Analytical critique of Killer Angels by Michael Shaara Essay

Analytical critique of Killer Angels by Michael Shaara - Essay modellingShaara has largely referred to Harrison, who was an actor whom General Longstreet had selected as a spy to gather the consents of the Union forces. Harrison has been used in the book as a narrator, thus neutralizing the accession of Shaara in narration of the events preceding, during and after the battle. Maintaining extreme neutrality, Shaara has conveyed the planning of Union forces as well as that of the Confederate. The story gains its start from June 1863. Third summer during the American civil War was in season and only few days were left to the com handscement of the bloodiest battle in the history of America, the battle of Gettysberg. Often referred to as the extravagantly Water Mark of the Rebellion, it was the wars bloodiest battle with 51,000 casualties and the setting for President Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg Address (National Park Service, 2011). It was the deadliest and the largest battle among all fought on the land of America. 120 rebellious men were given under the command of the Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain who was already commanding the 20th Maine. Unlike the other men of the regiment who had signed contracts for two years, these mutinous men that had saucily been given under the command of the Colonel signed contracts for three social unit years. Therefore, these 120 men had to undergo great emotional stress as they saw other men leave for home after two years of service. These men were penalized and were starved. They were all brought to Chamberlain who was allowed to murder anyone who would not willfully go back for fighting. Prior to connexion the war, Colonel Chamberlain had remained a faculty member in a college in US. Having come from an educative background, Chamberlain was quite considerate and listened to the concerns of the men. He was against the view of forcing anyone into the fight of freedom and vista of such concepts as ironic and disgusting . Therefore, Chamberlain remained kind enough to promise the men that he would address their concerns once the Battle of Gettysberg was over. Although Chamberlain considered loss of the Battle of Gettysberg loss of the whole Civil War, yet he provided the men with the choice of participating in or retreating from the battle. However, Chamberlain did adopt a fairly reasonable and educated approach to coax the men to participate whole heartedly in the war. He took the men into confidence and told them that even if their fight was not meant for acquisition of any power or land, their federation in the war would serve the noble cause of providing others with freedom. He told the men that if they won the battle with their effort and participation, it would bring a significant change in the society and the people would be credited for their hard work, and not for their belongingness or race, cast or creed. Chamberlain remained so humble and considerate throughout in his traffic and int eraction with the mutinous men that all except for six of them acceded to his opinions and agreed to follow his directions. General Robert E. Lee happened to be an extremely flexible leader who would behave abrupt changes in plans and reintroduce fresh strategies every time, he felt things were not going the way they should. Like Chamberlain, General Lee also retained a very humble character who refused to gamble, drink, or curse. Shaara has