March: Pulitzer Prize Winner (A Novel)

March: Pulitzer Prize Winner (A Novel) by Geraldine Brooks

The book is set primarily during the time of the civil war. The lead is teacher and chaplain. They manage to interact with many historical figures at the time. (It does feel that they are just trying to have anyone possible appear.) The book is historical "fan fiction", exploring the life of the father in Little Women as he was off to war. He has various struggles as we tries to work with the system and maintain his moral values while away from home. There was nothing very special.

Little Women

Little Women by Louisa May Alcott

It was published in two volumes in 1868 and 1869 and later combined in 1880.

During the civil war era, father was away, leaving the women at home with mother. They seem to be pretty well to do and are concerned with boys and their future. Jo is the academic tomboy  and enjoys writing. She later ends up marrying the German professor, though they were both awkward with it. There were various other courtships as well as reunions with family members. Despite it being a century and a half old, many of the themes remain current. (Though the way they would be carried out can be quite different.)

A Nation Without Borders: The United States and Its World in an Age of Civil Wars, 1830-1910

A Nation Without Borders: The United States and Its World in an Age of Civil Wars, 1830-1910 by Steven Hahn

From 1830 to 1910, the United States underwent great changes. At the start it was mostly a small agglomeration of rural residents that valued their independence. After many conflicts, the Us emerged in the early 20th century as a unified country that was a significant player on the international stage.

This book is a focussed, yet broad history. There are many histories of small periods, such as the civil war. There are also many covering the entire history of the United States. This focus of an extended time of change is much more rare. There is probably a reason why. This book feels like it is telling a number of different stories without a strong theme tying things together. The author tries, but a theme of "change" is a little tough. In some ways it is a Civil War book, with clear context of the history leading to the war as well as the results after the war.

Great Britain and the American Civil War

Great Britain and the American Civil War by Ephraim Douglass Adams

As the title indicates, this is analysis of the American Civil War from a British perspective. Britain abhorred slavery, but it also feared slave rebellions. Britain also required cotton for many British factories and had experience supporting people's self-determination, especially when it would benefit Britain economically. Britain had expected the south to retain independence. The north had not come out firmly against slavery. (There was a difficult balancing act that American politicians were trying to perform. They wanted to keep border states in the fold but not stripping them of their slaves, yet they also wanted to show their anti-slavery chops.) There are also various challenges in how America treated the south. Depending on the international treaty they were looking out, they may be internal rebels or an enemy force. There were concerns with blockades and other economic impacts. The British tried to be neutral towards the American belligerents. There were also concerns about having a united European front. Britain did not want to get involved in the conflict. Eventually slavery became the important part. The north emancipated slaves. The south had even tried a last-ditch effort to get Europe to their side by potentially eliminated slavery. The book is quite long with copious footnotes. I wonder how the world would be different if the south retained independence? Was Lincoln's goal of keeping union together worth it? Would the US have been such a great power? How would the world wars been impacted?

How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America

How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America by Heather Cox Richardson

I was expecting a more thorough analysis than what this book contained. The thesis was that southerners advocated for something closer to an oligopic leadership. A few wealthy white plantation-owning men would control the country. Their friends and relatives would have leadership position. A few select white males would have a chance to obtain some say in the country. Others would be excluded. They used the name of individual rights to push this narrative before the Civil War. After the war, they continued to do their best to exclude the others. Donald Trump is the culmination of this quest to provide narrow elite control.

The ironic part of the story is that the south did not win so much as the north lost by misjudgment. the northern Republicans hoped that by granting statehood to western territories, they would extend their dominance over the southern Democrats. Alas, those westerners did not do as they were expected. The western territories extended the right to vote to women before they became states. (Alas, observers were shocked when Utah women, after receiving the right to vote, voted unexpectedly for the polygamist candidate.) Once states, the western states were likely to align themselves with the southerners instead of the northerners. Their style of "independence" did not match what those of the north expected.

I do wonder about the counterfactual. Where would the south be if they had won and remained a separate country? Slavery was already on its way out throughout the world. The plantation economy was also going out in favor of industrialization. Would the south have later petitioned to rejoin the US? Or perhaps they would try to stay independent. Was "losing" the best way to keep the southern ideology in place?

With Fire and Sword: Arkansas, 1861-1874 (Histories of Arkansas)

Arkansas had an interesting role in the US Civil War. The state was reluctant to secede from the union. They initially voted not to. Even as other states were separating, they wanted to remain. However, as soon as the federal government demanded troops to fight against the southern rebels, the state changed its mind and only one person remained in favor of the remaining in the union.

The sentiments were not felt uniformly throughout the state. There were many pockets (especially in the north) that rebelled against the rebels. When caught, some of these were executed, while others were required to serve in the confederate army. (You can just imagine how great these soldiers would have been!)

There were many battles that took place in Arkansas. Plenty of destruction took place in the land, but very little had a significant impact on the course of the war. Arkansas was primarily the place in between Missouri and New Orleans. There were land and sea skirmishes to protect the trade routes. The confederates seemed to do ok at first, but then the federals got the upper hand. When the confederates finally looked like they were going to have some success, troops were called away as reinforcements in other theaters.

Reconstruction was a mess. There was plenty of reports of voting irregularities. (Many of these were in the name of the "good guys" enforcing reconstruction.) There was a time when the "old" prewar leaders seemed to return to their leadership position. That was quickly quashed by the radical reconstruction. During reconstruction, huge amounts of money were spent with some results (such as railroads), but no enough to justify the expense. It was a common case of idealism and "somebody else's money". There was plenty of graft to go around. 

There were some gains for the former slaves. However, these were gradually whittled away as the the old guard took power. Most former slaves ended up as sharecroppers. The old landholders had land. They had labor. The groups worked out a relationship. Alas, the crop prices took a dive, and few of the sharecroppers managed to gain their own land.

The end of the civil war was not the end of hostilities in Arkansas. There were plenty of people that were fighting for their own reasons. The Ku Klux Klan gained popularity and was especially strong in some counties. A state militia was brought up to defend the government. There were spies and casualties. Later there was a contested election for governor that lead to physical battle lines being drawn in Little Rock. There just did not seem to be an end to fighting.

I Survived the Battle of Gettysburg, 1863: I Survived, Book 7

The I Survived series looks like it would be a blast to write. As an author, you research historical events, and try to experience them yourself. The characters need to survive the event, but also see all that takes place around them. For the Battle of Gettysburg, the story is of two runaway slaves who end up with the Union Army at the battle. I wonder how reasonable it was for former slaves to be that accepted by the Union. (Is there perhaps a little too much of a modern viewpoint in place?) The audiobook is short, and there is just about as much commentary as actual audio. There is plenty of discussion of the Gettysburg address and the "short", yet memorable speech that Lincoln had made.

The War Before the War: Fugitive Slaves and the Struggle for America's Soul from the Revolution to the Civil War

Today we often look back in disgust at the period of African slavery in the US. However, at the time, the situation was much more complex. Servitude was common. Many immigrants came as indentured servants. People were also often apprenticed to masters to learn a trade. Slavery was proscribed as a more compassionate punishment than death. The slave trade seemed like a logical outcrop of situation. However, somewhere in the process, a racial aspect was applied. (It wasn't clear whether Africans were deemed as inferior because they were slaves, or whether they were slaves because they were deemed inferior.) The African slaves were unfamiliar with the land and less likely to be flight risks. At first they were used primarily on tobacco farms in the upper south, but later the focus was on cotton in the deep south. The south ended up growing to have some of the greatest concentrated wealth in the country - all built on slave labor.
The north did not depend directly on slavery. However, they did benefit from the slave production. They had adopted a holier-than-though attitude. They hated slavery, yet they did not have a whole lot of respect for blacks. There was one story where they went through great lengths to get the freedom of a slave girl that was brought into a northern state. However, nobody wanted her and she ended up in an orphanage. The new territories also did not want slaves, but did not want free black residents either. This seems somewhat similar to our situation with immigrants today.
The fugitive slave law was seen as a compromise that may have delayed the civil war. However, it also helped increase tensions. The conflict was intense. Today it is easy for us to look at the god and the bad and the inevitable fall of slavery. However, at the time the outcome was not clear. Automation was still some time away from wiping out the need for slavery.
This book is a very balanced look at the complexities of the slave issue. There were no clear answers that would have neatly resolved the situation. The narratives adopted by both sides of the slave debate were filled with contradictions and holes.

Red Badge of Courage

War is both glamorous and torturous. During times of hyped patriotism, people are super eager to fight for their cause. Then the reach the front lines and discover the horrid reality of war. They long for the wounds that give then the "red badge of courage", yet they still want to escape. Boys want to show that they are "men", capable of making their own decisions, yet don't know how to react when people let them go along. The book tries to paint a vivid picture of war. I had trouble following it. I was thinking it was talking about World War I. I guess the "rebs" should have given me a clue.

The March

The March is a historical novel focusing on General Sherman's march through the south. There is some talk of battle, but most of the novel deals with the individual people and their general depravity. We follow the story of some convicts as they are freed on the condition that they fight to defend the south. They bounce around from side to side and serve almost as comic relief. There is a "white negro" girl, the daughter of an illicit liaison with a white plantation owner. She poses at one time as a drummer boy, and struggles with her racial identity, and later enters a relationship with a white boy. There is plenty of depravity among all the parties involved. (Sex, even more so than violence is a vice of war.) Lincoln rises above it and is portrayed in a near deified way. Sherman, on the other hand, is a down to earth tactical genius who loves to be one with his men. The sentiment drifts towards favoring the north, but is fairly sympathetic towards the southerners.