As a class we just went over our first reading of The Killer Angels. We went over the concept that the story was based around the characters rather than the actual story itself, which we all seemed to have previous knowledge on. It was interesting to see how the two highest-ranking commanders in the Confederate army could be so different in their military beliefs.
We first went over the character of Robert E. Lee, who is the highest in command of the Confederate forces. We were able to conclude that his men revered him and that he was very conscious of his own reputation. We also learned that he had his own opinions, for example he was not pro-slavery, he was also not for equal rights, and most importantly he cared more about his home state of Virginia rather than the Confederacy.
James Longstreet, second in command to Lee, was similar to his commander in the fact that they both shared a respect for the chain of command. Longstreet was also said to be near Lee at all times. However, Longstreet was also very different to Lee in his military beliefs. Longstreet believed in modern warfare, such as building trenches, protecting the lines, and defense first. This was completely opposite to Lee’s beliefs because Lee made military decisions based on his religion. Lee believed that his religion would lead to the decisions he made on the battlefield.
After discussing these similarities and differences about two of the major characters in the story, Mr. Crotty told us to carefully watch out for the potential conflict that could rise about. I feel that the opposing views by the two men on how to fight the Union could lead to a major disagreement, which we might see in our upcoming readings.
10 comments:
I agree that having two people with opposing views can create problems, but can't that also help a movement? When there are two people who disagree, they are forced to compromise, a typically speaking, compromise is a good thing.
For example, I think most people, regardless of their political ideology, would say they would not want the entire government to be made up of only democrats or only republicans. The reason we think this way is because people with differing views challenge the other to think in different (and perhaps) better terms.
Obviously, war is going to be a little different, but nevertheless, I think having two in command with differing views can challenge both individuals to see other points of views, weighing more possibilities that can lead to a brighter future.
i think it's interesting that Lee is commander of the Confederate forces despite the fact that he really cares most about Virginia. i don't know how that works out with history, exactly, and whether he actually cared more about Virginia. i guess that's the problem with historical fiction.
Michael's point about government is a good one, especially with regards to our own government. When Republians OR Democrats control both Houses and the Presidency, things can go too far one direction very quickly. Not always, but it's more likely.
i think war is completely different, though. Quick, decisive action is essential, and when two commanding officers disagree, it's hard to get that.
After we have read the first two days of the battle, it is easy to see that these differing mindsets are causing major problems and casualties. Almost nothing is getting accomplished by the Confederacy except filling beds in their hospital. Lee's strategy of blindly charging has lead to many deaths but his men refuse to blame him for their losses. They choose to blame Longstreet, who has been pressing the idea of wheeling around behind the Union and sealing them off from D.C. This strategy seems like it would work best because it isolates the Union's forces and allows ample time for the Confederates to create defensive fortifications. Unfortunately, Lee and the majority of the Confederacy disagrees with this strategy and would rather charge blindly to their deaths.
I think in government -as Michael points out- it is absolutely necessary to have different viewpoints. And as Tess says, in war, decisive action is essential and disagreement can be detrimental to the army. It appears that Longstreet respects Lee and the chain of command. I just get the feeling that Longstreet is going to, in some way, disrupt that chain of command, as Jack says, and cause the Confederacy to falter. Even though he may be challenging war tactics with good intentions, it does not help the cause necessarily.
I do admire Longstreet's poise at Gettysburg thus far.
From the very beginning of the book it is evident that Lee and Longstreet's opposing ideologies would come into conflict. It doesn't take long for this to happen either. When the spy relays his information to both Longstreet and Lee, they differ on what course of action should be taken. Longstreet wants to retreat and get the Confederate army between the Union army and Washington, a move Lee sees as cowardly. Lee wants to stand and fight, with honor, to protect his ego. It is just the first time Lee's old school nature and Longstreet's tendency to use logic come into conflict.
Longstreet and Lee have conflicting military views, but this never disrupts the chain of command for the confederate army. Even though Longstreet believes in defensive military tactics, he never undermines or disrespects Lee's role as general and leader. It is easy to take a critical approach to the confederate army and label their entire unit as amoral and racist, but I admire the military respect and power of the confederates and in particular, Longstreet. Usually people, who are second in command, envy the power and status of the leader and try to sabotage his rule. Longstreet is a loyal general who follows Lee regardless of his own conscious reservations to his tactics. The soldiers of the army also revere Lee as a great leader and commander of the army. This military hierarchy portrays the belief and passion of the confederate army. Event though I disagree with what they are fighting for, I commend them on their military allegiance.
Like Michael said in government if there weren’t different viewpoints then the democrats, republicans, ect. would not really be representing the people and their views. Also a thing to remember that I sort of forgot about is that the text is mainly from the mindset and writings of Longstreet so potentially (although this may not be the case) there could have been so over-exaggerations in the two men's opposing views.
It's fairly obvious that Longstreet and Lee are going to get into a conflict of their own because of their differing mindsets. One feels like being more defensive is best while the other feels like rushing in and destroying the other is better. It's just a matter of time 'til we see their differences tear the army apart.
I completely agree with what Mikey said. I think having two commanders with the same view is a hindrance to the group or army they are leading. Having two conflicting points of view allows for debate and discussion. What is key, however, is that the two leaders understand their differences, and are willing to put aside their pride and accept when the other person is right.
I think that having two different minded leaders is not good for an army. Although Lee is the leader of the Confederate army, he might not be as well respected as Longstreet may be due to their tactics on the battle field. I know that if I was in Longstreet's division I would not want to charge anyone. I would want to stay in trenches and be a defender rather than an attacker. I can see how people would start to believe in Longstreet rather than Lee because Longstreet's tactics could provide me with a greater chance of survival.
Post a Comment