Killer Angels Book Report

Imagine being thrust into the middle of a raging battle, a battle that lasts for 3 long days. The book Killer Angels by Michael Shaara does just that, introducing the reader to the Battle of Gettysburg in detail. Killer Angels elaborates upon the 5 days surrounding the Battle of Gettysburg in the Civil War, using key points of view from both Confederate and Union sides toshow the reader the brutal nature of war. Michael Shaara also uses this book to show how someof the generals were good friends before the war, and that this war helped to create breaches inthose friendships. Additionally, this book also shows how the generals were people as well, not just mindless automatons portrayed by textbooks. Finally, this book also shows neither side
. . but I do not know what better course I could have pursued." (Pg. 349) He feels guilty thathe could not choose another course after having committed himself to attacking the Union headon at Gettysburg. This example shows that the generals were actual people, not mindlessandroids. Another example of a general who shows his emotions is Longstreet. “Longstreet saton a rail fence, hugging his chest with both arms. He suspended thinking; his mind was a bloodyvacancy, like in a room where there has been a butchering.” (Pg. 330) This quote shows howLongstreet has fallen into a state of shock after having sent the troops to their death in the center of the Union line.One of the commanders Longstreet sent into the center of the Union line was LewisArmistead, a friend of Winfield Scott Hancock on the Union side. The war can be proven to tear apart friendships with several examples, one of which being the aforementioned comradeship.Armistead and Hancock became friends after fighting together in Mexico, along with Peter Longstreet and several others. In the final day of the battle, Armistead is commanded to take hisunit and march up to the Union line, out in the open. Armistead reaches the top of the Union post, but is hit by a bullet. He finally asks a soldier to give Hancock a message: “Will you tellGeneral Hancock, please, that General Armistead sends his regrets. Will you tell
The difference was that this man was a brilliant man. Heexplained that the minister was a moral man, kind to his children, and that the minister believedevery word he said, just as I did, and then he said, ‘My young friend, what if it is you who arewrong?’” This shows that conventional thinking cannot be applied to decide who is wrong or right in cases such as these, that a higher level of thinking must be applied for us to decide whois correct.Based on all this evidence presented by Shaara, his opinion seems to be that the war didn’t achieve much of anything but deaths, and that can be supported today, based on how many people still present prejudices towards African Americans. Although the attitude has beenchanged for the most part, the KKK still exists, as it should be allowed to (freedom of speech),and racial profiling and other types of discrimination still occurring throughout the US.

Narra4

Michael Shaara’s presentation of the Battle of Gettysburg ascertains several known and previously unknown to me features of the Civil War. Some of these are the cold brutality of thewar, the human aspect of generals, the dismantling of friendships, and as well as the fact thateach division saw itself as the correct and all-knowing group. The writing style is in prolixity, but can be understood after all the tedious excess has been sorted