Do you feel the novel, The Killer Angels, is pro-Union or pro-Confederate?

I'm not sure my answer will help you with your essay, but
I believe the late author Michael Shaara bent over backwards trying to maintain
neutrality in telling his tale of the Battle of Gettysburg. While it is true that there
are several more chapters focusing on the Confederate leaders than their Union
counterparts, the difference is negligible. It is clear that Shaara has high regard for
the leading players: Lee, Longstreet and Chamberlain, particularly. However, Shaara is
quick to point out their weaknesses as well: Lee's stubborness and utter belief that his
men cannot be defeated; Longstreet's defeatist attitude after he recognizes that
Pickett's Charge cannot succeed; and Chamberlain's all too humane response to the men
around him. I believe Shaara concentrates more on the Confederate leaders primarily
because they are far more interesting. Lee is already a living legend in the South and
feared throughout the North. His counterpart, George Meade, is an unknown quality with
few known accomplishments under his belt. The focus on Pickett's generals (and
specifically Armistead's relationship with the Union General Hancock) creates a great
story that was not evident among the Union participants. However, Chamberlain may be the
most deeply personalized character in the novel, and Shaara's finest literary moments
comes in these chapters. Unlike many historical references which glorify the
Confederacy's high water mark at Gettysburg, Shaara instead tells it like it was with an
unbiased view rarely found in such books.