, Booth talks to a man in a bar who has trouble hearing what Booth is saying due to the revelry around them.

“Ahhh, let them celebrate,” Booth says. “They’ll be sorry next Easter when they realize they’ve given away their whole country to (racial slur) thanks to Lincoln.”

As the viewer will come to understand, Booth expects to soon be more famous than other members of his family who make their livings acting, including the father he could never impress.

After that night in the theater — during which, after completing the heinous act and declaring “Freedom for the South!,” he injures his leg jumping down to the stage but still manages to get away — he certainly has a well-known name.

It is the name constantly on the mind of Stanton, who organizes the search for him. This displeases his wife, Ellen (Anne Dudek), who sees him as unable to delegate and who worries, understandably, about his asthma — a condition worsened by stress and one on the verge of causing him serious problems. However, his son, Eddie Stanton Jr. (Brandon Flynn), works with him to find and bring to justice Booth.

The trail quickly leads to a physician, Samuel Mudd (Matt Walsh), who shares a set of beliefs with Booth and the Confederates and who treated Booth’s leg before sending him on his way to Virginia with pal — and “lackey,” as he later will be called — David Herold (Will Harrison).

The magnetic performances of Boyle, seen recently in another strong Apple TV+ limited series, “Masters of the Air,” and, especially, Menzies (“Game of Thrones,” “The Crown”) anchor “Manhunt.” Each actor demands your attention every moment he is on screen.

And as a key supporting play, Linklater (“Gaslit”) grows on you in scenes where he navigates the pressing issues of his nation with Stanton as well as those of his family with his wife. Daniel Day-Lewis he’s not, but his work contributes to “Manhunt” significantly as it moves forward.

“Manhunt” makes some time for Mary Simms (Lovie Simone of “Power Book III: Raising Kanan”), a slave-turned-servant working as Mudd’s housekeeper. A little-known person from history, she serves here as the embodiment of the plight of the Blacks at the time.

Even though Simone gets third billing in the series, “Manhunt” may have benefited from even more time spent on the character. It is, of course, understandable that we bear witness to myriad interactions of white men on both sides of the ideological wall, but the proceedings occasionally can be just a little confusing as the series jumps forward and backward in time and presents us with so many characters. To her credit, Beletsky ensures we always know when and where we are via on-screen text.

Overall, this is highly commendable work from Beletsky, who has spent time as a writer and producer on excellent TV series in “Friday Night Lights,” “Parenthood,” “The Leftovers” and “Fargo” at various points. Seeking here to blend true-crime flavorings with historical fiction, she shows great promise as a showrunner.

On more than one occasion, Beletsky and her co-writers seem to draw parallels between what was happening in the country and today’s political climate, which is effective. Mostly, though, it succeeds as a powerful reminder of just how fragile the war-torn nation was at the time.

Consider when Stanton is asked, before the credits roll at the close of the first episode, what it means if a conspiracy is found to be behind the assassination.

“Might have to start another war,” he says.

‘Manhunt’

3 stars (out of 4)

Rating: TV-MA (for mature audiences)

How to watch: On Apple TV+ Friday

Related Articles

Lily Gladstone’s upset loss to Emma Stone was expected for this reason

How Kacey Musgraves opened herself back up to love

‘Nolly’ review: On Masterpiece, Helena Bonham Carter plays a soap star who’s been sacked

Calling all ‘Top Chef’ nerds: Here are 6 more ways to feed your inner foodie

What to watch: Kristen Stewart sizzles in wild ‘Love Lies Bleeding’