Turner 1 Hannah Turner Dr.

Radaker Honors 2110 11 October 2013 Fredrick Douglass: His role in Glory and in History Fredrick Douglass was a prominent figure before and during the Civil War as a slave-turnedabolitionist. He published many broadsides, wrote an account of his life, and was quite accomplished for a man of his time, let alone an African American abolitionist. Because many students have read his autobiography and other works in high school courses, his legacy and his rhetoric are still very much recognized today. In many of his writings Douglass encouraged his fellow black men to join in the fight against slavery; however, in the film Glory, Douglass is virtually absent. His role in the film did not depict the great recruiter that he was in history, which is both a weakness and strength of the film; however, his rhetoric and iconic status caused him to play an essential role as a recruiter in our actual history. Fredrick Douglass role during the Civil War was a conspicuous character in the recruitment process regarding the Fifty-Fourth regiment; yet, in the film he is virtually absent, except for a short meeting with Robert Gould Shaw at a reception. William S. McFeely believes that by leaving Douglass out of the film, the film increasingly excelled at achieving its goals, His omission from Glory seems to me more mysterious than the cameo appearance (2) He should have been left out altogether. It was a platoon picture; it was a story of fighting men, and Douglass did not fight (1). The writers and producers decided to tell a story about the soldiers in the Fifty-Fourth and what they had to overcome, both forces within and outside themselves. Douglass did not actively fight during the war, which was why his role in the film was severely diminished from his role in actuality. Giving him a significant role in the film

Turner 2 would not have assisted the writers or producers in reaching their goals. Although He recruited soldiers with other abolitionists, he was not an active duty soldier. Blight believes that this was his own means of active service in the war (Blight 5), arguing that recruitment was Douglass way of assisting in the war effort because he was too old to be a soldier himself. McFeely states that Douglass knew what the war was about, but he was not at Fort Wagner (2). This assertion helps describe again why he was essentially excluded from the film--he was not a soldier. He did not deserve to be included in the platoon picture that was produced. Douglasss rhetoric was one of the main ways he was able to recruit soldiers for the Fifty-Fourth regiment. He published a broadside titled Men of Color to Arms! where he tried to urge his fellow African American men to fight against the Southern power that could destroy the government and your liberty in the same hopeless grave (qtd. Blight, 5). Language and the written word was Douglass weapon to expel his frustrations about racism and slavery. He was able to use his rhetoric in recruiting black men to make war on slave holders (5). Martin H. Blatt considers Douglass to be a riveting orator, [who] was a vigorous organizer in the prime of his life (222). He often broke into song at the end of his recruitment speeches, leading the men assembled in singing John Browns Body (Blight 5). His discourse allowed for him to participate in the war and movement that, as an abolitionist, was dear to his heart. To a close friend he said words are now useful only as they stimulate to blows (qtd. Blight, 5), showing his fervor for the abolitionist movement and the cause for which the Fifty-Fourth regiment would be fighting. This was often demonstrated throughout his compositions. To him the war wasnt only about the end of slavery, but also the attainment of genuine freedom (McFeely 2) for himself and for the future African American people. This belief caused him to be a motivational recruiter. Douglass believed that he sent over one hundred recruits to the training grounds of the Fifty-Fourth in Readville, Massachusetts. (Blight 6) Douglass was a symbol closely associated, not only with the Fifty-Fourth regiment, but also for the abolitionist movement. Blight recognizes Douglasss iconic status and questions if that is the reason

Turner 3 why Douglasss short role in the film was inserted, Who knows why that implausible meeting between Douglass and Shaw is inserted into the movie, except it allows Douglass to be what he often is now a great face (2). Blight understands that Douglass has become a symbol in todays society, a face that not only historians recognize but one that most people know and can easily acknowledge. Douglass, however, never once considered himself to be a symbol of any kind. He believed that the black soldier was the principal symbola physical force that gave way to millennial hopes (6). He believed that the black soldier became the central symbol of the achievement of citizenship (9), which was why he became so adamant in the recruitment process. The black soldiers were a way for the African American people in the United States to visualize a time where they would be accepted as equal citizens. Fredrick Douglass believed in that symbol, while others believed in him. I agree with McFeely in regards to why Fredrick Douglass should have been left out of the film. The movie that the producers and scriptwriters decided to make was a film about the Civil War and the battle in the war involving the Fifty-Fourth Regiment. The tone and theme of the film would be drastically different if Douglass would have been given a larger role. The film would have changed from a platoon, to one describing the recruitment process and political pitfalls that an all African American regiment created. If Glory was about the recruitment process or what was done by individuals to secure soldiers weapons and shoes, it would be sensible for Douglass to have a prominent role. However, based on the goal of the film, which is assumed to inform the public about the military trials and endeavors that the Fifty-Fourth undertook, it is understandable to omit Douglass. Morgan Freeman was asked his opinion about the writing of the film and the story the writer chose to tell. He wrote it from a place he could write a story from You cannot reasonably ask a white writer to do it differently (qtd. Blatt 221). This could be another reason why Douglass was bypassed during the film. The writers did their best to tell a story that was relatable to their lives, which would in turn be relatable to film goers. The way they accomplished their task was by essentially leaving Douglass out. This doesnt cause the film to be weak or flawed: rather, it strengthens the film. If the writers had stretched themselves too far, and wrote an

Turner 4 unrealistic script that was difficult for them to relate to first hand, the finished product would have been flawed and tasteless rather than touching and informative. Despite the fact I concur that Douglass role in glory was appropriately small, I give tribute to Fredrick Douglass as a significant change agent during the Civil War and our nations history. His efforts to abolish slavery were monumental and effective.

Turner 5

Works Cited Blatt, Martin H. Glory: Hollywood History, Popular Culture and the Fifty-Fourth Massachusetts Regiment. Hope & Glory: Essays on the Legacy of the Fifty-Fourth Regiment. Ed. Martin H. Blatt, Thomas J. Brown, and Donald Yacovone. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 2001. 215-235. Print. Blight, David. The Meaning or the Fight: Fredrick Douglass and the Memory of the Fifty-Fourth Massachusetts. Massachusetts Review 36.1 (Spring 1995): n. pag. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 September 2013. McFeeley, William. In The Presence of Art. Massachusetts Review 36.1 (Spring 1995): n. pag. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 September 2013.