The History Book Club discussion

This is the reading assignment for week two - (January 11, 2010 to January 17, 2010):

2. Chamberlain (18 pages) 18 - 35 and 3. Buford (18 pages) 35 - 52

Hello Everyone,

Today we are continuing our historical fiction discussion on Killer Angels. This is the first historical fiction group selected book. We hope that the membership will participate.

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers.

This book was kicked off on January 4th.

This discussion will be led by assisting moderator of historical fiction - Elizabeth S.

We look forward to your participation. Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

Since we only started this book on January 4th, there is still time remaining to obtain the book and get started. This is a quick and fast paced book.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

This thread opens today January 11th for discussion. This is a no spoiler thread.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Michael Shaara

I happen to be a Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain enthusiast now having been born in Maine..so watch it. (lol - hehe)

I am only kidding Jeff. This is great sleuthing. You are also probably right about the patriotic speech; but remember he was a professor by trade and probably was used to trying to motivate both pleasant and recalcitrant young men through words and example.

Chamberlain actually continued to soar even after the war. He was well thought of before the war, during the war and after it. He became as you are probably very much aware...the governor of Maine. That cannot be said for many of them.

For many, the war ended their future, for others they never got over the effects of the war itself.

I guess there probably is no record of the talk; but I would not put it past him.

Do you know of a history of the 2nd Maine having been written?

I also want to comment on your great efforts to not have any spoilers; you did a good job...since this is a non spoiler thread.

We also have a glossary for Killer Angels if there is any other ancillary spoiler urls that you would like to add.

Jeff, you mentioned the following in message 2:

First, he's establishing a core theme that he's going to be exploring throughout the book, which is the question of what motivated men, the ordinary men on either side, to fight. The second thing he's trying to accomplish is laying the foundation for the virtuous character of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain -- the embodiment of the everyman, fighting for a higher cause.

What other instances in the book so far do you see the author examining the motivations of all of these brave men to fight? I think this kind of fighting had to be the scariest of all. Although World War I also has no equal. I think you are accurate in that statement. Do you think that the author admired Chamberlain and that is how he portrayed him and/or do you think that this is how Chamberlain actually was?

Very interesting indeed Jeff. I posted in the glossary which is not a non spoiler thread a wikipedia article on the 2nd Maine...there were some interesting and some shocking facts there.

I also think that the author did not have to work so hard with the character of Chamberlain.

Well, having been busy this morning doing things like doctor's visits, I missed the beginning of this discussion. Lots of good stuff being discussed. I'm glad someone has read that 20th Maine book, it sounds like a real winner and just what we need to set the facts straight. I like to know which are the history parts and which the fiction parts.

Brief summary of events in these two chapters:

This week we begin the Union perspective.

In Chapter 2 we meet Colonel Chamberlain, one of our other principle viewpoint characters. He commands the 20th Maine for the Union. Unlike the Confederate perspectives we’ve had so far, where we saw things from right at the top of the army, here we get a picture of one regiment. Instead of dealing with decisions that move the entire army, Chamberlain is dealing with 120 Maine mutineers sent to him by General Meade. We get a lot of philosophical thought from Chamberlain’s perspective as he works through what to do with these men. He feeds them, listens to their leader explain their position, and then makes a speech. End result, all but 6 choose to join Chamberlain’s regiment and fight. The action in this chapter takes place in Maryland, 20 miles from the Pennsylvania border.

In Chapter 3 we meet General Buford, head of a unit of cavalry. He is the first Union unit to reach Gettysburg. When he gets there, he sees Confederate infantry, who quickly retreat. But Buford reads the situation well. He knows the Confederates represent the main body of Lee’s army. And he figures Lee will be back because there is “Only one road down through the mountains; have to come this way” (page 39). Buford is a man who knows “good ground,” and he knows the hills south of Gettysburg (Little Round Top, Big Round Top, Cemetery Ridge, Cemetery Hill, and Culp’s Hill, see page page 37) will be huge strategic value. He hopes the Union infantry can get to Gettysburg quickly enough to take the hills first, but he is unsure of his superiors. On page 49 we read, “He had held good ground before and sent off appeals, and help never came. He was very low on faith.” And yet he digs in his men in the hopes that it will work this time and he can save the high ground.

These chapters covering Monday, June 29, 1863 really set the stage. Overall, they give the feel of something big and momentous pending.

Jeff wrote: "...1. There are 3 non-fiction characters in this chapter -- the Chamberlain brothers (Joshua and Tom) and Ellis Spear. In fact, there was actually a third Chamberlain brother present, John, but he wasn't in the Army. The rest are fictional. (I hope calling out a fictional character in a historical fiction book isn't considered a spoiler. Apologies, if so.)..."

That is interesting to know who is real and who isn't. Shaara does say in his To The Reader (page vii in my copy) that "I have condensed some of the action, for the sake of clarity, and eliminated some minor characters, for brevity."

I wonder if some of the left-out minor characters were actually consolidated into one fictional character. As we read, Jeff, if any of the situations around a non-historical character sound familiar from your other book, please let us know. I'm curious.

I would think that having all 120 men come at the same time would fall under the category of "condensed" action. It certainly flows better this way. But for those of us who want to know the real history, I'm glad to hear how it really went.

I like your call, Jeff, on why Shaara changed things. It is more dramatic this way, to have a nice, special speech. One of the jobs of the 20th Maine in this book is to tell us why a Union soldier, even so far away as from Maine, would fight in this war. Since it wasn't recorded, Chamberlain's speech can't be accurate as done in this book. According to the Joshua Chambelain fan site, "Chamberlain's stirring antislavery speech to the Second Maine mutineers who have been assigned to his regiment comes from Shaara's imagination; in real life, though, his promises of fairness and justice were sufficiently eloquent to persuade most of the mutineers to pick up a weapon and serve." (See http://www.joshua.lurker00.com for more cool Chamberlain stuff, including reviews of books about him. Watch for spoilers, though.)

Chamberlain is certainly someone worth enthusing about. I am impressed with what there is in TKA. Of course, I'm a sucker for academics who get out and fight. Maybe because I'm an academic who never does. :)

Jeff wrote: "Elizabeth, one character that I'm reading as being partially mapped to a real-life character is Buster Kilrain. Not the Irish brogue or "me-darlin's" or any of that. It is that there really was a..."

Thanks, Jeff. That is exactly what I was wondering. Perhaps the "me-darlin's" in the book were to emphasize the diversity in lingual backgrounds of the army. In the intro, Shaara describes the Army of the Potomac as having "strange accents and strange religions and many who do not speak English at all." Yet there isn't time to work non-English speakers in as main characters. Perhaps some heavily accented minor characters help us get the picture.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Well, having been busy this morning doing things like doctor's visits, I missed the beginning of this discussion. Lots of good stuff being discussed. I'm glad someone has read that 20th Maine boo..."

Great intro and outline Elizabeth. You have to love Buford and Chamberlain.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Jeff wrote: "...1. There are 3 non-fiction characters in this chapter -- the Chamberlain brothers (Joshua and Tom) and Ellis Spear. In fact, there was actually a third Chamberlain brother present, ..."

Great site Elizabeth. I guess we are all on the Joshua Chamberlain fan club bus.

Jeff wrote: "Elizabeth, one character that I'm reading as being partially mapped to a real-life character is Buster Kilrain. Not the Irish brogue or "me-darlin's" or any of that. It is that there really was a..."

Jeff, the glossary thread is considered a spoiler thread so that anything you place there is OK. It is only on the weekly threads is it considered non spoiler.

Yes, Jeff...I felt that poor Buford was one of the unsung heroes. I would get into Stuart but I have read way ahead and it would be riddled with spoilers. Suffice to say I am with Longstreet on this one.

I will look for your post in the glossary. Thx.

I think Shaara picked his viewpoint characters, i.e. his heros, well. I like Buford, too. I like a man who thinks before he acts, and then acts better than he could have by jumping in without a plan.

We also get some hints in the book that winning a battle is more than just planning where to put your men and motivating them. It is also training the men to perform well, and picking good training to give them. On page 45, Buford is deciding whether or not to make a stand. He calls them "good boys" and we hear that he "had taught them to fight dismounted, the way they did out west, and the hell with this Stuart business, this glorious Murat charge."

By the way, the Murat charge is in reference to the 1807 Battle of Eylau when Napolean fought the Russians. According to wikipedia, it was "one of the greatest cavalry charges ever recorded. Somewhat obscured by the weather, Murat's squadrons advanced through the Russian infantry around Eylau and then divided into two wings. One charged into the flank of the Russian cavalry attacking St Hilaire's division, the other into the Russian infantry in the area where Augereau's corps had made its stand. Not content with these heavy blows, the cavalry reformed and charged straight through the Russian centre, reformed, wheeled, and charged back again, cutting down the gunners who had destroyed the VIIth Corps, before retiring under the protection of the Guard cavalry. Murat had lost 1,500 well-trained troopers, but relieved the pressure on Augereau, St Hilaire, and Soult and paralyzed Russian advances for long enough to allow Davout to take a part. Rarely had French cavalry played such a pivotal part in a battle. In part this was because, for the first time, Murat's men were now mounted on the best cavalry horses in Europe, freshly requisitioned in the aftermath of the conquest of Prussia."

Obviously, Buford thinks that Stuart is trying to recreate the glory of this charge in all his campaigns. Although Murat's charge was a great success in the Battle of Eylau, it isn't universally the optimal choice. Buford seems to think there are more situations where other techniques are best.

There is a lot we could discuss here. Anyone who has read Louis L'Amour books knows about how fighting out west taught someone a whole new style. And that is part of the theme in TKA, too: the change in styles of war. Remember, the Battle of Eylau was only 56 years previous to the Battle of Gettysburg. That is closer in time than us remembering WWII.

We could also discuss the value of basically cross-training your men. If cavalry men know how to fight without horses, how much more valuable they are. Also the careful disdain of one general for another general's style.

I find it interesting that both the Union and Confederate generals are wondering, "Where is Stuart?"

Sort of like a bad penny. Although Stuart was a very talented cavalryman. I have no idea what Stuart was thinking.

Buford's scouting is clearly important, but Shaara implies that Buford's intelligence information is as important to the Union forces as Stuart's intelligence (or lack thereof) is to Lee. Intuitively, why would this be the case? After all, they're both on Northern soil where presumably the Union army has a decided advantage in getting good intelligence from local residents. This would seem to make it easier for Buford to figure out the positioning of Lee's army than vice versa. Am I missing something?

Robert in those days things were pretty spread out and communication links were spotty. No matter where you were it was not like being in your back yard and I suspect even though they were in Northern territory...you might want to maintain silence and look around yourself. I imagine they would want to know where the key players were as well not simply whether there were Rebs or Yankees in the area. That would take some sleuthing.

To add to what Bentley said, I would think that not everyone in the towns knew how to give reliable information, even if they were helpful. They might know they saw some troops, but how many? What kind? And townspeople/farmers are less likely to recognize flags that would help position specific divisions.

Plus, the local people didn't always want to be helpful. When reading about what Buford was doing in the weeks before Gettysburg, one site said, "Buford found his experiences at Fairfield frustrating, because he was unable to obtain any valuable information from local residents, who feared retribution from Confederates if their position were disclosed." And Fairfield was in Pennsylvania. (Quote from http://www.gdg.org/Research/People/Bu...)

Excellent citation Elizabeth. They were right to fear retribution. Charlestown was destroyed by Union troops and the South never forgot it.

You have to sense and sympathize with their fear I imagine.

Yes, I see your point Jeff...Lee was acting blind because of Stuart and therefore everything that depended upon that first part "good observation" makes everything and all the decisions that come later to be flawed.

Thanks for introducing me to the OODA loop, Jeff. That is really interesting. Part of the fun is applying it in non-military situations. I'm even re-thinking through the events in a fantasy novel I recently read. It is fun!

And I definitely see it in TKA. Even in Chamberlain when dealing with the "deserters" he was assigned. He did a lot of observing (including listening to the grievances) and orienting in his thoughts before deciding and acting. Although some things were decided without any outside info, like deciding he wouldn't shoot Maine men.

Which brings up a question that I've been pondering. Repeatedly Shaara has Chamberlain say he wouldn't shoot Maine men. How different would it have been if they hadn't been Maine men? The answer may be different for the historical Chamberlain versus the fictionalized Chamberlain.

I've been interested in reading all the comments re Chamberlain and Buford. From our 21st perspective, Chamberlain's speech might be high-brow, philosophical. Some might dismiss his words as rubbish but others would definitely be inspired. I found myself thinking of how words influenced Americans after 911; sometimes lofty ideals are all that is left in the face of possible death and destruction. So, whether it happened or not is to me irrelevant; the author's depiction of motivation is perfect at this point.

Buford is more of a practical leader yet there is a trace of the romantic in his contemplative moments. He does the best he can given the realistically overwhelming odds of what he foresees as a fight against odds on the morrow, albeit with the option of withdrawing at the last minute if necessary.

Shaara is a master of placing characters' thoughts and ideas in preparing the reader for the actions and reactions of real battle.

Viviane wrote: "I've been interested in reading all the comments re Chamberlain and Buford. From our 21st perspective, Chamberlain's speech might be high-brow, philosophical. Some might dismiss his words as rubbi..."

I think you have a good take on it. Whether or not Chamberlain actually said those words is more of a curiosity matter. And since this is the History Book Club, we do get curious as to what actually happened. Either way, it is a great speech, and I can see how it would have inspired many.

I also like your analysis of Buford as he thinks through those hard decisions. Really gives us a picture that those decisions are not easily or obviously made.

Shaara is a master. I think it is too bad he didn't research and write more books like this.

Jeff wrote: "...I think it is interesting to note where he departs from the historical record, not to accuse him of a breach, but to better understand his motivations in doing so...."

Well put, Jeff. I think that is the mark of a good historical fiction book and author when you don't have to accuse him/her of a breach because the theme holds true and the truth isn't stretched too far.

From the litlovers guide found at http://www.litlovers.com/guide_killer... :

Talk about John Buford and the kind of soldier/man he was. As he tracks the Confederate Army, he stops to wave at a Rebel officer. Why would he greet an enemy in this way? What made him decide to choose Gettysburg as the spot to make a stand?

I think we have already discussed some of his decision to choose Gettysburg as a place to make a stand. What about waving across the field at an enemy officer? That couldn't be done today, surely. Why were things different back then?

Jbunniii wrote: "...The southern states (justifiably in my view, even as a northerner) decided that they didn't want to be pushed around by the federal government and wanted to opt out of the arrangement.

Why shouldn't they have been allowed to do so (especially considering that the union claimed to be fighting for "freedom"), and could it possibly have been worth half a million deaths to prevent their secession?..."

We will need to discuss this more as we get into the book. There will be more later about why various people on both sides were fighting the war.

I think part of your answer, however, is that while the South was fighting to not be pushed around, there were many in the North who were fighting against slavery. I agree that fighting for the right to push someone else around isn't so worth it, but fighting to end slavery might be. A lot of the strangeness in the Civil War wasn't just brothers fighting brothers, but also that so many people were fighting for such different reasons.

Hi, everyone.
In messages 21-27, there was a good discussion of why citizen intelligence wasn't a significant advantage to the North even though they were on their own soil. Since then, I've had a chance to check some of this in Stephen Sears new book, "Gettysburg." (By the way, it's a nice companion to "Killer Angels.") In it, I found the following:
-- "The Potomac army's Bureau of Military Intelligence (BMI) ran several spying operations... On-the-scene scouting parties, such as that of David McConaughy, a leading citizen of Gettysburg, supplied eyewitness testimony...The passage of Jubal Early's division through Gettysburg and on toward York was detailed by McConaughy and his citizen scouts." (p.118)
-- "The picture of Lee's army was clarified by a remarkable piece of intelligence, dating from June 27, from citizen-spies in Hagerstown. As Colonel Sharpe of the BMI summarized it, a careful count of the Rebel army passing through Hagerstown could not make them over 80,000, with 275 pieces of artillary."
(p.129)
(Meade confirms this with various other sources of intelligence, and the actual count of Lee's army is very close to these numbers.)
-- "If General Lee's intelligence on the Army of the Potomac was sparse, the bag of intelligence on the Army of Northern Virginia was filled to overflowing. The location and movements of A.P.Hill's and Longstreet's corps became known to Meade, thanks to the efforts of such citizen-spies as David McConaughy's group in Gettysburg and similiar agents in Chambersburg."
(p.141)
What I gather from all this is that there were some fairly sophisiticated "citizen-spies" or "citizen-scouts" who were very helpful to the Northern army. However, there were still the problems we discussed earlier of gathering the intelligence, sorting it, analyzing it and determining if it is useful and timely. This does not negate the fact that everyday citizens may have been afraid to provide intelligence or unable to make their observations militarily useful.

Robert wrote: "Hi, everyone.
In messages 21-27, there was a good discussion of why citizen intelligence wasn't a significant advantage to the North even though they were on their own soil. Since then, I've..."

Wow, that really adds some detail to the intelligence picture. Thanks for sharing what you've read. That is one of the advantages of reading as a group--everyone has different books they've read, and can add a different mix of details and identification of what really happened.

By the way, when referencing a book for the first time in each thread, please include a link to the cover and the author's picture. That helps the goodreads software link all references to the book. Here's an example for the book you mentioned:

Stephen W. Sears (no author picture available, so just the link)

Sounds like a great book.

Jeff wrote: "A couple of interesting points related to these chapters that I picked up in my reading of Sears' book on Gettysburg last night:

1. Following Chancellorsville in May, the Union army had to deal wi..."

Jeff, you are really finding some useful material in that book. Thanks for sharing.

Jeff wrote: "Good question. I think there's always a certain respect that warriors have for each other, even those on the other side. Also, by this time in the war the two armies know each other quite well. ..."

Jeff,
That is a great book. Keegan also wrote a similar book, The Mask of Command which discusses the same type of things but from the point of view of the commander. It has a section on General Grant which makes a little bit relevant to what we are talking about here.


John Keegan

Jeff wrote: "Ya know, I have that book on my shelf and haven't gotten to it yet. Thanks for the reminder -- I'll bump it up my list."

For what it is worth, I liked it better than the first one.