The character of Joshua Chamberlain is very detailed, but he also has the ability to change. Chamberlain might be the best leader out of the three that we read about. He came from an educated background and was willing to do what is necessary to win. The book ends with Chamberlain sitting on a rock looking at Gettysburg and reflecting over the last couple horrendous days. He thinks about Pickett’s Charge, and how few people see a sight like that, and most that do don’t come out of the better end of it. He also contemplates how he will explain what happened there to his grandchildren. How he was a part of a change in this country’s history.
Chamberlain’s unique side is his ability to make rash decisions in crucial situations. When his lines were falling he put his brother's life on the line and ordered him to fill in the gap. "Chamberlain remembered using the boy to plug a hole in the line, stopping the hole with his own brother's body like a warm bloody cork, and Chamberlain looked at himself." (pg 342). Chamberlain loves the aspects of war, but when he takes a step back and looks at what war truly is, he realizes what it can make people do in certain situations.
Later on Chamberlain is talking to his brother Tom and the reason why they were fighting came up.' "Thing I cannot understand. Thing I never will understand. How can they fight so hard, them Johnnies, and all for slaver?" Chamberlain raised his head. He had forgotten the Cause. When the guns began firing he had forgotten it completely. It seemed very strange now to think of morality, or that minister long ago, or the poor runaway black. he looked out across the dark field, could see nothing but the yellow lights and outlines of black bodies stark in the lightning.'(pg 343).I think that it is interesting how some soldiers did not even know what they were dying for. This passage is a great example of how people think in a war. When that first gun goes off you are not thinking of the causes, but better yet what can I do to get through this.
10 comments:
I think your right, most of these soldiers forgot what they were fighting for. It probably is easy and likely for a soldier to send cause right out the door and just try to outlive a war. Perhaps the two sides would have different results had they been constantly reminded of the cause. I think for the Confederacy, cause would have been a motivator, whereas for the Union, cause was already a factor in their fighting. I think both sides, in the end, lost sight of the root cause of the war -- but the Union was lucky because of Chamberlain's wit and Lee's mistakes.
Chamberlain fits the mold of a great leader, who constantly tries to better himself. We see Chamberlain question his position as a general of of the union army. Unlike Lee, Chamberlain admits that he does not understand certain aspects of war. I am not saying that Chamberlain is unsure of his abilities or without confidence, but his scholarly background allows him to truly interpret the war for what it is. Something which even he does not fully understand. His qualities as a leader are exemplified by his thoughtful nature and his open minded views as to the purpose and nature of war.
Sean, this is a great description and analysis of Chamberlain. You give examples of his motives, thoughts, and crucial decisions, each aspects that make him a great leader. In your post, your bring up the fact that some soldiers did not truly understand what they were fighting for. While this is sad, I really think it's something common. To be completely honest, the clarity we now have in terms of the civil war is a product of the time and study we have done. At the time, there was still a lot of ambiguity in terms of reasons and actions.
I think this is important because maybe perhaps when a war is going on, it is the most unclear. For example, in 20 years, we may think about Iraq, and see things that we cannot understand today. Ultimately, we fight wars for the future, even when the truth about the wars are not evident until then.
I like your distinction of how you may believe in what you "are fighting for" but as soon as the first bullet or shell is fired, all you care about is living to see another day. Although this seems quite selfish, I think it ties in well with the "what are you willing to die for?" discussion our class had a few months back. Ultimately, an average soldier who might be steadfast in defending his beliefs, is most likely going to act in his own best interests in times of great danger.
Though your point of how many of the soldiers didn't know what they were fighting for is an intriguing one, it is explainable. It's not that they didn't know, it's just they were caught in the heat of battle. Even a professor like Chamberlain doesn't have the time to think of such things during battle, all one can think about is the job at hand and self-preservation. Obviously they knew what they were fighting for when they signed up to fight, be it there home, slavery or whatever. However, once any imminent fighting or danger is over, they can take the time to realize the cause they are supporting, a liberty they do not have in the middle of a battle.
Sean, this post brings me back to a discussion that we had a long time ago. We were talking about how people act during war. Many of us said that in chaotic times like war, people's actions reveal who they truly are. While comparing your blog post to that discussion is kind of a stretch, you give proof in your closing words that war changes people. Whether someone acts brave but is really a coward in the face of war, or is a firm believer in something, but completely forgets the cause they are fighting for, war has strong effects on people. I really don't think that's where you were going with this, but I read your post several times and I was led back to this thought every time.
I agree with you that when people feel their lives are in danger they will do whatever it takes to survive. You also have to remember that most of the soldiers who were fighting in the civil war probably weren't the most educated folk. And back in that time the only source of information was the newspaper. So I think in this case its understandable that they did not know what they were fighting for.
I agree with Shanil. What made Chamberlin a great leader was that he constantly questioned his own actions. He wanted to make sure that what he was doing would be beneficial to his troops to lessen the deaths and increase their chances of victory.
i think so too. while there might be reasons outside the battlefield or before the fight, during the fight all the soldier is thinking is survival. after all, what kind of soldier is fighting and is thinking about how the next reb he kills means 3 slaves go free?
Interesting idea of soldiers forgetting the reasons they signed up to fight. I like your finish and completely agree. It is interesting to me that soldiers become so focused on the reality of their situation, and seriousness of one mistake, that they truly forget about the cause of the fight. To me this shows the significance of war. Or the insignificance. If people become so involved with survival, is the war itself really that necessary in the first place?
Post a Comment