Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2026

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2026 [2026/10/22 03:48] – [Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?] 76.78.172.62329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2026 [2026/10/22 13:37] (current) – 199.111.65.35
Line 10: Line 10:
 Glory is one of the movies we’ve watched which incorporates a good amount of historical accuracy. For example, it features the difference in pay between the Black and White soldiers. As seen in the letter from James Henry Gooding to President Lincold, Black soldiers (similar to Denzel Washington’s character Private Trip) wanted to be paid the 13 dollars like the white soldiers as opposed to the $10 they were being paid. Regiments in the film also seem to be segregated (or at least culturally separated) as this was in real life, further leading to the tensions between White and Black soldiers. Another aspect which the film gets right is how some Black people in these regiments helped others read and write. This is seen in the real life writings of Susie King Taylor and through Thomas Seares and Jupiter Sharpes in Glory. Glory is one of the movies we’ve watched which incorporates a good amount of historical accuracy. For example, it features the difference in pay between the Black and White soldiers. As seen in the letter from James Henry Gooding to President Lincold, Black soldiers (similar to Denzel Washington’s character Private Trip) wanted to be paid the 13 dollars like the white soldiers as opposed to the $10 they were being paid. Regiments in the film also seem to be segregated (or at least culturally separated) as this was in real life, further leading to the tensions between White and Black soldiers. Another aspect which the film gets right is how some Black people in these regiments helped others read and write. This is seen in the real life writings of Susie King Taylor and through Thomas Seares and Jupiter Sharpes in Glory.
 Aaliyah A. Aaliyah A.
 +
 +I think there are quite a few accuracy’s in the film. For one it got right who Robert Goud Shaw was and why he was picked to lead the 54th. The film also portrays the racism experienced inside the troops very well. Even if most of the white soldiers were fighting for the abolition of slavery, they were still racist. Many still used slurs against the black soldiers and felt an overall sense of superiority. The film also got right to the difference of pay, how black soldiers were paid less than white soldiers for the same work. And if they dared complain they’d be punished. This film also accurately portrays the horrors of war, showing how many of the men were inexperienced fighters who had to learn to fight and struggled
 +-Ellie Irwin 
 +
 +I agree with Ellie, there were a lot of accuracies within the film mainly with racism. There were white solider that had been fighting to end slavery, they however were still racists towards the black soldiers. There was a constant need to feel superior over who white soldiers thought were under them so that included the racial slurs and violence towards them. -- Shelby Hawley
 +
  
 ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?====== ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?======
Line 18: Line 24:
  
 I think Glory is a pretty historically accurate movie overall, but it still changes some details to make the story more dramatic for the audience. One of the biggest problems in that the movie makes it seem like most of the Black soldiers in the 54th Massachusetts were formerly enslaved, when in reality, most of them were already free men. The movie also includes fictional characters, like Trip, to represent the experiences and struggles of Black soldiers during the Civil War. Another major inaccuracy was the scene where Colonel Shaw orders Trip to be whipped, since flogging was illegal in the U.S. Army at the time. Even though the movie gets some details wrong, it still showed the racism, unequal treatment, and challenges that Black soldiers faced while fighting for the Union. So, I think the movie is useful for understand the experiences of these soldiers, but we should remember that some of the scenes were changed or even created for the sake of the story and for audience entertainment. —-Cait Edwards.  I think Glory is a pretty historically accurate movie overall, but it still changes some details to make the story more dramatic for the audience. One of the biggest problems in that the movie makes it seem like most of the Black soldiers in the 54th Massachusetts were formerly enslaved, when in reality, most of them were already free men. The movie also includes fictional characters, like Trip, to represent the experiences and struggles of Black soldiers during the Civil War. Another major inaccuracy was the scene where Colonel Shaw orders Trip to be whipped, since flogging was illegal in the U.S. Army at the time. Even though the movie gets some details wrong, it still showed the racism, unequal treatment, and challenges that Black soldiers faced while fighting for the Union. So, I think the movie is useful for understand the experiences of these soldiers, but we should remember that some of the scenes were changed or even created for the sake of the story and for audience entertainment. —-Cait Edwards. 
 +
 +I also agree with Cait, finding the historical accuracy of the film. There were fictional characters that were added for plot purposes, they were to represent what the black soldiers had gone through during the Civil War. Even with those inaccuracies, it had shown the racism, struggles, and the experiences of the soldiers pretty accurately. Most of the inaccuracies come from changes in the scenes or that had been created to dramatize the movie itself. --Shelby Hawley
 +
 +Despite being dramatized, Glory was fairly  historically accurate which made finding the inaccurate parts a little difficult. For one I am not sure the soldiers had that amount of difficulty when given supplies or had their requests ignored. Most of the fighters were freed men, either by being born in a free state or being born to free men, with not many of the soldiers being enslaved. The whipping scene is also inaccurate as to my knowledge I do not think flogging or whipping was allowed as punishment. As another said the movie completely ignores women’s part in the war. In fact, come to think of it I don’t think there was a single female character except that woman that was maybe being attacked? Women played an important part in the war, there were cooks, and nurses. The fact that we go to hospitals and camps and not a single woman is seen is very odd and not accurate at all. And is in fact ignorant of the women’s part in the war 
 +-Ellie Irwin
 +
 +Although *Glory* (1989) is generally considered a historically accurate portrayal of the 54th Massachusetts, the filmmakers took several liberties with the actual events and individuals involved.
 +One of the biggest inaccuracies is the portrayal of the regiment's soldiers. The film suggests that many were formerly enslaved men with little education or military experience. In reality, many of the original recruits were free Black men from Northern states, including Massachusetts, and some were educated and politically active. James Henry Gooding's letters demonstrate this particularly well. He was an articulate and informed soldier who actively encouraged other Black men to enlist.
 +Another historical liberty involves the characters themselves. Trip, played by Denzel Washington, and several of the other principal enlisted characters are fictional. While their experiences represent genuine hardships faced by Black soldiers, they should not be mistaken for the experiences of specific historical individuals.
 +The film also dramatizes the relationship between Shaw and his soldiers, particularly his gradual recognition of their abilities. Gooding's writings suggest that the men were already disciplined, motivated, and proud of their military service during their training.
 +The assault on Fort Wagner is another example. While the battle and Shaw's death are historically accurate, the film compresses events and makes the attack appear to be the regiment's final chapter. In reality, the 54th continued fighting for the remainder of the war.
 +I think *Glory* succeeds in communicating the historical importance of the 54th Massachusetts, but its fictional characters and dramatic storytelling can leave viewers with an incomplete understanding of who these soldiers actually were and what they accomplished. - Todd H.
  
 ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?====== ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?======
  
 The potential inaccuracies in the portrayal of the 2nd South Carolina Infantry Regiment (S.C.I) in relation to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment (M.A.I.) are very interesting, mostly centered around the burning of Darien. James Henry Gooding in his new correspondents note that the expedition captured “one schooner and a flat boat, loaded with cotton, about 20 barrels of turpentine, eight hogsheads of rosin, about a dozen cows, 50 or 60 sheep and 20 head of beeves” with the “books, pictures, furniture and household property” burned. Ironically, in the film, the 2nd was looting the property that was burned and the 54th burning the property that was looted. In addition, if assuming Gooding represents the general opinion of the 54th, there was little controversy over the decision to burn Darien asides from Colonel Shaw harboring feelings that Colonel Montgomery (in command of the 2nd) “had gone too far in destroying Darien, [trying] to dissociate himself from what he believed to be sheer vandalism, carried out for personal satisfaction rather than military necessity.” In fact, Gooding makes a rebuttal to the opposition, “copperhead” press basically calls them out to be utterly stupid, overly dramatic, hypocritical, and as subversive elements acting to undermine the war effort, key to which is the recruitment of black soldiers. The general character and behavior of the 2nd SCI also seems to fly in the face of Susie King Taylor’s, black laundresses, teacher, and former enslaved person, general characterisation and sentiments of a similar unit, the 1st SCI, as a model regiment. The (initial) recruitment issues of all three regiments, due to their character as volunteers, were also brushed aside in the film. - Charles Salcedo The potential inaccuracies in the portrayal of the 2nd South Carolina Infantry Regiment (S.C.I) in relation to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment (M.A.I.) are very interesting, mostly centered around the burning of Darien. James Henry Gooding in his new correspondents note that the expedition captured “one schooner and a flat boat, loaded with cotton, about 20 barrels of turpentine, eight hogsheads of rosin, about a dozen cows, 50 or 60 sheep and 20 head of beeves” with the “books, pictures, furniture and household property” burned. Ironically, in the film, the 2nd was looting the property that was burned and the 54th burning the property that was looted. In addition, if assuming Gooding represents the general opinion of the 54th, there was little controversy over the decision to burn Darien asides from Colonel Shaw harboring feelings that Colonel Montgomery (in command of the 2nd) “had gone too far in destroying Darien, [trying] to dissociate himself from what he believed to be sheer vandalism, carried out for personal satisfaction rather than military necessity.” In fact, Gooding makes a rebuttal to the opposition, “copperhead” press basically calls them out to be utterly stupid, overly dramatic, hypocritical, and as subversive elements acting to undermine the war effort, key to which is the recruitment of black soldiers. The general character and behavior of the 2nd SCI also seems to fly in the face of Susie King Taylor’s, black laundresses, teacher, and former enslaved person, general characterisation and sentiments of a similar unit, the 1st SCI, as a model regiment. The (initial) recruitment issues of all three regiments, due to their character as volunteers, were also brushed aside in the film. - Charles Salcedo
 +
 +While *Glory* (1989) does a good job portraying the courage of the 54th Massachusetts and the discrimination Black soldiers faced during the Civil War, I think the film tells a somewhat narrower story than what we see in the historical documents. Much of the movie focuses on Colonel Robert Gould Shaw and his development as a leader, rather than the experiences and motivations of the Black soldiers themselves.
 +One of the biggest differences I noticed was how the film portrays the soldiers fighting to prove themselves worthy of respect and equality. James Henry Gooding's letters suggest something different. These men already understood their worth and saw military service as an opportunity to demand the rights and recognition they deserved as Americans. His September 1863 letter to Lincoln about unequal pay makes that particularly clear. They were not simply fighting for the Union, but also challenging the racial inequalities within it.
 +George W. Hatton's account, "Retaliation in Camp," also demonstrates that emancipation involved more than military victories. It fundamentally changed relationships between formerly enslaved people and those who had enslaved them.
 +I also think the film's ending at Fort Wagner is significant. It creates a powerful conclusion centered on sacrifice, but the 54th's service and struggle for equality continued after Shaw's death.
 +Overall, I don't think *Glory* necessarily gets the history wrong. Rather, it chooses which parts of that history to emphasize. The historical sources show that Black soldiers were not simply proving themselves to white America. They were actively fighting to shape what freedom and citizenship would mean after the war. - Todd H.
 ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?====== ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?======
  
Line 36: Line 60:
  
 This film is a lot like the historic sources presented in class. Glory is not exactly how I pictured it when I read the description and heard about it in class, it's better.  We talked about how in August  of 1862 the first black union troops formed. We see Robert Shaw gather, train, and eventually create this new branch of troops for the union. Shaw was set up to take on this role but he chose it anyhow. He eventually receives word that any black troops will be sent back to slavery and their white officers will be sentenced to death. We talked about this class about how some of the union did not want slaves in their army. We also talked about how the main reason for this preference was due to the fear that the slaves or ex-slaves would just give the guns that they received from the army to their owners. Even after all the threats of death or imprisonment, Shaw and his troops proceed. In class we also saw the talk of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, but it did not take into effect until late 1862 into early 1863.-- Autumn Morris This film is a lot like the historic sources presented in class. Glory is not exactly how I pictured it when I read the description and heard about it in class, it's better.  We talked about how in August  of 1862 the first black union troops formed. We see Robert Shaw gather, train, and eventually create this new branch of troops for the union. Shaw was set up to take on this role but he chose it anyhow. He eventually receives word that any black troops will be sent back to slavery and their white officers will be sentenced to death. We talked about this class about how some of the union did not want slaves in their army. We also talked about how the main reason for this preference was due to the fear that the slaves or ex-slaves would just give the guns that they received from the army to their owners. Even after all the threats of death or imprisonment, Shaw and his troops proceed. In class we also saw the talk of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, but it did not take into effect until late 1862 into early 1863.-- Autumn Morris
 +
 +Glory (1989) directly challenges the popular collective memory of the Civil War by reinvigorating discussions of the abolitionist movement and emancipation across Northern borders, and by showing that the North wasn't a clear-cut, anti-slavery movement, as previous media depictions of the Union Army have portrayed. To echo my peers, Civil War films prior either portrayed a heavy romanticization of the antebellum South, and thus the Confederate army, or portrayed the Union force as staunchly anti-slavery and anti-racism without margin for error; Glory (1989) acted almost as an intermediary. Furthermore, major studio productions rarely depicted a predominantly Black cast (feat. Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman, for starters), although there still remains the unfortunate "white savior" trope with Matthew Broderick as the leading protagonist. - Bailee E.
  
  
Line 51: Line 77:
  
 I care about this version of civil war history because of its contrast to our last film. Glory not only gives us insight to the union army, but also to those who eventually gained their freedom due to their victory. In our past film, gone with the wind, we got to see the south and their stance on the war. Southern states wanted to of course keep their slaves for their plantation production but wartime struggles show how the deep south truly changed. Southerners before and after the war hated the union or yankees because they ruined a lot of families' generational money as well as personal confidence. In Glory, we see all the hard times during the war for the union and all its troops. The union brings down harsh realities in the south. Glory matters because it can be relatable to other civil war movies but it is special as it through the lens of ex-slaves fighting for freedom. The trauma that Shaw sees in the early parts of the film are important to me because they reflect his direction as well as how he commands his troops' behavior and training. Shaw doesn't see war and fighting as a laughing matter. He sees unpreparedness and innocence in the eyes of his troops. Shaw becomes a harsh commander but his solidness is beneficial in the end. -- Autumn Morris I care about this version of civil war history because of its contrast to our last film. Glory not only gives us insight to the union army, but also to those who eventually gained their freedom due to their victory. In our past film, gone with the wind, we got to see the south and their stance on the war. Southern states wanted to of course keep their slaves for their plantation production but wartime struggles show how the deep south truly changed. Southerners before and after the war hated the union or yankees because they ruined a lot of families' generational money as well as personal confidence. In Glory, we see all the hard times during the war for the union and all its troops. The union brings down harsh realities in the south. Glory matters because it can be relatable to other civil war movies but it is special as it through the lens of ex-slaves fighting for freedom. The trauma that Shaw sees in the early parts of the film are important to me because they reflect his direction as well as how he commands his troops' behavior and training. Shaw doesn't see war and fighting as a laughing matter. He sees unpreparedness and innocence in the eyes of his troops. Shaw becomes a harsh commander but his solidness is beneficial in the end. -- Autumn Morris
 +
 +For all intents and purposes, Glory (1989) functions nearly as a historical document in cinematic form, representing a near-on-par representation of the Battle of Antietam and the 54th's devastating loss at the Battle of Wagner. Of course, like most media depictions, scenes and dialogue are dramatized for the sake of entertainment value, but regardless it remains truthful to the interdynamics of the Union and Confederate armies rather than pertaining to a classic "good Northerners" versus "bad Southerners" tale that has been deeply ingrained in the public mind. Alongside the fact that it provides a narrative that exemplifies black actors and tandemly black historical figures in the Civil War rather than rendering enslaved (and ex-enslaved) people as stereotypical 'props,' as seen in previous films, such as Gone With the Wind, in lieu of a white-centric narrative.  
 + - Bailee E.
  
329/question/329--week_7_questions_comments-2026.1792640901.txt.gz · Last modified: by 76.78.172.62