Killer Angels Michael Shaara\'s Novel

Killer Angels

Michael Shaara's novel about the Battle of Gettysburg offers compelling character studies of some of the Civil War's most notable figures. The Killer Angels in particular focuses on General Robert E. Lee, General James Longstreet, and General J.E.B. Stuart of the Confederate army and on Union commanders Colonel Joshua L. Chamberlain and General John Buford. Even characters with relatively minor roles such as Confederate General Ewell and Union infantry General John Reynolds reveal much about the leadership styles of military commanders during the Civil War. The character studies offer insight into military culture as well as to the perceptions of fighting one's countrymen. Through the Killer Angels and its central characters, Shaara illuminates the paradoxes of war.

Although all characters in the Killer Angels prove interesting, a few stand out and propel the plot. General James Longstreet, and particularly his role as General Lee's second in command, illustrates the complexities of military leadership. Issues like discipline and hierarchical communication become even clearer when the relationship between Lee and Longstreet is compared with the relationship between Lee and General Stuart. Longstreet is one of the novel's most notable figures, and who makes several key decisions in the Battle of Gettysburg. On the other hand, Stuart becomes a thorn in the side of Lee, thus revealing the political problems that can plague troop cohesion and military strategy.

On the Union side, Colonel Joshua Chamberlain is the most formidable of the killer angels. His character is flushed out early in the novel, in the first two chapters. During the events that take place on June 29, 1863, Chamberlain expresses his high caliber of leadership. The introduction of a mutineering group of Union troops into the Twentieth Maine presents Chamberlain's first challenge of the novel. The mutineers from the Second Maine are disillusioned. Their low morale is potentially dangerous to the Union troops and especially to the Twentieth Maine, of which Colonel Chamberlain is in charge.

Kilrain tells Colonel Chamberlain that "nobody will send them home" but "nobody knew what to do with them" except send them to the Twentieth Maine -- apparently due to their mutual allegiance to the same state (p. 18). At this point, Colonel Chamberlain has plenty of options; General Meade sent the mutineering troops with an unequivocal message that Chamberlain is "free to shoot them" if they do not obey orders (p. 18).

Colonel Chamberlain of course finds the mandate to shoot Union troops disturbing. When he first spies the mutineers, demoralized and walking with their heads bowed, Chamberlain reacts with compassion. He also thinks critically about his predicament: "How do you force a man to fight -- for freedom? The idiocy of it jarred him," (p. 20).

The Captain who escorted the mutineers to Colonel Chamberlain purposely and only "for effect" repeats the orders out loud so that the troops can hear him, "You're authorized to use whatever force necessary, Colonel," (p. 21). Chamberlain thinks nothing of this, and dismisses the Captain and the guards. As an effective leader, Chamberlain understands that intimidation is no way to motivate troops. Troops that are demoralized by what they view as ineptitude at the level of leadership especially need to see new methods other than intimidation being used to create a sense of Union camaraderie and teamwork. Furthermore, the mutineers have been starved; the first thing that Colonel Chamberlain does is to feed them and then offers a pep talk that awakens in most of the troops a newfound spirit and understanding of what they are fighting for. The speech, and the entire June 29 incident, reveals Colonel Chamberlain's strength of character. The events that take place on this day also help promote Shaara's thesis that winning a war takes strong leaders who have moral integrity and strength of character. Colonel Chamberlain is one such leader.

Less can be said for the leadership on the Confederate side. While the Union camp is showing the strong leadership skills necessary to motivate and organize a group including former mutineers, the Confederate camp shows some signs of fragmentation. For one, General Robert E. Lee and General James Longstreet do not see eye-to-eye in terms of their military strategies. Contributing to the conflict between Generals Lee and Longstreet is the growing issue with the credibility of General Stuart. General Lee claims to like Stuart on a personal level but is annoyed at his lack of discipline. By July 1, General Stuart still has not returned with his promised reports on how the Union army has been progressing.

The conflict between Generals Lee and Longstreet is more pronounced than the issue between Generals Lee and Stuart. In particular, Lee wants to attack the Union forces directly. His motives are explained, more as a reflection of Lee's personal preferences regarding how to attack the enemy than to sound advice. General Longstreet's desire to use more defense-oriented strategies against Union forces seems like a sound idea. Yet in Lee's eyes, Longstreet's method is not courageous or at least forceful enough.

General Lee's desire to send a strong message to the Union forces and defeat them near Gettysburg is borne out by his strong and egotistical character. As the commander of the Confederate Army, Lee's decision is final but it is Longstreet who voices the most reasonable dissention. Because of the way the Battle of Gettysburg ultimately ends, readers of the Killer Angels may be inclined to view Lee's leadership as somewhat lacking.

On July 2, readers meet an unusual figure, that of Arthur Freemantle. Freemantle is like the reader: he is an outside observer who is potentially neutral in his opinion and who can therefore draw conclusions about the motives and leadership styles of the main characters. Moreover, Freemantle is inspired by the Confederacy. Until this point, the Confederacy had been doing a far better job than the Union throughout the war and in Virginia in particular. Freemantle's desire to witness the war from the side of the winning parties presents a unique perspective and point-of-view. Another core function of the Freemantle character is his personal reflection on Southern culture. Because one of Shaara's objectives is to illuminate the depth and complexities of the Civil War, the reader must at some point deal with the problem of Southern culture. In a desire to preserve the Southern "way of life," which Freemantle correctly compares with the old country model of class divisions, the Confederacy is willing to dismantle the United States -- the country that their ancestors fought hard to create just a few generations ago. The fact that Freemantle is British adds to the irony of secession. Why bother breaking free of Crown control if the only result was to preserve the lack of freedom that the old world represented? This is but one of the paradoxes that Shaara explores in the Killer Angels.

The problem of Southern culture is explored in more depth when the point-of-view switches to that of Chamberlain. Also on July 2, Chamberlain reflects on race relations in America. He recalls an incident that clarified Southern culture and underscored the reasons for fighting the South in their attempt to preserve the institution of slavery. Colonel Chamberlain's assertion that all men are indeed created equal and possess the same God-given qualities serves also to bolster the Colonel's character. Chamberlain becomes emboldened by his recollections of the racist southern preacher and passionately determined to win the battle.

Colonel Chamberlain's vision is contrasted sharply by what continues to take place in the Confederate camp. July 3 is the final day of the Battle of Gettysburg, and the day upon which the Confederate and the Union armies face off for nearly their last time. In spite of being scarred from battle, Colonel Chamberlain's spirits remain high. The Confederacy underestimated their enemies. Poor leadership and internal fragmentation contributed also to the lack of cohesion among the Confederate troops at Gettysburg. On July 3, Generals Lee and Longstreet continue to face-off, creating strife within their own troops. The political problems that Lee and Longstreet embody are mirrors for the brother-fighting-brother theme that is central to any civil war. Thus, Shaara presents another paradox of war: when is it reasonable to fight and kill one's bretheren? Also, Lee is in charge of the Confederate Army but General Longstreet still has a considerable amount of clout among the troops. Both Longstreet and Lee are presented as relatively poor leaders given how far they had come by the Battle of Gettysburg, practically pushing the Union to surrender until Gettysburg changed everything. Union troops suffered considerable losses but thanks to Colonel Chamberlain, the troops succeeded and helped preserve the union. Shaara does not so much glorify the Civil War as the author does elucidate the underlying issues that pit North against South.