If we look at the characters Chestnutt develops in the story we find three major personalities. First is Dick Owens who throughout the story is attempting to win Charities love with a heroic deed. His scheme to liberate Grandison is completely selfishly motivated. He does not care for the well being of Grandison, he merely is looking to win the affection of a woman with deeds. Not only that, but he chooses the easiest possible road to Charities affections by plotting to steal a slave from his own father's plantation. The task is simple, hardly dangerous, and places nearly any risk or consequence on Owens. Young Owen is a selfish and lazy man looking for the easy path in life and remains this way for the length of the novel. Secondly, Chestnutt develops Dick Owens' father, the Colonel. The Colonel lives for the glory of himself and nothing more. While he at least was not lazy like his son, he lives to hear praise from others and is blinded by his pride from the flattery of others. He loves to hear his slaves praise him for the comforts he provides and that they are proud to have him as their master, yet he fails to see through the farce of the praise because of his pride. He too is selfish which is evident as he lies to his slaves, especially Grandison, by explaining how terrible it is to be free. The Colonel comes to his ultimate downfall because of his prevailing pride and selfishness. In contrast to these characters, Chestnutt create the personality of Grandison. Grandison is neither selfish nor prideful is his actions. He serves both his masters faithfully until the very day he sees fit to leave. Also in one of the greatest acts of selflessness, he gives up freedom, which he ultimately wants, and risks his life in order that he might return to the plantation and deliver his entire family to freedom as well as just himself.
Chestnutt turns upside down the social order of that era by portraying the slave as the courageous, selfless hero rather than the well-to-do white plantation owner or his son, the heir to a great fortune. Chestnutt wanted to bring about change in the way his audience saw slaves. The common thought in the South was that slaves were property, but Chestnutt portrays them as humans, and not just humans but true men of courage and honor. Both the Colonel and Young Owens fail in their journey to be men, while Grandison, a slave, succeeds.

Down Memory Lane

I can honestly say that I don’t enjoy reading, especially if I am reading on a specific time frame for a class. However, I found Twain’s Huckleberry Finn to be quite amusing. Twain has a talent for writing in such a way that the reader is able to put himself in Huck’s shoes and really live out the story. I think what I loved most about the book was the feeling that I was a kid again running up and down the Mississippi, getting into all sorts of trouble. (Though my childhood adventures were for the most part confined to by backyard)

Mark Twain uses a couple of important elements in his writing to allow the reader to step into the story and really be able to live it. One of which, I noticed, was his ability to create characters that I’m sure each of us knew when we were growing up. Not that we knew the specific character, but that we all had friends with characteristics in common with Huck’s friends. I know for sure I had a friend who would try to swindle me into anything that was for his benefit like Tom does to Huck occasionally. Second was his ability to write from the perspective of a boy. One of the first sections in which I began to relate to Huck’s story was chapter II, where Twain introduces Tom Sawyer’s “gang”. Plainly, the gang’s purpose is for burglary and murder though clearly they are not capable or willing to carry out such acts. To a certain degree, every young boy wants to go on adventures and even engage in dangerous illegal activities like piracy and burglary just because we love being seen as daring and adventurous. Not only do the boys exaggerate the extent and daring of their deeds, but they are serious about them, at least in front of each other. As older men would begin to point out problems in their plans for the gang, the boys act as though the agenda for the gang is totally feasible. This kind of attitude that lacks the pessimism we get as we grow older is a perfect representation of how boys look at life. At least for me, Twain marvelously manipulates Tom’s “gang” to turn it into a point of connection with the story. His ability to create lifelike characters that resemble us in our youth and those that we have known truly allows the reader to step in and live Huck’s adventure. This above all is what makes Huckleberry Finn such a successful novel.

It Sifts From Leaden Sieves

This poem never explicitly states what "it" is but does provide a lot of valuable evidence to allow the reader to determine the unknown "it". In my reading of Emily Dickinson's piece, I determined the unknown to be time. The lines which support this hypothesis I believe are quite prevalent. Line 2 states "It powders all the Wood." which could be read to mean that all the wood as rotted. The passing of time is the one thing that rots all wood. Lines 5 and 6 declare, "It makes an Even Face Of Mountain, and of Plain--" This line refers to the weathering of the Earth through erosion of rock and the natural features of the land. A great amount of time is the one thing that is most necessary for this process to occur. One of the final pieces of evidence Dickinson leaves for us in this poem in order to determine that the unknown "it" is time, is found in the final two lines of the poem: "Then stills it's Artisans--like Ghosts--/Denying they have been--". Time is the one thing that erases the memory of people. No matter how famous one is, time will take away their remembrance. One's works may live on, but in the end, time will destroy it all. Time will always deny those who have been.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding Dickinson's intent but it is also possible that she left whatever the specific "it" was out of the poem in order to leave it open for interpretation. It is possible that the nouns "it" could define were too vast to allow her to choose only one to represent in the poem. She leaves the poem vague intentionally to leave the poem open for interpretation.

Whitman

In reading Whitman’s “Beat! Beat! Drums!” I found that the poem neither challenged nor supported Mark Neely’s assertion that Whitman was more conserved with preserving the Union than he was with abolition. “Beat! Beat! Drums!” is more concerned with pointing out the tragedy of civil war than the war’s primary goal (for Union or to end slavery). Throughout the piece, Whitman makes no mention of slavery so we as readers cannot know, from this poem alone, how he felt about it. Whether or not he desires the end of slavery in the South, Whitman gives no evidence in “Beat! Beat! Drums!” for either stance on the issue. Though some may see his lack of mention of slavery to mean he does not see it as an important goal of the Civil War, it needs to be taken into account that he doesn’t mention preservation of the Union either. Therefore one cannot asses that he deems Union the reason for war and not slavery, because he writes nothing on either topic.

The only fair assessment that can be made using the evidence in the poem is that Whitman dislikes the war itself. This is not to say that he is against it, but that he sees how awful and destructive it will be. He likens the drums and bugles of battle to cannon fire and charging soldiers that “burst like a ruthless force” (line 2) figuratively into the lives of Americans. He points out the disruptions in everyday living the War brought upon the citizens caught in the middle. The bridegroom has no happiness with his bride, no one will sleep peacefully, and the war will not wait even for those crying or praying.

The language he uses to describe the drums and bugles create negative images in the reader’s mind. He writes how “fierce” the drums and how “shrill” the bugles sound. He clearly chooses not to glorify the sound of drums and trumpets marching into battle as many poets do. Line 21, “So strong you thump O terrible drums—so loud you bugles blow” also conveys the negative feeling of these instruments of war. The “terrible drums” thump, and the bugles are not played, they merely “blow” as if they commence the action by themselves. Blowing into a bugle can create any number of sounds (mostly awful ones come to mind), not necessarily the triumphant trumpet sounds commonly associated with battle in other literature. Whitman utilizes negative diction in “Beat!” to convey his dismal out look on the Civil War.

Whitman writes this poem from the exaggerated perspective of a War hawk. He, though he obviously sees the destruction war brings, urges the war on and almost makes a mockery of those who are pushing for Civil War as a solution to the country’s problems. His perspective differs from Horton’s in that Horton writes his poem “The spectator of the battle of Belmont” from an outsider’s point of view. Horton sees the destruction and tragedy of war, but also writes with a tone deeming the war necessary. He calls the soldiers “heroes” and humanizes the war, unlike Whitman who symbolizes the soldiers with unfeeling drums and bugles. The War is no less tragic, in Horton’s but will cause a good change in the United States. Timrod’s “Cotton boll” is written from the perspective of a man who loves the South and sees it as a “blessed” land. He does not speak as much about the war (literally at least) as Whitman does so it is not easy to compare their perspectives. However their poetry overlaps in some areas as it is clear the Timrod loves the South and would not like to see any unnecessary harm come to it just as Whitman does not see any good in the needless destruction of America.