The History Book Club discussion

This is the reading assignment for week six - (February 8, 2010 to February 14, 2010):

Wednesday, July 1, 1863 — 6. Lee (10 pages) 143 - 152 - Week Six
Wednesday, July 1, 1863 — 7. Buford (7 pages) 153 - 159 - Week Six

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 February 8st for discussion. This is a no spoiler thread.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Michael Shaara

This week’s reading has less philosophizing and more analysis of how the day went. We see a lot of recap from both sides of the day’s fighting, and hear stories of events not witnessed by the view-point characters. We see what the troops are like when the war is “done” for the day, either celebrating or just worn out and tired. And generals either planning the next day or fighting amongst themselves about who is in charge.

We begin the Lee chapter by following Lee as he rides among his troops. The men are celebrating yet another victory over the North. Lee has a long talk with Ewell, Early, and Rhodes. They discuss Cemetary Hill and how difficult it will be to take it. Lee brings up the option of retreat, and the others are incredulous. As Lee thinks to himself, “Without cavalry, it cannot be done” (page 147). And yet later Lee ponders, “Without cavalry in the rear no victory would be complete” (page 152). Sounds like no option is a good option without cavalry.

In Buford’s chapter, he returns to Cemetery Hill looking for Union headquarters. And discovers some dispute as to who is in charge, either Hancock or Howard. Technically Howard is the senior officer, but Hancock has orders from General Meade. Hancock had arrived during the day “just as Howard’s Corps was falling apart” (page 155). Hancock pulled them back together to hold the good ground. Buford founds out that Howard is blaming some of his bad results of the day on Buford, claiming Buford should have supported him. Hancock is the one who comes to Buford to get his report, and is surprised to learn how involved his men were in the fighting. And then Meade finally arrives to take command.

End of Day 1.

A picture of Cemetery Hill - Gettysburg

The eastern slope of Cemetery Hill. Union infantry was posted in the narrow lane at its base.

[image error]

The "Louisiana Tigers" broke the Union line at this point then charged up this slope to attack the Union artillery in the center background.

An interesting aspect of these last two chapters of Day 1 is the impact of battlefield wounds on General Ewell and General Buford. In Ewell's case, Lee worries about his "slowness" and "caution" and "softness" and the possibility that he's seeing the effects of Ewell's lost leg. In fact, Stephen Sears writes that Ewell was "provoked excessively with myself at times at my depression of spirits & dismal way of looking at everything..." Sears goes on to say that that Lee was aware of Ewell's "want of decision" and "talked long and earnestly with him" before the Pennsylvania campaign. Whether this was due to Ewell's leg or his new command after Jackson's death is uncertain; nevertheless, it's certainly there.


With Buford, we see a tired, bleeding and angry general who has little patience for the armchair quarterbacking that is going on after the first day's
battle. He's particularly infuriated that this is going on after Reynolds has died. Then, when Meade arrives, Buford is pushed to the background, adding insult to injury.

What fascinates me about this is how Shaara makes the emotions of the first day come alive. In our discussions of tactics and leadership, we can sometimes forget (or at least I can) the unfolding human drama and tragedy that Shaara captures in his novel.

I feel the same way Robert. You actually feel as if you were there and were experiencing the battle yourself. The human tragedy was relentless and how brave these soldiers must have been to have been so close to their adversaries.

Robert, I'm glad you brought up Shaara's ability to communicate the emotions of the day. Not just of the battle, but the fatigue afterwards, and the frustrations. Shaara said in his "To the Reader" that his goal was to help people "know what it was like to be there, what the weather was like, what men's faces looked like." I think he does this admirably.

(By the way, good job posting the cover for Gettysburg, but don't forget the author link:
by Stephen W. Sears (no picture available))

It is interesting to me that you see Buford as angry. I guess I don't see that. To me, he just seemed tired and worn out for the day. Too tired for anger yet. Maybe the next day.

For the most part, Shaara really paints his viewpoint characters in a sympathetic light. We like Buford, and I think we are meant to like him. And we really sympathize with him over the unfair accusations Howard made, especially when Buford doesn't really have a chance to defend himself against the accusations.

But the SparksNotes for KA gives us another perspective on something that maybe it would be fair to blame Buford for. It reads, "Buford can theoretically shoulder some of the blame for the battle itself, because it is he who chose to occupy the hills in Gettysburg, which drew out General Heth’s forces and led them to attack the Union. Robert E. Lee had no intention of invading the town of Gettysburg. The two armies just stumbled into one another, and Buford made sure to choose the right ground—but in the process, he made a battle inevitable."

Remember, we are discussing from the perspective of the characters in the book at the end of Day 1. Which to them wasn't Day 1, it was just the end of a day of battle. The Confederates were celebrating, and the Union leaders felt cut in pieces. It was a bad day for the Union. Why not blame the guy who decided to fight that day?

Sure, we can see it was unfair for Howard to claim Buford should have attacked after all Buford's earlier fighting. But couldn't Howard have claimed that the battle didn't have to happen at all? Didn't Howard loose about half his men (or at least that was the report at the end of the day) to death or prisoners?

I should probably confess here that I still like Buford, and admire the decisions he made. I like the whole, "eye for good ground" thing. But I am curious what you all think about the SparksNotes comment.

I love those pictures, Bentley. Thanks for posting them. I'm hoping to have some time next week to go through my pictures from when I was at Gettysburg. If I remember correctly, some of them will be quite useful in a couple of weeks.

You are welcome and happy to pitch in.

This is the Lee I imagine, aware of the importance of the hill, wondering why it was not taken, and determined to press on rather than withdraw. Yes, Buford's action made battle inevitable. He strikes me as a practical, gritty guy, albeit needing to curb his emotional reactions on the situation that he finds frustrating.

Excellent analysis of Lee's perspective, Jeff. So often when I read accounts of battles, whether fictional or not, the choices seem to be either A) attack, or B) retreat. Perhaps that is the box that good commanders have to think outside of. Thanks for reminding us that "attack" doesn't always mean marching right at them. You can maneuver first.

I wonder if Lee were given more time to train his new leaders if things would have gone differently. Much of the problems with the Confederate generals seems to be the chest thumping promises that are unfulfilled, then the honor-bound attempt to fulfill the promise when it has become impossible. In many ways an attempt to prove themselves as good commanders. And the new generals seem unable to see things as clearly as Lee, or even Longstreet, does. Perhaps some more experience would have helped.

Funny, isn't it, that there are these squabbles among the generals on both sides. To some extend, that is probably the way it always is. Very seldom does everyone in a group see things the same way.

Brief rant:

Why do so many names have to be similar in this battle? We have Ewell and Early, Hill and Heath, and Howard and Hancock. At least each pair or similar names are both on the same side!

Elizabeth,
In response to your questions about Howard and Buford, I checked the descriptions and analyses of the July 1 battle by three historians: Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote and Stephen Sears. Taken together, they paint a highly critical view of Howard, assigning him most of the blame for the defeat. They cite three critical mistakes: indecision and failure to promptly reinforce Buford and Reynolds at midday; engaging Ewell in late afternoon with what he knows to be an undersized force; and the inability to conduct an orderly withdrawal under attack (the same big mistake he makes at Chancellorsville). Catton cites Howard's troops as "sadly understrength and in bad repute after Chancellorsville" resulting in a "confused and costly retreat through the town." Foote says that Howard "was doing little better now than he had done at Chancellorsville earlier under similar circumstances." And Sears is the most critical arguing that Howard "failed the challenge when in command of the field on July 1." He goes on to write, "The case can be made that Otis Howard's failure to call immediately for reinforcements was negligence on a level of his failings at Chancellorsville."

In contrast, Buford is cited as the best cavalryman in the Union army who, under Meade's general orders, holds the high ground with Reynolds' swift help. Together, the night before, Buford and Reynolds plan ahead for Cemetary Hill to be a potential rallying point if a retreat is necessary (although neither they or the Confederates know that Gettysburg will be the site of a climatic battle). Finally, while Howard takes their advice and selects Cemetary Hill, it ends up being Hancock, under Meade's orders despite being out-ranked by Howard, who rallies the troops and organizes the defense.

All of this plays out in Shaara's chapter on Buford. While Buford's primary emotion when he arrives at the post-battle conference is mental and physical exhaustion, he becomes livid when he is told that Howard is "mad as a hornet" and blaming Buford for his actions. Shaara writes, "Buford felt nothing for a moment, a sort of sudden silence all through his brain, then the anger began to rise like a metal wave, like a hot tide in the dark."

It's interesting to me that Shaara chose Buford among other generals, especially Hancock and Reynolds, to be highlighted with three chapters. This suggests that Shaara sees Buford as an unsung hero.

Any thoughts?

Never Call RetreatThe Civil War: A NarrativeGettysburg

For some reason my links on Sears and Foote don't show up in my previous message. I've got to figure out how to do this -- it's hard for an old, non-techie!

Robert wrote: "Elizabeth,
In response to your questions about Howard and Buford, I checked the descriptions and analyses of the July 1 battle by three historians: Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote and Stephen Sear..."

Look at the thread called Mechanics of the Board. That should help you.

Also, thank you Jeff for helping out Robert.

Hello everyone. I feel a need to apologize for not having given as much attention to these threads in the last 2 weeks as I would have liked. I've been focused on another project (I was in charge of a Cub Scout Blue and Gold Dinner) that occurred last night, so now I'm starting to get back into the goodreads saddle.

I've noticed that part of our Killer Angels discussions have been stagnating, and parts have been gradually drifting off-topic. I enjoy and appreciate the background information on the Civil War that many of you are offering, however please be sure to mention how the information ties in with the current week's reading in Killer Angels. If there isn't a tie in, then you know you are off-topic. Such off-topic comments may fit in the Killer Angels glossary thread, where spoilers are fine. Or it may be more appropriate in The History Book Club's American Civil War thread found in the Military History Section.

For example, at first glance Jeff's last comment (message 21) may seem off-topic, but I believe he is giving us background information on Chancellorsville because it is referenced in this week's chapters (page 146 in my copy). Howard's Eleventh Corps is also discussed in this week's reading (page 154). Shaara often mentions these battles without telling us much about them. Largely because he is writing from the character's viewpoint, and the character already knows about the battle. I like knowing the background so I can have a better picture of what the character may be remembering about the earlier battle.

Part of what I appreciated about your comment, Jeff, was the background on the non-English speakers in the Army of the Potomac. Shaara mentions in his forward that the Northern army has "strange accents and strange religions and many who do not speak English at all." And yet we don't see many examples of that in the book.

Elizabeth...some excellent points on the differences between what should be posted on the weekly non spoiler threads versus the spoiler thread....I highly concur. Truly on target.

And Jeff, you look remarkably like Ulysses S. Grant. Blimey...completely missed that at first. A new avatar. Your post was interesting in explaining the reason for Shaara's comments about the non English speakers in the Army of the Potomac. It was hard at first to fathom what Shaara was talking about. Your post explained it well.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Hello everyone. I feel a need to apologize for not having given as much attention to these threads in the last 2 weeks as I would have liked. I've been focused on another project (I was in charge..."

Glad to see you are back Elizabeth!

Hey, good to be back. As a sign of how busy I've been, I just noticed that I had commented that I didn't see Buford as angry yet in this week's chapter. And yet Shaara comes right out and describes Buford's anger! I missed that on my quick re-read. Sorry, Robert, for questioning you!

Another interesting little thing from these chapters is Trimble's little speech to Lee about how he would have taken "that hill" with a division, or even a brigade, or even a regiment. The first time I read Killer Angels, I was just enjoying it and taking notes as I went. I didn't look anything up. I thought this was a nice way to subtly pass on some info about relative sizes of military units to people like me who can never remember. Anyone else notice little bits of useful info passed on like this in the book?