Interest in the chapters seems to have waned. Some folks find the chapter by chapter discussion difficult for a variety of reasons. So let's wind it up and say whatever we want about the book.

Day 2, Longstreet and Lee

Longstreet realizes that the south's many victories have little to do with planning and strategy and everything to do with a love of Lee and the cause. Armistead and Garnett spend a reflective night with the generals of Longstreet's corps. Longstreet needs a drink. Stuart gets a talking to. Lee makes a plan in the middle of the night.

Day 3. Longstreet gets called on again and they march across a one mile open field into the mouth of hell. Chamberlain sleeps through the battle. Garnett rides his horse to his death. Armistead charges over the Union lines and is shot and mortally wounded within a hundred yards of Hancock. Pickett's fresh shiney division is destroyed. Lee tells everyone it is his fault, but no one will agree.

Afterword. Longstreet is held to blame, but defies the odds and shows up for the reunion. Chamberlain becomes Governor of Maine and President of Bowdoin college. He is the General who accepts Lees surrender and receives the Congressional Medal of Honor. Lee helps to end the war by directing his troops to surrender. Congress never pardons him. He dies in 1870.

Comment on any or all of this or anything else you read, or thought, or anything you read somewhere else, or the words to a song, or a movie or whatever else you want to talk about. FREE FOR ALL!!!!!

 

It was easier when you were giving us some outline and structure that we could diverge from and go on our tangents! Now there are no rules for us to break, so there will be no more OT outlaws.

The post-war treatment of Longstreet is unfortunate, I think. He was an admirable leader, he was determined to prevail, and he was headstrong. So he was ostracized for opining that Lee lost the war for the South at Gettysburg. Many others would agree, but many would not. I think Shaara, in the novel, holds Lee responsible. The battle was a turning point in the war. Longstreet was entitled to his opinion without the reprisal. Rob, I agree he is a tragic character, in the novel and in reality.

 

with Jim. I guess the professor is tired of herding these

If we wanted to kill the thread, we could have just invited Matt_inva into the room......

 

I can appreciate innovative leadership in a Yankee, though it galls the Southern boy in me.


My wife an I were in Gettysburg in August and as we stood at the top of Little Round Top it was this chapter on the 20th Maine's fight on the far left that we kept thinking about. We also thought about the Reb troops rushing that hill over and over...one of which was my great, great grandfather (who was captured and spent the rest of the war in a prison camp).

I hope that everyone on the trip gets to spend a few quiet moments on that hill - I still get the chills sitting here at my desk.

 

[QUOTE=Legal Bill,Sep 14 2006, 09:15 PM] Chamberlain in battle gets blown up twice by cannon fire.

 

I believe Lee's citizenship application was finally passed in the 1970s or 1980s. It shouldn't have taken that long. I think that Jefferson Davis served time in prision after the war, but I think he was eventually pardoned (after his death). I'm not sure about that though.

I think Longstreet got the worst and unjustified treatment. He was right, but Lee was an icon, and he paid the price for challenging an icon.

Did you like the book? What did everyone think of the book in general?

 

What chapter are we on?

 

I think we've gone freestyle. Post away.

 

One overall comment I want to make is in response to the regular comments that KA is a work of fiction. One might be led to believe that Shaara's point of view should be dismissed as a story rather than history. I don't think that is entirely correct. If you read his introductory comments, I think you will see that he used original source material for his book. He explains that he sometimes had to choose between conflicting accounts, so there may certainly be reason to disagree with his discussion of events, but it does not mean they are fiction. He also admits to leaving out events for the sake of brevity. So while one could argue that some other things were happening that better explain someone's motives, it does not make the Novel a work of fiction in the classic sense. He admits that he changed the language to make it more readable to today's audience. I suppose much could be lost or altered in the translation, but again, this is a matter of interpretation, not imagination. Finally, he admits that the interpretation of character is his. But again, I do not see that as making this a work of fiction. It is certainly a work of opinion, expressing his position and view of the events and the men and their motivation, and subject to debate, acceptance or rejection. But that is not the same as fiction in my mind.

 

Bill, I agree with your post. The way I was using the term fiction was as a representation of the large genre of Historical Fiction. I don't think the novel is fiction either in the sense of being just made-up stuff. It does follow the known historical facts very closely. I have learned a lot of fascinating history from the book and from this thread.

I will always remember the inscription on the library building of the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child

So thanks for originating the thread and for leading the discussion. One of the reasons I did not want to miss this Vintage meet is that it was at Gettysburg.