Themes and Meanings
Readers should not regard “historical fiction” as a contradiction in terms. An imaginative extension of experience, fiction must be plausible to the extent that it cannot be documented. History, limited to what can be documented, is nevertheless subjective—not fact “as it actually happened” but an inevitably selective interpretation of the past from the perspective of the present. Historical fiction attempts to present a plausible and currently relevant imaginative representation of the past consistent with the documented record.
Unlike Stephen Crane in The Red Badge of Courage (1895), Shaara chooses in The Killer Angels to present clearly the essential strategies and salient events of the battle he recounts. Early in the novel, particularly, Shaara’s exposition sometimes results in rather wooden dialogue. However, Shaara’s novel is both less and more than merely another history of a widely studied battle. Shaara has changed some nineteenth century language to avoid any impression of quaintness that might compromise the immediacy of his narrative. If style is the man, these changes in language are misrepresentations, but they help readers to imagine actually being Lee, Longstreet, Armistead, or Chamberlain. Shaara’s presentations of these individuals’ responses to the problems confronting them and his sometimes vividly impressionistic descriptions of what they perceived often succeed, much as Crane’s novel succeeded.
Even while appreciating The Killer Angel’s successful re-creation of the past, the reader should also appreciate its relationship to the era from which it stems. Just as The Red Badge of Courage’s story of a vulnerable individual trying to cope with the confusions and threats of combat reflects Crane’s perception of his own era’s powerful but faceless pressures on ordinary people, so The Killer Angels reflects concerns of the 1970’s. The civil rights struggle prompts an interpretation of the Civil War as a conflict about slavery rather than one about constitutional law; the U.S. Vietnam experience prompts an interpretation of war emphasizing chance and coincidence, the miscarriage of plans, and the unpredictable ends that often await good and capable soldiers. This understanding of war is the novel’s main message.
Themes
The price of that freedom for Shaara is Gettysburg's eternal lesson, and he framed it in the most painful and glorious terms art can offer, the ancient mode of tragedy. Before the Civil War Lawrence Chamberlain had been a professor of rhetoric at Bowdoin College, and after Gettysburg he became the North's most decorated soldier. Shaara gave Chamberlain his last words on the meaning of Gettysburg, when the night of July 3 was finally approaching and Chamberlain looked out at "the gray floor of hell" which he knew then had seen "one of the great moments in history." His "professor's mind" acknowledges Pickett's Charge as "the most beautiful thing he had ever seen," because Chamberlain — and Shaara and his readers — see that that "unspeakable beauty" was born when human pity and terror were purged in the crucible of Gettysburg: "So this is tragedy . . . great doors open to black eternity."
Lesser themes embodied in a host of personal tragedies also crowd The Killer Angels, a title that implicitly conveys the Elizabethan concept of man's precarious position between divinity and the beasts. Nearly every one of Shaara's descriptive passages bears out Sherman's laconic summation, "War is hell," not only for the horrors of a nineteenth-century battlefield, but most of all, perhaps, for the fatal ambivalence of the concept of honor. Shaara shows that the Southern aristocracy often flung away their lives and forswore their oaths out of hubris, enduring psychological conflicts far more bitter than the ones they...
(This entire section contains 287 words.)
See This Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this study guide. You'll also get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.
Already a member? Log in here.
faced at Little Round Top or in the center of the Union line, where their former brothers in arms awaited them; the South's tragedy here lies in the flawed beauty of the act, and Shaara never allows it to escape from view.
Themes
Different Beliefs about the Cause of the War
The Union men all believe that the Civil War is about freeing the slaves in the
South. They subscribe to a democratic ethos that asserts the equality of all
men. This is made clear early in the novel by Chamberlain, who is probably the
most idealistic character in the novel. He believes he is fighting for freedom,
the right of every individual to “become what he wished to become,” free from
oppression by tradition or the old European-style aristocracies and royalties.
He explains to the mutineers that the Union army is a different kind of army
than any in the past. It does not fight for land, for king, or for booty, but
with the purpose of “set[ting] other men free.” For Chamberlain, the
Confederacy represents a new kind of aristocracy that is perpetuating tyranny
through the institution of slavery.
The Confederates, however, mock the Union belief that the war is about slavery. For them it is a matter of states’ rights. As Kemper says to Fremantle, the Englishman who just seems to assume the war is about slavery, “We established this country in the first place with strong state governments . . . to avoid a central tyranny.” This point is echoed by the rebel prisoners who are captured by Chamberlain’s men. They insist they are fighting for their rights, not for the continuance of slavery. But Chamberlain is not convinced. When he sees the wounded black man, he believes he sees the cause of the war, the enslavement of blacks, very clearly.
Offensive versus Defensive War
A recurring theme is the disagreement between Longstreet and Lee over strategy.
Longstreet is a pioneer of defensive warfare, and he thinks Lee is misguided in
his insistence on attack. Longstreet consistently argues for setting up a sound
defensive position and luring the enemy into an attack. He tries to convince
Armistead of the virtues of his theory, but Armistead insists that neither Lee
nor his army is suited for “slow dull defense.” Lee is not to be convinced,
either. He loathes the nickname of “King of Spades,” which was given to him
when he ordered tunnels dug for the defense of Richmond, Virginia. Defensive
warfare goes against his training. He has confidence in the pride of his men;
they have been outgunned before, as they are now, but have still won great
victories. He thinks only of attacking and getting the battle won. For
Longstreet, however, Lee’s attitude is out of date. The entire war, Longstreet
thinks, is old-fashioned, with tactics dating back to the Napoleonic era, as
well as outmoded notions of chivalry and glory. “They all ride to glory, all
the plumed knights,” he thinks bitterly as he looks at the Confederate
officers. In the end, Longstreet is proved correct, and Lee acknowledges this
to him.
On the Union side, Buford espouses theories similar to those of Longstreet. He has had much experience in the Indian Wars, and he speaks disparagingly about how ineffective is “that glorious charge, sabers a-shining” against the Indian, who will hide behind a rock and then shoot you as you go by. Putting his experience to good use, Buford has schooled his men in defensive tactics, which is how they are able to dig in and hold off the attacking Confederates until relief arrives.
Divided Friendships
The nature of the Civil War is brought home by frequent references to the fact
that it has split up old friends and comrades and placed them on opposite sides
in the conflict. Longstreet remembers the shock of realizing that “the boys he
was fighting were boys he had grown up with.” Before the war, the Confederate
Armistead was close friends with the Union man, Hancock. In an emotional scene,
Armistead recalls his last meeting with his friend, when after dinner at
Hancock’s home, they stood around the piano, singing. Now, two years later, at
Gettysburg, Armistead must take part in a charge on a position defended by
Hancock.
When Longstreet and Lee look back on their exploits in the U.S. war against Mexico (1846–1848), Longstreet speaks admiringly of the men who served with them, noting that “Some of them are up ahead now, waiting for us.” When Chamberlain thinks about the ethics of putting his brother in grave danger by getting him to plug a gap in the line, he reflects: “Killing of brothers. This whole war is concerned with the killing of brothers.” John Gibbon, of Hancock’s corps, has three brothers on the Confederate side. The emphasis on brother against brother presents an image of the United States as a family divided against itself.
God’s Will, Human Will, or Chance?
Lee is a religious man who sees the hand of God at work in events: “He believed
in a Purpose as surely as he believed that the stars above him were really
there.” When he hears news of the Confederates’ victory on the first day, he
thinks it was God’s will and offers a prayer of gratitude. He also feels that
the location of the battle at Gettysburg, even though it was not consciously
planned, was nonetheless a part of the divine “Intention,” even though earlier
he had thought, as it became apparent that a battle was looming, “We drift
blindly toward a great collision.”
Just before the final charge begins, Lee says, “It is all in the hands of God.” But Longstreet, with his practical, down-to-earth nature, thinks differently. After Lee’s remark, Longstreet thinks, “[I]t isn’t God that is sending those men up that hill.” In other words, it is a human decision, one that could have been made differently. Not everything is predestined or fated to be the way it is. Humans also have responsibility.
The theme that events are working themselves out, for good or ill, according to God’s will, can also be seen in the fact that Lee and other Confederate officers are troubled because they broke their oaths to defend the Union. There is a certain fatalism on the Confederate side, the idea that since they broke their oaths, and also since they invaded the North, God may have turned against them.