Candle in the Darkness

I love historical fiction. However, the Civil War era is not my favorite time period to read about. I couldn't tell you specifically why, but I just don't pick those books to read as much.

I am so glad I picked up this series though!

Each of the three books has a different perspective - not just a new main character, but a new main character coming from a different background than the previous main characters. I haven't finished all the books yet, but it's interesting reading from such a variety of perspectives. This one follows Caroline Fletcher, a “southern belle,” as she tries to figure out what her place is in a society that condones slavery, when she herself does not.

I loved Caroline. She starts off as a shy and scared young girl, which I related to, but becomes a strong woman willing to stand up for her beliefs. I also loved seeing her living in the south, then in the north, then again in the south. The tension between the people she loves and what she believes in was very well portrayed, and I really felt for her in her confusion.

I think my favorite part in the whole book is when Caroline visits an abolitionist group in Philadelphia, where they talk about believing in “the cause” of abolishing slavery. She calls out the leader of this group, saying “the slaves are not a cause, they are people!!” Sometimes, as Christians (also in general), in our zeal for standing up for truth we reduce people to causes or statistics. But God sees each person individually, all the nuances that make up their life and beliefs, and He loves each person. When we lose sight of people, we lose sight of what matters.

I highly recommend this series, if you love historical fiction that makes you think.

I had a 1,000 word review written and was about to post when my battery crashed. Though I am seeing stars right now, I am going to try to recreate it. Hopeless. I promise, I phrased it much more nicely before I wasted two hours of work on a book I didn't even like.

So, I may come back later and edit it into more of a semblance of what I lost. I had a really nice list of what I liked and why I couldn't stand Robert for being a selfish cad. Only I didn't call him that. Promise. I was nice.

My list of good was like this:
—Eli! (reasons)
—Charles! (reasons)
—Tessie! (reasons)
—Isaac and what she does with him (no reason needed!)
—The ending (no spoilers, thus no reasons)

My list of middlin' was like this:
—Caroline. Eh. Bleeding heart for her own particular slave people, but no showing of true empathy for the rest of the people starving to death under her nose. They “somewhat deserved it” because they had slaves. Well, news, missy. They didn't all have slaves. And slaves were starving, too. I did like her parts in the hospital, and I liked her friendship with Sally, and I actually wanted quite a bit more of her romance, which is unusual for me.

Kick ‘em to the curb (again, the current emotion):
—Robert. Seriously, man, you say you love her, but convince her that helping measly you escape prison is going to vitally change the Union's prospects when Grant cares so little that he sends thousands of men a day to certain death? You know she is engaged and guilt her into helping you? You call it love when you deliberately endanger her life, knowing the consequences?
—Fletcher. A blockade runner getting rich off the suffering of others. ‘Nuff said.

So, what made me mad about the book (since I'm just a little furious. I got interrupted when I was almost done and tried to keep going despite interruptions. An hour later I still hadn't finished and my battery would have been fine to post any time within that hour.):

#1. History, history, history. First off, Caroline is a spoiled rich girl (nope, didn't call her that the first time around, either). She cares about her slaves, which is great. She helps with wounded soldiers, also great. She, however, waltzes into a prison in wartime without the permission of a powerful man of society, whose name she uses to get in; when he objects, she defies him and keeps going. Nope. All he had to do was say one word to the commandant at the prison. And she made a spiritual reason for defying her father-in-law-to-be by saying she was doing God's work in her visits. This wouldn't have happened.
She “Has a crush” and “Goes on a date.” Oh, I see. A time traveller.
She wears a corset before she goes to school and is told she will have to quit wearing short sleeves when she is a little older. Neither of these comments are accurate for the 1850s. And, to be sure, I searched online. More than enough proof.
When she goes North for school, she meets a preacher who is a devout abolitionist. She senses something missing in their message, though she is uncomfortable with it. Finally he looks at her on one occasion and asks her of her view. She rebukes him (she being at the time a girl of seventeen) with a look and the words, “They are not a cause. They are people.” Thereafter he preaches a sermon using her view. Well, yes. She's right. But the situation is totally contrived. And it's told as though her words turned the whole city's view of slavery upside down.
She repeatedly practices deceit and begins spying without really knowing why except that she's pleasing Robert...who told her how much he loved her while knowing she was in love and engaged, while endangering her life by his commands. She outright lies to her father on multiple occasions.
These anachronistic views and words and attitudes were too engrained in the story and plot to overlook.

#2. History, history, history.
Now for the view of actual events. Lynn Austin and Caroline cannot be sure that God sent the sword into the south for the sins of slavery. The conquerors were only partially pro-abolition, and had plenty of their own sins. One of the positive aspects of the war was the revival that started in the trenches. We don't get to see any of the spiritual awakening the soldiers would have seen, especially near Jackson's men.
Lee's request for slave soldiers is portrayed as a greedy wish for bodies to fill the trenches. In fact, Lee had asked for slaves to be sent repeatedly, and had urged Richmond politicians to allow him to grant freedom to any man who served out his term of enlistment honorably. This was BEFORE the Emancipation Proclamation. If Richmond had agreed, the South could easily have been the first to announce pro-emancipation steps. But Richmond was full of politicians (those who owned twenty or more slaves were exempt from the draft, which was mentioned) and blockade-runners, who were busy getting rich (Fletcher is an example of this.) All the men worth their salt were for the most part at the front lines, giving their lives for their homeland and freedom. No matter what Austin thinks, Lee WAS NOT pro-slavery. He had spoken in terms of regret of it more than once before the war. (In contrast, Grant was pro-slavery, saw nothing wrong with it, and did not release his own slaves until the actual Contitutional Amendment was passed years later.)

Some questions for you to ponder:
How come so many people who did not own slaves and did not have much to lose (such as sharecroppers) went willingly to fight? All the West was just opening up, and anyone who didn't choose to fight could easily have gone west before the drafting began. Those in territories were not subject to it. So, why would so many men go off to risk and give their lives in a cause like this? It was because of freedom.
It's not accurate that both Caroline and Charles would believe their cause doomed from the start. The South genuinely believed they could win, and if supplies had been forthcoming, they quite easily could have had a chance at it. Most of the West Point classes were from Virginia and were staunch Southerners. Northern men didn't go in for military as much; they were farmers and Quakers and gentlemen and mill-owners. With very few men, very few materials, Lee's and others' generalship nearly had the North by the ears.
And for Austin to flippantly excuse the horrors perpetrated in the south as “just desserts” for their sins, I can only hope that she has not studied what Sherman commanded his men to do to win his way through the South. They stripped the land, wrecking it, taking prisoners, ripping apart families, sending mill workers north to fill the places of the men drafted to march against the South, raping, murdering. Entire towns were burned, forests razed. Military law did not allow the murder of non-combatants, but it happened under Sherman.
Also, Caroline compares herself to Rahab of Jericho and decides she has God's blessing in her work. There is an error where it is said that Rahab was a “spy who betrayed her country”...actually, no. All she did was give shelter to two strangers because she heard of the power of God. Sheltering spies doesn't make her a spy herself.

Anyway, apologies to my friends for the tone of this. As I said before, it honestly was much more tame before the Cowardly Battery Betrayal.