Glory Act 2 Scene 2 Analysis
When the 54th Regiment heads down South, they are put under the command of Colonel James Montgomery. In this scene, the Union army, under Montgomery’s control, pillages Darien, Georgia, stealing valuables from within the houses, and eventually burning the town.16 Creighton’s essay, while about Confederate soldiers, is similar to this scene as the corruption of morality is exemplified in the description of “independent bands of horsemen… [who] used the Confederate invasion as an opportunity to terrorize and pillage.”17 This pillaging is seen in Colonel Montgomery, who allowed his men to seize whatever they wanted and shoot at civilians’ houses, taking advantage of his authority for personal gain, similar to the independent horsemen, who took the Confederate soldiers as their authority and right to pillage the town. The night before the 54th Regiment was set to lead to attack on Fort Wagner, they held a religious ceremony. In this
…show more content…
scene, it is clear that the 54th see themselves as soldiers, ready and willing to die for their freedom. This is similar to the former slave that Glatthaar wrote about, who said, “this was the biggest thing that ever happened in my life… I felt like a man with a uniform on and a gun in my hand.”18 The sacrifices made by the men of the 54th—Rawlins, who left his young’uns and kinfolk in bondage—were all for this fight for freedom. The men of the 54th were finally able to prove themselves as soldiers. Rawlins’ confession that he left his family in bondage raises the question of whether his actions were done for freedom, manhood, or both. Prior to their attack on Fort Wagner, Shaw asks one of the reporters—tasked to report on his Regiment, watching the attack— if he could take some letters and personal things he has, in case he does not make it. Shaw also asks him that if he should fall, “remember what you see here.”20 This practice seems to be somewhat historically accurate, as soldiers would often write to their families before going to battle, or as they were dying, as well as having fellow soldiers write their families, should they fall, about how they fell and where they lay.19 While it was never mentioned that reporters were tasked with this duty, the scene seems to be a creation of Hollywood, as this reporter is seen more than once. One aspect of racial prejudice that was merely touched upon in the film was lies told to African American men in order to pressure them to enlist.
Joseph Miller, a former slave, enlisted in the Union army under the promise from the federal government that his family would be given food, shelter, and clothing, in exchange for his service as an enlisted soldier.21 However, when Union soldiers ordered his family to leave the tent they occupied, Miller wrote he “told him [a soldier] that I was a soldier of the United States. He told that it did not make any difference.”22 These types of empty promises made by the Union government were only slightly referenced in the film, such as the pay of African American men, $10, versus white soldiers, $13.23 Downs writes about these empty promises in his essay, stating, “the military often fail[ed] to pay black soldiers, or paid them less than promised.”24 This is seen slightly in the film, however, the film portrayed it as a one-time occurrence, rather than a continuous pattern of failing to pay
blacks. It is no secret that Hollywood romanticizes the past—that is its job. If it was not emotionally appealing to the audience, why create the film in the first place. The film Glory accurately portrays the racial prejudice that was commonplace during the Civil War. However, the film romanticizes the relationship between Colonel Shaw and his regiment, focusing on his character growth from a superior white Colonel to a member of the regiment. This romanticization raises other questions, such as the historical accuracy of the white Union soldiers cheering “give ‘em Hell, 54!” as the 54th Regiment marched toward Fort Wagner. It is hard to believe that these men would change their tune in such short time, as racism and prejudice did not just disappear. Other questions arise with the character of Colonel Robert Shaw, and his transformation from seeing himself as superior to African Americans, to seeing them as soldiers, equal to himself. Overall, the film Glory must be watched with the knowledge that Hollywood has added its own romantic touches to the story, leaving out important details that may have altered the viewer’s perception of the Union Army and Government.
scene, it is clear that the 54th see themselves as soldiers, ready and willing to die for their freedom. This is similar to the former slave that Glatthaar wrote about, who said, “this was the biggest thing that ever happened in my life… I felt like a man with a uniform on and a gun in my hand.”18 The sacrifices made by the men of the 54th—Rawlins, who left his young’uns and kinfolk in bondage—were all for this fight for freedom. The men of the 54th were finally able to prove themselves as soldiers. Rawlins’ confession that he left his family in bondage raises the question of whether his actions were done for freedom, manhood, or both. Prior to their attack on Fort Wagner, Shaw asks one of the reporters—tasked to report on his Regiment, watching the attack— if he could take some letters and personal things he has, in case he does not make it. Shaw also asks him that if he should fall, “remember what you see here.”20 This practice seems to be somewhat historically accurate, as soldiers would often write to their families before going to battle, or as they were dying, as well as having fellow soldiers write their families, should they fall, about how they fell and where they lay.19 While it was never mentioned that reporters were tasked with this duty, the scene seems to be a creation of Hollywood, as this reporter is seen more than once. One aspect of racial prejudice that was merely touched upon in the film was lies told to African American men in order to pressure them to enlist.
Joseph Miller, a former slave, enlisted in the Union army under the promise from the federal government that his family would be given food, shelter, and clothing, in exchange for his service as an enlisted soldier.21 However, when Union soldiers ordered his family to leave the tent they occupied, Miller wrote he “told him [a soldier] that I was a soldier of the United States. He told that it did not make any difference.”22 These types of empty promises made by the Union government were only slightly referenced in the film, such as the pay of African American men, $10, versus white soldiers, $13.23 Downs writes about these empty promises in his essay, stating, “the military often fail[ed] to pay black soldiers, or paid them less than promised.”24 This is seen slightly in the film, however, the film portrayed it as a one-time occurrence, rather than a continuous pattern of failing to pay
blacks. It is no secret that Hollywood romanticizes the past—that is its job. If it was not emotionally appealing to the audience, why create the film in the first place. The film Glory accurately portrays the racial prejudice that was commonplace during the Civil War. However, the film romanticizes the relationship between Colonel Shaw and his regiment, focusing on his character growth from a superior white Colonel to a member of the regiment. This romanticization raises other questions, such as the historical accuracy of the white Union soldiers cheering “give ‘em Hell, 54!” as the 54th Regiment marched toward Fort Wagner. It is hard to believe that these men would change their tune in such short time, as racism and prejudice did not just disappear. Other questions arise with the character of Colonel Robert Shaw, and his transformation from seeing himself as superior to African Americans, to seeing them as soldiers, equal to himself. Overall, the film Glory must be watched with the knowledge that Hollywood has added its own romantic touches to the story, leaving out important details that may have altered the viewer’s perception of the Union Army and Government.