“In 1961 the Library of Congress published a filmography of nearly nine hundred motion pictures produced since 1897 and set during the Civil War” (Campbell 2004). Although Gone with the Wind (1939) would have been listed since it was released in 1939, other films such as Cold Mountain (2003) will be added. It is interesting that the Civil War and the dynamics between the south and noth has captured the imaginations of so many writers and film directors such as those who created both Gone With the Wind and Cold Mountain as well as other major motion pictures such as the film “Glory” and one must wonder how much of this fascination is based on the social and cultural issues surrounding the war such as slavery, the idealization of the “grand old plantation, the nostalgia of times gone by to name a few.

It is even more noteworthy that two films; Gone with the Wind and Cold Mountain take place during the Civil War in the south yet do not feature a long series of battle images but choose instead to focus of the human costs and issues related to the War. Both Gone with the Wind and Cold Mountain have epic storylines to compliment the main characters’ quests to find meaning and fulfillment in the war-torn South. In both cases, the Civil War is not the main story of either Gone With the Wind and Cold Mountain, rather, the lives of these characters, Scarlett played by the actress Vivien Lee  and Inman, are emphasized and it seems that the Civil War in the south itself is merely a backdrop for their stories. Although the war in the south  is not directly a major part of the character’s lives, its effects drive the plot and through this it becomes possible for the viewer to understand different perspectives of the South during this time.

Gone with the Wind is the story of Scarlett O’Hara and follows her life from Southern belle to troubled widow and beyond. At the beginning, Scarlett is shown to be a flirtatious and typical “belle” and she is also shown to be conniving and motivated to attain whatever she wishes. She attempts to steal Ashley away from the kind-hearted Melanie and snubs the dashing Rhett Butler’s advances until much later in the film. Throughout Gone with the Wind Scarlett defends her family’s land, Tara, and fights to keep it from falling victim to the degradation that the rest of the South faces in the wake of the Civil War. Her father loses her mind and her mother passes away and this fact is almost transposed on Tara itself. The house and its grounds were once the picture of opulent life in the South but, much like the other grand plantations, it also loses itself to the decay of the post-war era.

It is difficult to provide a short summary of such an epic film but in short, Scarlett loses everything and vows to regain it all in the end. Some critics have noted how the life of Scarlett in Gone with the Windclosely parallels the plight of the South in the era before and after the Civil war that the film represents. “Scarlett’s growth from vacuous Southern Belle, to wife, to widower, to murderer, to being widowed twice, to becoming a mother, losing a daughter, and finally, to being cast off by Rhett—just when she realizes how much she’s always loved him—speaks equally to the senseless devastation wreaked on the South by the Civil War and Reconstruction and to the resilience of Southern culture and the tenacity of Southern women like Scarlett, who can rise like the phoenix from their own ashes and begin anew” (Burks 2004). This theory regarding Scarlett being a representation of the South is reassuring since there is hope that the South can be restored but one gets the sense—even without knowledge of post-Civil War history—that Scarlett will never again hold balls and court a number of suitors in a grand estate. The film ends with the line… “Tomorrow is another day” and the sense is that the efforts of the Reconstruction era will bring new challenges as well as new positive opportunities.

 “Curiously, the Civil War has only rarely provided the setting for such film spectacles, although Gone with the Wind (1939) is, of course, the granddaddy of all of them Other than that and the 1965 film Shenandoah, no major Hollywood film has dealt as fully with Southerners and their home front plight as does Cold Mountain” (Inscoe 2004). This film centers around three primary characters; Ada, Inman, and Ruby. Throughout most of the film, Inman feels the most direct effects of the Civil War. He is a deserter who was wounded in battle and engages on an epic journey to reunite with his love, Ada so they may be married. On his journey back to the isolated Cold Mountain, he encounters a number of characters, many of them eccentric and all of them impacted in some way by the war. The film ends tragically when Inman is killed by a Federal and although this is not a “happy ending” in some ways, it shouldn’t be fitting if it was simply because there is the sense that nothing is right with the world with the Civil War going on. Unlike in Gone with the Wind, the war is represented as bringing out the worst in many people, therefore his final moments are at the hands of the enemy, an enemy that is ruthless based on the principles of war. One critic suggests that the novelist behind the film, Charles Frazier, wanted to depict the human side of the War rather than engage in long politically charged scenes depicting the horrible warfare that the character of Inman remembered so vividly.

“Frazier’s intention was not to be a latter-day Margaret Mitchell [author of the novel Gone with the Wind] but to disconnect from the conventional war narrative to reorganize the absurdity of war by filtering it through a natural prism” (Koresky 2004). Therefore, according to this theory, it was the intention to show a more localized way in which the War had an effect on the lives of Southerners rather than to portray some grand-scale reiteration of the battles or war itself. In this way, Cold Mountain and Gone with the Wind share quite a bit in common. Instead of engaging in an attempt to portray the wide-scale and almost impossible-to-grasp enormity of the Civil War, there was the choice to present a more localized way of defining Southern reaction to the war and to a lesser degree, an attempt to define Southerners more generally.

This double-fold situation helped create a climate for sectional and other tensions well before the proposal regarding Kansas was even put forth. In addition to these problems, sectional tensions has been heightened after the Compromise of 1850  engaged people in even more debates about slavery. For a while, this compromise caused the North to think that it had attained a victory and led to some peace among northerners for a while the South stewed over its losses. The North, however, was reminded of the power of the federal government within the realm of slavery with the introduction of the Fugitive Slave act, which again only served to increase sectional debates and conflict.

The main purpose of the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act was to open up lands that had once been Indian territory to new settlers under the banner of popular sovereignty. In proposing this, Douglas of course reopened questions about where slavery could exist. In hindsight, many of his aims were quite selfish and it is clear that he did not understand what this act might truly entail. For a politician who was aspiring to one day become president, Douglas was far more concerned with the way his decision would influence both parties to be on his side in the future election. It seemed reasonable at first, after all, he was fulfilling the “admirable” aim of expansionism, which would in turn please those who were looking forward to the development of the transcontinental railroad. On the other hand, he also needed the support of the South as these territories were incredibly important. It probably made a great deal of sense to Douglas to appeal to both parties and it is clear that he did not look ahead to see the potential heightening of sectional conflicts.

The bad decisions on the part of Douglas are not so simply defined and neither are the reactions of the parties. For instance, under the banner of popular sovereignty, Democrats were behind him because they found his presentation of the idea appealing (without thinking clearly about the ultimate result.) The Northerners who backed the idea also were influenced by their blind wish for expansion of the railroad while failing to see that this would introduce even more potent questions about slavery. Actually, with the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, no one seemed to understand the full implications if the Missouri Compromise was changed and slavery was allowed. As a final result, the influx of slave-holding settlers from Missouri clashed with the new influx of settlers from the East. These two groups of settlers who so diametrically opposed that the violence that broke out should have been foreseen.

In addition to the violence in Kansas (which eventually spread) the political situation created by the deep rifts after the Kansas-Nebraska Act were even further enhanced. The parties who had been at least somewhat cohesive found themselves split in half, with the North and Southern interests on either side. Great anger was present, especially with the people of the North and the Southern response to this anger (as well as the political climate in general) sparked outrage in several metropolitan areas and by the end, completely ripped the party system to shreds. It was this severe political disruption that eventually led the South to secede and it would not be for many years that these conflicts between North and South were resolved. Furthermore, it seems quite easy to suggest that without the controversy over the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Civil War might never have taken place. Because of the almost instant political disruption and the debate over new lands with so many interests vying for a top position, the South’s withdraw seemed the only solution. While some could argue that there was already enough tension before this event that war would be inevitable, it is more reasonable to state that because of the political breakdown, any chances of mediation or a brokered peace would have been impossible. Although it is quite controversial to state this, given the evidence in “Out of Many” the Kansas-Nebraska act was, in many ways, the first “shot” fired before the South even ever seceded.

Other essays and articles in the History Archives related to this topic include :  Overview of the Reconstruction Era  •  Slavery in America’s South : Implications and Effects  •   American History Since 1865: Major Events and Trends  •   The Emancipation Proclamation: Savior or Rhetoric?  •   Analysis, Review, and Summary of Jesse James, Last Rebel of the Civil War by T.J. Stiles

The thesis of Stile’s book is best put one scholar who summarizes that, “Jesse James was an intensely political postwar neo-Confederate terrorist rather than a social bandit or just a plain thug” (Fellman 1485). According to T.J. Stiles in his biography of Jesse James,  “Jesse James, Last Rebel of the Civil War”, the banditry and “Robin Hood” image that has come to be associated with Jesse James was the result of careful media manipulation both by Jesse James himself and a fellow Confederate sympathizer, the journalist John Newman Edwards.

In Stile’s view, there was little to be found innocuous about Jesse James, particularly in terms of the reasons for his violence. He was not out to steal from the rich and give to the poor but was instead focused on furthering his ideas about slavery and the Confederate cause, even though the Civil War had ended. The fact that he was born and raised in Missouri, which was the center of great (and often violent) conflict about Confederate versus Union ideology had much to do with his later actions. His older brother, Frank joined the Bushwhackers and then later took part in the massacre in Kansas in which many lives were lost on both sides. Like his brother, James felt there was enough at stake in Missouri to kill over and took part in the bloody Centrailia Massacre, during which several Union soldiers on their way back to the North were slaughtered. With these facts in mind, it is impossible to see Jesse James as a hero bandit of the West, but rather as a violent and merciless killer for Southern causes. His story, at least as related by T.J. Stiles in “Jesse James : Last Rebel of the Civil War”, demonstrates how there was still a vital population of people in Missouri and elsewhere who were not ready to see the conclusion and aftermath of the Civil War.

It is most revealing to consider Jesse James in context of his position as a Confederate sympathizer living in a Missouri that was heavily divided. As James came of age, the Confederacy had admitted defeat and the slow first stages of Reconstruction were getting underway. Though the Union troops may have been notorious for being savage in battle, the Confederates fought honorably although, “the one great exception was the fighting in Missouri, the ‘border state’ which had a powerful pro-Confederate minority. There the fighting was irregular, brutal, and internecine” (Hall 315). Shortly after the war, the Radicals, who were an aggressively anti-Confederate party, took control of the state of Missouri and refused to allow any Confederates from taking part in elections or from having a political seat. Naturally, this infuriated Confederate sympathizers and it was around this time that Jesse James began his career as a bandit. Aside from robbing banks and committing acts that history has seen as a more general form of banditry, Jesse James had the kind of political slant to his actions that have caused writers such as Stiles to call him a “terrorist” as opposed to a common bandit.

The ideology behind many of the crimes Jesse James and his fellow “terrorists” was fiercely Confederate and with the help of journalist John Newman Edwards, James was able to express the political motivations behind his acts. This is significant because it showed how the media was being used to serve particular political ends and shape one’s image, even in early post-Civil War America. The same “spin” is created today and serves much the same purpose. Stiles is careful to discuss the way James and Edwards created a public image and constantly reminds readers of the differences between the “real” versus constructed Jesse James.

          In this biography of Jesse James,  “Jesse James, Last Rebel of the Civil War” T.J. Stiles seems obsessed with the notion that a terrorist who is no different than Osama Bin Laden has been given such credence in popular American culture as a bandit with a heart of gold. He goes out of his way to show how Jesse James was a product of a legacy of violence which was spawned first by his slaveholding Confederate family and extended by the aftermath of the Missouri Compromise. As a matter of fact, the Missouri Compromise,Bloody Kansas, and other major events that followed only served to heighten sectional violence and hatred. Although Stiles does not state it directly, one of the underlying ideas about the book in terms of history is that James was merely a product of a series of failed efforts to bring Union and Confederates together. James, like many of his fellow criminals (and certainly his brother Frank who saw more of the War firsthand) was representative of the ineffectiveness of the final peace at Appamatox. Simply by declaring the war as over did not ensure that the country would settle into the Reconstruction era peacefully. James and his comrades represented those Confederates who were not ready to admit defeat. In sum, his image as a hero or at least notorious outlaw of the Old West is shot down as mere legend which has, at least in part, been constructed by early journalists and writers. In fact, as Stiles reveals in “Jesse James, Last Rebel of the Civil War” , Jesse James had nothing to do with cowboys and Indians but had everything to do with attempts to secure slavery in Missouri.

Other essays and articles in the History Archives related to this topic include :  The Kansas-Nebraska Act Controversy  • American History Since 1865: Major Events and Trends  •    Overview of the Reconstruction Era   •  Slavery in America’s South : Implications and Effects

References

Fellman, Michael. “Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War.” Journal of American History 91.4 (2005): 1485.

Hall, M. “Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War (Book).” Contemporary Review 282.1648.

Stiles, T.J. Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War. New York; Vintage. 2002.

One of the first major events in America after the Civil War was the period of Reconstruction, which lasted from about 1865 until 1876. This was a period of great upheaval and the nation attempted to reorganize itself and integrate the Southern states that now had to become part of the Union. In addition, freed slaves from all over the South now found themselves without a system that had once controlled nearly every aspect of their lives and they had to find a way to integrate into a society that was still, for the most part, heavily biased against them. There was little political or social agreement during the Reconstruction period, particularly over issues such as who should be permitted vote (ex-slaves, Confederates, those slaves who served in the war) as well as how the South was going to rebuild itself after the vast destruction of many of its centers and its loss of slave labor. With the death of Abraham Lincoln and takeover by Andrew Johnson, the process of Reconstruction was made more complex for blacks in the south. Legislative acts known as the black codes came into effect which greatly hindered the attempts of freed slaves to start a new life.

Eventually, the 14^th Amendment, which came directly out of the Reconstruction era, was passed and ensured the civil rights of blacks, at least to some degree.  By the end of Reconstruction, the South knew it had no other choice and could hold on no longer to its vision of recreating itself outside of the North. Even with the progress made by Reconstruction, there were still longstanding tensions between the North and newly-integrated South. In addition, the process in no way granted equal rights to freed slaves and while they may have enjoyed some greater freedoms, voting was still a long way off. It would not be until the Civil Rights Movement nearly one hundred years later that the full fruits of what Reconstruction was trying to achieve were seen.

In the years following Reconstruction, a period of rapid industrialization ensued in major cities across the United States. The railroads encouraged this growth and cities such as Chicago saw huge increases in population. Many of the African Americans found their way to such urban centers in search of work in the many factories and processing plants. It was a time of economic prosperity and while there was certainly  a large gap between the rich and working poor, Americans were increasingly becoming urbanized as many left homesteads and farms in search for a new life in the big cities. In many ways, this was an era that was uninterrupted by massive internal struggles but the coming of World War I would change America. This is also something of a “breaking point” between two entirely different Americas. By the end of Reconstruction, industrialization was only beginning to take hold outside of the Eastern states such as New York and much of the country was still rooted in times gone by. The coming of the Great War would not only change forever the way Americans thought about themselves, but how they viewed themselves in the World. They were quickly becoming a world power and in addition, they were developing a distinct culture. The time after the First World War is marked by a growing sense of modernity and for the first time in its history, wars being fought in distant lands would become a marker for the century.

Before this debate about the Emancipation Proclamation begins, it is necessary to offer a few historical insights. The purpose of the Civil War, at least from a Northerners standpoint, was to eradicate slavery and regain the Union of the states, partially for the economic benefits of having such a union. Several Southern states had broken off and formed the Confederacy and this, with the issue of slavery for the Confederacy at the forefront, led to the War. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that all the slaves in Confederate territories be granted their freedom. In reality, the Emancipation Proclamation did not have a significant impact on slavery and only a few slaves were actually freed as a result of this decree. Slaves in Border States such as Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland were not a part of the emancipation either since they were part of the Union or it was shown that as long as an area fought for the Union, slavery was still legal. In many ways then, it is clear that the Emancipation Proclamation was something of a farce. It is cloaked in the language of equality and freedom, but in fact, the legal power of it is very limited and its true (and far more sinister) purposes are now fodder for scholarly debate. While this essay will not attempt to support the presuppositions of Bennett in stating that Lincoln was a racist from the beginning and wished for relocation or extermination, it will examine the broader and less contestable issues at the heart of his debate as well as address Lincoln’s documents on the level of language. His feelings about this treatise to free the slaves is filled with ideals and even clichés, but knowing the anticlimactic ending to the Proclamation causes on to examine the grandiose ideas expressed by Lincoln under a harsher light.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation sounded like a convincing and grand demand for the end of slavery in the South, it’s role as merely a political document is clear in the language. The Emancipation Proclamation has the sound and quality of language of a legal and binding tract, consider the beginning, which states, “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom” (Emancipation Proclamation 1863). The heavy-handed wording and unmistakably legal tone to this document make it clear that the military and war are equally important in this announcement. It is not until later that the President makes it clear about the issues of rights and freedoms, but instead seems more focused on the role of the “military and naval authority” and more importantly, he directly addresses the “rebellion” as one of the first elements.

Moreover, the concluding part of this first paragraph is a very wide-ranging view of what freedom is and it seems that Lincoln is suggesting radical change—as though Americans would wake up the next day and suddenly see a world of racial equality. At the risk of sounding like Bennett, it does seem as though Lincoln knew that these demands were unrealistic, so instead he focused the attention of the grand Enlightenment ideals of freedom before making the “exceptions to rule” that would prove the Emancipation Proclamation to not be as revolutionary as it sounded since very few slaves would actually be freed. The clincher comes closer to the end of the document when, after getting the listeners or readers envisioning grand and widespread equality, it is stated that everyone will be free “except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued” (1863). These “minor” exceptions would be one of the many issues related to the perceived deception involved with the Proclamation and are the most useful when forming an argument about how the Proclamation was simply a political tract rather than a revolutionary leap forward for slaves.

Although Bennett’s book may be a little too radical for some, he does make a number of interesting points. For example he states, “What Lincoln did–and it was so clever that we ought to stop calling him honest Abe—was to ‘free’ slaves in Confederate-held territory where he couldn’t free them and to leave them in slavery in Union-held territory where he could have freed them” (Bennett 64). For the purposes of politics, if Bennett’s theory that he offers a mere summary of in “Forced into Glory” is correct, this would have been a brilliant move by Lincoln—it would have won him the further support of his party and not caused too many waves in either the North or the South, especially if people were able to see right away that there was something missing logistically-speaking from the equation—the ability within the document to truly grant power. While Lincoln comes across as seeming highly dedicated to spreading freedom and equality in the Emancipation Proclamation, which was, of course, a very public document, his private letters reveal more ambivalence about the issue of slavery versus more immediate political concerns. In his “Letter to Horace Greeley” (1862) Lincoln, who already had a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation formed, said, “My paramount object is to save the Union, and is not to either save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” The primary goal in this letter shows that Lincoln, much like Bennett suggests, is using slavery for political purposes and it is merely the “issue of the day” rather than a cause that he seems genuinely committed to. Lincoln closes this set of thoughts by stating, “What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union” (1862).

The Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to disguise Lincoln’s political desires since in other letters and speeches he is, at best, lukewarm about the issue of slavery. This pattern is broken slightly by Lincoln’sLetter to James C. Conkling, in which he defends his views about the emancipation of slaves by countering the opposition. “You say you will not fight to free Negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free Negroes” (Letter to James C. Conkling 1863). It is clear in the rebuttal that Lincoln does have strong feelings, but they many of his points are not simply based upon the benevolent notion of helping free the blacks, but are infused with greater political purpose. While it does seem that history may have led many to believe in the common image of Lincoln as a savior to the country, this may not be an entirely correct assumption. Although Bennett’s book makes some convincing arguments that might lead one to believe that he was Lincoln was a complete racist, relying simply on his opinions would also be a fallacy. After a review of Lincoln’s documents with Bennett’s thoughts in the background, it is clear that the Emancipation Proclamation was not as simple as it may have seemed at first and in fact, Lincoln had other motives that were more political in nature than they were humanitarian.

Other essays and articles in the Main Archives related to this topic include :  Slavery in America’s South : Implications and Effects  •  The Kansas-Nebraska Act Controversy   •   Discussion of Black Majority: Negroes in South Carolina From 1670 to the Stono Rebellion by Peter Wood    •  The Influence of the Enlightenment on The Formation of the United States  •  Overview of the Reconstruction Era

American history and literature are intertwined and are reflective of one another. Both the starting and ending points of this time period reveal America overcoming a severe crisis. American history since 1865greatly influenced the literature that came after it. In 1865, the Civil War had finally ended and the country was exhausted and war-weary. At the beginning of Roosevelt’s term, there was a similar situation as the country was recovering from the Great Depression.

In both cases, there is a period of relative tranquility to follow; Reconstruction in the South after the War and later, Roosevelt’s “New Deal” before the build-up to the Great War. This period of time saw great advances in technology and industry and such shifts had a drastic effect on population, society, and culture. It is also important to note that this half-century saw an increase in the demand for rights by women, African Americans, workers, and other groups who were beginning to understand that they desired input about how their country should operate.

The moral impact of the Civil War cannot be underestimated. With hundreds of thousands of causalities and the breakdown of the South, there was a great sense of despair, especially in the decade immediately after the conflict. Even with heavy hearts, however, the course of progress continued and the first transcontinental railroad was completed and in use by 1869. This is one of the most importantdevelopments of the post-Civil War period as it not allowed more efficient transport of goods across vast distances, but this fact in turn encouraged greater levels of production and industrialization. From 1869 and the railroad’s urging on of industry, there was a shift from the rural towns and agricultural settlements to an urban migration. Steam engines and other machinations had been developed to increase the output capacity of factories and cities such as Chicago became important industrial as well as cultural centers.

More people were from the rural areas were migrating to cities and this fact was compounded by the large numbers of immigrants arriving in such urban places with a hope for work. Construction and industrialization were booming shortly after the arrival of the railroad and these centers offered not only work, but the possibility for immigrants and “country folk” to live the American dream. There was more of everything during this period; more industry, more machines, more communication (telephones had been developed 1876) and the country, despite the wounds that remained exposed after the Civil War, was humming along at a rapid pace.

The era after the Civil War also held new possibilities for African Americans as they left their roles as an enslaved people and sought out new opportunities, most often in the large cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland (the latter two cities had seen railroad connections of their own only a few years after the first one had been developed). This new population not only began dispersing throughout the country, but writing and organizing as well. Authors such as W.E.B. Dubois were vocal about the status of African Americans and this tradition of the written word as instrument of change continued well past the term of Roosevelt. From the Jim Crow laws that were instituted shortly after the Civil War to the Harlem Renaissance, it is important to recognize how crucial this time period was for the emergence of a distinct African American voice. With the emergence of the Harlem Renaissance around 1920, there was a significant artistic presence of African Americans that countered the still-codified segregation of much of America and sought to express discontent in a non-violent and symbolic way.

The movement of African-Americans and the increasing demand for recognition was mirrored by the women’s suffrage movement, which began in 1869 (along with the development of the railroad) gradually gained momentum throughout the half-decade and branched out to include other issues of women’s rights as well. From Emily Dickinson at the beginning of this period, all the way up to Zora Neale Huston, it was becoming clear that women were communicating and organizing in new ways and allowing them to be heard for the first time. The 1920s and ushered in a new age of feminism and the bonds of Victorian ideals of femininity were gradually being shed. Icons of the female political movement such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton were gaining widespread popularity among women and the first inkling of organized feminism was emerging and is reflected in critical works of fiction such as Kate Chopin’s “The Awakening” andHurston’s “Sweat” which criticized the injustices of being under a man’s control.

Many injustices were being explored at this period, not just in terms of gender and racial equality, but for workers as well. The rapid industrialization caused a few monopolies such as that of Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan, which produced new legislation to deal with large companies and more importantly, caused the average worker to see the importance of unifying and relying on the strength of their numbers to ensure fairness and rights. In 1905, the organization, Industrial Workers of the World was formed and forged a model for further labor movements. Also, it is important to point out that the Ford Motor Company began producing automobiles shortly after the turn of century, where not only opportunities for relatively inexpensive transportation, but employment was created. Workers understood that there could be success in industry but that it would be a constant battle to ensure their needs.

The Great Depression brought the progress of the early part of the century to a halt. While the Great War had terrible social impacts (think of Owen’s poem “Dolce Decorum Est” for example) the economic benefits of war drove the economy. The Depression reminded people that they were still vulnerable, even with all the new modern benefits many enjoyed such as electricity and radios. Many people suffered greatly and lost what wealth they had accumulated and much of the momentum had just been gained back at the end of Roosevelt’s term when already, it was time again to prepare for a second war.

America at this crucial period between centuries was complex and the literature of the time reflected this. Realism in American literature had begun in the early part of the nineteenth century yet still persisted in new forms. It no longer seemed reasonable to cling to notions of romanticism and many of the traces of the movement had been erased by the turn of the century. Realism was invested in revealing everyday life with a clear and focused purpose to record life as it really was. This seems fitting, especially for those in the urban centers since life, despite any of the more genteel convictions of the Victorians and those writing theVictorian period in American literature, was very real indeed—overcrowding, unemployment, dirty and unsafe working conditions were only a few problems confronting a typical working class man or woman at the turn of the century and realism captured this sensation perfectly. Even when one considers the works ofHenry James or Mark Twain, both writers of the period in question, there is a definite attempt, even through fiction, to present a reality that is not embellished with the ornaments of romanticism and instead seeks to represent a “slice of life” instead of painting a pretty picture.  It should also be mentioned that regional writing gained literary ground as Mark Twain and Kate Chopin revealed, in realistic detail, the minutia of their hometowns or created spaces imagined from the everyday. One can posit the theory that regional writing came about in response the loss of boundaries brought about the railroad and other communication networks—that somehow regional writing could preserve, in realistic detail, the perfection of a place.