Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2026 [2026/10/22 10:20] – [How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?] 71.171.120.197
+++ 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2026 [2026/10/22 13:37] (current) – 199.111.65.35
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 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
@@ Line 22: / 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 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)?======
@@ Line 31: / Line 42: @@
 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?======