Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels

Foiling Union attempts at victory at the Battle of Glendale on June 30, 1862, and the Battle of Malvern Hill July 1, the next day, James Longstreet surpasses his reputation as a mediocre student from West Point -- graduating fifty-fourth in a class of fifty-six -- and wins over General Robert E. Lee’s trust. Furthering his performance, as well as Lee’s reliance, Longstreet prevents the Union from seizing Richmond. Longstreet quickly became Lee’s “staff” in his right hand, however, as did the Union in 1860, the bond between the two begins to dissolve. Michael Shaara’s novel, The Killer Angels, inaccurately portrays General James Longstreet and evokes an unnecessary degree of sympathy from the reader, therefore incorrectly depicting the structural

Shaara gave reason for judgment against Lee’s “radical” decision whereas such judgment justly lies on Longstreet and his flawed perception of the battle. Shaara observes, “Longstreet felt a depression so profound it deadened him … he smelled disaster like distant rain. It was Longstreet’s curse to see the thing clearly” (Shaara 126-127). Created to have a visionary perception of the future and the disaster that would occur from Lee’s suicidal agenda, Longstreet juxtaposes reality and gives little credit to Lee’s consistent military victories and experience in strategy. Basing his defensive motion off of a single victory, Lee is justified and understandable in his request to attack as his victories weigh significantly more. Had it been “Stonewall” Jackson instead of Longstreet on the battlefield, in fact, Lee’s plan could have potentially been practicable. Longstreet’s real-life image lacks the ability of such a seer and has as much, if not less, comprehension of what the distant future holds as Lee. As Gettysburg commences, Longstreet pulls initial success in breaking Federal lines but breaks with high casualties, losing most of his commanding men. Moreover, Longstreet’s belief in defensive techniques and its logic is not

It also grants Longstreet visionary comprehension of the future when in actuality this is far from it. In the novel, Longstreet takes little blame for his treasonous actions in allegedly deliberately slowing Lee’s commands out of spite and in an attempt to voice his objection -- quickly departing after expressing his anger, disregarding that it spurred from his action, whereas, in real-life, controversy still surrounds the topic and detractors place an enormous amount of responsibility on the General’s shoulders. Creating a single link between the two, real and fictitious, Shaara is factual in his portrayal of Longstreet’s stubborn objection to Lee’s frontal attack on the Union’s left wing. Shaara portrays his ability to create a gripping and emotional story about the bloodbath of Gettysburg and the innocent lives lost, while also emphasizing his occupation to do just that. The entire story revolves around informing of the precise details he acquired, however, pathos is prominent and the reader must not forget that the novel is not -- and was not meant to be -- a textbook with little to no emotion. Therefore, the fabrication of characters to entice readers is justified. However, the amount of fabrication incorrectly details the cause of the