Customer Reviews

CSA - Confederate States of America

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

When I first saw the title "CSA" and read the summary of the plot, I felt I had to own this book. Alternative History is a fascinating subject, and I have always enjoyed this kind of speculative fiction. However, the premise for the creation of the Confederate States and the destruction of the North is so flimsy and historically unsound that the entire novel fell apart around it.

Means starts the book with the assumption that the South won the war after 1865. Any historian can tell you that this would have been impossible. By 1864 the Cause of the Confederacy was lost, and no final, great display by Jefferson Davis in Richmond could have saved it. Lee's Army had crumbled to less than a quarter of Grant's by 1865, with desertions winnowing the number down every day. There is no concieveable way that the Army of Northern Virginia could have ressurected itself and conqured the North. If the setting for the Southern victory had taken place after a Lee victory at Gettysburg, the premise could have been kept up, but assuming the destruction of the USA after 1865? Please. Suspension of disbelief is one thing. Being asked to swallow this tripe is absurd. Based solely on that, I would recommend never picking up this book, but the story itself is just as awful.

The CSA Means envisions seperates the races but makes them truly equal. But freedom in the South is a tenuous thing, and if you're bad, you're sent to the "badlands" of the industrial wassteland that is the North. The Vice-President's son(a mixed-up kid cliche), is kidnapped by an SLA-like northern group and taken to the former USA, where he learns that things like the mixing of the races and secular humanisim are all great things that the South has denied itself. No arguments from me about the positive aspects of TRUE racial equality and whatnot, but he becomes a Patty Hearst type, falling in with his kidnappers. The book offers no real insight into the workings of the CSA, except for a few token paragraphs about how the President is always white, the Veep always black, and how the two chambers of Congress are one white and one black. Also, the University of Virginia built an identical campus just for blacks, and it can be assumed that these Jim Crow-esque rules apply accross this nation. It's all rather sad, as the opportunity to explore what a real victorious South would be like are lost. Why would the North, with all it's resources, be turned into a wasteland by the South? Why would everyone be so happy with segregation? Means seems to think that race relations in the South would be better than our current state of affairs because seperate but equal is truly achieved. But come on! Assuming that the South won, wouldn't slavery, although logically eventually abolished, last longer, and wouldn't the kind of seperation depicted in the novel be impossible in a South that would have been slave-free for such a short amount of time? CSA paints the Confederate cause as flawed but right, which is downright stupid. The book insulted my intelligence again and again. For a good review of what a victorious South would look like, see Harry Turtledove's "Great War" series, which starts with the excellent "How Few Remain". He paints a much more realistic portrait of Southern victory, which results in a CSA and USA, which is what the South wanted, anyway. Read that series, which paints vivid portraits of historical and fictional charachters, not this mess of a novel that had me itching for my $4.99 back.

A descendant of the SS-GB genre, this book is flawed by the lack of historical versimilitude coupled with pedestrian writing.

To have the CSA win the war in 1865 because it was "renewed" by Jefferson Davis' heroic sacrifice was a stretch. To then add a black House and a white Senate only stretches credibility beyond comprehension. In effect, the author's approval of Plessy vs. Ferguson {1896, "separate but equal") is taken to ridiculous heights/depths.

European history still has a Nazi Germany, but Britain is a virtual sinecure of the CSA. History between 1865 and 2000 is slapdash and more than unlikely.

The "detective" novel has a plot which is somewhat reminiscent of GUNS OF THE SOUTH in terms of race relations and GORKY PARK in terms of plot line, but it is handled so poorly that no one really cares.

To top it off, the protagonist police detective Clark Haddon's mere name is insulting (the author, located in the DC metro area, has to be aware that Haddon Clark is a local serial killer). But then again, this novel is bad in so many different aspects that this is only one of the lesser faults.

Poor historical development, poor plotline, poor writing -- and these are its strengths. I have probably read worse books, but it is difficult to say when.

As an avid, amateur, Civil War historian, I was anxious to read this book. Now mind you, I consider myself a flexible person and I can be entertained by a suppostion or opinion that contradicts my own. But in the opening pages of this book I'm asked to believe that Robert Edward Lee, upon winning the Civil War, would sack and burn New York! In addition, I'm asked to believe that military governer Lee would threaten Mary Todd Lincoln's *children and grandchildren* with death if the under-house-arrest Abe Lincoln ever left Springfield.

Even a cursory study of Lee's life indicates that these suppositions are so impossible as to be ludicrous. Now sure, someone else in the CSA could have done the above--Nathan Bedford Forrest springs to mind--but not Lee, and not most of the Confederate Army Commanders. I think the author, Howard Means, has Lee doing this because it's convienant for the plot that such events happen. Unfortunately, he's disregarding everything known about Lee the man.

I put the book down after reading ten pages. I recommend you don't even bother to pick it up.

I had high hopes for this one but after a few pages I saw the handwriting on the wall. This was so bad it's hard to know where to begin. First, the history of the war makes no sense - the South's goal was never a military conquest of the North and Lee would never have slaughtered enemy officers or burned cities to the ground. This is one of those godawful books where HUGE changes occur yet history goes on as if nothing happened. WWI went on as before (how could it since only US intervention defeated German?). Then Hitler leads Germany to control of all Europed (how could he gain power if WWI had a different outcome?) Africa is a mess, Asia is a blood bath. We have cell phones, nuclear power plants and missles but can't clean up pollution!

Like bad books of this type, people constantly refer to events decades in the past as if it just happened. But let's look at literary errors. One cheap tactic sometimes used is type-casting. IN this case the President is named Spencer Jefferson Lee, related not only to Jefferson David but Robert E Lee. (real plausibel - lol) Southerners sound like a mix of Aunt Jemimah and Colonel Sanders; the dialogue is like a film in which actors Non-SOuthern actors affect a Southern accent and sounds about as authentic as fool's gold. The plot, well after the war a former slaveowner comes up with the idea of a co-equal society, separate but equal. In this case blacks & whites are truly equal (the VP is black) and both support the CSA BUT there can be no mixing of the races. A group of activists (read love between the races) attempts to change the status quo and a semi-mystery occurs.

The last half of the book just goes on and on and on and the reader is wondering, when will something happen? After a boring chase scene (where the President seems to wander about the countryside unmolested) they make the grand decision to destroy the old Capitol - a bad "symbol". At the last the President has sort of learned the errors of his ways, made plain to him by the kids. Hogwash!

Howard Means keeps you somewhat interested in the story. However, there is a lack of dramatic content throughout which does not appear until the end of the book and then, just barely. We find out little about what the Senate, House, newspapers or the Southern general public thinks about the current state of events. And, for a book on alternate history, his descriptions of the current world beyond his characters is sketchy. Such as: Is Nathan Winston the first Black VP (and what happens if the President dies in office? Who becomes President if there is 'separate but equal'?) What is the rest of the CSA like beyond Richmond? What is the rest of the North like beyond North Adams? I agree with many other reviewers who say that the way the South won the Civil War (a ridiculous victory in 1865) is completely implausible. The book is populated by too few main characters and some of the main characters (Haddon and Cara, for instance) disappear for 75 pages or more before returning again. Means is too focused on Spencer Lee & Nathan Winston and not enough on the world of the CSA. By adding a little politcal intrigue, more in depth (and alternate) descriptions of the world and a stronger police investigation, among other things, this could have been a blockbuster. Instead, it is just a curiosity piece to go along with the other ho-hum What If (counterfactual) books.

I am a fan of alternate history, and I was attracted to this book because of the theme. The notion of the South winning the Civil War has always been intriguing. The acknowledged master of alternate history, Harry Turtledove, is in the middle of a fine series on this subject, titled "How Few Remain", and its first sequel, "The Great War: The American Front". I must say, I was disapppointed. I like a story when it's well thought out, and this book is not. It is a murder mystery set in a present day Confederacy in which blacks and whites live completely seperate, but truly equal. Never mind equality has never been the case when societies are legally separate. But the biggest sticking point is having Robert E. Lee's army. in the closing days of the war, somehow beat General Grant's forces and march all the way to New York and torch the city, and everything else in its path. And what caused this miracle? Confederate President Jefferson Davis suicide by fire! I ask, "with what?" Even if Davis' self-immolation was more inspiring than Lee's or Stonewall Jackson's leadership, the rebel army was at that time thoroughly outnumbered, outgunned, outmaneuvered, outfed, and outshod. There was simply no way Lee's band of starving, barefoot scarecrows could have laid waste to the Northern States at that point in time, no matter how inspired. The premise was so implausibile I couldn't follow the story.

Means creates a good story but it's back drop is so putrid that it totally washes away any good. By page 67 I was saying I can't finish this book. However, I did force my way through it. So what is wrong with this book, please let me count the ways. First, The way he has the south winning is so totally laughable that it removes any acceptance of the book. His historical characters have absolutely nothing in common with their actual personalities. I mean to have Robert E Lee hang PoWs is just utterly amazing. I know this is fiction but in order for it to work it must have a basis in reality. Next to have someone stand up in the Confederate Congress in 1871 and say we must free the black man and treat him as an egual shows a complete lack of understanding of race relations in the 1800's. Historically, a Northern dominated Union fully believed it was their duty to look after the "Little Brown Brothers" of the world because they couldn't govern themselves. With this being the case a Confederacy is hardly going to be more tolerant. Finally Means shows a totaly disregard for any accuracy and show how little research he did by the office of President. He has the President of the Confederacy serving in the last year of his second term or his 7th year in office. According to the Confederate Constituion, the President was limited to one term of 6 years. This could have been a very good book with a little more research and a more plausible point of departure.

p.s. One thing I have noticed is those reviewers who like this book are from the south while those who hated it are from the north. I wonder if that has any bearing.

I agree with many of the previous reviews that say this book is weak because of a basic lack of understanding of historical characters. Some other reviewers try to denigrate these concerns by saying the book is about race relations in America and not about the history that created it.

I guess I can understand this point. However, I think the book fails to even achieve that goal. Beyond the glaring lack of understanding of historical personages, the political structure created in Mean's Confederacy makes no sense. The Gov't is split equally between whites and blacks so much so that the President is white and the Vice President is black.

Well, my question is what happens if the President dies in office? Who takes over? The typical job of a VP is to take over for a President that can't do the job anymore due to incapacity or death. If the President has to be white, how does the black VP fulfill that role. Since it is apparent he can't, does the VP have a role.

There are just to many weaknesses in this book to make it worth even 1 star.

I bought this book way back in 1999, before heading to tour and live in old Dixie (Virginia and South Carolina.) I made the mistake of reading Harry Turtledove's "How Few Remain" just a few months before. Big mistake, I saw how a true "If the South won" novel should have been.

"CSA"'s premise is so ludicrous it's almost not worthy of review. That the Confederates in 1865 could have repulsed the North is implausible. Conqueoring the North and laying it to waste was impossible. Yet that's what Howard Means does for this alternate world. "Separate but equal" is the total law of the land, as blacks and whites live side by side, but in separate but equal way. Race mixing is punishable by exile to the dreaded northern wastelands where all the heavy manufacturing for the idyllic South is done. Of course, this begged the question from me, if the South is "separate but equal" for blacks and whites, and still a nation taking in immigrants, where do people like Asians and Native Americans live? On the street in the middle?

Part of the book revolves around a major waterworks project that took resources away from the already starved north. Now, if the Confederates continued to despoil the north the way they do, they're poisoning themselves, and not the Canadians. A quick glance of a map of North America shows water flows SOUTH people!

Oh yeah, and there's something about a murder, political intrigue, ah, yada yada yada. I was too busy snoozing to get into it.

The unbelievable form of Southern victory ruins what might have been an interesting, soul searching journy. For an alternitive history to be believable, an author must have the fictional charactors stay true to thier 'real world' self, as well as having the way history is changed be believable.

Having Robert E. Lee hanging POW's as he burned New York City starts this book off on the wrong foot. Historically, it only gets worse. The author would have been well advised to see what the real R.E. Lee thought of hanging POW's. Had he done his research, he could have easily found other rebel leaders (sorry, as a re-enactor of the 12 US Infantry for over 15 years, those in gray are rebels.) who would do such ungentlemanly things.

For the South to win the war in the way described in the book is laughable. The author should have stayed with the tried and true 'Southern Victory at Gettesburg or Antietem.'. His interesting victory distracts the reader. I found my self questioning everything. Was this believable? I could have\would have done ... .

This made me resentfull and further re-enforced my belief that alternitive histories are best left to the writer for juvenilles who wishes to entice young readers to open thier minds.

Sorry, the historical trash ruined a good idea; 'What if people beleived that seperate but equal was possible in some warped form.'.