If the South had won the Civil War

This short book is an exercise in alternate history, setting out how the South might have won the American Civil War, and what might have happened afterwards—up until 1960, when the text was written.

The book is well written in a plausible style that makes it superficially convincing and quite pleasant to read, for anyone with an interest in the subject. The author has a good knowledge of his subject and also wrote heftier books about the Civil War.

His first change in history is excellent: a very small and plausible change with significant consequences. On the 12th of May 1863, U.S. Grant was seriously injured when his horse fell on him. In the alternate history, he was killed in this accident: a serious setback for the Union, but not necessarily leading to a Confederate victory in the war.

So Kantor goes on to make at least three other changes to history, which is inelegant. In the genre of alternate history, the accepted form of the art is that you make one change to history from which everything else flows.

He supposes that Confederate forces in the west cooperate better than they actually did in order to take advantage of Union confusion caused by the death of Grant. Sherman is shot by a sniper, and the Army of the Tennessee is trapped and forced to surrender.

Moving on to the Battle of Gettysburg, he supposes that both Lee and Stuart correct the mistakes that they made in our history; the battle is a decisive Confederate win; the Union forces are routed and mostly wiped out by pursuing Confederates. Washington is taken (what of the fortified garrison?), Lincoln is captured, and the war ends in July 1863.

In the establishment of new boundaries, the Confederacy loses West Virginia but gains Kentucky, most of Maryland, a small part of Delaware, and Washington D.C. (untenable within the Union after the loss of Maryland). The Union capital moves temporarily to Philadelphia and then to Columbus, Ohio.

In 1878 Texas declares itself independent of the Confederacy. In the late 1870s, individual Confederate states start to free their slaves; in 1885 the Confederacy as a whole does so, followed shortly by Texas. Though problems of integration continue for some time.

In 1898 the Confederacy fights a short, successful war in Cuba and annexes the island.

After Woodrow Wilson is elected as Confederate president in 1910, he begins to speak out in favour of reunion with the USA. The three parts of the original USA cooperate in the two world wars and eventually agree to reunite in 1960, somewhat motivated by fear of the Soviet Union.

Overall, I think the book is plausible but too optimistic, especially on behalf of the Confederacy, which was an economic disaster (the book doesn't go into this at all) and politically disunited and bickering. Had it won the war as described, it would still have had a huge task to recover from its various problems and become a healthy country.

I think the voluntary abandonment of slavery is quite plausible, because there was a powerful trend in that direction in the world in general. It might have taken a bit longer than Kantor suggests; but he ought to know better than I do.

The reunion of the USA also seems plausible, with the slavery issue no longer dividing people.