Customer Reviews

A Southern Yarn

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

 

 

I am a big fan of alternative histories, and something of a Civil War buff. I REALLY wanted to like this book. The premise is plausible, and the action is pretty gripping. However, apparently NO-ONE PROOFREAD THE DAD-BLAMED THING! It is chock-full o' errors. Not just typos(and they abound! ), but glaring factual mistakes which could have been avoided with a brief glance at any textbook. For example, Confederate General James Longstreet is referred to as "Peter Longstreet". Longstreet's troops nicknamed him "Old Pete", and this apparently led the author to believe this important historical figure's name was "Peter". Spend five minutes checking your facts, dude! Errors like this ruined the "suspension of disbelief" that alternative history stories, more than other stories, require to be succesful. A tiny amount of research could have helped immensely. Nice try, though.

Great book about the Civil War. Focuses on a battle at Ox Ford on the North Anna River in Virginia. The history of the Civil War changes dramatically from this point. R. W. Richards is an excellant author. He is my debate coach at Broad Run High School in Ashburn, Va. His books are very fast paced and fun to read.

Three incontrovertible facts about the Civil War that are well known to any amateur historian need to be ignored for this book to make any sense. First, Grant needs to lose his ability to remain calm and in control under fire. As a young officer in Mexico Grant demonstrated his signature trait - remaining calm in the face of battle. Grant was a great General because of his ability to remain focused when it was most required. Grant was flawed as a person when there wasn't anything going on. Two, the casualties were high because massed infantry attacking a fortified infantry line required overwhelming force to achieve success. Virtually EVERY major battle of the war was a ictory for the defender or required guile (Chancellorsville) to avoid a massed assault. SPOILER ALERT So the author has a cavalry charge in the Civil War against massed infantry as the final assault in the fictional battle? After multiple infantry failures the LAST thing a defeated General would do is send in a cavalry charge - considering cavalry against massed infantry had been disproven at Waterloo as an effective tactic against musket fire. Three, Washington, DC was a fort. It was the most heavily fortified city in the world at that point and it would fall that quickly?
I understand the allure that a southerner would have to a book that has a different outcome. But, if you've spent any amount of time reading serious works about the war you will understand why this book is simplistic. There were numerous points at which the South could have defeated the Army of the Potomac in a crushing victory that would not have relied on inventing flaws or actions that have no basis in reality.

This novel is something of a flawed work, the author clearly wanted to make his mark and create an alternate Civil War that hasn't been done before (the superfluous novels where the Confederacy wins at Gettysburg, or Antietam), and indeed Richards does manage to take a little known battle and discuss its importance, but in doing so he tosses plausibility out the window. Perhaps I am assuming too much, but by 1864 the Confederacy was virtually finished, and offensive operations were very unlikely hence Lee's defensive posture throughout the last Virginia campaign. The ability to inflict a severe defeat on Grant was possible, but the odds of him destroying the complete Army of the Potomac are slim to say the least. Furthermore to remove Grant from the picture Richards has him go into a mental shock rendering him incapable of command. This came far out of the blue as the historical Grant always appeared to me to be very cool under fire, and while not equal to Lee in generalship, at least a very calm and organized general (see Grant's conduct at Shiloh). Finally Lee manages to mount a successful attack on Washington nearly unopposed, using Mosby's Rangers to capture Lincoln. Once again while no doubt a talented commander Mosby could not have coordinated such an attack especially once again given the state of the Confederacy at this time. All in all though it was a quick read, and if one tosses disbelief over by Richards' plausibility it's not very hard to enjoy this novel.

The concept is a good one but it suffers from horrible dialogue and innacurate research. If you're going to write about the soldiers of the civil war at least do some research on their rations, their accountrements, their daily life etc. Pretty bad.

Alternate histories of the American Civil War tend to fall into two categories with appeal to different groups of readers: (1) how the result of the war could have been different and (2) what kind of world (CSA, USA or the rest of the world) develops from an independent Confederacy. This story is of type (1), which means people who pay a lot of attention to historical and/or military details are those most likely to rate this book highly. Friends who are knowledgeable about Civil War minutae tell me that the military changes, starting from a lesser battle (in our history) at Ox Ford, are plausible.
The book's strength is that the author knows his history and is willing to look at something other than Gettysberg for his point of divergence. The weakness, which is shared with too many alternate histories, is setting aside causality in order to achieve a desired new world. The divergence here has the Union agreeing to yield territory and grant reparations in exchange for the end of slavery in the Confederacy. First of all, while Lincoln and the Republicans were antislavery, much of the North wasn't. The Civil War, frankly, was not solely about slavery on either side and it was less a movitation on the part of the North than on the South. It's very unlikely that the Union would pay to free slaves in what would be a foreign country when there had never been widespread support for compensation to free slaves in the pre Civil War U.S. It's also unlikely that reparations of any magnitude would be agreed to without force. The South had little ability to force them to pay. Further, while Kentucky's joining the Confederacy is a reasonable acknowledgement of the reality of sentiment there, West Virginia did not want to be part of the Confederacy. It might have been possible to have built a situation in an alternate history where these matters would flow easily as in the story (e.g. a much more powerful South or a much weaker North), but the author hasn't made a case. It does free the Confederacy of what would've been a major challenge.
I do look forward to reading the author's post war scenario
Survival Book 1: The Story of the New Southland. In a type (2) alternate history, the details of how the alternate diverged can be ignored and attention placed on the new society.

I think it's 'absurd' to post a review of a book you haven't yet read.

I have read a lot of Civil War alternative fiction. This is the best I have every read. It was very understandable and frankly believeable. It was down to earth, no timetravelers or other unbeliveable BS. Mr. Richards did a wonderful job.... Ps James Longstreet was called "Peter" by his family. His soldiers even called him "Old Pete".... Great job

Reviewer #1 scolds the author for writing "Peter Longstreet." But the family that raised James Longstreet called him "Peter."

It's absurd to think that the author of the book in question didn't know that.

I'm just now getting ready to read the book.