The Killer Angels
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,131
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Chaimberlain
He may well become your favorite character of the book, especially if this is your first read. He is a Colonel among Generals in the Foreword. He leads a regiment from Maine, of all places. He is a Professor of Rhetoric from a college in Maine who pretends to go on sabatical so he can join the army. In short, he is not even a professional soilder. Why does the author choose to include him in his discussion of the leaders of the two armies?
When we meet him, he is suffering from sun stroke. As he wakes from his sickness, he is burdened with over 100 "mutineers" from another Maine regiment who refuse to serve any longer. He has orders to do what he will these men. In other words, he is permitted to shoot them if they will not serve. How he deals with this situation is not only a test of the man, but a window to his soul and a demonstarion of his ability to tackle a new and difficult situation on a moments notice. Regard him well. He has an appointment with destiny.
He may well become your favorite character of the book, especially if this is your first read. He is a Colonel among Generals in the Foreword. He leads a regiment from Maine, of all places. He is a Professor of Rhetoric from a college in Maine who pretends to go on sabatical so he can join the army. In short, he is not even a professional soilder. Why does the author choose to include him in his discussion of the leaders of the two armies?
When we meet him, he is suffering from sun stroke. As he wakes from his sickness, he is burdened with over 100 "mutineers" from another Maine regiment who refuse to serve any longer. He has orders to do what he will these men. In other words, he is permitted to shoot them if they will not serve. How he deals with this situation is not only a test of the man, but a window to his soul and a demonstarion of his ability to tackle a new and difficult situation on a moments notice. Regard him well. He has an appointment with destiny.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Aug 24 2006, 08:57 PM
As Rob has chronicled so well, it is a Union anthem. The Spy comes across the entre Union army. His eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord.
Is the word lord a double entendre here?
Is the word lord a double entendre here?
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 33,171
Likes: 1,639
From: Randolph, NJ
Originally Posted by Vitito,Aug 24 2006, 08:04 PM
Does Shaara want us to hear the words/tune during our reading to remind us of what he thinks it was all about? Liberty, freedom, all men created equal?
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on.
That is the coming battle.
The last verse, my favorite, is maybe for later on, but the "Coming of the Lord" is today, tomorrow and day three.
Is it a double entendre? Maybe, but I think not. I think the Lord is the all powerful force that is coming with his terrible swift sword.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Aug 24 2006, 09:10 PM
Chaimberlain
He may well become your favorite character of the book, especially if this is your first read. He is a Colonel among Generals in the Foreword. He leads a regiment from Maine, of all places. He is a Professor of Rhetoric from a college in Maine who pretends to go on sabatical so he can join the army. In short, he is not even a professional soilder. Why does the author choose to include him in his discussion of the leaders of the two armies?
When we meet him, he is suffering from sun stroke. As he wakes from his sickness, he is burdened with over 100 "mutineers" from another Maine regiment who refuse to serve any longer. He has orders to do what he will these men. In other words, he is permitted to shoot them if they will not serve. How he deals with this situation is not only a test of the man, but a window to his soul and a demonstarion of his ability to tackle a new and difficult situation on a moments notice. Regard him well. He has an appointment with destiny.
He may well become your favorite character of the book, especially if this is your first read. He is a Colonel among Generals in the Foreword. He leads a regiment from Maine, of all places. He is a Professor of Rhetoric from a college in Maine who pretends to go on sabatical so he can join the army. In short, he is not even a professional soilder. Why does the author choose to include him in his discussion of the leaders of the two armies?
When we meet him, he is suffering from sun stroke. As he wakes from his sickness, he is burdened with over 100 "mutineers" from another Maine regiment who refuse to serve any longer. He has orders to do what he will these men. In other words, he is permitted to shoot them if they will not serve. How he deals with this situation is not only a test of the man, but a window to his soul and a demonstarion of his ability to tackle a new and difficult situation on a moments notice. Regard him well. He has an appointment with destiny.
Grant: "The Fifth Corps, go up there, find General Griffin, get word to him that I have chosen the man I want to receive the arms of Lee's men."
Porter: "Yes, sir, uh...the name, sir?"
Grant: "Brigadier General Joshua Chamberlain."
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 18,885
Likes: 33
From: Philly (Narberth)
Originally Posted by Vitito,Aug 24 2006, 06:38 PM
I think Chamberlain was a natural born leader.
Once I find my book this weekend at our cottage
I may be able to contribute more. OTOH, do any of you folks have a day job 
I'm very impressed with the discussion....almost like a Cliff Notes of the book. I've read a number of other books about Chamberlain and his family.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 18,885
Likes: 33
From: Philly (Narberth)
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Aug 24 2006, 08:10 PM
Chaimberlain
.....Why does the author choose to include him in his discussion of the leaders of the two armies?
....
.....Why does the author choose to include him in his discussion of the leaders of the two armies?
....
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,131
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by ralper,Aug 24 2006, 09:12 PM
No, I think, at least for the moment, that Shaara wants us to hear the first verse.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on.
That is the coming battle.
The last verse, my favorite, is maybe for later on, but the "Coming of the Lord" is today, tomorrow and day three.
Is it a double entendre? Maybe, but I think not. I think the Lord is the all powerful force that is coming with his terrible swift sword.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on.
That is the coming battle.
The last verse, my favorite, is maybe for later on, but the "Coming of the Lord" is today, tomorrow and day three.
Is it a double entendre? Maybe, but I think not. I think the Lord is the all powerful force that is coming with his terrible swift sword.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,227
Likes: 77
From: Cincinnati, Ohio
Originally Posted by paS2K,Aug 24 2006, 10:00 PM
Easy question. He's the amateur volunteer soldier who rises far above his modest training.....like the 'dark horse' candidate. Yes, you'll see that fate put him in a very dangerous spot and he took the challenge to lead the 20th of Maine into surprising actions. Not to get ahead of the story....
....and won the Congressional Medal of Honor....
Former Moderator
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,122
Likes: 629
From: Houston/Durango
...Well, he was an instinctive man; the mind would tell him sooner or later. Perhaps it was only that when you try to put it into words you cannot express it truly, it never sounds as you dream it... but then, you were asking them to die.(end of 2 Chamberlain.)
I think Chamberlain was a contemplative man, who also wanted to have an active side. He was a dreamer (irrational) who understood the difference between the immense possibilities of the human mind and the logical, positivistic (rational) world of words and and decisive actions. Action, not contemplation was required to be a good soldier and officer; black or white; good or bad; win or lose; live or die -- no fuzzy uncertainties.
Longstreet was a career soldier. For him the dilemma was different. He was decisive as required, but he saw a choice between being defensive, protecting survival, and being agressive, going for the win. He wasn't very articulate, but he had a big heart. He also had a concern for his men. (end of 1 The Spy)
There were many other similarities and differences between these two. How do you see them so far?
Maybe it would be interesting to explore further the emerging contrast between the ordinary infantryman on either side and the officers in command. Was there a difference in this regard between the southern and northern sides?
I think Chamberlain was a contemplative man, who also wanted to have an active side. He was a dreamer (irrational) who understood the difference between the immense possibilities of the human mind and the logical, positivistic (rational) world of words and and decisive actions. Action, not contemplation was required to be a good soldier and officer; black or white; good or bad; win or lose; live or die -- no fuzzy uncertainties.
Longstreet was a career soldier. For him the dilemma was different. He was decisive as required, but he saw a choice between being defensive, protecting survival, and being agressive, going for the win. He wasn't very articulate, but he had a big heart. He also had a concern for his men. (end of 1 The Spy)
There were many other similarities and differences between these two. How do you see them so far?
Maybe it would be interesting to explore further the emerging contrast between the ordinary infantryman on either side and the officers in command. Was there a difference in this regard between the southern and northern sides?