Buy new:
-11% $7.99$7.99
Delivery Wednesday, July 31
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Save with Used - Good
$6.69$6.69
Delivery Thursday, August 1
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Daris & Co.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
The Guns of the South: A Novel Mass Market Paperback – September 1, 1993
Purchase options and add-ons
Professor James M. McPherson
Pultizer Prize-winning BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM
January 1864--General Robert E. Lee faces defeat. The Army of Northern Virginia is ragged and ill-equpped. Gettysburg has broken the back of the Confederacy and decimated its manpower.
Then, Andries Rhoodie, a strange man with an unplaceable accent, approaches Lee with an extraordinary offer. Rhoodie demonstrates an amazing rifle: Its rate of fire is incredible, its lethal efficiency breathtaking--and Rhoodie guarantees unlimited quantitites to the Confederates.
The name of the weapon is the AK-47....
Selected by the Science Fiction Book Club
A Main Selection of the Military Book Club
- Print length576 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherDel Rey
- Publication dateSeptember 1, 1993
- Dimensions4.21 x 1.03 x 6.71 inches
- ISBN-100345384687
- ISBN-13978-0345384683
Frequently bought together

Customers who bought this item also bought


In the Balance: An Alternate History of the Second World War (Worldwar, Volume 1)Mass Market Paperback$15.40 shipping


Editorial Reviews
From the Inside Flap
Professor James M. McPherson
Pultizer Prize-winning BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM
January 1864--General Robert E. Lee faces defeat. The Army of Northern Virginia is ragged and ill-equpped. Gettysburg has broken the back of the Confederacy and decimated its manpower.
Then, Andries Rhoodie, a strange man with an unplaceable accent, approaches Lee with an extraordinary offer. Rhoodie demonstrates an amazing rifle: Its rate of fire is incredible, its lethal efficiency breathtaking--and Rhoodie guarantees unlimited quantitites to the Confederates.
The name of the weapon is the AK-47....
Selected by the Science Fiction Book Club
A Main Selection of the Military Book Club
From the Back Cover
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
January 20, 1864
Mr. President:
I have delayed replying to your letter of the 4th until the time arrived for the execution of the attempt on New Berne. I regret very much that the boats on the Neuse & Roanoke are not completed. With their aid I think success would be certain. Without them, though the place may be captured, the fruits of the expedition will be lessened and our maintenance of the command of the waters in North Carolina uncertain.
Robert E. Lee paused to dip his pen once more in the inkwell. Despite flannel shirt, uniform coat, and heavy winter boots, he shivered a little. The headquarters tent was cold. The winter had been harsh, and showed no signs of growing any milder. New England weather, he thought, and wondered why God had chosen to visit it upon his Virginia.
With a small sigh, he bent over the folding table once more to detail for President Davis the arrangements he had made to send General Hoke’s brigade down into North Carolina for the attack on New Berne. He had but small hope the attack would succeed, but the President had ordered it, and his duty was to carry out his orders as best he could. Even without the boats, the plan he had devised was not actually a bad one, and President Davis reckoned the matter urgent …
In view of the opinion expressed in your letter, I would go to North Carolina myself But I consider my presence here always necessary, especially now when there is such a struggle to keep the army fed & clothed.
He shook his head. Keeping the Army of Northern Virginia fed and clothed was a never-ending struggle. His men were making their own shoes now, when they could get the leather, which was not often. The ration was down to three-quarters of a pound of meat a day, along with a little salt, sugar, coffee—or rather, chicory and burnt grain—and lard. Bread, rice, corn … they trickled up the Virginia Central and the Orange and Alexandria Railroad every so often, but not nearly often enough. He would have to cut the daily allowance again, if more did not arrive soon.
President Davis, however, was as aware of all that as Lee could make him. To hash it over once more would only seem like carping. Lee resumed: Genl Early is still in the—
A gun cracked, quite close to the tent. Soldier’s instinct pulled Lee’s head up. Then he smiled and laughed at himself. One of his staff officers, most likely, shooting at a possum or a squirrel. He hoped the young man scored a hit.
But no sooner had the smile appeared than it vanished. The report of the gun sounded—odd. It had been an abrupt bark, not a pistol shot or the deeper boom of an Enfield rifle musket. Maybe it was a captured Federal weapon.
The gun cracked again and again and again. Each report came closer to the one before than two heartbeats were to each other. A Federal weapon indeed, Lee thought: one of those fancy repeaters their cavalry like so well. The fusillade went on and on. He frowned at the waste of precious cartridges—no Southern armory could easily duplicate them.
He frowned once more, this time in puzzlement, when silence fell. He had automatically kept count of the number of rounds fired. No Northern rifle he knew was a thirty-shooter.
He turned his mind back to the letter to President Davis. —Valley, he wrote. Then gunfire rang out again, an unbelievably rapid stutter of shots, altogether too quick to count and altogether unlike anything he had ever heard. He took off his glasses and set down the pen. Then he put on a hat and got up to see what was going on.
At the tent fly, Lee almost collided with one of his aides-de-camp, who was hurrying in as he tried to leave. The younger man came to attention. “I beg your pardon, sir.”
“Quite all right, Major Taylor. Will this by any chance have something to do with the, ah, unusual gun I heard fired just now?”
“Yes, sir.” Walter Taylor seemed to be holding on to military discipline with both hands. He was, Lee reminded himself, only twenty-five or so, the youngest of all the staff officers. Now he drew out a sheet of paper, which he handed to Lee. “Sir, before you actually see the gun in action, as I just have, here is a communication from Colonel Gorgas in Richmond concerning it.”
“In matters concerning ordnance of any sort, no view could be more pertinent than that of Colonel Gorgas,” Lee agreed. He drew out his reading glasses once more, set them on the bridge of his nose.
Bureau of Ordnance, Richmond
January 17, 1864
General Lee:
I have the honor to present to you with this letter Mr. Andries Rhoodie of Rivington, North Carolina, who has demonstrated in my presence a new rifle, which I believe may prove to be of the most significant benefit conceivable to our soldiers. As he expressed the desire of making your acquaintance & as the Army of Northern Virginia will again, it is likely, face hard fighting in the months ahead, I send him on to you that you may judge both him & his remarkable weapon for yourself. I remain,
Your most ob’t servant,
Josiah Gorgas,
Colonel
Lee folded the letter, handed it back to Taylor. As he returned his glasses to their pocket, he said, “Very well, Major. I was curious before; now I find my curiosity doubled. Take me to Mr.—Rhoodie, was it?”
“Yes, sir. He’s around behind the tents here. If you will come with me—”
Breath smoking in the chilly air, Lee followed his aide-de-camp. He was not surprised to see the flaps from the other three tents that made up his headquarters were open; anyone who had heard that gunfire would want to learn what had made it. Sure enough, the rest of his officers were gathered round a big man who did not wear Confederate gray.
The big man did not wear the yellow-brown that was the true color of most home-dyed uniforms, either, nor the black of the general run of civilian clothes. Lee had never seen an outfit like the one he had on. His coat and trousers were of mottled green and brown, so that he almost seemed to disappear against dirt and brush and bare-branched trees. A similarly mottled cap had flaps to keep his ears warm.
Seeing Lee approach, the staff officers saluted. He returned the courtesy. Major Taylor stepped ahead. “General Lee, gentlemen, this is Mr. Andries Rhoodie. Mr. Rhoodie, here is General Lee, whom you may well recognize, as well as my colleagues, Majors Venable and Marshall.”
“I am pleased to meet all you gentlemen, especially the famous General Lee,” Rhoodie said.
“You are much too kind, sir,” Lee murmured politely.
“By no means,” Rhoodie said. “I would be proud to shake your hand.” He held out his own.
As they shook, Lee tried to take the stranger’s measure. He spoke like an educated man, but not like a Carolinian. His accent sounded more nearly British, though it also held a faint guttural undertone.
His odd clothes aside, Rhoodie did not look like a Carolinian, either. His face was too square, his features too heavy. That heaviness made him seem almost indecently well fleshed to Lee, who was used to the lean, hungry men of the Army of Northern Virginia.
But Rhoodie’s bearing was erect and manly, his handclasp firm and strong. His gray eyes met Lee’s without wavering. Somewhere in his past, Lee was suddenly convinced, he had been a soldier: those were marksman’s eyes. By the wrinkles at their corners and by the white hairs that showed in his bushy reddish mustache, Rhoodie had to be nearing forty, but the years had only toughened him.
Lee said, “Colonel Gorgas gives you an excellent character, sir, you and your rifle both. Will you show it to me?”
“In a moment, if I may,” Rhoodie answered, which surprised Lee. In his experience, most inventors were wildly eager to show off their brainchildren. Rhoodie went on, “First, sir, I would like to ask you a question, which I hope you will be kind enough to answer frankly.”
“Sir, you are presumptuous,” Charles Marshall said. The wan winter sun glinted from the lenses of his spectacles and turned his normally animated face into something stern and a little inhuman.
Lee held up a hand. “Let him ask what he would, Major. You need not forejudge his intentions.” He glanced toward Rhoodie, nodded for him to continue. He had to look up to meet the stranger’s eye, which was unusual, for he was nearly six feet tall himself. But Rhoodie overtopped him by three or four inches.
“I thank you for your patience with me,” he said now in that not-quite-British accent. “Tell me this, then: what do you make of the Confederacy’s chances for the coming year’s campaign and for the war as a whole?”
“To be or not to be, that is the question,” Marshall murmured.
Product details
- Publisher : Del Rey; Reissue edition (September 1, 1993)
- Language : English
- Mass Market Paperback : 576 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0345384687
- ISBN-13 : 978-0345384683
- Item Weight : 9.4 ounces
- Dimensions : 4.21 x 1.03 x 6.71 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #117,373 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #531 in Alternate History Science Fiction (Books)
- #2,844 in Space Operas
- #4,484 in Science Fiction Adventures
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Harry Turtledove is the award-winning author of the alternate-history works The Man with the Iron Heart; The Guns of the South; How Few Remain (winner of the Sidewise Award for Best Novel); the Worldwar saga: In the Balance, Tilting the Balance, Upsetting the Balance, and Striking the Balance; the Colonization books: Second Contact, Down to Earth, and Aftershocks; the Great War epics: American Front, Walk in Hell, and Breakthroughs; the American Empire novels: Blood & Iron, The Center Cannot Hold, and Victorious Opposition; and the Settling Accounts series: Return Engagement, Drive to the East, The Grapple, and In at the Death. Turtledove is married to fellow novelist Laura Frankos. They have three daughters: Alison, Rachel, and Rebecca.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the writing quality extremely well written and researched. They also appreciate the believable characters and good detail. Readers describe the book as entertaining and worth every penny. They mention the premise is interesting, realistic, and classic. Customers also praise the research quality as well done.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the premise interesting, with a great balance of fact and fiction. They also appreciate the political aspect, and the alternate history angle. Readers say the story continues in a logical and precise sequence of events, with many historical figures present. They say the book has a classic charm, and is realistic.
"...Add to all this a fully satisfying ending, and you have a book you'll close with a smile, and a wish that it could have been..." Read more
"...One of the best alternate histories ever written. Buy it." Read more
"I found the book both interesting and entertaining. The characters well developed...." Read more
"...in the Civil War, everything about the world in the 1860s is entirely realistic and believable...." Read more
Customers find the book entertaining, worthwhile, and say it helps pass the time. They also mention that the period language is engaging.
"...Nevertheless, The Guns of the South is an entertaining tale that attempts to answer one of history's ultimate "What if" questions...." Read more
"...This is one of the best books I've ever read." Read more
"I found the book both interesting and entertaining. The characters well developed...." Read more
"...At 561 pages, this was a long slog, but at the end of the day, it was worthwhile and then some...." Read more
Customers find the writing quality of the book extremely well written and researched. They also describe it as a great novel, a true page turner, and simple.
"...I must point out here that this book is so well written by Turtledove, the master of alternate history, that every bit of the story seems perfectly..." Read more
"...Harry Turtledove, "Guns of the South" is 517 pages long and one of the finest novels I've ever read...." Read more
"...follows is remarkably thoughtful, well-structured, and beautifully researched and written...." Read more
"...Not what I would call "like new" but it's readable and that's what matters. Just don't expect to get a copy of this book in good condition." Read more
Customers find the characters in the book believable and superb. They also appreciate the believable human interest stories interwoven.
"...The excellence of the plot is exceeded only by the superb characterization...." Read more
"I found the book both interesting and entertaining. The characters well developed...." Read more
"...is a virtue as well as a vice, for Turtledove creates a complete world for his characters...." Read more
"...There are believable human interest stories interwoven especially the odd on-going romance between Nate and Molly, and the insight given into Lee's..." Read more
Customers find the book well researched, with staggering detail and thoughtful, balanced speculation. They also say the details seem plausible.
"...That is what makes this book so special. It's a novel, yes, but heavily researched and steeped in fact, particularly about the character and..." Read more
"...its minor drawbacks or troubles are far outweighed by its superbly researched details and unbeatable quality...." Read more
"...Caudell (First Sergeant in Company C of the 47th North Carolina) all seem plausible...." Read more
"...reality novel is fairly entertaining, reasonably well written and researched. In many ways, it's one of the referents of the genre...." Read more
Customers are mixed about the entertainment value of the book. Some mention that it offers lots of action, while others say that it has too much fighting for their taste.
"...The battle scenes are very entertaining and exciting - it struck me as I read them how the AK-47 was a particularly effective weapon against troops..." Read more
"...The fight is bitter, and the cost high, but Rhoodie soon find the Confederates he sought to control were not so easy to manipulate- or outright..." Read more
"...The book offers lots of action as well as thoughtful and balanced speculation of what would have happened if the South had had that kind of firepower..." Read more
"Just too much fighting for my taste. I was hoping for more story after the war ended. Not just a political message." Read more
Reviews with images
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Toward the end of the war, after Gettysburg, things are looking very bleak for the Confederacy. Lee knows his chances of victory are diminishing but he refuses to give in to despair. Suddenly, a mysterious stranger is brought to him, who wants to demonstrate a new weapon that he claims will change the outcome of the war. Lee is intrigued by the boastful claims and naturally interested in a "repeater" rifle perhaps even better than that of the North. Imagine his reaction to seeing the demonstation of an AK-47!!! It is too good to be true. The man tells Lee he can supply his army with ample AK-47's and ammunition to turn the tide of the war and ensure victory.
I must point out here that this book is so well written by Turtledove, the master of alternate history, that every bit of the story seems perfectly believable. The excellence of the plot is exceeded only by the superb characterization. It is classified as science fiction because the mysterious man and his entourage have come from the year 2014 to change the course of history. Unfortunately, as the story unfolds, there is increasing evidence that these men may not be the benefactors they portray themselves, but rather have a frightening agenda of their own.
There is nothing "way out" in this story, in my opinion. It is so masterfully written that there's never any thought of "Oh, c'mon...this is ridiculous!" This is one of the best novels I've ever read.
I don't want to give away ALL the plot, but one more thing I must bring up is that the book extends beyond the war to the formation of the new Confederate States, and guess who ends up running for president to succeed Jefferson Davis?
Add to all this a fully satisfying ending, and you have a book you'll close with a smile, and a wish that it could have been...
For that reason, I was skeptical about purchasing this book. But when I read it for myself, I saw that it actually works. The reason why is Turtledove's attention to historical detail; particularly the personalities of the main characters. One particular scene stands out (minor spoiler alert): when Lee's AK-47-armed men capture Washington, D.C., he meets President Abraham Lincoln to discuss the terms for a ceasefire. The dialogue that ensues is totally believable: after the initial niceties, Lee's humble, patient firmness is able to wrestle a ceasefire and eventual surrender out of the lawyerly Lincoln. Had the South actually won, it is entirely likely that this is how Lee and Lincoln would have spoken to one another. In my opinion, this was the most amazing part of the book, and I was very impressed with it.
But this momentous scene takes place only halfway through the story. The rest involves Lee coming to terms with the reality that slavery will one day become an outdated institution, and the sooner the Confederate States of America (CSA) jettisons it, the better. Of course, not everyone sees it this way, including Nathan Bedford Forrest, who quickly becomes Lee's rival in the CSA's next presidential election. All the while, the white supremacist group from the future is scheming to keep slavery alive, by any means necessary.
In taking the story this way, Turtledove wants to show his readers that slavery was not the main issue that led to the Civil War; it was state's rights. Does he succeed? With some nuance, I believe he does. However, individual readers must answer this question for themselves.
My only hesitation in giving this novel 5 stars is the time travel element. Hence, I give it four stars. Nevertheless, The Guns of the South is an entertaining tale that attempts to answer one of history's ultimate "What if" questions. I highly recommend it for both Civil War buffs and readers of historical fiction.
Top reviews from other countries
I enjoyed this novel. It does go a little slow initially and you have to be patient: but the story picks up greatly near the halfway point. Civil War aficionados will love it, as will people from the American South, especially Virginia: there are so many geographic references, battlefields, landmarks, towns and settlements, and lots of colourful military characters and other actual historical personalities get a mention. I would not say that the depiction of the South is especially rich or detailed, but it is competent, and though I am no expert on the archaic South, Turtledove seems to get the verbal Southernisms right. I love the way the author uses actual historical figures in the story. The true nature of Robert E. Lee is an historical controversy all by itself. Here, Turtledove cleverly uses the humanism of Lee as a literary axiom for bringing out the subtleties and complexities of the Confederacy, its prominent figures and their multi-layered loyalties. Whether accurately or not, Lee is portrayed as a man who is less than enthused about slavery, and evidently balks at the mistreatment of blacks, but he is loyal to a fault for the South nonetheless - on the principle of constitutional freedom, though perhaps also because of his attachment to Virginia. Lee is presented almost as the embodiment of the South’s noble aristocracy and its Cavalier values; a fit noble aristocrat who goes on constitutional walks while batting away probing questions from local reporters; he is also an old general haunted by the memory of Pickett’s Charge, a tactical mistake at Gettysburg that he sees as his own blunder. Lee thinks of himself as Cavalier and not fanatical, and disdains the fanaticism of the AWB. But Lee himself is, in his own way, quite fanatical when it comes to upholding his honour and pursuing what he sees as the right course, based on a sense of integrity. Which type of fanaticism will win out? Will the AWB’s fanaticism eventually prove to be their undoing? You will have to read the novel to find out.
An interesting area for debate is Lee’s views on slavery. Although not an enthusiastic slaver, Lee was a slave-owner at different times in his life and he held out some benefits for blacks in the institution. It is also clear from the historical record, and hinted in this novel, that Lee regarded whites as superior to blacks. In truth, Lee’s perspective on slavery fell into the humane more than the human category. He saw slavery as a necessary institution for black Africans transposed to the Americas; at the same time, he extended manumission to them and other support, but that is very far from a demonstration of opposition to, or even dislike of, slavery. Turtledove’s well-varnished muta-historical depiction of Lee gives a slightly different impression and is arguably inaccurate. In his depiction of Lee, has Turtledove fallen for the so-called Lost Cause arguments that were used to justify Jim Crow? Or is he just memorialising the Southern mentality as part of the interior rationalisations of this novel? The author seems to use Lee as a device through which to interpret the moral necessity of emancipation as a fulfilment of honour: Lee observes, for one thing, that if black soldiers can fight as well as whites, then there would seem to be no moral basis for allowing that blacks are the inferior of whites. But Turtledove’s ‘modernist’ Lee is a myth and out-of-time. Turtledove is attempting to reverse Lee’s character and figuratively de-situate him from the South. Instead of upholding the ‘humane’ but “peculiar” institution in comparison to the wage-slavery of industrial-modernism, Turtledove’s Lee chooses the human path. Even so, the idea of Lee as both a public and private abolitionist, while a historical mutation, would not be entirely implausible given the run of a Southern victory; still, it must be emphasised, this ‘modernist’ Lee is a myth.
There is also the riddle of Lincoln – who spoke of fine, inflexible principles, such as liberty, but at the same time did support slavery; was a racist by today’s standards; wanted to deport and resettle emancipated blacks in Africa; fought the War savagely and abused his constitutional powers in the process; and, would take revenge on the South and on white Southerners in the aftermath of a Union victory. I’m not convinced Lincoln was opposed to slavery on any principle. It was more that he regarded it as outmoded and would have preferred to remove blacks from the United States altogether. Whatever is the case, Lincoln is an important character in this novel, albeit peripheral, and shares scenes with Lee. Indeed, you might say this is a novel about iconism and iconoclasm. Lincoln becomes the veritable iconoclast in this alternate timeline, but you could say he is an inimical iconoclast even in the real history, just not as derided as Lee. He becomes the Devil in this novel, but in the real timeline, Lincoln was the Devil anyway, yet a redeemable figure in the eyes of Northerners, blacks and ‘progressive’ Southerners. Lincoln is unusual in that his legacy is black or white, a little like Nixon, Truman, FDR and perhaps even Wilson. These presidents are normally given a Manichean treatment, seen as either good or bad, depending on your point-of-view, and are re-invented from time-to-time in revisionist histories that attempt to rehabilitate them for one side or the other. Lincoln is rejected entirely by neo-Confederate Southerners but not fully claimed by Northerners and ‘progressives’. Yet Lincoln was a statesman - not just a politician, but a transcendent figure who stood for the entire nation. Why is he not more respected, even by the descendants of the defeated South? Is there a meaningful operative separation of the roles of politician and transcendent statesman? This is something that Lee seems to agonise over as his relationship with Lincoln as his political experience develops. Lincoln and Lee in this novel are statesmen and sought to transcend their own national politics and bring about what they believed to be the common good, but Lincoln was also very political. Lee, an aristocrat, perhaps fits the role of statesman better than Lincoln, but is that because he is an aristocrat living in a social and financial bubble? Lee has largely assumed his station in life rather than earned it, but he still has had to prove himself. He has still had it tough, yet his background as a sort of American nobleman rather than grafter does colour not just his affectations but his political sensibility: like the provincial grafter Lincoln, he sees a higher purpose, but unlike Lincoln he wants to get there in the right way. Hence he declines the offer of a Union command and instead fights for the Confederacy in defence of constitutional liberalism.
Lee also rails against sectionalism (as did Lincoln). Lee is the South’s Lincoln, you might say. But is sectionalism wrong? A definition of it is preoccupation with selfish or parochial concerns at the expense of the general well-being, but slave owning interests and those who support them are looking after what they think is the common good. Even Lee is eventually forced to become a ‘politician’ and exercise all the familiar tricks, using “deception and misdirection” to do (what he sees as) good. Much of these dilemmas are about the inevitable psychology of leaders and leadership. We have an image in our minds of leaders as tough, strong and imposing individuals, but often the true leader is somebody who is gifted with detachment and can look at the world with disinterest from above. Most of the major characters in this novel, are, in their own way, leaders and consequently quite lonely and set apart, or above, ordinary people. Caudell, as a first sergeant, is a petty leader. Like Lee, he is a proverbial Odd Man who meta-analyses everything around him. He sees that slavery is morally flawed. Caudell is the General Lee in his own micro-environment. Lincoln, too, seems like a loner in the way he is portrayed here. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" - Shakespeare's play Henry IV, Part 2. Leadership can be lonely. Lincoln, in dark austere suit and stovepipe hat, tall and thin, cuts an almost Christ-like figure, or Satan-like. He embodies a morality unto himself, the hallmark of a personage, but this comes at a price: he speaks above and perhaps past the ordinary man and is misunderstood. He does not necessarily command universal affection, but he is respected. It is interesting that Lee commands automatic respect among the ordinary Confederate soldiers – almost like a lodestone. Could men like Andries Rhoodie, and another AWB man, Benny Lang, command such respect? On the face of it, their leadership style is blunt, inhumane and rather cruel. Does effective leadership require humanity, morals and mutual respect, or can it just be based on fear and discipline? President Davis seems concerned by Lee as a potential political threat and offers him the presidency once his own term has expired. This implies that Davis may not be able to count on Lee’s loyalty during his term and so wants to pre-empt and neutralise the political threat he represents, and perhaps also control him once he assumes the presidency in his place. We associate loyalty with noble virtue, but is loyalty always a good trait? One imagines that loyalty could be a burden for an independent spirit like Lee who values other selfless virtues. Invoking Shakespeare’s Caesarean play Act 5, Scene 5, Lee was “…the noblest Roman of them all…”. Maybe that’s harsh. Lee is not Brutus exactly, more a would-be Brutus. He embodies the silent legitimacy of established generations-old interests that view the world in a detached manner. Not preoccupied with day-to-day politics like Davis, he has a disinterested air about him and even dislikes politics, seeing it as a necessary evil or grudging duty. Thus, he is classically aristocratic. But in developing into a statesman and honing a sense of virtù to augment and refine his virtue, Lee has to relegate his loyalty to the original values of the Confederacy and even work against its essential constitutional provisions in order to do what he considers to be both the right thing to do and what is in the longer term interests of the Confederacy itself. As such, he is betraying the Confederacy and his own political and social friends in order (as he sees it) to save them and the Confederacy.
The novel itself and the author’s historical note at the end demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the Civil War. This is not surprising given that Turtledove has a doctorate in Byzantine history and he is known to research his novels thoroughly. Although Turtledove is Jewish and anti-white, he does not entirely fall into the same flawed understanding that other writers sometimes have. He understands that the Civil War was not just about race and slavery. Turtledove doesn’t really go into what caused the Civil War, which is just as well as the causes were complex and would require their own dissertation. For one thing, what caused the Civil War is not necessarily the same thing as why the War itself was fought. More important than the preservation of slavery were constitutional differences. In a true sense, the American Civil War was the Second American Revolution. The Confederates, believing in states’ rights, were trying to re-capture the original spirit of pre-Constitutional America: a confederation of independent nations, rather than the centralised federation that America was becoming as it industrialised. The Unionists, while not rejecting of states’ rights, held to a much more centralised interpretation of federalism. A lot of people think it was a war over whether the South should be allowed to continue with slavery, but it was more complex than that. Much of it was down to political and financial intrigues arising from the country’s Western expansion. Although the new Western territories did not promise much potential for slavery, due to the poorer quality of land, what helped kick things off was the political imbalance that would result in the South’s favour if the West was allowed to be notionally pro-slavery.
The best alternate histories are muta-historical rather than counter-historical, and I like the way that Turtledove achieves this quality in his writing, changing the destinies of specific historical personalities in line with the alternate logic of the new timeline. Turtledove only presents an alternative timeline in regard to a surface narrative. In reality his novel is his commentary on what really happened in consequence of the Confederacy’s bitter defeat. As the author alludes, slavery wasn’t really (or at least, not entirely) about profit, rather it was an institution embedded in Southern culture. True, slavery was at different times a very profitable institution – for instance, it was re-instituted in the Province of Georgia, having previously been abolished, because it was considered profitable. But by the Civil War, it was becoming unprofitable and burdensome. Slaves, who were not vested in production, were inefficient, unproductive and required huge sunk investment – see, for instance, the famous study by John Elliott Cairnes. It is also difficult to see how such an economy, in which slave-holding was a major element, could be innovative. I agree with the author that slavery was not just wrong, but wrong-headed. In reality, even before the Civil War began, slavery was becoming economically outmoded for the South and retrograding its culture, preventing innovation and stifling profit – and it would have ultimately put the Confederacy itself at risk, either through a slaves’ revolt of some kind or simply due to the lack of capital and poor economic development it caused. Lee’s reformist approach to slavery that we see in the novel is, in a convoluted sort of way, exactly what happened. Even in discussions within the leadership circle of the Confederacy in this novel, only a weak justification can be offered for slavery. In one scene, President Davis expounds on a mudsill rationalisation, characteristic of the Confederate mindset and that amounts to whataboutery: modernist-industrial societies have wage slavery, so the logic goes, thus Southern agrarian slavery is justified. There were those within the real Confederacy who had the vision and imagination to recognise the flaws of slavery as an institution – for instance: Confederate general officer, Patrick Cleburne, described antebellum slavery as a “peculiar institution” that left the Confederacy vulnerable; he wanted to emancipate Southern blacks so that they could fight in the Army. That plan in itself revealed the flaw in the thinking behind Southern slavery. Blacks were seen as a resource, to be used by whites as they saw fit. It had not been considered that by arming blacks to fight in the War, the basis would be laid for armed rebellion against the white slaveocracy. Slavery sowed the seeds of its own demise and even with a Southern victory, would surely have been reformed out of existence. Probably it was only the North’s economic measures against the South that helped to entrench it and keep it going for longer than it did, even in the face of foreign powers refusing to recognise the Confederate States in the main due to its slavery. Nevertheless, I think the author is right that disputes over slavery, even the very existence of slavery, would have formed the basis of the political culture of a victorious South.
Excellent though this novel is, I think it is marred from becoming a great work by the author bringing his own preening moral and political outlook into it. It’s preachy, and it would have been better just to let the story tell itself. For one thing, Turtledove’s depiction of ordinary Southern white men is very racist and templated. He sets up Nate Caudwell as the counterpoint, a literate and educated man, and a teacher, as well as a Confederate soldier, who ‘enlightens’ the other ‘ignorant’ and illiterate Confederate soldiers. People like Turtledove reveal their own peculiar brand of latent racism when they cast black slaves as passive victims of slavery or the white Confederate soldiers as simple-minded bigots. For another, Turtledove’s depiction of the Afrikaans men is, arguably, also racist in itself. It’s certainly crude and based around stereotypes. In the end, brilliant author though he is, Turtledove is just another leftist Jew seeking to tie down Gulliver. The AWB men are portrayed as demonic almost entirely. Lee comes to the conclusion that Andries Rhoodie has been lying to him about what Lincoln would do if the North won, but are Rhoodie’s warnings really lies or do they have their root in Lee’s rather generous assessment of Lincoln and his tendency towards acting nobly rather than putting interests first? History is about interpretation and mostly secondary sources. What we know now about the South and its motivations is largely dependent on interpretation of it by historians. It’s rare that people will go to primary sources, and also quite rare that people will pay due respect to the politicised voices of the South. The provincial South is also now being deinstitutionalised and disprivileged in the American South itself, replaced with a more cosmopolitan vision influenced by commerce. But is our understanding of Southern history and the Civil War correct? This novel certainly adopts the politically-correct view. That said, the deeper question this novel asks is valid: What is the price that must be paid for a society that we want? The South was a white utopia, but this came at the moral and ethical price of slavery. Do we turn our eyes blind to injustice against the scapegoat, and even against our neighbours, so that norms are maintained? The author is suggesting that the Confederacy was underpinned by a sort of Satanic pact of hyper-normalcy, in which injustice sat alongside justice, unfreedom existed alongside freedom, in other words a society fit for whites in which the white man was supreme. Yet the author’s view is that that can only lead to unfreedom and injustice for all. This is the typical liberal view, in which freedom is a construction of the individual. The opposite reactionary view would be that freedom depends on and is a construction of community. Which is the right approach? One way to tackle this would be to ask: Do all societies, including liberal-democracies, have such ghosts and scapegoats? We can see that they do. In a very real sense, the author’s type of humanitarianism can lead only to a chimeric Panglossia. The real questions remain unanswered, and perhaps a place to begin would be with a fuller understanding of slavery. This is where Turtledove’s myopia overrides his historical sophistication in that he paints slavery as a cruel institution and the AWB men as evil abusers of the slaves. Moreover, he disingenuously transplants the cruel-minded AWB men into the mid-19th. century and purports that they are a representation of slaveholding, ignoring that the AWB men’s perception of slavery may be more the result of Turtledove’s own distortions and similar misrepresentations of the relevant era from others. As such, Turtledove’s novel embodies in itself a self-conscious anachronism. Certainly, slavery was an appalling institution through contemporary eyes, but that does not imply cruelty. If slaves were the animate property of slave-owners, this implies custodianship. Slaves had to be looked-after by their owners. Arguably, the author’s jaundiced perspective is the corollary of neo-Confederalist whitewashing of abuses. Were slaves really treated as badly on the whole as the author depicts, or is mistreatment being exaggerated here, through the medium of the AWB men? The author makes a lot of the fact, as he claims, that blacks were banned from reading and literacy in some Confederate states. I don’t know if this is the case, but if true, it’s not in itself cruel. Most of them would not have had an interest in or need for literacy. Another problem arises with the author’s political-philosophical perspective. The Civil Rights era was in effect a replaying of the Civil War drama and its North-South antagonisms, but underpinning it are important philosophical differences. There is the difference over what is considered freedom. The Left believe that freedom depends on equality. The Right believes that freedom depends on inequality. The equality/freedom dichotomy has to be examined in context. In context, Jim Crow ‘separate but equal’ accommodations produced superior results for blacks compared to post-Civil Rights Act integration. Anybody who doubts this should look at Detroit – once a major industrial hub, now a metropolitan slum.
Has the secessionist South been vindicated by these modern problems? Perhaps, but equally this can lead to the wrong conclusions, in particular favourable but ill-conceived evaluations of the Confederacy. Certainly the South has been romanticised. Some white nationalist go further. They sympathise or associate themselves spiritually and politically with the Confederacy and even want to see its latter-day revival and restoration. Can such positions be valid in view of actual history? I would argue they cannot. First, they represent the converse of Turtledove’s flawed moral historiography: the Confederacy was inimically deontological. There was never a Southern white telos. Confederate statesmen would have done whatever was necessary to uphold state interests, including the slaveholding interests; it was never about slavery, it was about power and political economy. Today’s American white nationalists are, if anything, inheritors of the North rather than the South. With the South, there is no continuation. For one thing, the South regarded black Africans as a resource, in much same way that blacks were regarded under the pseudo-apartness of South Africa. For another, one cannot help but observe the irony that it was the Southern plantation owners who brought black Africans to America, not primarily the Northern interests, and it is no coincidence that during the antebellum, Northern cities tended to be demographically more white than in the South. It was actually the institution of slavery and the South that brought black Africans to America, and it was the South’s obstinate refusal to reform slavery away that did the damage.
Did the Northern victory in the Civil War put off what was inevitable: a coming-apart of the American settlement? Will America break? This would seem to be the logical consequence of a multi-racial society, but perhaps a better way of formulating the question to help us understand things would be: ‘Must America break?’ America’s eventual dissolution seems inevitable and probably was predictable to the pre-Actonite liberals who founded the country and drafted the Constitution. Thus we have to consider whether there is any way of preventing it, and indeed whether prevention is more desirable than the destructive cure. Below the surface in American politics, the basic cleave is still discernible between those who would fight for a true Jeffersonian constitutional republic and those who essentially believe the federal government should impose common values and run people’s lives. We see a replaying of this conflict in different ways: for instance, between ‘conservatives’ and so-called ‘progressives’, to the extent that there is even physical, institutional and geographic separation of the two groups - not least because ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ are more often than not considered to be racially-charged euphemisms, even if this is not normally spelled-out explicitly. The Northern solution of ‘soft’ apartheid has proved to be more enduring than its ‘hard’ counterpart, Jim Crow. America, a massive country, allows for this possibility, but as the collapse of Jim Crow showed, indeed as the Civil War itself proved, segregation and separation are not sustainable. Perhaps another civil war is indeed on the way?
Those thoughts aside, how to rate this novel? It’s well-written, parts are excellently-written, with good human touches – such as scenes involving Lee’s family. Lee is drawn whole, and the author is very humane in that sense. What puts me in a slight quandary is the structural weakness of the plot. To take one obvious point: the Confederates wouldn’t just wait for the new rifles to appear, and if Rhoodie can make one prototype rifle work, then he is clearly not a bragger. That being the case, Lee would want to know all the hows, whys and wheres of the rifle’s mass production, in order to ensure security of supply and to make sure that Rhoodie wasn’t supplying the same weapons to the North. There is also no explanation for Rhoodie’s appearance. Would a strange man obviously carrying what plainly is a weapon be allowed anywhere near the generals in a Confederate Army camp? Another thing is that there is no explanation of the time travel technology and how this came about. That in turn leaves a question mark over whether such a weapon as the AK-47 could be fabricated in the mid-19th. century – something the whole plot hangs on. But that’s a mere technicality that we can pass over. Then there’s Turtledove’s obvious politics, which put me off, but this novel grew on me and my eventual conclusion is that, on this evidence, Turtledove is brilliant. I will have to read his other books.
I’m giving this five stars. It’s an ‘A’ grade novel, but strictly an A-minus. What could have been a very good or even great work is marred by the author’s politically-correct views. There is a first-rate alternate history to be written – probably as a series of novels - that would convey to a younger, more right-leaning, generation the subtleties of the American Civil War. This novel, though in its own way brilliant, isn’t it.



