The Killer Angels - Foreword, Part II

The rest of the foreword tells about the men of Gettysburg, men who will become synonymous with victory or defeat in this pivotal battle. As with practically any story based on the Civil War, it is easy to come away marveling at the fact that the Union won given the competency on the Confederacy's side. We are still many months away from Grant's elevation and since I believe he was in Vicksburg at the time, he makes no appearance whatsoever at Gettysburg.

Lee has always been inscrutable to me and this description provides no exception. Shaara describes him as "the most beloved man in either army" but also "an honest man, a gentlman. He has no 'vices.' He does not drink or smoke or gamble or chase women. He does not read novels or plays; he thinks they weaken the mind. He does not own slaves nor believe in slavery, but he does not believe that the Negro, 'in the present stage of his development,' can be considered the equal of the white man. He is a man in control. He does not lose his temper nor his faith; he never complains... He believes absolutely in God. He loves Virginia above all, the mystic dirt of home." He is, in short, a paragon of a man who fights for an unjust, inhumane system. He also fights for the losing side.

Lee is juxtaposed against his subordinates, Longstreet, Pickett, etc. all of whom seem more like real men than Lee. They are men with flaws, be it of temper or temperment or chasing women or drinking.

With the men in blue, it is not difficult to understand why Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain becomes the hero of this piece (okay, I confess, I have seen Gettysburg and, of course, I know the history). Against George Meade and Winfield Hancock, Chamberlain at least seems like he has some prayer of understanding of what needs to be done. To be fair, Shaara gives credit both to John Buford and John Reynolds, too, as fighting men who got what it would take to win this war.

At the end of the day, it seems, the Confederacy had a great general in Lee but not enough men like Chamberlain, Buford, and Reynolds. And the Union did not have a good general until later, but could hold with superior men and some competent lower level leaders.