This movie gets quite a lot right, despite some of the dramatization. It is correct that Robert Gould Shaw was picked to lead the 54th because of his abolitionist background (which in part was due to his family) and combat experience. It is true that the men of the 54th came from diverse backgrounds, men like Private Trip represent the men who were formerly enslaved and men like Thomas represent the men who were born into freedom in the north. In the scene where Shaw is told he will be Colonel of the 54th, Frederick Douglass is in room. While that exact scene may have never actually played out, Douglass' two sons would go onto serve in the Regiment. The movie does a good job too of showing the historical dichotomy between black men finally being able to officially serve in the United States armed forces to fight some of their former oppressors and continuing to face racism and discrimination in their own army. This movie takes a lot from James Henry Gooding’s letters during the war — he would serve in the 54th for the duration of the war. One sentiment that is echoed repeatedly throughout Gooding’s letters that the movie emphasizes is the belief amongst the black soldiers that their service was honorable and would bring them dignity and respect within a greater American society. The movie contrasts this belief with scenes of white union soldiers jeering at men in the 54th, even using a direct quote from a letter at the time where a white soldier said he would prefer hogs to black troops because at least you could eat the hogs. While the movie follows Gooding’s writing quite well — especially the entries where he discusses the action they saw in South Carolina, it is interesting how none of the black soldiers are ever seen writing. Gooding at the time addressed his writing to the New Bedford Mercury; however, Shaw is the only one shown interacting with a newspaper correspondent on the front. This would be an example of the dramatization that the directors took on occasion, most likely to simplify or speed up the plot. – Nora M.

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.

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

It seems to get most of the general course of events in history correct, but there were a few notable inaccuracies, such as the 54th having to fight to get needed supplies when in actuality they got all the supplies they requested without trouble, and also whipping was not allowed, so there would have been no such occurrence as that of what happened with Trip's character in the film. The 54th was also composed mostly of freedmen rather than former slaves. I believe they added these hardships to further emphasize how difficult it was for black people to fight in the civil war, as well as the troubles involved with being black in general at this time, but they could have done so in a way that was more historically factual. Also, the postscript states that Fort Wagner was never taken by Union troops, when it in fact was abandoned by the Confederates in 1863 later on after an attack by the Union Navy. - Leo Tooks

While reflecting upon Susie King Taylor’s accounting of her life and experience in camp with 33rd United States Colored Troops, late 1st South Carolina Volunteers (S.C.I), I noticed how overlooked or non-existent the presence of women, especially their role in military camps with the army during the war was in this film. This is despite its depiction of the life of military men in camp being very accurate, down to the division between officers and enlisted and the enlisted cooking for themselves and being engaged in various different activities. The famous opening scene serves as a great example of this, prominently showing the men’s boredom, movements, and amusements in the calm before the battle and those wounded, dying, and dead in the hospital after. Yet, these two places, the camp and hospital, would be places that would feature women serving as nurses, cooks, and laundresses such as the famous Cara Barton who was present at Antietam, women even served disguised as male soldiers in the battle. There is a complete absence of an accurate female presence in these or many such scenes in the film. In fact, I’d challenge anyone who sees the film to note any female characters, aside from the Southern woman who yells out the n-word. I find it especially noteworthy the role of teaching literacy, a role held by the former enslaved woman Susie King Taylor, to others in the camp is given, in the film, Andre Braugher’s character of Cpl. Thomas Searles, a free-born man of Massachusetts’ abolitionist intelligentsia who enlists as a soldier. Overall, this potentially is part of the overall theme that most Civil War films and films on military history are both targeted towards male audiences, leading them to either view female characters through their relations to male ones or ignore female depictions altogether, ironically contrasting with Gone with the Wind (more racist, more inaccurate, and more focused on female leads and characters). - Charles Salcedo

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.

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.

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.

It works well, showing a big turning point in history in which the counterculture movement affected media consumption heavily. Studios were becoming more comfortable with showing the detriments of racism and the sheer horror of slavery and the overall faults in our country's past. However, it is still a product of its time, in that it still refuses to have the main character be a black person. Everything is still seen from the perspective of a privileged white man, likely so that white audience members can identify themselves with the “good” white person, when in reality Shaw had used slurs to refer to black people frequently in his personal writings despite being an abolitionist. - Leo Tooks

I agree with a lot of what Leo is saying here above. I also noticed quickly on into the movie that while the Black members of the regiment did get their own scenes, the White colonels and generals were clearly the main characters in the movie. The only character that we really get to see or know more beyond his action in the movie is General Shaw when his narration of his letters to his mother are read aloud. It reminded me of the film Amistad and how while the story itself is centered around this group of African Americans, the predominant characters are the White men who help them get to their end goal. Leo's comment about the making the main character the White man to make audiences resonate or root for the “good” White person made me think about the question Dr. McClurken posed in class about how did casting/having Matthew Broderick play General Shaw change the way we/audiences see the story. I've never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off (sorry!), but I know the general premise of the movie and that Broderick's character is a funny, light-hearted teenage boy. That's what audiences associate the actor with, and I'm assuming that they go into this movie already having a softspot for him that they then may project onto his character, which ties into this idea that Leo brought up about how majority White audiences are identifying with General Shaw's character in this film and seeing him as the “good guy” even though he does some pretty terrible things throughout the movie. – Grayson D.

Glory works as a primary source in that it well represents a sort of “middle period” in how slavery and race relations were depicted in American media. By the time of the film’s release, it was now standard for historical films to be explicitly anti-slavery, lack any romanticization of the antebellum South, and to show at least in part how violent slavery could be. Glory goes an additional step and includes numerous cases of white northerners being racist to black people, which is a part of history that would not have always been well portrayed at this time. However, Glory is also of an age where not all elements regarding the depiction of slavery and black characters were as they would be in a more modern film. The plot of Glory is overwhelmingly driven by the white characters, and they serve as the main characters of the film, rather than the black characters who are shown to have a greater investment in the conflict in many ways. This is the most notable example of an element from the film that dates it in a negative light to modern audiences. Overall, both factors in combination contribute to Glory being a film of its time, and they reveal how it can be seen as a primary source. - Hunter M.

I think we should care about Glory because it showed how people in the Kate 1980s were starting to look at American history from the perspectives that weren’t talked about in movies before. The movie came out in 1989, and it brought attention to the 54th Massachusetts Regiment and the role Black soldiers played during the Civil War. Before movies like this, a lot of popular Civil War stories focused more on the white soldiers and the battles between the North and the South, without really showing any of the experiences of Black Americans. I think Glory was important because it made audiences fave the racism and discrimination that Black soldiers experiences, even while they were fighting for the same country that treated them as unequal. However, the movie still tells much of the story through Colonel Shaw, a white officer, instead of focusing entirely on the Black soldiers themselves. So, I think we can use Glory as a primary source because it shows how filmmakers in 1989 wanted people to understand the Civil War and how America was slowly beginning to recognise parts of its history that had been overlooked due to the actions we wanted to erase from remembering. —Cait Edwards.

Although Glory depicts events from the Civil War, it can also be viewed as a primary source for understanding the United States in 1989, when the film was produced. The movie reflects a growing interest in highlighting the contributions of African Americans that had often been overlooked in traditional historical narratives. By centering the experiences of Black soldiers in the 54th Massachusetts Regiment and addressing issues of racism, equality, and recognition, the film reveals the concerns and values of late twentieth-century America. During the 1980s, there was increased attention to civil rights history and the need for more inclusive representations of the past. As a result, Glory serves not only as a portrayal of the Civil War but also as evidence of how Americans in 1989 were reexamining history and seeking to bring previously marginalized voices into the national story. -Alyssa G.

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.

Glory (1989) is an important movie to watch and discuss because I think it provides more nuance and clarity for a topic that I think many Americans tend to generalize. The Civil War was of course a fight between the North and South based on ideological and moral grounds for varying reasons, but I think, like Dr. McClurken pointed out in class, the general public's understanding is largely rooted in hindsight in that abolition is seen as something that was continuously a major part of the fight for northerners. Making a movie that highlights an all Black regiment that for some may be unknown and showing the events that led to abolition and the approval of Black soldiers in the Union Army changes or complicates (in a good way) the overall narrative of the Civil War for Americans. – Grayson D.

We should care about Glory’s version of history because it does make a very good-faith attempt to tell a story that had previously not been shown in film. While it does make dramatizations of events and include some more minor plot points that are not historically accurate, it is overall very faithful to historical events. It notably does not perpetuate the myth that all northerners were abolitionists or against racism, which can commonly arise in the context of depictions of the Civil War. Additionally, Glory is notable for its focus on specifically the Massachusetts 54th regiment, as Civil War movies had historically not put as much emphasis on the importance of black soldiers to the war effort. Finally, Glory also is notable as a film for proving the ability of comedic actors like Matthew Broderick and Cary Elwes to appear in a serious historical film, paving the way for other primarily comedic actors to make similar jumps in style in the future. - Hunter M.

This movie came out in 1989 and featured a lot of prominent actors that would later go on to have stellar careers, such as Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Matthew Broderick. The fact that this movie is important in all three men’s repertoires and the fact that those three men are essential to American popular culture in the late 20th century through the beginning of the 21st century says something about the mark that this movie made and is still making. This movie gets a lot right about history and includes some powerful imagery about the racial bounds this country has always adhered to. Whenever I see this movie, I always intently watch the final scene where Shaw’s body is thrown in the same pit as Private Trip’s — their eyes closed and their bodies lifeless. Their faces touch as they slowly move down the mass grave dug into the sand. This imagery is incredibly powerful and leaves the audience with one clear message: death will treat us all the same. No matter the difference of skin color between the two men, or their journeys and arcs in the movie, or their backgrounds, they die the same death and get buried alongside each other. Their relationship begins when Trip is wrongfully accused of desertion and is whipped in an institution that promised to bring him respect of the white man. Throughout the movie, there are several scenes where both try to understand each other, like when they are in South Carolina and Shaw promises Trip that the war will end. That end is simply their deaths, where the social and racial bounds are broke by the mass grave. We, as the viewers, are then passed the torch of that understanding. We should care about the artistic brilliance of this film right alongside its historical accuracy of the 54th Massachusetts. – Nora M.

We should care about Glory and its version of the 54th because it attempts to bring “glory” and light to their story through a dramatized film. It reiterates that Black men and people are integral (specifically as soldiers) to the Civil War, and their stories and experiences are important in understanding the war. Glory also allows prominent Black actors to play in a movie about the Black experience, which still is not always prioritized in Hollywood. This film generally uplifts the Black soldiers and in turn uplifts the actors—resulting in Denzel Washington to receive his first Oscar, adding to the legacy and history of Black actors being celebrated for their hard work. - Aaliyah A.

We should care about Glory and its version of history because it brings attention to the important role that African American soldiers played in the Civil War, a contribution that was often overlooked in many historical accounts. The film helps audiences understand the challenges Black soldiers faced, including racism, unequal treatment, and questions about their ability to serve in combat. By highlighting the courage and sacrifice of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, Glory encourages viewers to think critically about whose stories are remembered and whose are left out of history. Even if some aspects are dramatized for film, the movie helps make an important chapter of American history more accessible and demonstrates how the fight for equality has deep historical roots that continue to be relevant today. -Alyssa G.

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.