Jrotc

I would not be honored to serve in Col. Chamberlain's army at Gettysburg for a cornucopia of reasons. Let me preface my pacifistic reasoning by stating that not only is there no such thing as a war worth fighting for, but also that specifically in the case of Col. Chamberlain given to us in class, it seems to me that one would be reluctant to say that we'd be honored to fight for such a man. Regardless, I see the actions taken by Col. Chamberlain as nothing above the norm of any other military leader that we've learned to be evil. Lets face it, if Col. Chamberlain was fighting for the Confederates, we wouldn't even be in the discussion. So, what exactly makes somebody a moral leader or an evil leader? Either way, the ideal for both is to meet and/or exceed the expectations set for them by society, and to direct others utilizing motivation and direction, and it seems like the only way to do that in the military is to give someone a gun and teach them how to use it. Sure, in the midst of pure chaos, Col. Chamberlain, with the assistance of several other Union colonels, was successful in directing his subordinates towards safety and towards victory...But only after having 1/3 die. So exactly how thankful would you be to your leader if he let 130 of your fellow soldiers die? And for what exactly? The way I see it, it was for a commiserable and pathetic cause. I see no logic behind having to kill others to then in turn be reunited with them. I see no logic in bringing unity to a country by force. Furthermore, I am left here to conclude that Col. Chamberlain was fighting for a reluctant and redundant cause, and therefore see absolutely no reasoning in being honored to be a subordinate to such a cause. Plus, chances are, I wouldn't be in the army anyways.

Anyways, I would not be honored to serve in Col. Chamberlain's effort in Gettysburg, and see the entire situation as good leadership skills wasted for a barbaric cause.

...