Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week. You do not need to post to all areas. – Dr. McClurken

DO NOT DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS – Please be careful as you add your posts that you are not deleting anyone else's work. – Dr. McClurken

====== How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history? ======

With regards to historical accuracy, the film Glory is unusual in some of the decisions that were made. It seems that quite a few of the more extremely historically accurate bits and pieces are not of particularly excessive importance to the plot at large. The example that came to mind was the hyper-specific fact that in the movie, the soldiers of the 54th are armed with 1853 Enfield Rifles instead of Springfield Model 1861 rifles. This, according to the writings of 54th soldier Cpl. James H. Gooding, is accurate. Whilst this detail might be of some interest to massive Civil War nerds, it doesn’t really do much for the plot at large. Of course, some of the historically accurate pieces of the movie are important for the message the film is trying to convey. For instance, it is true that Colored soldiers were paid $3 less than their white counterparts, and it seems, according to a letter from Gooding, that the men of the 54th weren’t particularly happy with that fact. That being said, there isn’t any evidence that the men at Camp Meigs defiantly tore up their paychecks, and there isn’t any evidence that Col. Shaw refused to take pay in support of his men (likely because Shaw had perished at Fort Wagner, months before Gooding lodged his complaint to President Lincoln). Of course, the general plot points are accurate enough, which might just be good enough for a film trying to tell the story of a unit that has not received its due credit outside of Massachusetts. - John M.

The film accurately shows the regiment’s formation, the leadership of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, and key events. It shows the discrimination faced by Black soldiers in the Union Army, However, the movie simplifies some historical complexities and uses fictional characters like to represent broader experiences. the film also focuses heavily on Shaw’s perspective which can overshadow the voices of the Black soldiers. Despite that, i think this film makes a great secondary source.

This film does a decent job overall when it comes to historical accuracy. Early on, details like the discussion of Antietam as a “great and terrible day” accurately represent how bloody the victory was. The pay differential for black soldiers was also accounted for. The patronizing, racist attitude of many white northerners and southerners was captured. Through Shaw’s conversation with Trip, we get a sense that at the time it wasn’t quite clear what a northern victory would mean for black people in America. Shaw’s death was also portrayed accurately, with him dying in the assault and getting thrown in a ditch later, as in Gooding’s account. I also thought the brutality of the battle scenes, especially the close combat, was close to how fighting would have been. Additionally, small things like the mention of the enfield muskets help to paint an increasingly accurate picture of the civil war era. - Owen

There was a fairly good amount of historical accuracy in Glory. Firstly, it did a good job of depicting the struggles and injustices endured by black soldiers such as earning lower pay than white soldiers and being doubted by fellow soldiers. The film also portrays how the Union was anti-slavery but didn't support racial equality. For example, black soldiers experienced racism and abuse from white Union soldiers. Another accuracy was the mention of "contraband". In the beginning of the movie, the governor said "General Hunter rounded up a bunch of slaves from the fields, called them contraband...". This is true, enslaved individuals escaped from the South to find "safety" in the North (Union). They were regarded as "contraband of war," they were not given back to their slave owners and instead put them to work as laborers as enemy property. (Hannah E.)

The movie got a few things historically correct. The 54th Regiment of black soldiers was a real regiment. The movie also showed the doubt and hesitance of white soldiers to let black soldiers fight. I feel a lot of the movies we have watched in this class sweep racist under the rug, whether it be for plot purposes or the time when the movie was made not really perceiving racism, but this movie was able to highlight the injustices black soldiers faced. They were seen more as objects, being called “contraband” and were paid significantly less than the white soldiers. I think the film also showed the atrocity and bloodiness of the war. -Leah B.

This film seeks to create a more nuanced depiction of war compared to the other films we have seen which addressed the topic, such as The Patriot and Gone With the Wind. In depicting the terrible brutality, difficult choices, and pride which war can bring, the film strives to create an atmosphere of authenticity within the film. A significant piece of creating that authenticity comes from the efforts the film made towards historical accuracy. For the most part, those efforts are successful and the film portrays the broad strokes of the events featuring the 54th regiment. Notably, the violence and hardship faced by the African American regiments at the hands of the white regiments was heavily emphasized. This is likely due to the fact that this historical detail helps to strengthen the narrative the film is trying to share about the hardship these soldiers faced and overcame. - Rickie

Glory effectively portrays several historical aspects of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, one of the first African American units in the Civil War. The film shows the formation of these regiments and the challenges Black soldiers faced in their quest to serve, highlighting their bravery and contributions despite significant racial prejudice. Colonel Robert Gould Shaw's leadership illustrates the dynamics between white officers and their Black troops, emphasizing his commitment to their cause. The depiction of the Battle of Fort Wagner is particularly notable, showcasing the soldiers' courage and sacrifice, though some dramatic elements are exaggerated for cinematic impact. Overall, while it takes some creative liberties, Glory serves as a powerful reminder of the struggles for dignity and equality in American history, honoring the legacy of those who fought for freedom. -Sam B

Glory is one of the more accurate films we’ve seen so far this semester. You can tell the filmmakers spent time going through Shaw's letters of his time leading the regiment. They also did a good job at portraying the unequal treatment and inequality many black soldiers faced. While some of that was dramatized, such as Montgomery’s harsh and racist ideology that seemed over dramatic compared to his real life counterpart, they have to cram 4 years of civil war opinions and ideations into a story about one regiment’s select months of service. As someone else pointed out, a lot of Shaw's soldiers weren’t actually formerly enslaved, but that wasn’t the case for all black regiments and the filmmakers did what they could to try and portray the attitudes and the actuality of that time. I also like that they depicted events as they happened. The battle at Fort Wagner wasn’t a victory and heavy losses were felt on the Union side, especially within the 54th. Shaw was killed and was in fact buried in a mass grave like they depicted. While most officers were to be honored, on either side, because of who Shaw was an officer to, deemed him as not honorable and unworthy in the eyes of the Confederate Soldiers.- Emma Galvin

As others have said, this film depicts the frequent poor treatment of Black soldiers, but specifically, the film included actual racist quotes from the time period. For example, in class, Dr. McClurken read a quote that I recognized when I heard it repeated verbatim in the film, which I'd rather not repeat again here, but the fact that they included it in dialogue shows that the filmmakers did their research and looked at primary sources in order to set an historically accurate atmosphere. It also touched on the fact that these soldiers were paid less than their white counterparts ($10 per month instead of $13) due to discrimination. -Jennifer

====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

The historical inaccuracies in Glory are, for the most part, not enough to damage the movie’s overall message (with one glaring exception). The fact that the vast majority of important characters are fictionalized (the exceptions being Col. Shaw, Col. Montgomery, and Gen. Harker) doesn’t necessarily take away from the film, though it could certainly be argued that there were enough notable soldiers in the 54th Massachusetts to use as characters in place of fictional ones (Cpl. Gooding, Sgt. Robert J. Simmons, and Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. William H. Carney come to mind). The Battle of Grimball’s Landing is seemingly condensed for time, which is not particularly problematic, as the film does a good job of portraying the elation that the men of the 54th felt after their first success in combat. Additionally, the opening charge at the Second Battle of Fort Wagner is made significantly bloodier, with artillery shells bombarding the men prior to nightfall, whereas in actuality, the 54th waited outside of artillery range for cover of darkness.

One particular historical inaccuracy with which I took excessive issue was the portrayal of Col. James Montgomery, commander of the all-Black 2nd South Carolina Volunteers. In the film, Montgomery is portrayed as a racist who formerly owned slaves, sees his Black soldiers as inhuman (even going so far as to summarily execute one and use racial slurs against the others), and serves as a lapdog to the also poorly-portrayed General Harker. The only reason that this was added in seems to be Col. Shaw’s documented discomfort and disapproval with Montgomery’s burning of Darien, GA, and perhaps to make the film more appealing to Southern audiences who may have still disapproved of the actions of men like Col. Montgomery and General Sherman, who fought a total war against slave-owning populations in the South. In reality, the reason for Montgomery’s willingness to torch a town full of Southerners stemmed from the fact that he was an unbelievably fanatical abolitionist for the vast majority of his life, following in the footsteps of men like John Brown, and perhaps even out-doing Col. Shaw himself in his devotion to the cause. He never owned slaves, saw his men as equals and heroes who had a right to destroy those who had oppressed them, and even went so far as to state to Col. Shaw that “We (all-Black Union regiments) are outlawed (by the Confederacy), and therefore not bound by the rules of regular warfare”. The fact that Montgomery is one of the only characters who was a real person, and that Glory is likely the only time he will be portrayed to a large public audience, makes this falsified depiction nothing short of a cheap and despicable alteration of the facts for the sake of giving the movie another villain it didn't need. - John M.

Glory’s depiction of the makeup of the 54th Massachusetts regiment as a majority of former slaves is inaccurate to the real makeup of the regiment. Colonel Shaw sought for the regiment to be elite, and so the vast majority of the unit were educated free men from the North. This goes against the depiction of the 54th as shown in the film, which centers on the regiment being formerly enslaved people, outside of Charles. This in of itself is not overly problematic, but it does change a lot of the character motivations/interactions within the film itself in such a way that wouldn’t be accurate to the real regiment. - Ewan H

The overall problem(s) from the film is that the inaccuracies shown are more so created to support the central theme of bravery and sacrifice. For one, Colonel Shaw's character ship is flawed in which throughout the film he was shown as aloof at first but would then grow into the leader that the 54th regiment needed at the time. However, Shaw in reality already had leadership qualities because of his full-on support for the abolitionist movement beforehand. The 54th regiment in reality already had battle experience beforehand before Battery Wagner in which they were involved in the Battle of Grimball's Landing just two days earlier. The charge at Fort Wagner itself was portrayed by the film that the group was annihilated off camera is not accurate because half of the group actually survived the assault which speaks to how they overall created mishaps to serve as portrayals towards the acts of bravery and sacrifice. - Alex

The film depicts the 54th Massachusetts Regiment as being comprised of former slaves. In actuality, a good majority of the regiment were freedmen that had already been living in the North. Notably, the sons of Frederick Douglass were a part of this regiment; the film fails to mention this fact however, which is surprising considering how significant a figure Douglass is. Additionally, a vast majority of the soldiers in the film are fictional. This creative decision was probably made in an effort to portray diverse perspectives on the types of people that joined the regiment and the background they came from. The film also makes it seem like the regiment was poorly equipped but they were more than properly equipped and only struggled with being utilized in combat which reflected the reluctance held at that time of employing black soldiers.- Vumiliya V.

While Glory is historically accurate in many areas, it does contain several inaccuracies and dramatizations. The portrayal of Colonel Shaw tends to present him as more progressive and sympathetic than some historical accounts suggest, simplifying his complex views of race. Additionally, the film dramatizes certain events and interactions among soldiers, which leads to an oversimplified depiction of relationships within the regiment. Casualty numbers at the Battle of Fort Wagner are also exaggerated, suggesting higher losses than historical records indicate. Furthermore, while the film highlights the bravery of the 54th Massachusetts, it underrepresents the contributions of other African American units in the Civil War. Lastly, some interactions between white soldiers and the 54th portray a level of hostility that wasn't universally applicable to all Union troops. Despite these inaccuracies, Glory remains a powerful portrayal of the experiences of African American soldiers during the Civil War. -Sam B

The depiction of the Black soldiers' level of skill and competency was inaccurate. It was problematic that while they were learning to march, the majority of them said that they literally did not know their right from their left. It made many of these men seem incompetent and childlike, when in reality, this was an elite group of fierce soldiers. They were also dramatized as wanting to fight in an idealistic manner, like they didn't really know what they had gotten into. These elements were hard to believe because it oversimplified and showed some of the soldiers as being too naïve, which was a stretch considering that a Black soldier was risking a lot to sign up for battle and would've been aware of what that entailed.- Jennifer

====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

This movie, in my opinion, doesn't really miss the mark much when in comparison to scholarly sources (like the primary sources for this week). The treatment described by sources of the time is what happened in the movie in terms of the treatment of Black soldiers, the discipline of the 54th regiment was something I saw especially portrayed well. However, I do wish that the movie, in its accuracy, would've pulled from real people a little more. There are countless accounts of formerly enslaved soldiers (like Trip) or freedman who joined the fight (like Searles), that I felt that the movie could've used those names or pulled from those experiences a little more. However, I understand that when they choose to do that, they become more limited in creative license. To revolve back to the sources, I felt that the interpretations still hit the target very well, and it didn't deviate much from what I read. - Caty

====== How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made? ======

The 1980s were a period of reflection on american history which marked by a wave of historical films that explored the nation's past with more nuance. Glory examines the complexities of heroism, race, and sacrifice during the Civil War. this era was also the post Vietnam war era. - Jedidia

As we have learned from many of the movies that we have seen so far, the 1980s and 90s loved their historical movies – this week was no different. But, one of the things I noticed about Glory compared to some of the others like The Patriot or The Last of the Mohicans was it was VERY accurate. There were a couple small mistakes, but those mistakes really aren’t that noticeable or important to the plot. So I think as a primary source, this movie shows that people are starting to look for more accurate historical representations of the past – even with some difficult subjects. Not only did the movie do well but even before it was released it showed signs of this shift towards the truth – the cast is STACKED. Even actors were wanting to get onboard with this trend. --Emma F.

Racism was still prevalent in the late 1980s, when Glory was produced. The film's account of the discrimination and unfair treatment that the 54th Regiment of the Union Army endured reflects the continuous fight for racial equality, in which racism and other biases existed in the 1980s.There was also a growing want of black representation in movies. Glory (as well as other films) represented a trend of stories that emphasized the historical contributions of black individuals. (Hannah E.)

This movie was made around the same time as Last of the Mohicans, and Pocahontas - both of which came later. What surprises me about this is how wrong those movies were in comparison to Glory. Additionally, Amistad was a Spielberg film, and I felt that this movie was leagues better in accuracy than that movie was. What strikes me about this is how Glory came first in the lineup and was better (I would argue). I find this particularly interesting as a primary source of the time in which it was made, because in the previous movies we've watched, we've discussed how inaccurate they were, whereas this one, made in an earlier year, is largely much better. I'm not entirely sure what that says about the 1990s, but I do think it's especially compelling that films almost went down in historical accuracy while promoting themselves to be more the opposite. - Caty

Glory, made in 1989, reflects the social issues of its time, such as racial inequality and the renewed interest in diverse historical narratives. By focusing on African American soldiers and the complexities of racism within the Union, the film mirrors the late '80s cultural conversations about race and history in America.-Ryan K

====== The "So What" Question ======

Glory is a blockbuster historical drama that was touted as an accurate portrayal of this interesting moment in Civil War history. The legacy of Glory as a critically acclaimed film (winning several academy awards) with actors that have starred in some of the most iconic movies of all time almost overshadows the fact that the movie is about real people and real events. By watching critically and adding scholarly context we can cut through the fame of the actors and drama of the movie to analyze how good a job Glory did at retelling the story of the 54th Massachusetts regiment. - Ewan H

The pivotal moment or battle in the Civil War being Fort Wagner for its importance in connection to Charleston serves as a critical aspect to the need for a Union victory as a push towards capturing Charleston to hopefully end the war at the time. Despite the Union loss at the battle of Wagner, they were able to inspire the Union to recruit more black men to fight in the war which would ultimately result in the Union defeating the Confederacy and the emancipation of enslaved persons within the rebelling states. The overall point of the film was to recognize African American contributions towards the war efforts and that their sacrifices should not be taken in vain; this push was to fight for future generations of African Americans so that they would not have to endure the bondage of slavery and they can live in a world with the ideals of our founding fathers of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. - Alex

Glory is one of a few Civil War films focused on the Union  and notably does the opposite of perpetuating a Lost Cause narrative and presents a history that primarily focuses the experiences, conflicts, and emotions of the African American characters, regardless of the fact that the main character is Robert Gould Shaw. This is a significant departure from the Civil War films that preceded it and this narrative, while maybe overly fictionalized in places, does contribute to creating a more diverse and rich historical narrative surrounding the Civil War in the public mind. - Rickie

This film is important because for many years up until this time, the primary piece of media people would have had available about the civil war were things like Gone with the Wind. Providing an interesting account of a real, history-making regiment in the context of the civil war that serves to push the general narrative in a more realistic, less morally egregious direction is a good thing. Giving us a story about the civil war where all the characters actually developed and had some depth is also a big deal. - Owen

There are a couple of reasons we should care about studying this movie. For one, it was a huge hit! It grossed $27 million on its initial release, was nominated for five academy awards (and won three), and starred some of the biggest actors namely: Morgan Freeman, Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Andre Brahmer, and that guy from The Princess Bride (aka Cary Elwes). Having such big names definitely brought people to the theaters – all of these people were rising stars at the time just coming off of their biggest films. This brings me to my next main point, its incredible historical accuracy. This movie truly does tell the story of the 54th infantry (besides a couple of liberties) which is important because telling true stories is important and tons of people went to the theaters to watch this story – this true story. It had a real impact on people. --Emma F.

While the film has its historical inaccuracies, its production is still important and significant. Earlier depictions of black people in film, particularly within a historical context, paints them as one-dimensional characters rooted in racial stereotypes. Within Glory, the soldiers are complex characters with depth and motivations; they have agency and act as agents of change in the fight for liberation. This depiction marks a change in societal perceptions of black people and how they are portrayed in film. By showcasing the story of this particular moment in history, the film highlights the contributions, bravery, and sacrifice of black soldiers during the civil war, making a powerful impact. - Vumiliya V.

I believe this movie did a better job than most movies during this time period of highlighting african american’s effort in the Civil War. I also think it did a good job at showing the racism that they had to endure, like having to prove their abilities, putting up with racist comments, and being underpaid. This movie did very well for the time, making millions of dollars and winning awards, while also spreading a fairly accurate story of the 54th Regiment that probably isn’t taught about in primary school (at least I didn’t learn about it in primary school).  Leah B

I think this movie is extremely important as far as historically based films go. It is fairly accurate, and while there are dramatizations and exaggerations of some characters' attitudes, it give the feeling of how african american soldiers were treated throughout the war. I think this is not only a captivating and interesting story in terms of film, but also in history. This would be a great film to introduce to someone who doesn't know a ton about history. It highlights a regiment not widely talked about in school and their role in the war. This movie is also relatively short compared to other war movies making it far more digestible. Along with that, they had fairly well known actors for 1989 with Cary Elwes known for the Princess Bride at the time and Matthew Broderick from Ferris Bueller. There was also Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. This draws people to see the movie and teaches them about something new. I think this movie is one of the better examples of history depicted in film and why period films can be so important. -Emma Galvin

Glory changes how we see the Civil War by showing the North's own struggles with racism. It challenges the simple idea that the North was just fighting to free the slaves. Unlike "Gone with the Wind," it focuses on the Union and the real human cost of war. This movie makes us look at history more honestly and ensures the stories of the oppressed are remembered. -Ryan K

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International