The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Nine out of 10
The Killer Angels seems to be an essential novel, winner of The Pulitzer Prize in 1975 – because of the Vietnam War, the sales of the book and the echoes have not been what the book deserved, seeing that it is about war and America had had enough of that at that point – paramount for understanding America, and not just the one fighting the Civil War, but the United States as we see them changing, especially over the recent years, when multitudes – if not the majority of voters in the country – have voted for the very stable genius – perhaps seventy million still see him as the leader and many believe in Qanon, conspiracies that have the world under the control of pedophiles and peddle other such nonsense…
This acclaimed opus is about the days of the battle of Gettysburg, ending on the anniversary of the Independence Day, July 4th 1863, but we have been reminded of the Civil War just about three months ago, when supporters of the worse president in history have taken the Capitol Hill and at least one of them waved the Confederate flag in the American Congress…in the Killer Angels we learn a lot of the battle and the war, but also about the background, the differences and it seems that at that time, the South – for all its evident flaws, in particular the heinous slavery that actually caused the war, even if there are some main characters in the narrative that do not own slaves and do not fight the North for that reason, but for their people, to defend the land and other ideals – used to be a place of a certain nobility, with a special decorum, a sophistication and education, respect for traditions that are surely still the mark of so many, after all, the elites are the crème de la crème, the educated intellectuals, thinkers everywhere…when we have a large enough group of people, irrespective of race, geography, ethnicity and other considerations, you will find about the same concentration of fools, brilliant folks.
But it does seem that the South has some repellent problems, in that the ‘red neck’ label seems to apply more to men coming from the Bible Belt, regions in the south that have not only voted for the ultimate epitome of extremism, stupidity, arrogance, selfishness, cheating, lying to an extreme never seen before, abject and despicable goon, but they have done so in incredible, astonishing numbers in many places…yes, there is also the difference between the cities and rural areas, with the former being more progressive no matter where they are, if they are located in a red or blue state, while the latter vote overwhelmingly for the orange buffoon, no matter if we find them on the East Coast or in the middle of the country…
Perhaps the main figure of the novel is the general Robert E. Lee, the one who does not own slaves, but still he apparently thinks that ‘black people are not yet ready to be emancipated’ – this is not a quote, but as close as my memory can get to the words…or maybe just what I imagined I kept in the head, distorted as it could be by the image of the general as it develops through the story – the one who was – and referring to the aforementioned commentary, still is very much – revered, adored by huge crowds in the South, as far as this reader can see, a complicated personage, a gentleman, but also one who has lead the wrong side in the war – respectful of the enemy, but still responsible for many deaths and injuries…
Even Lieutenant General James Longstreet, the right hand of General Lee, would state that the commander of the Army of North Virginia had been wrong in his decisions – indeed, he does not just say this after the war, with hindsight, according to the author – and he had done extensive research, with the intention of informing the reader with accuracy about what happened at Gettysburg, but also with the intention to try and picture for us what different participants said and felt during, before and maybe after the hostilities – but General James Longstreet has had to tell commander Lee to his face that what they have in the battlefield, the situation makes it impossible for their army to win, seeing that they have to attack over a front of many miles – was it five miles – and the enemy has a controlling position, on the hill, and there is no way to overcome the adversity, mathematically it is an impossible goal.
General James Longstreet would be later called a turncoat, although he has been a voice of reason – he would be proved right by the outcome of the battle – and it was his duty to tell the truth to the respected, surely too much honored commanding general Lee, there are stories that say he was asleep and thousands of soldiers would walk on tiptoe to let him sleep – not that the latter does not deserve respect for at least some side of his character – honorable, proud, brave, determined, serious, calm, constant…he does day there is no option but to attack under the circumstances and they have debates over strategy, the fact that general Lee was considered a ‘defensive strategist’ and then they quote Napoleon, who apparently said that defensive war has only one outcome, surrender or perhaps defeat…general Lee was more than fair, even kind and just, for when an old man comes to ask for his horse to be returned, he tells his officers to give back the blind animal to his owner and we learn that the army of the north had committed atrocities, and it makes sense to see the war as an appalling affair, where both sides are responsible for vile acts
When strategy and tactics are discussed, there is an English visitor who is somewhat mocked by the Americans – after all, the British were on the side of the South, but they offered no help and one explanation presented is the fact that Slavery is rejected in Europe and the fact that the Unionists have the high moral ground is mentioned, though one officer refutes the notion that slavery is the reason…there is one memorable statement made by one of the Unionist leaders, who says that wars in history have been fought over land, women, for the love of violence and this war is the first to be about setting others free…
We find quite a few disturbing passages, most of them evidently describing the massacre of the battle, where men are killed, lose limbs, animals are also murdered – there is a haunting image of the horse that is about to die, with many wounds on his body and I must admit that for some reasons – psychopathic maybe – I am beginning to be more concerned and upset when animals are tortured and killed than humans, who almost always do the executing…one tale involves a statement made by a man from the South – who had an opinion shared by many then and perhaps fewer now, in some of these god forsaken places – who was appalled by the notion that someone – from the North, the government or I guess anyone – could tell him to free the slaves and he compared that with the idea of strangers tell him to free his horse, because he saw no difference – as a matter of fact, there probably was little difference between him and his horse…