If the South Had Won the Civil War

I'm definitely checking out the rest of Kantor's other books. I found a few new names of history to look up. I only wish the ending gave a more cut-clean conclusion, but that's fiction for you; still five stars out of five stars though!

A surprisingly upbeat effort to view the ramifications of a different result to the War of Northern Aggression, this book is worth reading more than once.

I love this little book of 'alternative' or 'what if?' history - only 127 pages in the edition I have - and, though reading it occupies a mere hour or so, it deals with the delightful thought that 'The War for Southern Independence' might have ended much earlier, in 1863, and very differently, if a couple of relatively minor happenings had had different outcomes, and it acts as a tonic to those of us who still believe in the Southern cause. The reason I write this is because MacKinlay Kantor does not describe a victory for the old Confederacy as a triumph for illiberal white supremacists, more a rational and sensible reinstitution of peace and civilisation for both North and South. For example, one of Mr Kantor's imagined heroes is 'Rel' Stuart - Robert Edward Lee Stuart, son of General 'Jeb' Stuart - a Congressman from Virginia who becomes Governor of the C.S. State of Cuba. (That would be infinitely preferable to the Castro brothers, surely?). I won't reveal the whole of the logically and carefully crafted tale: suffice to say that the people prosper, that slavery dies a death in the late 1800s (the 'Liberation Act' being passed by the Confederate Congress in 1885, with provision for financial restitution for slave-owners), and that the old 'United States' are likely to be reunited following a conference between the Presidents respectively of the Confederate States of America, the United States of America and the Republic of Texas, at Washington, D.D. (District of Dixie) - in April, 1961, one hundred years after the firing on Fort Sumter. Relatively light reading regarding a very heavy subject - but so enjoyable!

Mr. Kantor's 100-page alternate reality reads like an overview from a history lesson. He tells an intelligent story of how the southern states might have come out victors in 1863, gaining independence and avoiding what would have been the final, bloodiest two years of the American Civil War. Kantor tell of how the losses of Sherman and Grant, along with other developments (that in some cases very nearly happened) changed history and ended the war in favor of the south. He goes on to trace the history of the American nations over the next century, from the Davis, Lee, Jackson and Stuart administrations in Confederate-controlled Washington DC, thru the building of the new US capital, Columbia, in present-day Columbus, Ohio. Kantor tells of Texas' withdrawal from the Confederacy and its annexation of the Indian territory to its north. He introduces us to popular figures, like multi-term Virginia Senator Robert E. Lee Stuart, son of JEB, an extraordinary man who never existed in our own timeline. Kantor creates a believable example of the way it could have been and does a handy job of making all this interesting. Read this (in about as long as it'd take you to watch a movie of the week on TV) and you'll feel enlightened by this window into the way things nearly were.

This book looks at what would have happened if just a few things were changed during the Civil War. On May 12, 1863, near Vicksburg, Mississippi, General Ulysses S. Grant is killed in a freak equestrian accident. This seems to take the wind out of the Army of Tennessee, whose expedition had started earlier that year with such promise, but whose fortunes had been getting worse and worse. The remaining Union forces surrender to the Confederate Army at Vicksburg. Farther north, the Battle of Gettysburg truns into a defeat (perhaps slaughter is a better word) for the Union forces, who surrender to Robert E. Lee. Word reaches President Abraham Lincoln that the end is near. On July 4, 1863, he and his family flee the White House at night, in the back of a horse-drawn ice truck. His first destination is Richmond, Virginia, where he is the "guest" of president Jefferson Davis. There is little or no looting of Washington by the advancing Confederate forces, though a number of White House items somehow make their way into Confederate homes. The looting is done by the citizens of Washington, whose name is changed from District of Columbia to District of Dixie. America is given a chance to move the offices and documents out of Washington, and they eventually end up in the new capital of Columbus, Ohio, which is renamed Columbia. Seward's Folly, the purchase of Alaska from Russia, never happens. Throughout all of this, Texas remains independent. In 1898, a Confederate battleship is blown up in Havana Harbor. The Confederate States declare war on Spain, and send an expeditionary force against Spanish forces in Cuba. After a successful campaign, the island is rebuilt and Cuba becomes the newest member of the Confederate States of America. Through the 20th century to the present, relations between the three countries (United States, Confederate States and Texas) are actually pretty good. This is a fascinating book. History buffs, especially Civil-War history, need to read it. Some knowledge of history, more than the usual amount, would be a help. This is highly recommended.

I can't believe that it's nearly 50 years since I read Kantor's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel "Andersonville"Somehow I missed this 'what if'when it came out in LOOK magazine and book form as well as all the hoopla it created.It is a short, but enjoyable speculation.How realistic the results could be is anybody's guess.I guess it is all in where one is coming from ,but the important thing is that Kantor's version is plausible and makes for good reading.It is an art, and not a science ,to look back in history to determine what and why things happened;and when one attempts to look to the future there are no constraints at all;so,anything is fair game. Trying to speculate what would have happened if Kennedy was not killed in Dallas...heck,we're not even sure why, or even if, he was shot by Oswald. The introduction by Harry Turtledove is excellent and has some very good points to make on alternate history writings.Kantor has whet my appetite for more.I am about to start on "What If", edited by Robert Cowley.I think one of the comments made about it by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "...history is not an inevitable march of dusty names,dates and places,but a precarious,careening ride that could have taken us to any number of destinations." I guess that about says it all.