Chesnutt: "The Wife of My Youth"

I am a hopeless romantic so I really enjoyed reading Chesnutt’s “The Wife of My Youth”. But besides the storyline, I found it interesting the way Chesnutt portrayed African Americans in this short stories versus the way they were portrayed in his other short stories that we have read. In the other three stories, African Americans were portrayed as uneducated members of the lowest class of society. Their dialect was that of the stereotypical illiterate slave and served to illustrate their inferiority to white people. However, in “The Wife of My Youth” the African American characters are members of a sophisticated society called the “Blue Vein Society”. The society as Chesnutt describes it, was “more white than black” meaning that its members, the “Blue Veins”, were educated and sophisticated members of society. Most of its members held upstanding jobs. “There were a number of school teachers, several young doctors, three or four lawyers, some professional singers, an editor, a lieutenant in the United States army” to name a few. In the other three short stories we read by Chesnutt the African American characters were all slaves. But, despite their literacy and sophistication and dignified occupations, the “Blue Veins” “would not have attracted even a casual glance because of any marked difference from white people.” I found this interesting because it seemed like Chesnutt was finally giving credit to African Americans and acknowledging that they were no different than white people, but with this statement and Eliza Jane’s character who speaks in the stereotypical slave dialect seen in his other short stories, Chesnutt seems to still insinuate that African Americans are not equal to white men. It seemed sort of like a two steps forward one step back situation. However, Chesnutt continues to build up the credit of the African Americans with the character of Eliza Jane. Eliza is an uneducated ex-slave. She is wearing gray, tattered clothes, clearly not in the same class as Mr. Ryder, but Eliza is portrayed as a better person than Mr. Ryder. She remained devoted to her husband for 25 years after they were separated by slavery, but Mr. Ryder, who ironically turns out to be Sam Taylor her long lost husband, had long forgotten about Eliza. In this sense, Eliza is superior to Mr. Ryder even though she is illiterate and unsophisticated because she remained loyal and kept her promise to her husband even though he quickly gave up on her and moved on to better his own life.

The Hypocrisy of Society

In reading Huckleberry Finn, I found it interesting how Mark Twain brought out the hypocrisy of society throughout the novel. Twain criticizes society for putting up a moral front but not supporting it with moral actions. In chapter 18 on page 171 Huck goes to church with the Grangerfords, and “the men took their guns along, so did Buck, and kept them between their knees or stood them hand against the wall. The Shepherdsons done the same. It was pretty ornery preaching—all about brotherly love, and such-like tiresomeness; but everybody said it was a good sermon, and they all talked it over going home, and had such a powerful lot to say about faith, and good works, and free grace, and preforeordestination…” The Grangerfords and Shepherdsons, the infamous feuding and violent archrivals, are going to church listening to a supposedly powerful sermon on brotherly love, not to mention that all the while they are sitting in the pews with rifles in their laps. The immense irony of this scene is meant to depict Twain’s opinion that society is hypocritical in their moral views. People claim to be religious, yet their actions don’t support their assertions. Furthermore, in chapter 23 Jim opens up to Huck, mourning over his children. He tells Huck the story of when he first realized that his daughter was deaf after suffering through a bout of scarlet fever, tears well up in his eyes as he tells the story. Jim asked his daughter Elizabeth to shut the door and when she didn’t respond he became angry and hit her on the side of the head in an attempt to discipline her. When a gust of wind then blew the door shut and the little girl made no response, Jim realized that his daughter was deaf and didn’t respond to him because she couldn’t hear him. The obvious heartache and remorse Jim experiences everything time he thinks of this shows what a kind, loving, and gracious father Jim is, in contrast to Pap, a drunk and abusive father. Twain’s contrast of the black father to the white father shows the hypocrisy of society in that white people believe themselves to be superior to black people, but don’t support their beliefs with superior actions. In this case, Jim is superior to Pap because he is a much better father than Pap. During this time, blacks were treated inhumanely, but ironically in Huckleberry Finn, Pap, the white father, is the inhumane character, and Jim is the humane one. I just found it interesting the way Twain expressed his opinions of society through the irony and hypocrisy of the novel.

Emily Dickinson: Advocate for Revolution

At first, I did not see the connection to the Civil War in “Revolution is the Pod”, but after several readings I began to get the idea that Emily Dickenson wasn’t necessarily describing battle scenes of the war or picking sides based on political issues, but rather she was supporting revolution. Therefore, she was ultimately taking the side of the South but because she believed in revolution, not because she believed in slavery.

In the poem Dickinson claims that “revolution is the pod” and “when the Winds of Will are stirred” or when the spirit of revolution is aroused “excellent is bloom”, meaning revolution is excellent. Dickinson in claiming that revolution is a good thing and should be allowed to bloom to its full excellence. She continues in the poem to say that a pod “left inactive on the stalk” or left “un-bloomed” will eventually die and is blown away by the wind. I equate this to the spirit of revolution. If it is not acted upon the spirit will die just as the inactive bloom dies.

I think that Dickinson is advocating revolution in general in this poem, meaning not only is she supporting the South’s revolution but she probably would have supported the American Revolution as well. She would have been a Patriot rallying behind the spirit of revolution. It seems as if in supporting revolution she is rooting for the underdog. She is rooting for the side that may not be the strongest militarily speaking, but they have the greater spirit. Thus, she’s not making a political statement in this poem by siding with South, I think she just enjoys seeing the little guy triumph and that is why she is siding with South and their revolution.

"Beat! Beat! Drums!" --long post

I think “Beat! Beat! Drums!” does support what Neely is saying because the fact that he wants the drums to be heard insinuates that he wants everyone involved in the fight. In reading this poem I imagine a troop of soldiers marching through a town to the beat of drummer boy and to the blow of a bugle. Whitman wants all citizens to stop what they are doing and pay attention to and join along with soldiers as they march through the town. He wants the sound of the drums and the bugle to reach everyone—in the church, in the schools, on the farms, on the streets, in every home. His desire for everyone to hear these drums implies that he is supporting a war of union because he wants everyone in the town to unite for one cause—he is a nationalist. I think that if Whitman classified Lincoln as a nationalist as well, he was correct. Although Lincoln is focused on winning the war for the North, his ultimate goal after winning the Civil War is to unify the country. He considered the secession of the Confederacy to be illegal and used force to preserve the unity of the country. He took a lot of criticism for the way he treated the South after the war was over. A lot of people felt that Lincoln was favoring the south, but in reality he was trying to make the people of the South feel welcome in the Union and make their rebuilding process as easy as possible. He clearly wanted one unified nation just as “Beat! Beat! Drums!” makes it seem as though Whitman wanted one unified nation.

In comparing “Beat! Beat! Drums!” to the poetry we read by Horton and Timrod, I think Whitman seems to be advocating a war for the union of the North and the South where as Horton and Timrod are taking sides. Horton, although a Southerner, was clearly not a Confederate. He was a slave in North Carolina and sold his poetry to UNC. Throughout his poetry it becomes evident that he is clearly taking sides with the North, for obvious reasons. Also, Horton addresses more of the casualty and the destruction of war, where as you don’t see this addressed in Whitman’s poem. In “The Spectator of the Battle of Belmont”, Horton vividly describes the “blood veil” that covers the battle scene. In the second poem we read for Horton, “Jefferson in a Tight Place”, Horton describes the chase and capture of a fox, and I think in a lot of ways this was meant to parallel the chase and capture of a runaway slave. I’m sure that Horton, being a slave himself, witnessed the capture of several runaway slaves and therefore it would make sense for him to make this subtle comparison. In this respect, Horton seems to be viewing this war as more of a fight against or for slavery, where as Whitman seems to view it as a war for the preservation of the union. In contrast to Horton and Whitman, Timrod’s staunch loyalty to the Confederacy is conveyed through his poem “The Cotton Boll”. Timrod presents the Confederacy in his poem as independent nation, one that will survive, and rebuild. His Confederacy is everlasting, “it shall not end as long as rain shall fall and heaven bend in blue above thee”. Horton also addresses the issue of slavery in his poem, although not in an obvious manner. As he describes himself reclining against a tree, relaxing in the shade, he describes a “dusky fingers” that hand him a cotton boll. These “dusky fingers” belong to a slave, who in Timrod’s mind is not considered a person but merely dirty fingers. Clearly, Timrod shares in Horton’s view that the war is based on the issue of slavery, although he is on the side of the Confederacy. Therefore, it appears that Timrod and Horton do not share in Whitman’s opinion that this war is primarily about union, not about emancipation.