Society for History Education
"Glory," the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, and Black Soldiers in the Civil War
Author(s): Joseph T. Glatthar
Source: The History Teacher, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Aug., 1991), pp. 475-485
Published by: Society for History Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/494706
Accessed: 29/04/2010 09:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=history.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Society for History Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
History Teacher.
http://www.jstor.org
"Glory,"the 54th MassachusettsInfantry,
and Black Soldiers in the Civil War
Joseph T. Glatthar
Universityof Houston
IN 1988, PERHAPS THE MOST POWERFULFILM of the year was
"MississippiBurning."Based on a real-life experience,it was the storyof
the murderof three civil rights workers in a small, 1960s Mississippi
community and the ensuing searchfor the culprits.To all its viewers, the
violence, intimidation,andsolidarityof the white populationleft a marked
impression.Unfortunately,the screenwritersalteredtheroleof theFederal
Bureau of Investigation, converting obstructionists into heroes. Such
tamperingwith reality evoked a steady streamof criticism and may have
cost the film the prize for best picturein the 1989 Academy Awards.
The succeeding year,"Glory"may have been the year's most powerful
movie. It, too, was a storyof real life, aboutCol. RobertGould Shaw and
the 54th Massachusetts(Colored)Infantryin the Civil War.And although
the film failed to receive a nominationfor best picture at the Academy
Awards, much to the chagrinof critics and viewers, the film received the
second largesttotal of "Oscars."Butjust how accuratewas the film? Did
it portrayblack soldiersand theirwhite officers in a properlight?Was the
regiment highlighted, the 54th Massachusetts, representativeof black
militaryservice in the Civil War?If not, what sortsof misguidedperceptions did this movie teach the uniformedpublic? My answers to these
questionswill be basedon archivalevidence andon my own book dealing
with blacksoldiersandwhiteofficers in theCivil War.I will pointout what
The History Teacher
Volume 24
Number 4
August 1991
476
Joseph T. Glatthar
I considerto be excusableandinexcusabledistortionsof historyin thefilm
andask, wherethe film is purelyfictional,whetherit is or is not conveying
a real sense of actual events and humanrelationships.
"Glory" revolves around two sets of characters,Col. Robert Gould
Shaw and his close friend,the fictional Maj.CabotForbes, andfour black
soldiers, also fictional. One of those black men, an intellectualand longtime friendof Shaw andForbes,servesas a nexus betweenthe two groups,
and throughout much of the film this character named Thomas fits
comfortablywith the white men.
The movie begins, appropriatelyenough, at the battle of Antietam,
where Shaw sustainsa wound and wherea Federalrepulseof the Confederate invading force enables President Abraham Lincoln to issue the
EmancipationProclamationfrom a position of greaterstrength.We see,
betterthanin any otherCivil Warfilm, the confusion,brutality,andhorror
of the battlefield,butalso its pageantryandexcitement.The viewercannot
help butadmiretheenormouscourage,andpowerfulsense of commitment
to a cause, thatenables these tightly-packedranksto fight in a seemingly
hopeless situation.
Fromthis point, however,themovie conformsonly loosely to historical
fact. After a savage hospital scene, the movie picks up young Shaw at a
cocktail party,where MassachusettsgovernorJohn Andrew offers him a
commission to raise a black regiment,by implication(false) the first one
of its kind, in the presenceof an apparentlyaged FrederickDouglass, who
was actuallyin his mid-fortiesduringthe war.Shaw promptlyaccepts this
monumentaltask and calls upon his friend CabotForbes to assist him.
At Readville, Massachusetts,Shaw begins to assemble his black command. There he and an Irish sergeantdrill and toughen the men for the
hardshipsof combat. Shaw andForbesclash as they reconcile abolitionist
principles and friendship for Thomas with military structureand the
necessity to prepare the men for battle. At the same time, a strongly
independentex-slave namedTripgrappleswith thenotionof takingorders
from others,especially white men, as well as coming to rely on others for
his safety. Slowly, throughattentionto duty and supportfor the principle
of equaltreatmentamongblackandwhitetroops,Shawwins over themen,
except for the recalcitrantTrip.
Finally, after a rousing paradethroughthe streets of Boston, the 54th
Massachusettsembarksfor the war zone, a theatreof tertiaryimportance,
SouthCarolina.ThereShawandhis men encounterprejudiceagainstblack
service in combat.Militaryauthoritiesemploy themon a plunderingraid,
which humiliatesShaw and his men, and it is only throughblackmailthat
the 54th is allowed to join an active campaignthat will enable its men to
demonstratevalor on the field of battle.In its first fight, the 54th Massa-
"Glory," the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, and Black Soldiers in the Civil War
477
chusetts performsheroicallyand disproves all notions thatblacks did not
possess the characterto standup in combat. Trip, with years of pent up
frustrationagainst the white race, is a terror-possibly savage--on the
battlefield,as he alone disposes of numerousConfederates.The intellectual Thomas, on the other hand, is shaken by the horror of battle.
Nevertheless, Thomas rises above his fear and a painful wound to kill a
man and save Trip's life. Thomas thenearnsthe respectof Trip, who had
ridiculed the accommodationistThomas as "Snowflake"throughoutthe
movie, and also of the officers and men of the 54th, because of his
insistence on staying with the regimentdespite a nasty wound. Trip, too,
gains enormousrespectfrom the men and is nominatedfor a commendation by the black sergeantmajor.
As the 54th Massachusettsmoves into position for an attackon Fort
Wagnerthe next day, white soldiers who had disparagedthese black men
just days earlier, now cheer them and urge, "Give 'em hell, 54th." The
attackon Fort Wagneris near suicidal, as Shaw, Trip, and othersdie and
are buried together. In that failed assault, however, the courage of the
officers and men of the 54th convinces the governmentto recruitmore
black soldiers. Their death won opportunityfor others.
The Shaw we see is a sober,disciplinedyoung man, older and wiser in
characterthanhis twenty-fiveyears.He appearsstaunchlyabolitionistbut
tempersthis with knowledge of whatcombat is like and thatdiscipline is
necessary if his regiment is to perform well in battle. Only through
segments of actual lettersto his parents,which are read periodicallyand
sometimes do not correspondwith the time frame of the movie, do we
obtain a glimpse into his personal side. Shaw is shown to be deeply
philosophical(he readsRalphWaldoEmersonin his tentat night),warmly
devoted to his family and the cause, impressedby the greatresponsibility
of being a company and latera regimentalcommander,and surprisedto
discover his fine leadershipqualities.
While the missives Shaw sent to his parentsenable us to see certain
components of his personality,his actual letters in the archives (but not
sharedwith the viewers of the film) to best friend Charley Morse reveal
somethingvery different.This Shaw is lively and passionate,much more
the witty and frolicsome twenty-five year old. He is a popularman, with
scores of friends,and is deeply in love with a New York woman.Like the
film version, this Shaw is a staunchabolitionistand recognizes the great
responsibility of commanding a black regiment, but he also likes and
appreciatesthe promotionto the rankof colonel.
The movie viewer also gets no real sense that Shaw carried racial
baggage. In the lettersto CharleyMorse we see Shaw as a white manof his
times. There he refers to the debate over the use of black troops as "the
478
JosephT. Glatthar
nigger question"andplays upracialstereotypes.In one letter,for example,
Shaw draws upon the white man's caricatureof blacks and claims that
physical differences interferewith a black soldier's ability to drill: "The
heel questionis not a fabulousone-for some of themarewonderfulin that
line-[.] One man has them so long that they actually preventhim from
makingthe facings properly."This is a very differentShaw thanwe see in
his letters to his parentsand in the film.'
Unlike Shaw, thefourblacksoldiersarenot basedon any individualsin
the 54th Massachusetts.Along with the intellectualThomas, there is the
recalcitrantTrip, a runaway who had sustained severe whippings in
slavery; the sergeantmajor, an ex-slave and formergrave digger whose
sage counsel and solid characterhelp the 54th develop into an excellent
regiment; and a stuttering freedman from South Carolina, naive yet
endearing in his deep sense of religion and the way he cherishes the
prospects of freedom.
In fact, the screenwriter,KevinJarre,may havefoundgreateremotional
power had he reliedon the actualblacksoldiersof the 54th Massachusetts.
What could be more dramaticthana regimentwith FrederickDouglass's
son as sergeantmajor, or a sergeantlike William Carney,the first black
Medalof Honorrecipientwho rescuedthe flag at FortWagnerdespitefour
wounds (one in each leg, anotherin his chest, and the last one in his right
arm), or even Sgt. Robert J. Simmons, who sustaineda mortal wound
fighting for reunionand freedomthreedays aftera white New York City
mob had terrorizedhis motherand sister and clubbed to deathhis sevenyear old nephew?2
By comparison,the real 54th was quitedifferentfrommost black units.
It was a regimentraised with considerablefanfarethroughoutthe North,
andover seventy-five percentof its black soldierswere bornin free states.
Except for Louisianaregimentsmade up of free blacks, it tendedto have
more skilled workersthanmost otherblack commands,and based on the
numberof lettersthathave survivedor were publishedin newspapers,its
men were highly literate,probablymore so thanother black troops.3
Because the 54th Massachusettsattractedmany of the finest young
black men the North had to offer, it took the lead in several key issues.
Along with its sister regiment, the 55th MassachusettsInfantry,which
drew a numberof its blackand white leadersfrom the 54th, it initiatedthe
fight for equalpay, andsteadfastlyrefuseda substandardwage for the same
work and risks. When Governor Andrew attempted to intervene and
provide the difference between the U.S. Government'spay for black and
white soldiers, the regiment again protested.The equal pay issue was a
matterof principle, that the federal governmenttreatall its soldiers the
same, and not one of money.4
"Glory,"the 54th MassachusettsInfantry,and Black Soldiers in the Civil War
479
In anotherareaof discrimination,its blacknon-commissionedofficers
challenged the policy thatkept qualifiedblack men from commissions as
officers in combatunits.Althoughblacksandmanywhites in the regiment
failed to win the fight over the promotionof Hospital StewardTheodore
Becker to assistant surgeon, due to the objections of two white officers,
they eventuallywon the promotionof threemen to lieutenancieslate in the
war.5
The 54th's white officers, too, were differentfrom those of most black
units. GovernorJohnAndrewhad sought"forits officers-particularly its
field officers-young men of military experience, of firm anti-slavery
principles,ambitious,superiorto a vulgarcontemptfor color, andhaving
faith in the capacity of colored men for militaryservice."6With the likes
of Shaw, Edward and Penrose Hallowell, and many others, Andrew
probablyassembledmoreactiveabolitionistsforit andthe55th Massachusetts Infantrythanfor any otherblackunits which servedin the war.Many
of them fully supportedtheir black men in the battles over equal pay,
promotion of qualified individuals, and the use of black regiments in
combat.7
Apparently,in departingfromhistoricalfact the screenwriterwas using
the 54 Massachusettsas a vehicle to representtheexperienceof most black
soldiers. In the film the viewer senses correctlythat a preponderanceof
black soldiers were ex-slaves. Of the 178,000 black males who actually
served in the Union Army, 144,000 came from slave states. In the movie
(again,contraryto fact), Shawrelied on a white sergeantto drillhis troops.
The impression conveyed is correct, however, because during the war,
most blackregimentsdid have white firstsergeants,whose purposewas to
teach various tacticalmaneuversto the troopsand who served as replacements when vacancies as lieutenants developed. The real 54th Massachusetts,however,used blackenlistees, "whohave been well drilled,& are
acting sergeants-[.] They drill their squads with a great deal of snap,"
insisted Shaw.8
Ratherthanadhererigidlyto historicalaccuracy,the screenwriteropted
to createaffairsandevents thatdramatizedcertainimportantexperiences.
They depict Tripas the leaderin the rejectionof unequalpay, when Shaw
was actuallythe one who declaredunacceptable$7 per month,plus $3 for
a clothing allowance, while white privatesearned$13 per month and $3
for clothing and higher ranks received higher pay. By having a black
soldier lead the protest, though, the screenwriterconveyed a critical
message, that even within the circumscribedworld of military service,
blacks were a force. In truth,they had means of influencing the world
aroundthem, of takingmattersinto theirown hands when individualsor
the system were treatingthem unfairly.9
480
Joseph T. Glatthar
Again, the screenwritermanufactureda fictionalconfrontationbetween
Colonel Shaw and a major who is a quartermaster,to obtain necessary
shoes for his troops. Shaw coerces the quartermasterthroughphysical
intimidationinto providingbasic necessities for his men. Inretrospectthis
event smacksof improbability.It is difficultto believe thata colonel could
not obtain shoes and uniforms from a major for his troops who were
stationed in Massachusettsin close proximity to where the shoes and
uniforms were made, or that the major would justify his actions on a
shortage.'0However,the incidentdoes highlighttheintenseracialdifficulties anddownrightobstructionistattitudethatmanywhitesadoptedtoward
black soldiers. Time after time, particularlyin 1862 and 1863, Union
soldiersandNortherncivilians attemptedto undercutthe greatexperiment
of black militaryservice. White mobs in and out of uniformstoned black
commandsandpickedfights withblacksoldiers.Blackunitswereassigned
to the most degrading duties and provided with inferior to inadequate
equipment to accomplish assignments. It was a conscientious effort to
debase black soldiers and theirwhite officers, and only theirperformance
in combat quelled this abuse."
Shaw's fight for shoes also suggests the very real importanceof white
officers standingup for theirblack soldiers. Racial discriminationin the
North and enslavement in the South had convinced blacks to look upon
whites with a jaundicedeye. Certainlya willingness on the partof whites
to commandblack soldiersgave themstandingwith theirenlistedmen, but
it was still imperativethatwhite officers performacts thatindicateda real
interest in the well-being of their black troops. Often white officers
accomplished this by assisting black soldiers in personaldifficulties that
arose in the transitionfrom slavery to freedom,or by takinga public stand
in oppositionto whites andin supportof theirblack men. In the film it was
only when Shaw took a personal interest in the welfare of his men in
fighting discriminationand obtaining shoes that he really began to win
their confidence. A willingness to command them gave Shaw some
respect; waging a successful battle against discrimination won their
hearts.'2
Even though Shaw never, as the movie incorrectly depicts, had to
blackmail his superiorofficers into sending the 54th Massachusettsinto
battle, the hesitancy and in many cases unwillingness of high-ranking
officers to employ black troops in combat was very real. Many whites,
includinggeneralofficers, believed the black race lacked the characterto
sustain itself during the arduousnessof combat. One, in fact, Maj. Gen.
TrumanSeymour,was second in commandof the attackon FortWagner.
While planning the assault Seymour told his superiorofficer, "Well, I
guess we will let Stronglead andputthose d d niggers fromMassachu-
"Glory,"the 54th MassachusettsInfantry,and Black Soldiers in the Civil War
481
setts in the advance;we may as well get ridof themone time as another."
Clearly Seymour was suggesting thatthey dispose of the problemof the
black soldiers in the department,and the entire issue of black military
service, in this one assault."
Where the screenwriter excelled is his masterful portrayal of the
"human" dimensions of the military experience. Nothing was more
thrillingfor black soldiers,as the movie indicates,thanreceiving weapons
and donning the blue uniformfor the first time. In thatmomentthe federal
governmentwas acknowledging thatblacks could contributein real and
significant ways in times of nationalcrisis. The Union was admittingthat
blacks were an integralcomponentof this nation,and the enormouspride
that black soldiers felt at that instant was something they never forgot.
"This was the biggest thing thatever happenedin my life," recalled one
black veteran."Ifelt like a man with a uniformon and a gun in my hand."
Anotherblacksoldier, a formerslave, may have describedit best when he
wrote, "I felt freedom in my bones."'14
Moreover,when thefederalgovernmentplacedthatblue uniformon the
black man, and a rifled musket in his hand,it signalled more clearly than
ever before that he was to take an active role in freeing his family and
ancestors from bondage. "We are fighting for liberty and right," pronounceda blacksergeant,"andwe intendto follow the old flag while there
is a man left to hold it up to the breeze of heaven. Slavery must and shall
Black soldiers became the embodimentof the hopes and
pass away.""'5
dreamsof millions andmillions of blacksthroughoutthe NorthandSouth,
and theyvowed to endureany andall hardshipsto terminatethe institution
of slavery.
The movie displays with wonderfulclaritythe way combatdrawsmen
together. Soldiers in battle depend on one anotherfor survival, and that
forges powerful bonds among them. That first engagement of the 54th
MassachusettsforeverendearedShaw to the men. All the drilling,all the
training,all the hard work paid dividends in battle. He had preparedthe
men well for combat and then stood alongside them throughoutthe fight.
All now knew he hadbeen hardon them to save lives and to enhancetheir
performanceon the battlefield.
Even more strikingis the relationshipthatdevelops between Thomas
andTrip. Otherthantheirracialheritageand theiroutsiderstatuswith the
other soldiers, the two men have little in common. Thomas is an intellectual who has enjoyed the benefits thatfew of his racehave. He is polished,
urbane,and gentlemanly.Trip, on the other hand, is an ex-slave, beaten
terribly during bondage, who has survived by looking out for himself.
Unlike Thomas,he has very little hope the whiteman will reformhis ways
of mistreatingmen andwomen of Africandescent,andhe is openly hostile
482
Joseph T. Glatthar
to all who take ordersfrom whites. Trip regularlytauntsand humiliates
Thomas, until the two men enter combat. There, with their lives in
jeopardy,Thomasrises up in a fit of passion and saves Trip's life. At that
instant a bond is establishedbetween two very dissimilarmen, and also
between each one of them and their comrades in the 54th. From that
momenton, when lives areat stake,bothsoldiersknow thattheycan count
on one anotherand theirfellow soldiers.
The night before the assault on Fort Wagner,in what may be the most
effective scene of the entiremovie, the blacksoldierssit arounda campfire
and sing spirituals.They are an entirely differentset of fellows thanhad
assembled in Massachusettsjust five months earlier, and have gathered
togetherto cleanse theirsouls on the eve of combat.Therethey find solace
in religion and one another.Soldiers announcetheir belief in a just God
who will see them throughthe day or take theirlives in a noble cause and
permitthementryinto a new worldof everlastingpeace andfreedom.From
God they derive strengthand collectively they will harnessthatmight in
battle.Aroundfromone soldierto anotherit goes, andwhen it is Trip'sturn
he makesa confession. He neverhada family andhadalways been a loner.
But for the first time in his life he feels thereareothersupon whom he can
rely. In an act that requires all his courage, he admits that the 54th
Massachusettsis now his family.
Such adaptationswith historicalfact help to develop very real underlying concepts, but some errorsin the movie serve no apparentpurposeand
only convey a false image. In such instancesthe uninformedaudience is
misled and the film loses credibility with knowledgeableviewers. What
was the benefit of conveying the impressionthat the 54th Massachusetts
was the first black regimentcreatedin the war?Was it necessaryfor the
screenwriterto alterthechronologyandhave Shawdiscussingthe"recent"
battleof Fredericksburg,foughtin December 1862, while he was whipping
his black soldiers into shape, even though Governor Andrew did not
receive authorizationfrom the War Departmentto organize the 54th
Massachusettsuntil the end of January1863? Why did the screenwriter
include the fictional execution by Col. James Montgomeryof a black
soldier for striking a white women? Did not the viewer already get the
impressionthatMontgomerywas a hardman, who advocateda harshwar
and had a low opinion of his black troops?In real life, priorto the assault
on FortWagner,Gen. Strongrodeup to the 54th, gave its men some words
of encouragement,and asked if the flag carrierfell, who would take over
his duties. Shaw removed a cigar from his lips and replied calmly, "I
In the movie, though, it is Shaw asking the questionand Thomas
will."''16
delivering the response.Was not the real experiencemore dramatic?Was
it necessary for Thomas to step forward?Had not his performanceat the
"Glory," the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, and Black Soldiers in the Civil War
483
fight on James Island, and his insistence on staying with the regiment
despite a fairly serious wound,convinced us thathe had bondedwell with
his comrades?And what was the point of feeding the viewers inaccurate
and misleading information at the end of the film? The screenwriter
asserted that over one-half the 54th MassachusettsInfantrywere "lost,"
whichconveys to the less informedviewer the message thatthey perished.
In fact, slightly over forty percent were casualties (killed, wounded,
missing, or captured),no doubta huge number,butconsiderablydifferent
in magnitude.They thenstatethat"FortWagnerneverfell," whichis flatly
wrong and misleads the viewer into thinking that the attack lacked
purpose. Fort Wagner controlled some gun positions on Morris Island,
which in turnwerevital in theprotectionof partof Charlestonharbor.After
the attack,Federalsemployed a traditionalsiege and within two months
forced the Confederatesto abandonFortWagner.'7
The most unfortunateepisode, though, was the whipping of Trip for
desertion. Other than the battle scenes, this was easily the most savage
moment of the film, one fraughtwith errorsthatworkedat cross purposes
with otherevents in the movie. First,Trip's offense was absence without
leave, not desertion. Of all infractions,AWOL was probably the most
common in the Civil War, usually punishable by some fatigue duty,
docking one's pay for a month,or a few days in the guardhouse. Second,
Trip received no trial by general or regimentalcourt martial, which is
requiredby the Articles of War.'"Third,whippinghad been a rarepunishment before the war and was abolishedby Act of Congress on August 5,
1861.19The scene, then, assigns to Shaw qualities of brutalitythat he
probablydid not possess andalso a willingness to disregardthe Articles of
War, which probablywould have led to his own courtmartial.20It leaves
the viewer with theimpressionthatwhippingwas a fairlycommonpractice
in black units, when extensive researchuncoveredonly one instance of
flogging. An officer has two drummerboys whippedand as a result the
black troops mutinied when they believed that officer would go unpunished. In the end, the officer was dismissed fromthe service andtwo black
soldiers were executed for mutinyandsix othersreceivedjail sentences.21
The whipping episode also conveys to the viewer the sense that black
soldiers would toleratesuch abuse. It stripsfrom blacks the role of active
players in their world and suggests that as free men they would meekly
accept this brutality.In the Civil War,even thoughblacks were subordinate to white officers and within the structuredenvironmentof the army,
they were able to assertthemselves anddevelop individualandcollective
identities. There were naturalbonds among them forged through the
institution of slavery, racial discrimination and, most importantly, combat.
They were, therefore, highly sensitive to acts by whites that smacked of
484
Joseph T. Glatthar
unfairnessorphysicalbrutality.Even suchpunishmentsas tying up unruly
soldiers were perceived as excessive. Time after time black troops responded by cutting comrades free, and on numerous occasions they
launchedfull-scale mutinies against this sort of mistreatment.22
Despite these shortcomings,"Glory"is a fine movie thatall shouldsee.
While it does misinformits audienceandfrequentlydivergesfromhistorical accuracy,the film depicts many of the personalexperiencesof service
in theUnitedStatesColoredTroopsextremelywell. Since mostAmericans
probablyhadno idea blacksfoughtin the Civil War,let alone so valiantly,
thatknowledge may help to alter the public's perceptionof black contributions to the developmentof this country.And thatis all for the good. If
we are to treat minorities with justice in the future, we must begin by
acknowledging and lauding theirefforts in the past.
I give "Glory"thumbsup.
Notes
1.
R.G.S. to Charley, 4 March 1863. Robert Gould Shaw Papers, Massachusetts
Historical Society.
See the author's Forged in Battle. The Civil War Alliance ofBlack Soldiers and
2.
White Officers (New York: The Free Press, 1990), pp. 139-40.
The 54th Mass. had 75% born in free and 25% born in slave states. In prewar
3.
occupations, 12% were skilled and 2% were what we would refer to as white collar workers.
Descriptive Books of 54th Mass. Record Group 94, National Archives. For a sample of
other black troops, see Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, Appendix I. Literacy figures do not
exist. My statement is subjective, although based on wide research.
4.
Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, pp. 170-71.
See Fort Green to Recorder, 24 Aug. 1864. Christian Recorder, 24 Sep. 1864.
5.
6.
[Gov. Andrew] to Francis G. Shaw, 30 Jan. 1863. Luis Emilio, A Brave Black
Regiment: History of the Fifty-Fourth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry.
(Boston: Boston Book Company, 1894), pp. 3-5.
7.
Of the officers in the 54th Mass., 14% were skilled, 5% were unskilled, 3% were
farmers, and 76% were white collar workers before the war. See Emilio, Brave Black
Regiment, pp. 328-38. By comparison with other white officers, they were less skilled, had
fewer farmers and unskilled workers, and had a much higher percentage of white collar
workers. See Glatthaar, Forgedin Battle, Appendix I. As for its number of abolitionists, that
is based mainly on the process in which white officers were assigned to other black units.
Andrew controlled these assignments, while the War Department did it for most other black
units. Andrew was particularly concerned about abolitionists in the 54th.
8.
R.G.S. to Charley, 4 March 1863. Robert Gould Shaw Papers, Massachusetts
Historical Society.
9.
For the fight over unequal pay, see Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, pp. 169-76.
"Glory," the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, and Black Soldiers in the Civil War
485
10.
At that stage of the war, Northern manufacturing had converted magnificently
to wartime production. The Union had little difficulty manufacturing such items; its
problem was shipping them to troops throughout the vast regions, North and South. The
screenwriter may have intended this as a particularly absurd effort to deprive black troops
of necessities by claiming a shoe shortage in Massachusetts, but it still seems ridiculous.
The real 54th Massachusetts issued clothing, shoes, and weapons to its men upon
enlistment. See R.G.S. to Charley, 4 March 1863. Robert Gould Shaw Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society.
See Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, pp. 195-200.
11.
12.
See Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, pp. 93-6.
13.
Testimony of Nathaniel Paige, Special Correspondent of the New York Tribune,
before the American Freedmen's Inquiry Commission. "The Negro in the Military Service
in the United States, 1607-1889," pp. 2586-87. Record Group 94, National Archives. Also
see Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, pp. 81-5, 121-2, and 143-68.
14.
Quoted in John Cimprich, Slavery's End in Tennessee (University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1985), p. 90; Elijah Marrs, Life and History of the Rev. Elijah P.
Marrs (Louisville: The Bradley & Gilbert Company, 1885), p. 22.
15.
John W Pratt to Sir, 30 Nov. 1864. Christian Recorder, 24 Dec. 1864.
16.
Emilio, Brave Black Regiment, p. 77.
17.
See Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, p. 140.
18.
A general court martial involves more serious offenses. A regimental court
martial has restrictions on the severity of punishment and does not permit witnesses from
outside the regiment.
See John P. Callan, ed. The Military Laws of the United States Relating to the
19.
Army, Volunteers, Militia, and to Bounty Lands and Pensions, From the Foundation of the
Government to the Year 1863 (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1863). Also see Edward
M. Coffman, The Old Army.: A Portrait of the American Army in Peacetime, 1784-1898
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), for information on punishments in the Regular
Army.
Courts martial frequently punished officers for infractions, even in the USCT
20.
when black troops testified against them.
See Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, p. 114.
21.
22.
Glatthaar, Forged in Battle, pp. 114-16 and 222-24.