Gods And Generals

Gods And Generals
By Jeff Shaara

This book was a Christmas gift from the Bama. She knows I am somewhat of a history buff and knowing a movie was being made on the subject bought me Mr. Shaara’s series on the Civil War. So I have worked it into my reading schedule. Having myself climbed the observation tower at Gettysburg and listening to the narration of the battle I could almost feel the ghosts of the soldiers who gave their lives. Imagine 15,000 men falling to their death in one morning. Call me imaginative but yes the notion and feelings did grip me and vested a deep sense of respect for those who go to war. This book, written by an author one hundred and forty years removed who attempts to follow in is father’s foot steps by telling a story of the men engaged in the War as opposed to simply chronicling the events.

Shaara chose Robert E. Lee, Winfield Scott, Thomas Jackson, and Joshua Chamberlain to tell his story. Lee and Scott went to West Point together. They fought in the war with Mexico together. Jackson and Chamberlain were educators of well established institutions. All had interactive acquaintances prior to the War yet Shaara weaves the dynamic events of each characters personal life, with the over arching issues being debated in Washington and newspapers to illustrate the intimate decision making process of all involved in the time preceding the Civil War. The fist half of the book is dedicated to the personal decisions with an impression that their minds were made up by their heritage more than anything else.

Lee, while offered a Generals position in the Union army turned it down. He had a military career at great sacrifice to his family to the Union of States. The key word herein being States. In Lee’s reply to his offer he sited that while he is dedicated to defend his country, he would not play any part in his country attacking his home state State of Virginia. He closed with while I have demonstrated loyalty to my country, I love my Virginia first and must return home to defend it against this army of 75,000 soldiers that Lincoln was assembling. When you stop and think about it, prior to the 14th amendment the southern States were within their rights to succeed. Lincoln was waging war against a foreign country to impose his moral conscious upon that land. He was also violating a law by conceiving a draft of men to fight this war.

Chamberlain, on the other hand in, the course of teaching his young men about the issues of the war came to the conclusion that: “our young nation was founded on freedom for all men. It was formed with unique laws that allow for a due process that existed nowhere else in the world. This experiment of nationhood could find it’s demise long before it has a chance to prove itself” In my previous studies of American history I have learned that the slavery issues was indeed up for debate in the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was an issue that was allowed to go unsettled with the placement of due process of government presides. Unbeknownst to our forefathers they did not foresee the last element of international negotiations come to fruition.

Scott’s purpose in the book was primarily to illustrate the ineptness of our General leadership in the Union army during the first two years of the war. While there existed a high degree of politics in the appointment of Generals in Washington, the real impact of poor selection was only witnessed by Union losses on the battlefield. Scott’s questioning of strategy in choice of battlefield as well as the actual battle plan shed light on the Union losses in Mannassas and Fredericksburg. The culminating battle in this book being Fredericksburg leaves one to wonder from this point why the Union army would prevail. Lee sat on his horse overlooking the battlefield before it began and thanked God for granting such an easy battle plan. Yet after the successful defense of Fredericksburg, sending the Union army back across the river with many dead left on the battlefield, Lee thought to himself that the only way to preclude this unwanted advancement of the Union Army would be to take the war to Union soil. The only thing mounting in Lincolns favor at this time is the overwhelming measure of resources in terms of equipment and soldiers.

Jackson’s character, my favorite, illustrated the sense of reverence towards God in his contemplation of his fate as well as people on both sides of the war. While this theme is prevalent in the building of all the main characters, Shaara seemed to have more success with Stonewall Jackson. His religious foundation carried a strain of superstition in leaving some decisions up to God. While rational man would find folly in this sort of thing, Shaara gives credibility to Jackson’s ways as he seemed to behave most courageously in battle. Hence is nickname Stonewall. While he is the first of the four characters to die you could only ask yourself the questions: Is it matter of how long you live or how well you live your life?

In general commentary on the book, I came away from it with a higher degree of respect for the Confederate cause. Imagine today’s society going to war over moral issues such as abortion. Without the safeguard of the 14th Amendment such a travesty would be possible. Imagine finding yourself with an opinion one way or another yet forces beyond you placing yourself in a position to defend your home. Yet how would history look at you if your side prevailed? How would it look at you if you side lost? Then take a look at our leaders, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. All made decisions to wage war with a strong consideration of the moral right or wrong at hand. Indeed they were required to appeal to their constituencies and laws and with national security in mind; but what was it that enabled a good night sleep? In the case of the American Civil War, history found the wisdom in Lincoln’s moral leadership. On a separate discussion one would ponder our form of government as it now stands more biased towards federalism as opposed to Statehood which gave us strength to prevail in the following century of war. Yet honor and respect for the mind and the will of a people defending their land should be held in equal regard. I believe this was Shaarsa’s message.

Coincidently as I read this book, the post Iraq War Press lodges questions surrounding the argument of weapons of mass destruction. In defense of this barrage of second guessing, the leader that comes to the forefront is again vested in the culture of our preceding forefathers. Like his predecessor Churchill, Tony Blair provides the perspective that helps balance the difficulty in decisions made by our Generals and Commander and Chief. He said “if we don’t find weapons of mass destruction, history will forgive us. If we fail to remove blight on world humanity, history will not forgive us.” In between these decisions made by leaders and history is the Press. Do we have the fortitude to make up our own minds?