The Killer Angels
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,131
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by ralper,Aug 23 2006, 09:43 PM
An interesting question that I hadn't thought of before. I imagine the British didn't think much of him, but I think the Americans did. But, I think there is a difference. The American army was a rag tag bunch of revolutionaries, not a traditional army. The Revolutionary army hid behind trees, and used tactics that weren't considered proper so I think their view might be different.
Also, I wonder if our view of Nathan Hale has become enhanced as the years have past.
It is an interest question.
Also, I wonder if our view of Nathan Hale has become enhanced as the years have past.
It is an interest question.
I do think the difference between Longstreet and Lee is highlighted by the spy and their view towards him.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 33,171
Likes: 1,639
From: Randolph, NJ
Originally Posted by Vitito,Aug 23 2006, 09:04 PM
The Spy states "There are many people, General, that don't give a damn for a human soul, do you know that? The strange thing is, after playing this poor fool farmer for a while I can't help but feel sorry for him. Because nobody cares."
What's with that?
What's with that?
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Aug 23 2006, 10:16 PM
I think that is the point I am trying to illustrate Rob. The esteem with which one holds the spy depejds on the circumstances. Was Hale spying for pay? Should that matter? If the spy is a professional he should be paid at least as well as a soilder right?
I do think the difference between Longstreet and Lee is highlighted by the spy and their view towards him.
I do think the difference between Longstreet and Lee is highlighted by the spy and their view towards him.
Lee "Meade will be.........cautious. It will take him some time to take command, to organize a staff. I think...perhaps we should move quickly. There may be an opportunity here."
Longstreet: "Yes. If we swing in behind him and cut him off from Washington..."
Lee wants to move quickly, take the offensive.
Longstreet wants to reposition, between the Union Army and Washington, defensive.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,131
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by ralper,Aug 23 2006, 10:20 PM
Just a quick aside. I am enjoying this discussion very much. I am a little disappointed though. I thought more people were reading the book and would participate.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 33,171
Likes: 1,639
From: Randolph, NJ
In thinking about the spy a little bit more I'm wondering if Shaara isn't using him to lay the foundation of the book. The spy is actually introducing us to Lee and Longstreet and at the same time showing us the Union army through Confederate eyes. An interesting device, an interesting tactic.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 33,171
Likes: 1,639
From: Randolph, NJ
Originally Posted by Vitito,Aug 23 2006, 09:27 PM
Lee wants to move quickly, take the offensive.
Longstreet wants to reposition, between the Union Army and Washington, defensive.
Longstreet wants to reposition, between the Union Army and Washington, defensive.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ralper,Aug 23 2006, 10:36 PM
I picked up on that too. Ironically, prior to this, Lee was cautious fighting a defensive war.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ralper,Aug 23 2006, 10:34 PM
In thinking about the spy a little bit more I'm wondering if Shaara isn't using him to lay the foundation of the book. The spy is actually introducing us to Lee and Longstreet and at the same time showing us the Union army through Confederate eyes. An interesting device, an interesting tactic.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Aug 23 2006, 10:28 PM
I'll come right out and say that some people may feel intimidated about expressing their thoughts. Please don't be. You have nothing to be concerned about. Just pick anything you read that caught you attention and mention it here.
57.............elderly. We had considerable debate about that in esta casa. We think this was an error on the author's part. He meant to say, 57, early middle age.
With me, who is with me?