Guns of the South?

[RMG]

I've heard good things about Guns of the South, and I'm thinking of reading it, but I gotta ask one thing first?

Is it a big pro-Confederate powar~wank(tm) (like an AH Gods and Generals... Michael Shaara is rolling in his grave, Jeff.), or would it still be fun for a militant liberal New England yankee?

[Grey Wolf]

I enjoyed it - whilst part of me is pro-Confederate in that I would like to see the USA smaller and more equal in the world, it was really just a good read. It probably depends on whether you have a good opinion of Robert E Lee as a person. The Afrikaners are not particuarly sympathetically portrayed so you don't really need to worry there.

Grey Wolf

I've heard good things about Guns of the South, and I'm thinking of reading it, but I gotta ask one thing first?

Is it a big pro-Confederate powar~wank(tm) (like an AH Gods and Generals... Michael Shaara is rolling in his grave, Jeff.), or would it still be fun for a militant liberal New England yankee?

[ConfederateFly]

I liked Guns of the South and I'm from Indiana. I was thinking it would be a good movie.

[NapoleonXIV]

Like a lot of AH ASB type things the first part of the book is a bit too much of a foregone conclusion (I mean what else possibly COULD happen once you give the Confederates AK47s, they're gonna lose? Well no, but the Union could have put up more of a fight). The second part is more interesting but there seems a real lack of villains among the real historical figures although that is understandable.

[NHBL]

Spoiler for Guns of the South
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Just once, I'd like to see someone get a supply of uptime weapons, knowlege, or something, and still end up in the same situation, or similar to it. In Guns of the Douth, suppose that the Rebel successes led to a rush to get Gatling guns deployed. At the battle for Washington, as the rebels close in, Gatling Guns tear them to shreds. Several of the time travellers die, and some are captured in the rout, while Lee's army is broken. As it routs, other Union forces, with more Gatlings, manage to cut off the retreat.
What are the implications from such a victory?

[NapoleonXIV]

:eek: :eek: OMG, I'm sorry about no spoiler warning. Please forgive me this once. I'm just not used to civilized discourse. I'll be more careful in the future. Sorry, sorry , sorry :(

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I liked it. It was one of the books that really got me interested in alternate history. It doesn't go into so much detail about the production of such-and-such mechanical process that you're overwhelmed, but there is enough detail, original dialogue, and creative writing to keep one entertained. HT doesn't plan to write a sequel, and I appreciate it. There's enough in that one book to keep you thinking for a while about the possibilities, and another volume would ruin that for me. I, too, am originally from Indiana, and didn't find any ideological conflicts or anything offensive like that.

[Hymie Goldberg]

The only objection I had with Guns was that RE Lee wasn't portrayed as the cowardly racist that he truly was.

[Straha]

who dude chill I might be a libelra yank but don't be *THAT* anti-southern I just want them adn their politics out of the country.

[Beck Reilly]

Umm...Hymie Goldberg. Robert E. Lee, a "cowardly racist"? I think not. What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to start a flame war or are you simply just THAT ignorant?

[Hymie Goldberg]

Umm...Hymie Goldberg. Robert E. Lee, a "cowardly racist"? I think not. What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to start a flame war or are you simply just THAT ignorant?


It seems to me that you are the one starting a flame war, Walt. Your post had absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic and was posted for the soul purpose of calling me "ignorant."

Of course I have an argument to back up my thesis of RE Lee being a cowardly racist but this thread is not the place for it.


The ignorant resort to name-calling
To avoid seeing thier own short-falling.

Luckily, though, there are those such as me
Always willing to speak o'er cacophony.

[Beck Reilly]

Excuse me, but I'd be generally interested in hearing how, exactly, your argument shows that R.E. Lee was a "cowardly racist?" I have never once heard ANYONE ever call Lee a "cowardly racist."

Umm...and speaking of racism, I don't really think you should be talking, just take a look at your own choice of a name.

[David Howery]

cowardly? hardly... he served in the Mexican war with distinction. Racist? probably, but about as much as most white men in those days. Was he a slave owner?

[Beck Reilly]

Yes, Lee was a slave owner. OTOH, Lee treated his slaves well compared to most and was planning to free them at his death. Also, he didn't buy his slaves. They were left to him by his father-in-law.

I don't know how anyone could call him a "coward," and actually believe themselves.

[ConfederateFly]

I think so, but he got them slaves when his Father-in-Law died and I think he Freed them, but they still stayed and worked for him.

[NapoleonXIV]

It seems to me that you are the one starting a flame war, Walt. Your post had absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic and was posted for the soul purpose of calling me "ignorant."

Of course I have an argument to back up my thesis of RE Lee being a cowardly racist but this thread is not the place for it.


The ignorant resort to name-calling
To avoid seeing thier own short-falling.

Luckily, though, there are those such as me
Always willing to speak o'er cacophony.

Since you are calling him a cowardly racist in this thread I can't think of a better place for it. At the time of the war he was the most beloved character on EITHER side, according to Sharra, I believe, and is still generally listed among the 10 most beloved/admired people in American history

hmm....troll, troll, troll your boat..... ;)

I have seen books that propose the thesis that he wasn't really that good a general.

[Hymie Goldberg]

If he wasn't a coward, why'd he surrender? His army wasn't defeated. All he had to do was let the Yankees have Richmond.

If he were truly fighting for his country and not just fighting for slavery, he'd have led the Army of Northern Virginia into the Blue Ridge Mts and fought a guerrilla war.

A guerrilla war made no sense to Lee because the slaves would be freed by the Yankee occupation, regardless.


PS--I believe that Lee was no more racist than Lincoln, but Lincoln was a racist too. Lincoln was also a tyrant who deserved to die. As far as "cowardly" goes, maybe "gutless" would've been a better word choice since the mere absense of bravery might not equate to cowardliness in the eyes of some.

[NapoleonXIV]

If he wasn't a coward, why'd he surrender? His army wasn't defeated. All he had to do was let the Yankees have Richmond.

If he were truly fighting for his country and not just fighting for slavery, he'd have led the Army of Northern Virginia into the Blue Ridge Mts and fought a guerrilla war.

A guerrilla war made no sense to Lee because the slaves would be freed by the Yankee occupation, regardless.


PS--I believe that Lee was no more racist than Lincoln, but Lincoln was a racist too. Lincoln was also a tyrant who deserved to die. As far as "cowardly" goes, maybe "gutless" would've been a better word choice since the mere absense of bravery might not equate to cowardliness in the eyes of some.

Good god man, Lincoln too?? Was Schweitzer a bad pianist and Mother Teresa a heretic?

Lee did give them Richmond, didn't he? My understanding is he surrendered at Appomatox because he was surrounded and his men were starving.

A guerrilla war made no sense to Lee because it made no sense to anybody. Why continue pointless killing? Whatever the issue, slavery or state's rights, it was done.

Bravery doesn't consist in the stubborn refusal to give up even when the point is gone and nothing but hurt will come from continuance. Your suggestion reminds me of the definition of fanaticism, "to redouble one's efforts when you've forgotten your goal." Keep in mind that many people on both sides quite confidently expected that Lee would be summarily hanged after he surrendered and he had very good reason to believe that might well happen. You are right in believing he himself could probably have slipped away. Many high Confederates in other locations did. But he did the surrender himself, probably because he realized that this would get the best deal for his men. Whatever the reason, it seems a brave thing to me.

[tom]

As you can probably guess from my Aesop and Mammaloid stories, I am a hater of slavery and bigotry. I am certainly not sympathetic to the South. Yet, from what I know of Lee's career and his statements before, during and after the War (not much, I admit) he seems more decent a human being than anyone else in the South and most of the population of the North.

[David Howery]

my, we have some sweeping revisions of history today.
Lee was no coward. Going guerilla is a decision for one man, not a leader of men. By surrendering, he got rations for his men, and they got to keep their horses. The war was over, and everyone knew it. During the Mexican war, Lee served under Scott and was instrumental in the Battle of Cerro Gordo; he was the one who found a way around the Mexican position. At Chapultepec, he was the one who found a path through the lava beds at the Pedregal and he was wounded during the storming of the fort there. Hardly the actions of a coward.
Lincoln was indeed a mild racist, as has been long known to historians. However, he did NOT think that blacks were necessarily inferior, just that they couldn't live side by side with whites. He wanted to free them and send them back to Africa at first... eventually, he settled for simply wanting to free them. In his youth, he made a riverboat trip to New Orleans, where he was appalled at the sight of blacks in chains being herded by slave drivers. This affected him deeply, and he soon gained a desire to end slavery. His hope was that it would die off on its own and the blacks could be shipped back to Africa. The ACW forced him to change a lot of his views....

[aktarian]

To drag this thread back to original question....

I didn't like it. Turtledove's second worst book (worst being The Two Georges). I bought it because shop owner recomended it. Told her few strong words after reading it though ;) . I prefer realistic PODs, not ASB stuff, but that's just me.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Yeah. It's a fun read.

[zoomar]

Back to the original question, GOTS is easily the best thing Harry Turtledove has ever written. It's well crafted with a powerful narrative driven by good "period" dialog and characterization. It is only occasionally marred by HT's persistant tendency to tell the story through uninteresting minor characters. It is a fascinating WI, but remember, it is Time Travel SF not a pure AH. It is the ONLY Turtledove I've ever recommended to normal people (non-AH geeks like myself).

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I liked Guns of the South and I'm from Indiana. I was thinking it would be a good movie.

HT mentioned in one of his discussions that a movie studio had bought the option for the book. Doesn't mean that they'll make it, just that they liked the idea enough to keep others from getting it.

[robertp6165]

If he wasn't a coward, why'd he surrender? His army wasn't defeated. All he had to do was let the Yankees have Richmond.

If he were truly fighting for his country and not just fighting for slavery, he'd have led the Army of Northern Virginia into the Blue Ridge Mts and fought a guerrilla war.

Lee surrendered at Appomattox because he believed that it would lead to the complete devastation of the South (and much devastation to the North as well) and would not lead to a Confederate victory. At the time of the surrender, he had about 25,000 men left in his army. Given the options he had, surrender was the best of them. We should thank God that he chose as he did.

"A guerrilla war made no sense to Lee because the slaves would be freed by the Yankee occupation, regardless." .

Wrong again. Slavery did not figure into that decision at all. Lee never bought a slave in his life, and freed those he inherited from his father-in-law before the war. Furthermore, the Confederacy had just passed, with Lee's support, the black recruitment law of 1865 which it was generally understood meant the end of slavery in the Confederacy within a short time after the war, regardless of the outcome of the war. Lee's decision was made solely on military and humanitarian grounds. He didn't think that the chance of victory in a guerilla war justified the cost in death and devastation of civilian areas which would have resulted. And he was right.

[robertp6165]

However, he [Lincoln] did NOT think that blacks were necessarily inferior, just that they couldn't live side by side with whites.

I'm sorry, but Lincoln actually did think they were inferior. He said, in one of his Lincoln-Douglas speeches, "I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race." And in case you think this was just speecifying in front of the racists in the crowd, he said the following virtually identical statement to a delegation of BLACK LEADERS who had come to the White House to discuss the issue of possible colonization...""Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." So it seems clear that he did consider that, because of the PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES (i.e. skin color) of the black race, that they were inferior.

"He wanted to free them and send them back to Africa at first... eventually, he settled for simply wanting to free them....His hope was that it would die off on its own and the blacks could be shipped back to Africa. The ACW forced him to change a lot of his views...."

What forced him to change his views regarding sending blacks back to Africa was the fact that the blacks themselves refused to go along with it. Lincoln never abandoned his own belief in colonization.

[Chris]

Guns of the South is one of the 3 best Turtledove books, no arguement there.

On Lee, I feel sorry for him. Despite being a noble man, he took up arms in the defence of one of the most unworthy causes in the history of the world. Rommel and Clive tend to fit into the same pattern.

So I personally, no matter how much I admire those men, class him as a villen.

[Grimm Reaper]

Lee a coward? Wasn't the whole problem that he quickly became the shining knight of the south, he didn't dare put himself at risk. I recall one point in 1864 when the issue was in doubt and he thought to lead a charge himself. Eyewitnesses, including his personal aide, reported the response as being a massive effort to stop him. One colonel suggesting that had Lee continued, he AND his horse might have been carried to rear.

As to world where the US is smaller and more equal, somehow I must wonder how bright the world is looking after the US(including the northern states, alias 'Canada') and it's German ally won both world wars, colonial empires lasted longer and might still exist, and the French intervention in 1863 went unchallenged, leading to another fun century of Latin America wondering when they might become colonies again. Oh, and slavery persisting another generation along with Australia and the Americas getting to enjoy trench warfare, poison gas, etc.

[zoomar]

I reiterate: GOTS is one of HT's best.

Now about Lee. It all boils down to whether or not you are an American nationalist or not. By all accounts, R.E. Lee was an outstanding military officer and a decent, compassionate, Christian man. He deserves veneration for his many admirable personal characteristics, but none for his adherence to a cause which was treason to the United States of America. For an American nationalist like me, that has to make him a traitor - an admirable one, certainly- but a traitor nonethless. Like all Conferedate leaders, he got off amazingly easily - and for the sake of national unity it's probably a good thing they did. In most other countries of the time the political and military leaders of a secessionist movement like the CSA would have been strung up.

[robertp6165]

I reiterate: GOTS is one of HT's best..

I too agree that GOTS was probably Turtledove's best, although (and I am probably in a minority here) I have to confess that I have yet to read anything by Turtledove that I didn't like.


Now about Lee. It all boils down to whether or not you are an American nationalist or not. By all accounts, R.E. Lee was an outstanding military officer and a decent, compassionate, Christian man. He deserves veneration for his many admirable personal characteristics, but none for his adherence to a cause which was treason to the United States of America. For an American nationalist like me, that has to make him a traitor - an admirable one, certainly- but a traitor nonethless...In most other countries of the time the political and military leaders of a secessionist movement like the CSA would have been strung up.

There is a reason why they were not strung up...because the government could not prove a case of treason against them. The Radical Republicans wanted to try and hang Lee, Jeff Davis, and other Confederate leaders, and indeed, Jeff Davis practically BEGGED to be put on trial. But Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase nixed that idea when he informed the Radical leadership that if the Confederates were brought to trial, the question of the legality of secession would have to be decided, and the government would almost certainly lose it's case. So you are entitled to your feelings that the Confederates were traitors, but it does not accord with historical reality.

[DuQuense]

As to the Question of Treason to the Nation-- Many people today don't realize that the people in US 1860- WERE NOT- US Citizens.. Lee Was a Citizen of Virginia IN the United States, Like Lincoln was a Citizen of Illinios IN the US. It was only after the ACW that the Idea of being a US Citizen first gained mass aceptance, and was ratified by the S-A war in 1898, when the Army of the US- became the US Army.

[zoomar]

Robert and Duquesne,

I appreciate your thoughtful responses to my post and have to agree that, from my early 21st century perspective, I ignored the 19th century context of Lee's...poor decision (my opinion).... as a citizen of Virginia within the United States. I stand corrected, I suppose, although I am still unfomfortable with the notion that one could be a citizen of a state within the US and not also a citizen on the United States.

But Virginia had better not try this stuff again! This time they'll all be sitting next to Abdul Hassan in cages in Guantanamo bay once we're done with 'em!