I thought so too, it's definitely the take away from KA. Researching Union battle plans, however, indicates that if the Confederate Army took Cemetery Hill on day 1, the Union does not stay and fight at Gettysburg. They were ready to withdraw to a strong defensive position between Lee's forces and Washington.

General Lee's campaign strategy was to defeat the Union Army corps by corps, in a series of meeting engagements. He knew he did not have the strength to take them head-on, particularly on ground of their own choosing. Yet, in attacking on day 2, he seems to stray from his own strategy.

Pride/overconfidence/recent experiences all had a role in his decision to attack. On day 2, what assumptions are his attack decision based upon? The map titled "THE SECOND DAY -morning- Estimated Union Position" is interesting. Was his attack plan on day 2 sound? Can it be changed once the decision is made, and if so, under what conditions?

Many of us like the movie PATTON. General Patton tells the allied Generals that he can be prepared to attack the Germans at Bastogne within 48 hours.
British General to Patton: "If General Montgomery were here, he would say that you are asking the impossible from your men."
General Patton: "Yes he would, because General Montgomery does not recognize that that's why we're in business."

 

Day two, chapter two Chamberlain.

On the morning of day two, Lawrence dreams of his wife back home in Maine. His men come upon an escaped slave and Chamberlain faces his own reaction to the sight of a black man. He is surprised at himself, and rationalizes the reaction. Although he seems to be unsure of himself, he is sure of his cause; that the abolition of slavery is the prupose of the war.

Moments later, brother Tom relates the story of his encounter with some Southern prisoners who claim to be fighting for their "rats." When questioned on this, the prisoners are unable to say what rights they believe have been violated.

Compare Chamberlain, fighting for the freedom of a people he does not identify with and the Southerners fighting for rights they do not understand.

What of Chamberlain's conversation with his Sargeant regarding the motives for fighting? Who did you identify with? Chaimberlain who fights against those who enslave another race and quote the bible for authority, or Buster who fights against the class system of the South; who dearly loves the society of justice where a man is judged by his deeds and not his family or heritage.

Not much in the way of battle in this chapter, but a lot to think on as the troops get comfortable with their positions on the battlefield of Gettysburg.

 

It's not totally fair to compare a Yankee Professor of Rhetoric with the average Rebel soldier's viewpoint. Chamberlain (call me Lawrence) was a high-minded intellectual.....used to verbal jousting with his students. The average Rebel soldier (or the average Yankee, too) was largely brain-washed by his superiors into their viewpoint.

The more interesting comparison would be between Chamberlain and the most intellectual younger officer from the South. Who would fit that description....based on the capsule descriptions that we saw in the introduction?

 

[QUOTE=paS2K,Sep 11 2006, 10:57 PM] It's not totally fair to compare a Yankee Professor of Rhetoric with the average Rebel soldier's viewpoint.

 

But this isn't the story of the average soldier, it isn't even necessarily the story of the Civil War. This could have been any war. Those things are backdrops. This is a story of the men in command and how the decision to attack is made. This is a tragedy centered around a few. All of those other things are for "flavor" and to help paint the picture of the officers involved. And especially the central, most tragic character.

 

^^ I agree, Rob. That's what I was trying to say.... Most tragedies are about the king or some other lofty character... It's characteristic of the genre.

But still, as Bill points out, Shaara does facilitate a comparison of the prisoner with Chamberlain, one of the main characters.

Every story needs a frame. But the point of my post was probably too obvious to mention.

 

Hmmm. Jerry, I have no idea what you thought I was asking. Let me try this again.

The comparrison between the southern captives and Chamberlain is all the more revealing due to their different status. The Confederate soilders fight for the principle of state's rights, yet they can't really articulate what rights they think have been violated. Chamberlain eloquantly relates the story of how he found himself wanting to kill a well respected southern intellectual/proponent of slavery. In turn he decided he should fight to end slavery, yet he discovers his own prejudicial reaction to the race that he is fighting to free. He uses all his intellect to rationalize his "gut" reaction and to find sympathy for the slave. Yet when he speaks with Kilrain he claims to see no difference between black and white all the while remembering the words of that Southern intellectual; "what if you are the one who is wrong?"

The point being that both sides outwardly seem convinced about what they are fighting for, but both sides demonstrate their own misunderstandings and misgivings. I find the point is made all the stronger by this comparrison of the southern foot soldier and the Union officer. In essence Jerry, the level of education and social status is only apparent in the complexity of the misgiving. There is no need to trot out some southern officer and the impact would be less profound.

Doubting your cause is a constant theme throughout the book, brought directly to the surface in this chapter. I'm sure there is some of this in every war. Imagine how that feeling of uncertainty must be magnified in a war against your own countrymen.

Kilrain is the counterpoint to both the Southern soilders and Chamberlain. He may be fighting for an idea too, but it is very real and clear to him. Kilrain has no doubts about why he fights. He fights the south because he hates the class system of the old world. He has not a moments quam about the fight. The more aristocracy he can kill the better. Even if those he is most likely to kill are those at the bottom rung of the southern class system.

Compare Kilrain to Freemantle. There are your extremes in the debate. And each would be happier to slit the throat of the other rather than talk to him.

 

[QUOTE=Legal Bill,Sep 12 2006, 07:48 AM] ... The Confederate soilders fight for the principle of state's rights, yet they can't really articulate what rights they think have been violated.

 

There is a second tragic hero as we will find out at the end of the book.

 

Not sure what book it's in, but J. Shaara describes an engagement between two Irish brigades, one for the Union, one for the Confederacy. They have to fight each other. One attacks, one has some cover for defense. The attackers take a beating, and as they fall back, the "enemy" Irish brigade cheers them. I don't remember which side was north, which side was south. What I do remember is the respect, admiration and tears the defenders had for the attackers.

Would Kilrain have fired against fellow Irishmen, wearing gray?