Armistead and Hancock shared a very strong friendship throughout the book. The two of them met at West Point and were split when Armistead decided to fight for the South and Hancock decided to fight for the North. When the point of view shifted to Armistead in Day Three, he saw that Longstreet brought comfort to soldiers just by his presence. Armistead remembered that Hancock could do that as well, and he realized how much he missed his dear friend. He wondered about Hancock and said aloud, “If I lift a hand against you, friend, may God strike me dead.” (That quote can be found on page 314.) As Armistead pondered these thoughts, he thought, “I wish it was not Hancock atop that hill… I wish… the war was over.” (That quote can be found …show more content…
They were not afraid to share their thoughts with the other person, whether that man wanted to hear it or not. When General Lee told Longstreet that a frontal assault would be a disaster on Day Three of battle, Longstreet protested, saying, “…If we try to move in support it has to come from miles off, and their cannon can see every move. Heck, their cannons are looking down on us right now. General Lee, sir, this is not a good position.” (That quote can be found on page 286.) Lee most certainly did not want to hear that from his closest general, but he simply replied that the Union forces would eventually break. Lee and Longstreet felt comfortable around each other, and they seemed to have a connection. They both understood that they approached the same situations with different tactics, and they accepted that fact. On the First Day of battle, Longstreet said to Lee about reproaching Stuart, “’Yes, by George. Maybe. Reproach from you. Yes.’ Longstreet grinned widely. ‘Might do the job. But me… I’m not good at …show more content…
‘We’ll have the advantage of moving downhill,’ he said.” (That quote can be found on page 226.) In this quote, Chamberlain was confident and decisive, which was two qualities that the Union forces needed in a general. I admire his leadership, and I hope that someday I can be as confident and thoughtful as he was.
I also admire his courage in his encounter with the Southern minister and Virginian professor. His belief that the blacks were equivalent to the white people is similar to mine. Chamberlain told Kilrain his visit, “I remember him sitting there, sipping tea. I tried to point out that a man is not a horse, and he replied, very patiently, that that was the thing I did not understand, that a Negro is not a man. Then I left the room.” (That quote can be found on page 177.) I understand that he lived in the nineteenth century whereas I live in the twenty-first, but there are many racist people in the world today that I have not stood up like Chamberlain did. My family and I are close friends with a black woman who works at Guerin and is married to a white man. I have talked to many different people who know them and do not think that they should be married based on their skin color; I get very confused and aggravated. The black woman is one of the nicest people I have ever met, and she acts like a normal human would. Chamberlain wondered a question similar to the following in 1863, and I wonder the same question today: Why would color
While Chamberlain recalls an experience in depth about a black man that he respected, Kilrain offers a clear ideology of the reason he is fighting this war. Rather than keeping the argument solely about human race or even this country, Chamberlain directly states that he is fighting for the right to prove that he is a better man than many. Whether you have higher education or just more life experience, It is obvious that the less general idea of what you are fighting for would be the less convincing
John Hancock was born on January 12, 1737 in Braintree, Massachusetts. He was orphaned as a child and then was adopted by a wealthy merchant uncle who was childless. Hancock went to Harvard College for a business education. He graduated Harvard College at the age of 17. He apprenticed to his uncle as a clerk and proved to be honest and capable that in 1760, he was sent on a business mission to England. In England, he witnessed the coronation of King George III and engaged some of the leading businessmen of London.
In the spring of 1861 as the nation leaned toward Civil War, both Grant and Lee would be forced to make very difficult decisions. Grant would only have to decide between being a patriot or a traitor. In a letter to Grant’s father he wrote: “There are but two parties now, Traitors & Patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter. . . (Grant p 957)"18 Lee was torn between a successful career in the United States Army, his devotion to the Union, an appointment as commander of the Union forces and the love he had for his family and homeland. In a letter to his sister, Lee wrote: “ With all my devotion to the Union…I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand
One of the boldest actions of Maj. Gen. James Ewell Brown Stuart under the leadership of Robert E. Lee was his effort to make "a complete circuit around the Union Army, heading to the north end of the lower peninsula (near the York River) and returning to Richmond along the James." . Allowing Stuart to make this move was one of the first decisions of Robert E. Lee, who had just replaced the more cautious Gen. Joseph E. Johnston as the leader of the Confederates. "In the aftermath of the inconclusive battle," led by Johnson "Lee suspected that the right flank of McClellan's army was 'in the air' not anchored to any natural formation, and thus vulnerable to attack. To be certain, he decided to send Stuart to reconnoiter."
When Lee headed North and started invading he had been checked again at Gettysburg. The assault was called Pickett's Charge that had a wide spread which cost the South badly. The musket was replaced by the rifle which made attacks much more hopeless. Lee had failed to notice how well the effect was. Lee fought again to try and regain power back but could not succeed. President Davis wanted Lee to become general in chief in the confederate armies. By that time had come around the Confederates had lost the war. Many people had thought that Lee was to bloody minded for wanting to keep fighting and keep putting his army on the line. Lee did not want to accept that he had lost. People say what the mind knows the heart might not except. He was not alone when he was fighting, his crew was fully ready to fight with him until they ended up having to surrender. After the war was all over he became president of Washington College. “He applied to have his application restored but his application was [lost]” (History www.history.com). Lee had died in 1870 of heart disease. His last words were “strike the
6. How does Shaara portray General Lee in this work, especially Lee's decision to attack at Gettysburg, despite Longstreet's advice not to? Why doesn't Longstreet want to fight at this particular spot?
Another problem Lee had was that he was seen as a father figure to most of the men and treated them softly. Stuart was supposed to be gathering information for Lee, but instead he was out “joy riding” which left the Army of Northern Virginia basically blind as to where the North regiments were positioned. Longstreet said “When Stuart comes back you ought to court martial him” (82). However, Lee believed reproach, letting Stuart know how badly he let them down, would make him a good soldier. When dealing with Stuart Lee “spoke as you speak to a child” and wanted to reassure him. He treated Stuart softly (256-266). Lee’s age, failing health, and softness on his men was one reason the Army of Northern Virginia lost the Battle of Gettysburg.
I would rather not have done it upon this ground, but every moment we delay the enemy uses to reinforce himself. We must hit him now. We pushed him yesterday; he will remember it. The men are ready. I see no alternatives.” (pg. 184) This proves that General Lee was more concerned about taking quick action against the Union army rather than taking the time to figure out a more defensive attack in order to ensure a higher chance of survival for his
On May 5, 1864, General Lee and the Confederates clashed with General Grant and the Union army in the Battle of the Wilderness. The two generals have different backgrounds, but they both accomplished amazing things. Though Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee have extremely different military strategies and leadership styles, they are considered two of the best generals in American history. Before being generals clashing on the battlefield both were students at West Point with slightly different experiences.
What strategy should be used largely determined which side could win the battle. It is mentioned throughout the book from both sides. Lee preferred Napoleonic tactics associated with honor, whereas Longstreet going with defensive works. Buford, the Union cavalry had the same beliefs with Longstreet since they both have served out West and highly regarded defensive tactics in battles. The conflict between Lee and Longstreet not only showed us their personalities, but also gave us the idea of different operations of concept between the two. Everyone, no matter what they were fighting for, no matter what strategy they use, they were all holding their belief of sincerity and
Armistead and Hancock have an odd relationship during the Civil War. Before the war had started these two guys were the best of friends but they were concerned that one day they may face each other in battle. Since Armistead was a general on the Confederate and Hancock of the Union, they wanted to see each other one last time if anything went bad with one another.
The traits that differentiated Chamberlain from others and ultimately enabled him to be successful were his ability to inspire, relate and be one with his unit. He also showed an ability to be flexible and a willingness to abandon a strategy and try something that seemed crazy at the time – almost the antithesis of Lee. His speeches were certainly inspirational and made me think of some of the disruptive CEOs in Silicon Valley like Larry Page and Steve Jobs. Also, his calm demeanor and ability to lead his unit symbolically made me think of Howard Schultz and his insistence on calling his staff ‘partners’ rather than employees.
It’s a closeness you never had before. It’s closer than your mother and father, closest [sic] than your brother or your sister, or whoever you’re closest with in your family. It was . . . y’know, you’d take a shit, and he’d be right there covering you. And if I take a shit, he’d be covering me. . . . We needed each other to surivive.
Both leaders grew up in wealthy families, but both were forced to work while they were young. Chamberlain was forced to work on a plantation when he was still young to make money for his family. (Encyclopedia of World Biography). This gave him confidence to make his own decisions
“Happiness isn't about getting what you want all the time. It's about loving what you have and being grateful for it.”