Take a photo of a barcode or cover
berylbird 's review for:
The Killer Angels
by Michael Shaara
adventurous
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
An excellent rendering of the days of the Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania by author, Michael Shaara. His lively and intuitive prose brings the principal players to life and gives insight into the men of the blue and the gray. There’s a portentous aura in Shaara’s portrayal of the men and their thoughts as the battle approaches. After all, I know how it turns out. When an author writes, “he was thirty-eight and that was as old as he would ever be”, clouds gather and grow dark with the knowledge of the fate of all that are to die in what is known as the bloodiest battle on American soil. As the sword of Damocles is unsheathed, lives are held in the balance without regard for politics or affiliation. These thoughts predominate throughout my reading.
In the days leading up to the great battle, however, the men are marching, drinking, eating, telling jokes, and on the Confederate side, wondering about the whereabouts of their gallant leader of cavalry, Lieutenant General J.E.B. Stuart. Responsible for letting Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia know about the movements of the Army of the Potomac, Stuart fails to deliver. In the end, the vital information comes from the Confederate spy, Henry Thomas Harrison. Like the hub of a wheel, all the action that followed depended upon Harrison’s information.
On the Union side, Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, thirty-four, is faced with what to do about the Maine mutineers. Their old company, the Second Maine was disbanded when the majority of the men had fulfilled their two year commitment to the army. 120 of them, however, had signed up for three years. They had signed on to fight with the Second only, they said, but their commanders had other ideas, sending them under guard back to the fight. Wouldn’t it be fine for them to join Chamberlain, Maine’s 20th Regiment of Infantry. If they didn’t think so, Chamberlain had permission to shoot them. In his former life, Chamberlain had been a professor of rhetoric at Bowdoin College. He fed the mutineers first, then gave them a speech, one that he believed in. It must have been a good one because all but six agreed to return to the fight.
<b> “”This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you’ll see men fight for pay, or women, or some other kind of loot. They fight for land, or because a king makes them, or just because they like killing. But we’re here for something new. I don’t . . . this hasn’t happened much in the history of the world. We’re an army going out to set other men free.”</b>
According to a NY Times opinion piece by Phil Leigh, ‘Making ‘Killer Angels’’ dated June 28, 2013, Michael Shaara spent seven years of meticulous research, delving into old diaries and private memoirs and letters to fashion something new in the world of historical fiction. He uses actual and fictional dialogue to create the perspective of actual participants.
While I appreciate Shaara’s rendition of The Battle of Gettysburg, I appreciate even more the necessity to use it as a springboard for more research into accounts that are strictly historical, balancing each added piece of information against others.
Shaara’s depicts Lee as being the most loved man on both sides, but I don’t learn quite enough about why this is so. It’s obvious the Confederate soldiers are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to serve him and ‘The Cause.’ ‘The Cause’ is voiced as being states’ rights which includes the right to own slaves.
The Union Army as I understand it felt resentful of instructions from Washington, D.C., and as though the armchair generals didn’t know enough about what was happening on the ground to make important decisions. According to the NY Times article I referenced earlier, Shaara “resurrected Chamberlain as a hero, and he has remained one of the most popular figures associated with the battle ever since.” As a professor turned soldier, and with great success against unlikely odds, he easily captured my attention.
Shaara also captures exceptionally well how the Civil War divided families and friendships. The friendship between General Lewis Addison Armistead from North Carolina (who would serve in the Confederate Army) and General Winfield Scott Hancock (who would serve for the Union Army) is beautifully illustrative. Was the friendship as close as Shaara would have us believe? Not according to ‘Armistead and Hancock–Rethinking the Storied Friendship Between Two Opposing Gettysburg Generals, an article at miltaryhistorynow.com, dated November 27, 2022, but it did exist. On the last day of the battle, Armistead’s brigade penetrated further into the Union Army than any other, and it was Hancock’s troops he faced. When Armistead is fatally wounded, Hancock, not too far away, is also wounded. One of Hancock’s officers, Union Captain Henry Bingham, “attended to the fallen Armistead on Cemetery Ridge. When Armistead learned of the connection, he identified Hancock as an “old and valued friend.” Armistead would die on July 5th from his wounds, while Hancock would survive. Shaara’s embellishments on this friendship serve in my mind, to tell the stories of multitudes of other families and friendships, relations cut in two.
A noteworthy book, engaging, and easily read. I learned a lot and that I don’t know near enough.