NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm currently reading an Alternate History novel (For those who don't know, Alternate History novels are novels where they depict what would happen, or the happening, if major events in world history had gone in the opposite direction) set during the American Civil War. It's not strict A.H. and has some Sci-Fi elements (Point One: The South won due to people from the future going back in time and giving the Confederate army the AK-47) but we'll just look past that for right now. The author (Harry Turtledove) is often heralded as the "Master of Alternate History" and is said to research his topics relentlessly. What I'm wondering is if his depiction of major Civil War people was accurate.

Robert E. Lee is the first one we shall discuss. I know in real life he was not a gung-ho slavery supporter and that he fought for the Confederacy due Virginia seceding, with no real love for slavery. Yet not being a slave holder and being nice to slaves are two completely different things.

Event One (In the book): Lee is being chauffeured through Richmond (capital of the Confederacy) by a slave. He (the slave) stops in front of a governmental building and he (Lee) proceeds to get out. Before he (Lee) does the military door guard walks up and begins to scream at the driver, berrating him for stopping directly in front of the building and blocking further traffic. Of course he (the door guard) shuts up as soon as he sees it's Lee that is being driven in the coach. As Lee is climbing dwon he turns to the slave, thanks him very graciously (Well, what is very gracious when you consider that the slave technically isn't even considered human where/when they are), then turns and acknowledges the salute from the formerly screaming guard. After he thanks the slave. It is a small thing, but it shows that Lee is above the normal mindset.

I'm just wondering if this is within Lee's real range of actions, or if the author is off his rocker in writing it this way.

Probably not. Everyone was racist back then. The abolitionists were actually a pretty small portion of society back during the civil war (and they were the only ones who wanted to free the slaves).

However, I had to write an AH about the Civil War once for AP American History. I can't remember what exactly it was that I changed...but it was weird how the events turned out.

I have never studied the Civil War in any depth, so I could be wrong. But, I was told that Lee had freed his slaves before the war had even started.

I don't think it was out of Lee's character to do something like that. I mean Robert E. Lee, if I remember all my history correctly, wasn't really that terrible a guy. I mean he was eductated in the North at West Point, and finished top of his class, I think. I mean he was smart and I doubt that the abolistionist talk of the day just bounced off him. Smart people generally tend to take things in and think them over even when it's something they might not agree with right away. The reason Lee ended up fighting for the South was cause he was a virginian and had strong feelings about the issue of states rights and loyalty to one's state. And it was that issue of states rights that was the real heart of the Civil War. I'm not even sure what his personal stance on slavery was.

It is said that when a black man, after the Civil War, went up to the rail to receive Communion at Lee's church, everyone in the church sat still and did nothing - until Lee got up, walked over to the rail, and knelt beside him. The rest of the church followed his example.

Yes, he might very well have been courteous to a slave. He was the sort of man who believed that a gentleman was courteous to _everyone_. (Of course, one should not overidealize that sort of chivalrous behavior - being courteous to slaves, or even to white women, didn't mean you thought they were equal human beings with rights or anything...)

My point was actually that he was polite to the slave before he was polite to the soldier, puting the black man before the white.

Well it could also be that the driver was civilian, while the gaurd was a soldier. As a gentleman, Lee would have recognized that civilians come first.

I think of Robert E. Lee, like the German Generals of WWII such as Rommel, von Runstedat, and that group. People that were nationalists and fighting for Germany, not facists fighting for National Socialism.

Well, Robert E Lee was a gentleman, in the old-style Southern sense.

He arranged for his wife's slaves to be freed on his death (He didn't actually get slaves until he married).

He was outspoken against the instituation of slavery.

He was second in his class at west point, was considered a reasonable engineer and not a great officer. In fact, his first field commands were somewhat disasterous.

In reading his letters, it appears that he would have done such an action as described, not for the reason of who came first in protocol, but to rebuke anyone who was as rude as the solider described.

The Guns of the South is a wonderful book, and accurately describes the rural states quite well.

davemc

I'm currently reading an Alternate History novel (For those who don't know, Alternate History novels are novels where they depict what would happen, or the happening, if major events in world history had gone in the opposite direction) set during the American Civil War. It's not strict A.H. and has some Sci-Fi elements (Point One: The South won due to people from the future going back in time and giving the Confederate army the AK-47) but we'll just look past that for right now. The author (Harry Turtledove) is often heralded as the "Master of Alternate History" and is said to research his topics relentlessly. What I'm wondering is if his depiction of major Civil War people was accurate.

Robert E. Lee is the first one we shall discuss. I know in real life he was not a gung-ho slavery supporter and that he fought for the Confederacy due Virginia seceding, with no real love for slavery. Yet not being a slave holder and being nice to slaves are two completely different things.

Event One (In the book): Lee is being chauffeured through Richmond (capital of the Confederacy) by a slave. He (the slave) stops in front of a governmental building and he (Lee) proceeds to get out. Before he (Lee) does the military door guard walks up and begins to scream at the driver, berrating him for stopping directly in front of the building and blocking further traffic. Of course he (the door guard) shuts up as soon as he sees it's Lee that is being driven in the coach. As Lee is climbing dwon he turns to the slave, thanks him very graciously (Well, what is very gracious when you consider that the slave technically isn't even considered human where/when they are), then turns and acknowledges the salute from the formerly screaming guard. After he thanks the slave. It is a small thing, but it shows that Lee is above the normal mindset.

I'm just wondering if this is within Lee's real range of actions, or if the author is off his rocker in writing it this way.
Turtledove is a good author, even better when he keeps his characters count low.

Read half of a book on the same topic. Most fasinating was if Alexander the Great wouldn't have died so young and made his empire last beyond his lifeage. The specculations on how the world would have looked like now was very intresting. ;)

Turtledove is a good author, even better when he keeps his characters count low.
They tend to die off quickly in the later books though.

They tend to die off quickly in the later books though.
On that note:

He can do historical characters much more easily than actual ones, though, IMHO- some times he comes off a little stilted for fictionals. At least once How Few Remain come out, he stopped using gimmicks for AH (which are nice, but get boring) (IE- Aliens in Worldwar, AK-47 in GotS).

I haven't actually had the chance to sit down with an Alternate History book and peruse it yet but one I skimmed thorough presented the information as "well if this happened, this might happen" style rather than a "we're going to change this fact and that fact"... run the action and then speculate what would be different if things turned out differently, which I expected.

If the South had won the war 1) slavery might have continued for years; 2) the United States would have dissolved, and 3) who knows who would have conquered the world. The current tensions between North and South would likely be closer to the near-war tensions between India and Pakistan or Greece and Turkey than simple regional rivalries.

Then again, I haven't done nearly the research that anyone in the field has.

On the note of Alt-History and the Civil War (I know this may be going slightly off-topic). Has anybody read Winston Churchill's story about the CSA winning the Civil War? iirc it is called "If Lee had not won the Battle of Gettysburg," it is written as if Churchill is living is living in a world where the CSA has won and is postulating what would have happened if If Lee had not won the Battle of Gettysburg.

There is a sample of it here. (http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=674)

On the note of Alt-History and the Civil War (I know this may be going slightly off-topic). Has anybody read Winston Churchill's story about the CSA winning the Civil War? iirc it is called "If Lee had not won the Battle of Gettysburg," it is written as if Churchill is living is living in a world where the CSA has won and is postulating what would have happened if If Lee had not won the Battle of Gettysburg.

Fascinating. An interesting parallel to TGotS in that Lee worked to abolish slavery as an act of an independent nation.

Looking into Gladstone is also an interesting exercise. He does, by historical accounts, seem to have singlehandedly kept other nations from choosing to side with either force.

davemc