It’s an interesting one is Guns of the South. On the one hand, it doesn’t ignore slavery or racism. It goes to considerable trouble to point out ‘slavery was a thing that existed in the CSA, it was bad y’all’, and it shows the racist attitudes of people like Nathan Bedford Forrest and the like. It doesn’t try to pretend that the war didn’t have slavery as a cause.
Nevermind though that Forrest not only recanted his alliance with the AWB in the book, he also denounced the Klan when they started turning to violence and actually tried to make peace with black southerners. Plus, there's a strong difference between the conservative racism of the CSA and the reactionary racism of the Rivington Men. Both are bad, don't misunderstand me, but it's a whole different thing when you have a former soldier of the Confederacy wondering just what in the hell one of the Rivington Men did to drive a slave to hang themselves after a failed runaway and also make it so that no white prostitutes would serve them.
On the other hand, it treats slavery as just one reason for the war rather than the leading one and raises the Lost Cause ‘states’ rights’ banner high and proud, plus turns Lee into this saintly figure
It also seems to labour under the idea that the CSA could have abolished slavery without a civil war of its own, which I doubt given how it was hardwired into their Constitution.
To be fair, most books also gloss over the less than admirable qualities of Lincoln and the Roosevelts. Hell, how many history books cover the viciousness with which General Grant attacked Vicksburg or Sherman's March to the Seas? There's a reason the Carolinas and Georgia take such a dim view of General Sherman.
Of course, consider as well that only a small majority of Southerners actually
owned slaves. In fact, GotS I believe made that a point in how poor whites didn't have the money to own one slave let alone a plantation's worth. If Django Unchained is anything to go by, the price of a slave back then would be like buying a new car in the modern-day or a down payment on a house, though I HATE to make that comparison.
Given the growing inefficiency of the practice as well as the detriment of cotton on the soil, I wouldn't be surprised if civil war didn't erupt purely on the basis of class struggle between the southern aristocracy on side and the poor whites
and slaves on the other.
Of course, in the book, given that Lee is the darling son of the Confederacy much like how Washington is to the USA, I would find it less believable that the Manumission bill would've passed under say... Wade Hampton III.
What do you bet that a few decades down the line, the Union - now with their own AK-47s - would try invading fresh from victory in Canada?
I think Lee actually mused at that very real possibility and that's why he elected to employ some of the less radical members of AWB in order to help prepare the CSA against a possible renewed conflict against the USA.
Not necessarily. It’d be a long, hard struggle for sure, involving a lot of loyally dubious activity, but if they held the course I’d say it could be done. And the TL-191 US had fought four wars with the CSA - seriously doubt they’d ever let the South go free after that...
Well, 83 years of independence and cultural identity that is distinctly different to the Yankees is not going to go away without some morally dubious actions on the USA's part. It's primarily why TL-191 Canada turned into such a beast to deal with. Plus, Deseret is still a problem all on its own.