Civil War books yet to be written?

Lubliner

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
I am going to jump into the Alternate History Fiction Genre and request a book based on reconciliation of North and South.
First, Lincoln is not elected. Second, the North lets the south go, and bans abolitionism, turning the basic power of the Government against this New England movement. Third, the ability to manage two separate nations that expand westward in a friendly atmosphere, where the Rights of Southern citizens are enforced up north. And fifth, the greatest desire to understand how the Southern slave holders could have worked out some form of emancipation for the Negro Race. With this fulfilled as a basis for a study on the conflict of hatred versus brotherhood, how the reconstructive aftermath could have been avoided, without the vengeance of spite producing a KKK. Thanks.
Lubliner.
 

American87

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
I am going to jump into the Alternate History Fiction Genre and request a book based on reconciliation of North and South.
First, Lincoln is not elected. Second, the North lets the south go, and bans abolitionism, turning the basic power of the Government against this New England movement. Third, the ability to manage two separate nations that expand westward in a friendly atmosphere, where the Rights of Southern citizens are enforced up north. And fifth, the greatest desire to understand how the Southern slave holders could have worked out some form of emancipation for the Negro Race. With this fulfilled as a basis for a study on the conflict of hatred versus brotherhood, how the reconstructive aftermath could have been avoided, without the vengeance of spite producing a KKK. Thanks.
Lubliner.

That's the worst book Idea I've ever heard, Lubliner. It was called the "Antebellum Era," and there were slaves.
 

Lubliner

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
You can still write it, I'm just saying, slavery's bad.
I did say I wanted to learn if the confederates were sincere in emancipating the slaves given enough time. At that time the hostilities were coming from the abolitionists, and even after the beginning of the war, urgency was pressed on Lincoln to free the slaves. Nobody knows how the confederates would have solved the issue if given time by mediating with the north. For instance, resettlement or having a government subsidy to pay for the loss. I guess I believe that the animosity created by the war carried over after for another 100 years, and still exists because it would not heal. So time has passed. How could have been done differently without the horror and bloodshed and evils of war, where realizing the Negro must be set free, and say the end of the century was the final line. Forty years to assimilate and integrate without terror and hatred, but by education and fairness. That was what I wanted to read. And it is built upon the idea of whether the sincerity of the southern gentlemen who spoke of manumission and emancipation were honest.
Lubliner.
 

American87

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
I did say I wanted to learn if the confederates were sincere in emancipating the slaves given enough time. At that time the hostilities were coming from the abolitionists, and even after the beginning of the war, urgency was pressed on Lincoln to free the slaves. Nobody knows how the confederates would have solved the issue if given time by mediating with the north. For instance, resettlement or having a government subsidy to pay for the loss. I guess I believe that the animosity created by the war carried over after for another 100 years, and still exists because it would not heal. So time has passed. How could have been done differently without the horror and bloodshed and evils of war, where realizing the Negro must be set free, and say the end of the century was the final line. Forty years to assimilate and integrate without terror and hatred, but by education and fairness. That was what I wanted to read. And it is built upon the idea of whether the sincerity of the southern gentlemen who spoke of manumission and emancipation were honest.
Lubliner.

That's fine, of course. I think the book would have to be based in an alternative history where the Kansas-Nebraska Act did not exist, because the reopening of the territories to slavery is what sparked the Republican Party, Lincoln's election, secession, and war.

Any attempt to expand slavery would have met with firm resistance from the North, apparently, and it was a Mid-Westerner, Douglas, who ruined efforts of compromise by throwing a burning gas rag onto the magazine.
 

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
That's fine, of course. I think the book would have to be based in an alternative history where the Kansas-Nebraska Act did not exist, because the reopening of the territories to slavery is what sparked the Republican Party, Lincoln's election, secession, and war.

Any attempt to expand slavery would have met with firm resistance from the North, apparently, and it was a Mid-Westerner, Douglas, who ruined efforts of compromise by throwing a burning gas rag onto the magazine.
I think the fundamental problem also was that culturally slavery was not just an economic system - it went hand-in-glove with the notion of white supremacy that was expressly stated by Stephens at the "beginning" (1861) and still by Howell Cobb at the imminent "end" (1865). Hard to see how that was just going to disappear in even 50 or 75 years if just left alone. Lincoln tried to bargain negotiated emancipation in "back channels" with the Border States without success. He finally had to resort to the limited "war measure" in September 1862 just to get things jump-started. The rest of the road was a function of winning a war.
 

American87

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
I think the fundamental problem also was that culturally slavery was not just an economic system - it went hand-in-glove with the notion of white supremacy that was expressly stated by Stephens at the "beginning" (1861) and still by Howell Cobb at the imminent "end" (1865). Hard to see how that was just going to disappear in even 50 or 75 years if just left alone. Lincoln tried to bargain negotiated emancipation in "back channels" with the Border States without success. He finally had to resort to the limited "war measure" in September 1862 just to get things jump-started. The rest of the road was a function of winning a war.

That's a good point. I was presuming that the abolitionist movement, gaining such steam in the North, would have transferred to the South at some point.
 

speedylee

Corporal
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Two biographies that I can think of would include Kershaw, the South Carolina officer. He was active at both Gettysburg and Chickamauga and performed capably.

A bio on Archibald Gracie, the Confederate Br. Gen. He was a West Pointer, was originally from the northeast, joined the Confederate Army as a business decision. He performed well at Chickamauga and in the trenches of Petersburg.
 

Sgt. Tyree

Private
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Location
Wyoming Territory
I think the fundamental problem also was that culturally slavery was not just an economic system - it went hand-in-glove with the notion of white supremacy that was expressly stated by Stephens at the "beginning" (1861) and still by Howell Cobb at the imminent "end" (1865). Hard to see how that was just going to disappear in even 50 or 75 years if just left alone.
It is hard to see. But it disappeared in other places, Brazil for example. I confess I don’t know all the particulars regarding emancipation in Brazil and other locales. But to believe slavery would not have ended at some point without a war is to suggest it would still be with us today without a war. And no one really believes that, do they?

I’ve heard different ideas about when it would have seen it’s natural death but the era of America’s expansion onto the world stage as an international power seems likely to me. So maybe 1890-1910 or so.

I don’t think that means a war to preserve the Union wasn’t justified.

I digress. I’m off in deep weeds.
 
Last edited:
Top