Dixie Victorious. an Alternate History of the Civil War

By: Peter G. Tsouras [Editor]

Book Overview

Based on a series of fascinating 'What If's' posed by leading military historians, this intriguing new alternate history reconstructs moments during the American Civil War which could conceivably have... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 073944333X
• ISBN13: 9780739443330
• Release Date: January 2004
• Publisher: Stackpole
• Length: 272 Pages
• Weight: 1.10 lbs.

Customer Reviews

Better

Having read Third Reich Victorious and Rising Sun Victorious which were also edited by Peter G Tsouras I have to say this was the best of the bunch. These ten stories seemed well researched and fairly plausible. None of the stories had the Confederacy invading and taking over the north. That would have been out of the realm of possibility. These stories focus more on the south being able to stalemate the north long enough for possible real life events to change such as European intervention or McClellan winning the 1964 election. The stories are not interconnected but the stories are presented in chronological order. I find the writing for all the authors to be very good. I think this is a must buy for any alternate history fans.

Civil War in General

I have been a buff of the american civil war and I like to have alwasy like to read stories of what might have been. Stories like this rate up there Harry Turtledove`s stories on it and Newt Gringrich`s so if I ever find stories on it I try to buy them. Bruce

Thought-provoking alternative history

I recently asked a friend of mine, another Civil War buff (and a Southerner of Confederate heritage, like myself), if he had read this book. No, he allowed, he'd heard of it but was turned off by the prospect of reading something that celebrated secession and the defense of slavery that we both see as having been the core values of the Confederacy. That sensibility is understandable, but if you are reticent about buying or reading some Southern nationalist fantasy that presents Confederate victory and independence as the desirable outcome of the Civil War, you need not fear "Dixie Victorious." At least one of the ten contributors (Wade G. Dudley) states bluntly that one should be thankful his scenario of Confederate triumph did not come to pass. "[Confederate] victory would have meant the continuation of the institution of slavery, an institution that the South would not have willingly abandoned for generations (if at all)." On the other hand, contributor Kevin F. Kiley projects Virginia's abolition of slavery in 1870 and the Confederacy's total abandonment of the "peculiar institution" by 1900, following the fictional death of Lincoln and the electoral defeat of the Republican administration in 1864. And Tsouras himself portrays a drastic transformation of Southern (and Northern) race relations following a Southern victory brought about in large part by the Confederacy's (fictional) decision in 1864 to enlist black combat troops into its armies. (That official decision actually was made less than a month before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House, far too late to affect the overall outcome of the war.) But there is no overall sense in this collection that a Confederate victory would have been for the best. Mostly, the contributors to "Dixie Victorious" concentrate on the military impacts of some relatively small changes in the historical record - e.g., the immediate presence of Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston's personal physician at the Battle of Shiloh in April 1862 saves the general from bleeding to death (as he actually did, because no one was around to put a tourniquet on his leg wound). James R. Arnold conjectures that Johnston's survival at Shiloh enabled him to lead the (fictionalized) campaign that saved Vicksburg for the Confederacy a year later. David M. Keithly and Michael R. Hathaway both offer counterfactual outcomes of Lee's 1862 invasion of Maryland (that actually ended with a nominal Union victory at Antietam) that lead to Confederate victory in the war. Among the most interesting scenarios are Dudley's depiction of the triumph of Rebel ironclads over the Union blockade in the spring of 1862 and Cyril M. Lagvanec's fictionalized account of the 1864 Red River campaign in Louisiana. The latter was in fact a Union fiasco, but Lagvanec argues that a few little twists could have made this often-ignored event the turning point of the war and a key to Confederate victory. The contributors also are allowed

Ten provocative alternative histories where the South wins

"Dixie Victorious: An Alternative History of the Civil War" is a collection of ten essays imagining how the South could have won the Civil War edited by Peter G. Tsouras, author of several alternative histories including "Gettysburg: An Alternative History." The title, of course, spoils the outcome off all of the essays, but then the appeal here is more argumentative than narrative and the question is whether each author can make a compelling case that tips the delicate balance between military success and failure the other way:Andrew Uffindell, "'Hell on Earth': Anglo-French Intervention in the Civil War," has the "Trent" incident resulting in Great Britain declaring war against the Union and France following suit. Uffindell comes up with additional reasons for the two nations to fight the war that neither wanted in 1861 to force the North into fighting a war on all fronts. Wade G. Dudley, "Ships of Iron and Wills of Steel: The Confederate Navy Triumphant," has Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen R. Mallory creating an ironclad navy. Consequently, when the "Monitor" shows up at Hampton Roads it faces not one Confederate ironclad but three and the historical stalemate becomes a decisive Rebel victory.David M. Keithly, "'What Will the Country Say?': Maryland Destiny," turns Special Order No. 191, which fell into McClellan's hands before the Battle of Antietam, into a "ruse de guerre" as Lee baits a trap to destroy the Army of the Potomac. This one is an interesting twist on history and yet another opportunity to show Lee as being clever and McClellan incompetent, which is almost always fun.Michael R. Hathaway, "When the Bottom Fell Out: The Crisis of 1862," revisits Lee's first invasion of the North and has the Confederate general avoiding hurting himself when he was thrown by his horse the day after the second battle of Manassas. Overall I tend to like the essays where the key change is rather simple, which is what Hathaway does by having Lee free from pain and clear headed during his first invasion of the North. James R. Arnold, "'We Will Water our Horses in the Mississippi': A.S. Johnston vs. U.S. Grant," has Albert Sidney Johnston's life being saved by a tourniquet at the Battle of Shiloh. The South still loses on the second day, but Jefferson Davis is able to put Johnston back in command of Confederate forces in the West during the siege of Vicksburg. Clearly the idea here is insert Johnston back into the war in the western theater at the point where Davis most felt his loss, which explains why Shiloh remains a Confederate defeat.Edward G. Longacre, "'Absolutely Essential to Victory': Stuart's Calvary in the Gettysburg-Pipe Creek Campaigns," has the Confederate cavalry keeping in contact with Lee during the second invasion of the North. The Battle of Pipe Creek replaces that of the historical Battle of Gettysburg. Those who have read the alternative history "Gettysburg" by Newt Gingrich and William R. Fortschen will find this