Civil Love probably is a bad title for this story about a Union widow and a Confederate prisoner on the run. In those days it might indicate living together without benefit of clergy and in those days people did marry in the church for the most part.Elise Groves whose husband was killed in the war is doing her level best to keep the family farm running and raising her daughter and son. One day Paul Hunt comes into their lives and he's wounded and running from a pair of bounty hunters who say they are US Marshals. At first reluctant to take in one of the enemy Hunt does prove useful around the place and the inevitable happens. There's also Marshal Bellows around for a rival and he's both the brother of Groves late husband and the local sheriff. He has some feelings himself for Groves and that kind of interferes with his judgment.The film was shot on a dental floss budget, but the acting is decent enough from a bunch of players you never heard of. The rural area is suggestive of 19th century America.We never know exactly where this takes place. Hunt mentions escaping from a northern prison in New York. That would be Elmira which was a Union prison. Conditions there were little better than the infamous Andersonville and Libby Prisons in the South. That fact does kind of ground the film historically so to speak.Civil Love despite its title is a decent enough film for family viewing.

I stumbled across this and the plot seemed interesting enough as a romantic storyline. The basic plot played out fairly well, but there were a number of reminders throughout the movie that this was very low budget. I don't think there was a wardrobe artist, as there were all sorts of outfits that just didn't fit in to the time era. One lawman wore a traditional floppy hat of the era, while his partner wore a hat that looked like a gangster's hat from the 1920's. The daughter in the story wore her hair wild and loose and wore boy's outfits. The daughter's appearance just didn't seem plausible, given the time period and how strict the mom was with the son. The mother in the story acted stiffly and forced and her acting didn't blend well with how the others acted.I also was pretty surprised to find that this was a civil war movie that dealt with numerous debates about who was right or wrong, but never once mentioned any issues involving slavery? A good part of the movie was spent trying to understand the southern prisoner and the family was trying to decide if he was good and moral, but never once asked about his opinions of slavery. Yes, he knew the bible, but there were plenty of people in the south who knew the bible but were still racist.Overall, the movie was a typical historic chick flick that could have been based on any number of romance novels.One more comment - there is very limited IMDb background info on this, and even the credits are incomplete. I guess this was so low budget that no one even took the time to complete the IMDb details? The hero of this story is a mystery man since his name is not in the credits at all. The movie was probably PG and is appropriate for families - nothing to object to. Was this a book to TV movie? Was it Not sure.