What do you think?
Rate this book
Confederates: A Novel
A powerful novel of America’s Civil War told through the voices of Confederate soldiers, turncoats, and Stonewall Jackson in the weeks leading up to the great slaughter at Antietam
In the summer of 1862, as the Civil War rages on, a ragtag Confederate army consisting of young boys and old men, storekeepers, farmers, and teachers, gathers in Virginia under the leadership of Tom “Stonewall” Jackson, ready to follow their sainted commander to glory—or hell. One of these men, Usaph Bumpass left his wife, Ephie, behind to join the Shenandoah Volunteers, only to discover Ephie’s lover, Decatur Cate, among his comrades. Still, Usaph remains steadfast in his devotion to a cause he does not fully understand, even as troubling memories of home invade his mind on the march north. But a dark destiny awaits brilliant military strategist Jackson and his Southern boys, as hard truths about war, loyalty, love, life, and death are revealed in the fires and bloodshed at Antietam.
A breathtaking work of historical fiction that captures the human face of war as few novels have done before, Confederates has been compared to Tolstoy’s epic War and Peace as an artful, honest, and profoundly moving depiction of the lot of the soldier. Shortlisted for Great Britain’s prestigious Man Booker Prize, this masterful tale of love, duty, and conflict from author of Schindler’s List Thomas Keneally is an enduring and unforgettable classic of Civil War literature.
In the summer of 1862, as the Civil War rages on, a ragtag Confederate army consisting of young boys and old men, storekeepers, farmers, and teachers, gathers in Virginia under the leadership of Tom “Stonewall” Jackson, ready to follow their sainted commander to glory—or hell. One of these men, Usaph Bumpass left his wife, Ephie, behind to join the Shenandoah Volunteers, only to discover Ephie’s lover, Decatur Cate, among his comrades. Still, Usaph remains steadfast in his devotion to a cause he does not fully understand, even as troubling memories of home invade his mind on the march north. But a dark destiny awaits brilliant military strategist Jackson and his Southern boys, as hard truths about war, loyalty, love, life, and death are revealed in the fires and bloodshed at Antietam.
A breathtaking work of historical fiction that captures the human face of war as few novels have done before, Confederates has been compared to Tolstoy’s epic War and Peace as an artful, honest, and profoundly moving depiction of the lot of the soldier. Shortlisted for Great Britain’s prestigious Man Booker Prize, this masterful tale of love, duty, and conflict from author of Schindler’s List Thomas Keneally is an enduring and unforgettable classic of Civil War literature.
587 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1979
433 people are currently reading
2,085 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Keneally
109 books1,182 followersThomas Michael Keneally, AO (born 7 October 1935) is an Australian novelist, playwright and author of non-fiction. He is best known for writing Schindler's Ark, the Booker Prize-winning novel of 1982, which was inspired by the efforts of Poldek Pfefferberg, a Holocaust survivor. The book would later be adapted to Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List (1993), which won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Often published under the name Tom Keneally in Australia.
Life and Career:
Born in Sydney, Keneally was educated at St Patrick's College, Strathfield, where a writing prize was named after him. He entered St Patrick's Seminary, Manly to train as a Catholic priest but left before his ordination. He worked as a Sydney schoolteacher before his success as a novelist, and he was a lecturer at the University of New England (1968–70). He has also written screenplays, memoirs and non-fiction books.
Keneally was known as "Mick" until 1964 but began using the name Thomas when he started publishing, after advice from his publisher to use what was really his first name. He is most famous for his Schindler's Ark (1982) (later republished as Schindler's List), which won the Booker Prize and is the basis of the film Schindler's List (1993). Many of his novels are reworkings of historical material, although modern in their psychology and style.
Keneally has also acted in a handful of films. He had a small role in The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith (based on his novel) and played Father Marshall in the Fred Schepisi movie, The Devil's Playground (1976) (not to be confused with a similarly-titled documentary by Lucy Walker about the Amish rite of passage called rumspringa).
In 1983, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO). He is an Australian Living Treasure.
He is a strong advocate of the Australian republic, meaning the severing of all ties with the British monarchy, and published a book on the subject in Our Republic (1993). Several of his Republican essays appear on the web site of the Australian Republican Movement.
Keneally is a keen supporter of rugby league football, in particular the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles club of the NRL. He made an appearance in the rugby league drama film The Final Winter (2007).
In March 2009, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, gave an autographed copy of Keneally's Lincoln biography to President Barack Obama as a state gift.
Most recently Thomas Keneally featured as a writer in the critically acclaimed Australian drama, Our Sunburnt Country.
Thomas Keneally's nephew Ben is married to the former NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally.
Often published under the name Tom Keneally in Australia.
Life and Career:
Born in Sydney, Keneally was educated at St Patrick's College, Strathfield, where a writing prize was named after him. He entered St Patrick's Seminary, Manly to train as a Catholic priest but left before his ordination. He worked as a Sydney schoolteacher before his success as a novelist, and he was a lecturer at the University of New England (1968–70). He has also written screenplays, memoirs and non-fiction books.
Keneally was known as "Mick" until 1964 but began using the name Thomas when he started publishing, after advice from his publisher to use what was really his first name. He is most famous for his Schindler's Ark (1982) (later republished as Schindler's List), which won the Booker Prize and is the basis of the film Schindler's List (1993). Many of his novels are reworkings of historical material, although modern in their psychology and style.
Keneally has also acted in a handful of films. He had a small role in The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith (based on his novel) and played Father Marshall in the Fred Schepisi movie, The Devil's Playground (1976) (not to be confused with a similarly-titled documentary by Lucy Walker about the Amish rite of passage called rumspringa).
In 1983, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO). He is an Australian Living Treasure.
He is a strong advocate of the Australian republic, meaning the severing of all ties with the British monarchy, and published a book on the subject in Our Republic (1993). Several of his Republican essays appear on the web site of the Australian Republican Movement.
Keneally is a keen supporter of rugby league football, in particular the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles club of the NRL. He made an appearance in the rugby league drama film The Final Winter (2007).
In March 2009, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, gave an autographed copy of Keneally's Lincoln biography to President Barack Obama as a state gift.
Most recently Thomas Keneally featured as a writer in the critically acclaimed Australian drama, Our Sunburnt Country.
Thomas Keneally's nephew Ben is married to the former NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews
April 28, 2017
Growing up I was fascinated by the Civil War. We went to battlefields on family vacations, and I used to read a lot of civil war stories. And then I hit a wall. Maybe it was going to college in South Carolina where the Civil War was referred to as "The War of Southern Succession", maybe it was that old History professor who gave me a B in the course on the Civil War, despite my having a high A average, and discovered that the professor was still fighting the war between the states and being from PA I was on the "wrong side" of the war. But for whatever reason I stopped reading and learning about the Civil War.
For some reason this book called to me and so I got it on my Kindle and found that I, once again, had a desire to read more about the Civil War. This book was a fine effort by Keneally, and the fact that he is from Australia makes it even more impressive. We follow Usaph Bumpass as he fights with the Shenandoah Volunteers under the leadership of Stonewall Jackson. Through Bumpass we meet many other volunteers, conscripts, spies, military leaders and visit hospitals which exist to both heal the wounded and get information that can be passed onto spies for the Union. To be honest the only Yankee we meet is Decatur Cate and he is a conscript who was put into the army while "visiting" Virginia. We get to feel the emotions of the soldiers, as well as the mutual understanding of those they meet across the field of battle. We also get to see what a waste of human life this war was, and the carnage that it wrought throughout the entire book, but which culminated in the Battle of Antietam. There are not a lot of happy endings, and one certainly gets the feeling that the Confederates would have fared better had they never crossed the Mason Dixon line, but there were reasons they did so which are explained in the book, but through 20-20 hindsight we see how those decisions caused the ultimate defeat of the south. Union generals are accurately depicted as fools and incompetent but in the end a thoroughly defeated Stonewall Jackson still tries to figure out how he can send more men against the Union lines to try and salvage some sort of victory - while we cannot get into Jackson's mind I no doubt think this was an accurate depiction of the General and made me wonder how little life meant to him and the others who casually observed and slaughter and destruction of the war.
A very good read and one that I heartily recommend to one and all, especially fans of Civil War history and historical fiction.
For some reason this book called to me and so I got it on my Kindle and found that I, once again, had a desire to read more about the Civil War. This book was a fine effort by Keneally, and the fact that he is from Australia makes it even more impressive. We follow Usaph Bumpass as he fights with the Shenandoah Volunteers under the leadership of Stonewall Jackson. Through Bumpass we meet many other volunteers, conscripts, spies, military leaders and visit hospitals which exist to both heal the wounded and get information that can be passed onto spies for the Union. To be honest the only Yankee we meet is Decatur Cate and he is a conscript who was put into the army while "visiting" Virginia. We get to feel the emotions of the soldiers, as well as the mutual understanding of those they meet across the field of battle. We also get to see what a waste of human life this war was, and the carnage that it wrought throughout the entire book, but which culminated in the Battle of Antietam. There are not a lot of happy endings, and one certainly gets the feeling that the Confederates would have fared better had they never crossed the Mason Dixon line, but there were reasons they did so which are explained in the book, but through 20-20 hindsight we see how those decisions caused the ultimate defeat of the south. Union generals are accurately depicted as fools and incompetent but in the end a thoroughly defeated Stonewall Jackson still tries to figure out how he can send more men against the Union lines to try and salvage some sort of victory - while we cannot get into Jackson's mind I no doubt think this was an accurate depiction of the General and made me wonder how little life meant to him and the others who casually observed and slaughter and destruction of the war.
A very good read and one that I heartily recommend to one and all, especially fans of Civil War history and historical fiction.
June 1, 2022
Another book that was shortlisted for a historic Booker prize, and my last of Keneally's listed novels (he is very prolific, so I am very unlikely to complete his entire oeuvre). This one is a historical novel set in the middle period of the American Civil War, and most of its characters are on the Confederate side, though not all of them are real, as the cast includes footsoldiers and their families as well as generals.
It follows "Stonewall" Jackson's audacious plan to outflank the Republicans by marching north and eventually crossing the Potomac further west than most of the defences, and its events build towards the bloody battle that ended this offensive.
The personal part of the story concerns Usaph Bumpass, a newly married Virginia farmer whose wife Ephie is sent to live with his aunt when the war encroaches on the farm. She meets and falls for Decatur Cate, an itinerant portrait painter from Pennsylvania, who is conscripted into the Confederate army and ends up in the same unit of Jackson's army as Bumpass.
I found this book very impressive, and its account of war is brutally frank and unsentimental. As always Keneally's command of his historic subject matter is very impressive.
It follows "Stonewall" Jackson's audacious plan to outflank the Republicans by marching north and eventually crossing the Potomac further west than most of the defences, and its events build towards the bloody battle that ended this offensive.
The personal part of the story concerns Usaph Bumpass, a newly married Virginia farmer whose wife Ephie is sent to live with his aunt when the war encroaches on the farm. She meets and falls for Decatur Cate, an itinerant portrait painter from Pennsylvania, who is conscripted into the Confederate army and ends up in the same unit of Jackson's army as Bumpass.
I found this book very impressive, and its account of war is brutally frank and unsentimental. As always Keneally's command of his historic subject matter is very impressive.
July 15, 2012
This must be one of the best things Keneally has ever done and how it avoided winning the Booker is simply mesmerizing. This Australian author really has no right to go about writing on such a closely-studied and well-documented theme as the American Civil War and the various side issues that went along with it. I suppose that's why I stared at the spine of this book as it sat on a shelf in my library for year after year, without ever opening it. Yet it has proven one of the more delectable pieces of writing of the past ten years, the more so for being such an "unlikely find." Whatever possessed this Aussie to tackle such a subject and how did he settle on this method. For Keneally takes us on the road through Manassas and Bull Run and, as we know, onto Appotomax, although this particular narrative stops short of that final episode. He leads us through soldier's fields, some filled with the detritus of a southern army being overpowered only by a lack of resources, some filled with these same good folk, but now in the innumerable pieces that cannon and sustained breech-loading fire leave behind. He takes us in close to the generals, gives us some insight into the vast movements, both political and religious, that were swaying these mighty armies back and forth across the map of Old Virginny, and even shows us something of what the common soldiery were, perforce, leaving behind at home.
It's an uncanny tale, cannily related by a gifted writer and storyteller at the top of his mark. If you can stomach some gruesome details along the way, you will not be one ounce disappointed by this book. It's masterful.
It's an uncanny tale, cannily related by a gifted writer and storyteller at the top of his mark. If you can stomach some gruesome details along the way, you will not be one ounce disappointed by this book. It's masterful.
March 15, 2020
Keneally tends to be best known for Schindler's Ark, his 1982 Booker-Prize winner and the basis for the film Schindler's List. Although The Playmaker is well known to generations of A-Level students, that still seems a pity.
Confederates remains my favourite among his novels for more reasons than I can list, but I am always impressed with how seamlessly he enters the heads of the footsloggers and exits into the wider picture but without diminishing either. That is crucial in a war novel—more so when the focus is on the losing side, with all the myths, half truths and petty bigotries we find absurd but the characters live by. ('To them, crapping where the urge took you was all part of those direct and country ways those Yankees would try to convert you from, if you gave them the chance.')
Recommended.
Confederates remains my favourite among his novels for more reasons than I can list, but I am always impressed with how seamlessly he enters the heads of the footsloggers and exits into the wider picture but without diminishing either. That is crucial in a war novel—more so when the focus is on the losing side, with all the myths, half truths and petty bigotries we find absurd but the characters live by. ('To them, crapping where the urge took you was all part of those direct and country ways those Yankees would try to convert you from, if you gave them the chance.')
Recommended.
May 13, 2014
A novel with several independent stories occurring simultaneously doesn't always work but that's not the case here. I thought each story could have been a book in and of themselves but Thomas Keneally again worked his magic (as he did in Schindler's List). From a foot weary Confederate soldier fighting beside a man that had a brief affair with his wife, to Union spies, to a philandering Colonel looking for salvation the tales carried me through at a frantic pace. The horrors of the Civil War and the innocence of most of it's warriors are vividly portrayed as men desperately trying to survive and go home. The underlying camaraderie between the Union and Confederate soldiers is depicted several times and will bring tears at their attempts to understand why they are fighting to their gruesome deaths.
March 13, 2017
As seems to be the pattern recently. Perhaps better than just okay, but on the same token not phenomenal enough to warrant extra stars. So dead center in the ratings. This was a strange one. An Australian author writing about the American Civil War from a Southern/Confederate viewpoint which was thereafter nominated for a British award. I can see why it didn't ultimately come away with the award, but it was entertaining and did a great job of conveying the hopelessness and hollowness of "The Lost Cause." Moreover, for those looking for a rip roaring novel about Stonewall Jackson you'd be better served reading something else; herein he's more of an aside and factors in very little to the main narrative.
February 14, 2019
Superb Civil War novel
Top-notch fictional account of the battle of Antietam by the author of Schindler's List. Gives a real feel for the war from the Confederate side.
Top-notch fictional account of the battle of Antietam by the author of Schindler's List. Gives a real feel for the war from the Confederate side.
June 9, 2020
It was ok. If it hadn't been shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize, and I hadn't gone in with very high expectations, I would have likely rated it higher. As-is, a book shortlisted for such a prestigious prize is something I'd expect to measure up to historical novels like "The Killer Angels" or "The Caine Mutiny." This fell short.
Let's start with what I liked. This novel shines when it focuses on the common soldier. This is an excellent depiction of your standard Confederate soldier, why he fought, and what he faced. The soldiers act and sound like young men at war. If the author had kept his focus there, this might have been a 4 star, maybe rounded up to 5 star, read. As it was, he has an additional plot line involving Stonewall Jackson and one involving Mrs. Whipple/Searcy. I found myself skimming the Whipple/Searcy plotline, and I didn't find the portraits of Jackson and his command to be all that well-researched.
I guess I should mention for anyone reading this that I'm a hardcore Civil War buff, and I have a particular interest in General A.P. Hill, so I have read extensively on the Army of Northern Virginia. It probably wouldn't be overestimating to say I've read close to 100 books on the Eastern Theater in the Civil War. I take vacations to Civil War battlefields. Like I said, I'm hardcore, and I'm half-joking but Kenneally should have tapped me as a beta reader because I'd have worked for free and fixed a lot of mistakes. For example, Jackson's medical director is consistently referred to as Hunter Maguire; his name was Hunter McGuire. I understand the author is an Australian, but the author did the research to know who McGuire was, so there's really no excuse for misspelling Dr. McGuire's name. I've never heard Richard Ewell referred to before as "Popeye;" Ewell's nickname was "Old Bald Head." But Robert E. Lee just had me scratching my head. By all accounts, like him or hate him, Lee was a formal man, and it's well known he rarely called his generals by their first names (with the exception of Henry Heth, who was a cousin). But Kenneally's Lee constantly calls Jackson "Tom" and Longstreet "James." (Friends called Longstreet "Pete," the nickname he was given as a boy by his father, meaning "Rock.") While this could be forgiven, in discussing the plan for Second Manassas, Lee literally calls Longstreet "James" at the beginning of almost every new line of dialogue. If this was a known speech pattern of a historical figure, fine, but there's no evidence Lee spoke this way and it comes across as annoying and amateurish.
I like the author's writing enough I'd try another of his books, but this one was a definite miss for me.
Recommended for: HF readers who aren't overly concerned with historical accuracy and who like stories with multiple points of views/story lines. For its non-romanticized view of "Johnny Reb," and treatment of conscription, this book is worth reading.
Let's start with what I liked. This novel shines when it focuses on the common soldier. This is an excellent depiction of your standard Confederate soldier, why he fought, and what he faced. The soldiers act and sound like young men at war. If the author had kept his focus there, this might have been a 4 star, maybe rounded up to 5 star, read. As it was, he has an additional plot line involving Stonewall Jackson and one involving Mrs. Whipple/Searcy. I found myself skimming the Whipple/Searcy plotline, and I didn't find the portraits of Jackson and his command to be all that well-researched.
I guess I should mention for anyone reading this that I'm a hardcore Civil War buff, and I have a particular interest in General A.P. Hill, so I have read extensively on the Army of Northern Virginia. It probably wouldn't be overestimating to say I've read close to 100 books on the Eastern Theater in the Civil War. I take vacations to Civil War battlefields. Like I said, I'm hardcore, and I'm half-joking but Kenneally should have tapped me as a beta reader because I'd have worked for free and fixed a lot of mistakes. For example, Jackson's medical director is consistently referred to as Hunter Maguire; his name was Hunter McGuire. I understand the author is an Australian, but the author did the research to know who McGuire was, so there's really no excuse for misspelling Dr. McGuire's name. I've never heard Richard Ewell referred to before as "Popeye;" Ewell's nickname was "Old Bald Head." But Robert E. Lee just had me scratching my head. By all accounts, like him or hate him, Lee was a formal man, and it's well known he rarely called his generals by their first names (with the exception of Henry Heth, who was a cousin). But Kenneally's Lee constantly calls Jackson "Tom" and Longstreet "James." (Friends called Longstreet "Pete," the nickname he was given as a boy by his father, meaning "Rock.") While this could be forgiven, in discussing the plan for Second Manassas, Lee literally calls Longstreet "James" at the beginning of almost every new line of dialogue. If this was a known speech pattern of a historical figure, fine, but there's no evidence Lee spoke this way and it comes across as annoying and amateurish.
I like the author's writing enough I'd try another of his books, but this one was a definite miss for me.
Recommended for: HF readers who aren't overly concerned with historical accuracy and who like stories with multiple points of views/story lines. For its non-romanticized view of "Johnny Reb," and treatment of conscription, this book is worth reading.
June 1, 2021
Disclaimer: As usual, when I get going on the Civil War I go all over the place, and it looks like I veered off right out the gate this time. I promise there are actual book review elements in here somewhere.
3.5 stars rounded up to four. It was three stars at best for a long time, but the last section about the Battle of Sharpsburg/Battle of Antietam bumps it up. For those of you who don't know, War Between the States/Civil War battles often had different names. The Yankees used the name of a nearby body of water while the Rebels used the name of a nearby town. Keneally explains it like so: "Already the North were into the habit of calling the day Antietam, for they had been engaged so much with that obscure country stream, with crossing it, pivoting on its banks. The South had begun to call the event Sharpsburg, for their line, their argument, their future had been anchored on the little town." I don't know if that's why they picked those names for that particular battle, but I've come to the conclusion that Keneally sometimes likes to just make shit up even when he doesn't have to if it works better for his story.
Being from the south and descended from all kinds of confederates, I'll use the southern names since that's what I'm used to. In fact, one grandfather was one of nine brothers who fought for the South, which I'm told by some experts is a record for either side though I can't prove that. I don't know if any of them or any from the other lines were at Sharpsburg, though I wouldn't be surprised. It's possible, and even probable, I had some ancestors who fought for the North in one branch that I've never gotten around to researching extensively. Then there was that one imbecilic great-uncle who fought for the West. The man didn't have a lick of sense according to family lore. (Give me a break. Keneally isn't the only one who can make shit up when it's convenient.)
This book was a little odd. Maybe I'm just not used to historical novels since I don't read a lot of them, but I don't think that's it. It was apparently Keneally being Keneally. Here's something he said in some article after this book came out: "I'm really not interested in writing nonfiction. I'd rather muck about with the facts." Things started making more sense after I read that, and I wish I had seen it before I started the book, because some things were just a tad off right from the git-go. It's like we were reading a story from the dimension next door to ours, a place where people might drive a Honda Camry, or pour Welch's milk into their morning bowl of Kraft's Frosted Flakes. In this world Confederate General Tom Jackson had a horse named "Old" Sorrel. One of his generals was known as "Popeye" Ewell, and his field surgeon was named Maguire. In our world, nobody called Stonewall Jackson "Tom," and his horse was called "Little" Sorrel. (You can still see a stuffed Little Sorrel at the VMI Museum, but you might want to go soon. VMI is in the process of getting woke, and there's no telling how long it will be before the culture curators in their zeal to expunge all things Confederate from the world will get around to finding it offensive and demand its banishment from public life forever.) Richard Ewell was nicknamed "Baldy," which is self-explanatory, but I have never heard of anyone calling him "Popeye," and I don't know why they would. The surgeon attached to Stonewall's army was Hunter McGuire, not Maguire. He has a statue at the Virginia State Capitol building, but that too may be leaving soon, so if you want to see it, get on down there quick before our esteemed guvnah, Dr. Wreck-It-Raff Nawtham his own self, has it hauled off and melted down for coat hangers. And I doubt the veterans hospital named after him will keep that name for too much longer.
Anyway: Tom, Old Sorrel, Popeye, Maguire... Why? These things threw me off, and it took a long time to get used to. Why not just use the real names? I don't suppose this would be a problem for anyone who isn't a history buff, so take that into consideration. Some of the events detailed in this were completely made up but involved something that really happened. For example, a Union corporal found a copy of Order 191 which detailed how Lee was planning to conduct the Sharpsburg campaign. It was discovered in an envelope wrapped around three cigars in a field that A.P. Hill had recently left, and it quickly made it's way to McClellan, a general so inept that he makes Cobra Commander look like George Patton. (Nobody knows how Special Order 191 came to be hanging out in a field all by its lonesome, but Keneally spins us a yarn involving a couple of spies.) Upon discovery, McClellan stated "Here is a paper with which, if I cannot whip Bobbie Lee, I will be willing to go home." He could've done it too, and might have been able to end the war then and there if he wasn't such a nincompoop. He had the enemy's plans. He outnumbered them two to one. His men were fresh, well-fed, well-armed, had superior artillery and a supply chain for anything they needed whereas the southerners were tired, starving most of the time (though they'd eaten decently a couple of days before Sharpsburg), had limited ammo, worn out cannons, and no way to adequately replenish anything. McClellan even won the battle on a technicality because Lee withdrew and fled though the Union's losses were greater. Lee was giving it his all while McClellan had over an entire quarter of his force just chilling in the background playing patty cake, or something. Then when Lee disengaged, McClellan said "I guess our work here is done," and just let him go. McClellan didn't whip Bobbie Lee and didn't go home like he said he would, but two months later Lincoln sent him packing.
Keneally also gives us a weird love triangle which didn't do much for the story. I have the same feelings about this that I do for the movie Titanic. I always thought that'd be a really great film if they'd cut out the love scene parts. The love story in this fell kind of flat, probably because I couldn't be bothered to root for any of the characters. Plus, every woman in this thing was a slut and seemed to be willing to spread her legs for any man that came by even if she was married. They still loved their men who were away at the war, but they just really needed somebody to plow their fields from time to time. I'm serious: all of them were like that. Sorry, I just ain't buying it.
Then there was a scene with one of the soldiers and a witch which was just weird and felt out of place. However, I think that might be based on actual events. There were little vignettes interspersed throughout this that were based on real stories culled from various diaries. These stories were cool, but some of them felt out of place and forced-in which made the novel as a whole a bit clunky.
Keneally did do a good job of showing us conditions for the rebels which were pretty damn deplorable by the end of the war, but I'm not sure that things were quite as bad as he makes out that early. This covers events starting just after The Seven Days Battles around Richmond (early July 1862) through Sharpsburg (mid-September 1862). We follow the rebels from Richmond through Gordonsville, Orange, the battle of Cedar Mountain, through Culpeper, the Battle of Second Manassas, and on up into Maryland. Being not only a Virginian, but a Richmondite, it was cool seeing places in my stomping grounds mentioned. I've been to all the other towns mentioned several times, and Keneally got the geography right, so there's that.
I felt a little self-conscious reading this in public sometimes, though I didn't let that stop me. I think it's a shame, though, wondering if one is going to be attacked for reading a book called Confederates because things have gotten so volatile over the past year. (Still, it's not like I was reading Mein Kampf in Israel, or something.) I suppose my discomfort would thrill some people, and maybe they're all like "yeah, take that, you cracker. I hope you can't sleep and you dream about it. And when you dream I hope you can't sleep and you scream about it. I hope your conscience eats at you and you can't breathe..." God dammit, Eminem, get the hell out of here! This is the second review in a row you've invaded. Stop it! Anyway, I don't reckon there's anything I can do about the revisionist history going on, so I reckon I'll move on.
I had to refresh myself on the details surrounding the battle of Sharpsburg which is kind of embarrassing. I was history major in college, got a degree in it, and everything. I even took an entire class on the Civil War, and was treated to a presentation on this battle by one of the other students. My presentation was on Gettysburg, and actually... A memory stirs... I had drawn a map on the chalkboard which showed Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, as well as Delaware and New Jersey because you can't have one of those without the other. After all, what did Delaware? She wore a brand New Jersey!
Anyway, it was a good map. Dr. [name redacted] even said I'd drawn the best Virginia he'd ever seen. DE and NJ had no business being on the board because they weren't involved in the Gettysburg campaign (which actually started in Fredericksburg, VA a month before the big battle), but I figured "reference points. What the hell." That was my first fatal error. The second was adding some cities, including Baltimore, as further reference points. I wanted to show how Stuart went west of Baltimore while Meade merrily marched up I-95 between him and Lee who was further west in WV. And though I didn't point it out during my presentation, I will mention here that A.P. Hill went through Sharpsburg, and the denizens were all like "Laws, here come those ever-shitting gray boys again." (The entire Confederate army had dysentery.)
When I was finished, I asked the class if there were any questions, and Antietam girl asked "Did you know you put Baltimore in Delaware?" I turned to my impressive map and saw that instead of being nestled up snug against the Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore indeed was cuddling up with the Atlantic Ocean in Delaware. I glanced at Dr. [name redacted] whose lips compressed slightly in a frown as he made a mark on the page in front of him. I said "no," calmly moved Baltimore to it's proper place, then leapt across the room, knocked Antietam girl senseless, sprang back to my place before the blackboard, and said "Okay, are there any more questions?" There weren't.
I'm glad I read this. If you have an interest in the War, enjoy historical novels, and don't mind them getting fun and fancy-free with a few facts from time to time, then this would be a great book for you. And I think Keneally does a great job with showing how the common Confederate soldier behaved. But it just wasn't a great book for me. I did like most of the spy storyline even if that also got weird and romancey at times, and I loved the battle scenes. It's a shame it didn't focus more on those.
3.5 stars rounded up to four. It was three stars at best for a long time, but the last section about the Battle of Sharpsburg/Battle of Antietam bumps it up. For those of you who don't know, War Between the States/Civil War battles often had different names. The Yankees used the name of a nearby body of water while the Rebels used the name of a nearby town. Keneally explains it like so: "Already the North were into the habit of calling the day Antietam, for they had been engaged so much with that obscure country stream, with crossing it, pivoting on its banks. The South had begun to call the event Sharpsburg, for their line, their argument, their future had been anchored on the little town." I don't know if that's why they picked those names for that particular battle, but I've come to the conclusion that Keneally sometimes likes to just make shit up even when he doesn't have to if it works better for his story.
Being from the south and descended from all kinds of confederates, I'll use the southern names since that's what I'm used to. In fact, one grandfather was one of nine brothers who fought for the South, which I'm told by some experts is a record for either side though I can't prove that. I don't know if any of them or any from the other lines were at Sharpsburg, though I wouldn't be surprised. It's possible, and even probable, I had some ancestors who fought for the North in one branch that I've never gotten around to researching extensively. Then there was that one imbecilic great-uncle who fought for the West. The man didn't have a lick of sense according to family lore. (Give me a break. Keneally isn't the only one who can make shit up when it's convenient.)
This book was a little odd. Maybe I'm just not used to historical novels since I don't read a lot of them, but I don't think that's it. It was apparently Keneally being Keneally. Here's something he said in some article after this book came out: "I'm really not interested in writing nonfiction. I'd rather muck about with the facts." Things started making more sense after I read that, and I wish I had seen it before I started the book, because some things were just a tad off right from the git-go. It's like we were reading a story from the dimension next door to ours, a place where people might drive a Honda Camry, or pour Welch's milk into their morning bowl of Kraft's Frosted Flakes. In this world Confederate General Tom Jackson had a horse named "Old" Sorrel. One of his generals was known as "Popeye" Ewell, and his field surgeon was named Maguire. In our world, nobody called Stonewall Jackson "Tom," and his horse was called "Little" Sorrel. (You can still see a stuffed Little Sorrel at the VMI Museum, but you might want to go soon. VMI is in the process of getting woke, and there's no telling how long it will be before the culture curators in their zeal to expunge all things Confederate from the world will get around to finding it offensive and demand its banishment from public life forever.) Richard Ewell was nicknamed "Baldy," which is self-explanatory, but I have never heard of anyone calling him "Popeye," and I don't know why they would. The surgeon attached to Stonewall's army was Hunter McGuire, not Maguire. He has a statue at the Virginia State Capitol building, but that too may be leaving soon, so if you want to see it, get on down there quick before our esteemed guvnah, Dr. Wreck-It-Raff Nawtham his own self, has it hauled off and melted down for coat hangers. And I doubt the veterans hospital named after him will keep that name for too much longer.
Anyway: Tom, Old Sorrel, Popeye, Maguire... Why? These things threw me off, and it took a long time to get used to. Why not just use the real names? I don't suppose this would be a problem for anyone who isn't a history buff, so take that into consideration. Some of the events detailed in this were completely made up but involved something that really happened. For example, a Union corporal found a copy of Order 191 which detailed how Lee was planning to conduct the Sharpsburg campaign. It was discovered in an envelope wrapped around three cigars in a field that A.P. Hill had recently left, and it quickly made it's way to McClellan, a general so inept that he makes Cobra Commander look like George Patton. (Nobody knows how Special Order 191 came to be hanging out in a field all by its lonesome, but Keneally spins us a yarn involving a couple of spies.) Upon discovery, McClellan stated "Here is a paper with which, if I cannot whip Bobbie Lee, I will be willing to go home." He could've done it too, and might have been able to end the war then and there if he wasn't such a nincompoop. He had the enemy's plans. He outnumbered them two to one. His men were fresh, well-fed, well-armed, had superior artillery and a supply chain for anything they needed whereas the southerners were tired, starving most of the time (though they'd eaten decently a couple of days before Sharpsburg), had limited ammo, worn out cannons, and no way to adequately replenish anything. McClellan even won the battle on a technicality because Lee withdrew and fled though the Union's losses were greater. Lee was giving it his all while McClellan had over an entire quarter of his force just chilling in the background playing patty cake, or something. Then when Lee disengaged, McClellan said "I guess our work here is done," and just let him go. McClellan didn't whip Bobbie Lee and didn't go home like he said he would, but two months later Lincoln sent him packing.
Keneally also gives us a weird love triangle which didn't do much for the story. I have the same feelings about this that I do for the movie Titanic. I always thought that'd be a really great film if they'd cut out the love scene parts. The love story in this fell kind of flat, probably because I couldn't be bothered to root for any of the characters. Plus, every woman in this thing was a slut and seemed to be willing to spread her legs for any man that came by even if she was married. They still loved their men who were away at the war, but they just really needed somebody to plow their fields from time to time. I'm serious: all of them were like that. Sorry, I just ain't buying it.
Then there was a scene with one of the soldiers and a witch which was just weird and felt out of place. However, I think that might be based on actual events. There were little vignettes interspersed throughout this that were based on real stories culled from various diaries. These stories were cool, but some of them felt out of place and forced-in which made the novel as a whole a bit clunky.
Keneally did do a good job of showing us conditions for the rebels which were pretty damn deplorable by the end of the war, but I'm not sure that things were quite as bad as he makes out that early. This covers events starting just after The Seven Days Battles around Richmond (early July 1862) through Sharpsburg (mid-September 1862). We follow the rebels from Richmond through Gordonsville, Orange, the battle of Cedar Mountain, through Culpeper, the Battle of Second Manassas, and on up into Maryland. Being not only a Virginian, but a Richmondite, it was cool seeing places in my stomping grounds mentioned. I've been to all the other towns mentioned several times, and Keneally got the geography right, so there's that.
I felt a little self-conscious reading this in public sometimes, though I didn't let that stop me. I think it's a shame, though, wondering if one is going to be attacked for reading a book called Confederates because things have gotten so volatile over the past year. (Still, it's not like I was reading Mein Kampf in Israel, or something.) I suppose my discomfort would thrill some people, and maybe they're all like "yeah, take that, you cracker. I hope you can't sleep and you dream about it. And when you dream I hope you can't sleep and you scream about it. I hope your conscience eats at you and you can't breathe..." God dammit, Eminem, get the hell out of here! This is the second review in a row you've invaded. Stop it! Anyway, I don't reckon there's anything I can do about the revisionist history going on, so I reckon I'll move on.
I had to refresh myself on the details surrounding the battle of Sharpsburg which is kind of embarrassing. I was history major in college, got a degree in it, and everything. I even took an entire class on the Civil War, and was treated to a presentation on this battle by one of the other students. My presentation was on Gettysburg, and actually... A memory stirs... I had drawn a map on the chalkboard which showed Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, as well as Delaware and New Jersey because you can't have one of those without the other. After all, what did Delaware? She wore a brand New Jersey!
Anyway, it was a good map. Dr. [name redacted] even said I'd drawn the best Virginia he'd ever seen. DE and NJ had no business being on the board because they weren't involved in the Gettysburg campaign (which actually started in Fredericksburg, VA a month before the big battle), but I figured "reference points. What the hell." That was my first fatal error. The second was adding some cities, including Baltimore, as further reference points. I wanted to show how Stuart went west of Baltimore while Meade merrily marched up I-95 between him and Lee who was further west in WV. And though I didn't point it out during my presentation, I will mention here that A.P. Hill went through Sharpsburg, and the denizens were all like "Laws, here come those ever-shitting gray boys again." (The entire Confederate army had dysentery.)
When I was finished, I asked the class if there were any questions, and Antietam girl asked "Did you know you put Baltimore in Delaware?" I turned to my impressive map and saw that instead of being nestled up snug against the Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore indeed was cuddling up with the Atlantic Ocean in Delaware. I glanced at Dr. [name redacted] whose lips compressed slightly in a frown as he made a mark on the page in front of him. I said "no," calmly moved Baltimore to it's proper place, then leapt across the room, knocked Antietam girl senseless, sprang back to my place before the blackboard, and said "Okay, are there any more questions?" There weren't.
I'm glad I read this. If you have an interest in the War, enjoy historical novels, and don't mind them getting fun and fancy-free with a few facts from time to time, then this would be a great book for you. And I think Keneally does a great job with showing how the common Confederate soldier behaved. But it just wasn't a great book for me. I did like most of the spy storyline even if that also got weird and romancey at times, and I loved the battle scenes. It's a shame it didn't focus more on those.
November 20, 2023
Fantastic piece of historical fiction chartering the Civil War. As good as any book about war I’ve read. Although he’s known for Schindler’s List for which he won the Booker prize, this book is just as good. Also shortlisted for the Booker Prize but then again, the best books don’t always win the awards, do they?
April 3, 2023
Why doesn’t this book show up on lists of the best Civil War novels ever written? Maybe because the author is Australian? It can’t be because the book focuses on Confederate soldiers (of all ranks). Other lesser novels of that sort (Shiloh by Shelby Foote, or the barely tolerable Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier) regularly make lists of Ten Best Civil War novels.
Unlike those two books, this one is not tacitly pro-Confederate. The flaws of the Confederacy, both in its beliefs and in its functioning, are displayed clearly. As part of that, its characters are complex and insightfully portrayed, whether it’s General Tom Jackson (aka Stonewall) or the men of various ranks serving under him. Jackson is an anti-slavery, religiously-convinced-anyway zealot of the Southern cause, determined to attack the Union at whatever cost to anybody. He comes across as fascinating, charismatic, brilliant, and vicious, with an oddly and believably incoherent set of feelings about the world around him as he tries relentlessly to destroy the enemy. He knows what he wants, even if it’s never clear that he knows logically why he wants it. It’s a religious feeling, a messianic power he never questions.
The soldier characters, and there are many of them of all kinds of backgrounds, from Generals on down, are not always as individually interesting as Jackson, but taken together their varied stories are fascinating and they serve to create a panorama of the kind of men who soldiered for Jackson and Lee. Their various fates are uniquely and believably and often enough horribly portrayed. Yet the book is also very funny at times. In some ways, it’s a book of character sketches, and all of the characterizations (or, let’s say nearly all) are convincing and filled with both psychological and social insight. If a few times I wished that the story would return to the Generals, that’s only because the portrayal of those actual historical human beings was so compelling. As far as I know, some of the non-General characters might be based on real persons as well, but Keannely doesn’t say.
This is a book of action as well, both the action of war and of politics. It handles those subjects like the others, with a level of precisely realized historical realism that few other Civil War novels (or indeed many war novels period) can match.
The weakest portion of the book, for me, is the portrayal of the women characters, who are connected to some of the few less convincing and in some cases annoying subplots. They’re not one-dimensional in either social context or character, and it’s reasonable enough that they’re mostly not the center of events, although desire for them often is. But few of them are as believable as the male characters, and some of the comic elements of their roles feel like they come as much from the 1970s (when the book was written) as from the 1860s.
Some of the near-to-the-conclusion battle chapters have to be some of the most realistically believable (and necessarily graphic) scenes in all of the war literature I’ve read.
All in all, Confederates is a vivid and powerful novel that taught me as much about the life of Civil War soldiers as any work of fiction I’ve read.
Unlike those two books, this one is not tacitly pro-Confederate. The flaws of the Confederacy, both in its beliefs and in its functioning, are displayed clearly. As part of that, its characters are complex and insightfully portrayed, whether it’s General Tom Jackson (aka Stonewall) or the men of various ranks serving under him. Jackson is an anti-slavery, religiously-convinced-anyway zealot of the Southern cause, determined to attack the Union at whatever cost to anybody. He comes across as fascinating, charismatic, brilliant, and vicious, with an oddly and believably incoherent set of feelings about the world around him as he tries relentlessly to destroy the enemy. He knows what he wants, even if it’s never clear that he knows logically why he wants it. It’s a religious feeling, a messianic power he never questions.
The soldier characters, and there are many of them of all kinds of backgrounds, from Generals on down, are not always as individually interesting as Jackson, but taken together their varied stories are fascinating and they serve to create a panorama of the kind of men who soldiered for Jackson and Lee. Their various fates are uniquely and believably and often enough horribly portrayed. Yet the book is also very funny at times. In some ways, it’s a book of character sketches, and all of the characterizations (or, let’s say nearly all) are convincing and filled with both psychological and social insight. If a few times I wished that the story would return to the Generals, that’s only because the portrayal of those actual historical human beings was so compelling. As far as I know, some of the non-General characters might be based on real persons as well, but Keannely doesn’t say.
This is a book of action as well, both the action of war and of politics. It handles those subjects like the others, with a level of precisely realized historical realism that few other Civil War novels (or indeed many war novels period) can match.
The weakest portion of the book, for me, is the portrayal of the women characters, who are connected to some of the few less convincing and in some cases annoying subplots. They’re not one-dimensional in either social context or character, and it’s reasonable enough that they’re mostly not the center of events, although desire for them often is. But few of them are as believable as the male characters, and some of the comic elements of their roles feel like they come as much from the 1970s (when the book was written) as from the 1860s.
Some of the near-to-the-conclusion battle chapters have to be some of the most realistically believable (and necessarily graphic) scenes in all of the war literature I’ve read.
All in all, Confederates is a vivid and powerful novel that taught me as much about the life of Civil War soldiers as any work of fiction I’ve read.
June 30, 2013
Loved this book.
Took me FOREVER to get through. That's because it is DENSE. Dense with details and details that paint a picture, and bring the reader into the scene, and into the shoes of the character. I was hooked.
I was motivated to read this book, after finishing the author's more recent work, Daughters of Mars. I knew I had discovered a historical-fiction genius. And he did it again for me. Both books have a couple of things in common. Both are war books--Daughters about WWI, and Confederates, the Civil War. Both are actually anti-war books, or at least, showing how horrible and devastating war is.
Both build up to their endings. That is what I love about Keneally's writing. Because of all the details and ideas and feelings he puts into each chapter, it does take a long time to get through. One must be a patient reader. But in the end, the build up pays off. By the end, you have become these people, the characters. You understand them. You care about them. And if you are a history buff, your eyes have been opened.
My great-grandfather fought as a Confederate soldier when he was 19. He got some kind of award for his service at Chickamauga, and then was staying at a base in Georgia in the winter, from which he deserted and somehow trekked back to Kentucky. His family, and the family of his wife, had owned slaves. I loved the daughter they raised--my grandmother. One of the sweetest women who ever walked this earth. So now it's hard for me to get my mind around the fact that her family thought slavery was an okay thing.
After reading Confederates, I still cannot figure it out. However, I feel warmer toward "the South" after reading this book. I feel acceptance. By the end of the book, I found myself rooting for the Confederates in the Battle of Antietam. But how could I root for people on the "wrong" side?! It's because Keneally let me get to know them as people, and care about them.
One of the most satisfying reads I have ever had.
Took me FOREVER to get through. That's because it is DENSE. Dense with details and details that paint a picture, and bring the reader into the scene, and into the shoes of the character. I was hooked.
I was motivated to read this book, after finishing the author's more recent work, Daughters of Mars. I knew I had discovered a historical-fiction genius. And he did it again for me. Both books have a couple of things in common. Both are war books--Daughters about WWI, and Confederates, the Civil War. Both are actually anti-war books, or at least, showing how horrible and devastating war is.
Both build up to their endings. That is what I love about Keneally's writing. Because of all the details and ideas and feelings he puts into each chapter, it does take a long time to get through. One must be a patient reader. But in the end, the build up pays off. By the end, you have become these people, the characters. You understand them. You care about them. And if you are a history buff, your eyes have been opened.
My great-grandfather fought as a Confederate soldier when he was 19. He got some kind of award for his service at Chickamauga, and then was staying at a base in Georgia in the winter, from which he deserted and somehow trekked back to Kentucky. His family, and the family of his wife, had owned slaves. I loved the daughter they raised--my grandmother. One of the sweetest women who ever walked this earth. So now it's hard for me to get my mind around the fact that her family thought slavery was an okay thing.
After reading Confederates, I still cannot figure it out. However, I feel warmer toward "the South" after reading this book. I feel acceptance. By the end of the book, I found myself rooting for the Confederates in the Battle of Antietam. But how could I root for people on the "wrong" side?! It's because Keneally let me get to know them as people, and care about them.
One of the most satisfying reads I have ever had.
August 2, 2013
I thought I'd better read some of this guy - as it was one of the many gaps in my author knowledge - so I got this and something about the WW1 Armistice. Yep it sure is a page turner but it is purely narrative driven. Although there is much written about how it realises how ugly and bloody were the effects of the American Civil War, I found that this became just another element of the book and if he was trying to make a point about the tearing of the south apart like the tearing of bodies apart, then he'd missed his mark.
So is it OK to do just the narrative thing, to write a good story. Of course it is but there has to be more than this. Apart from one or two characters I never got more than a sniff of the powder of the war.
I was looking and hoping for a better writer than this book has led me to believe what Kenneally is about. Perhaps I'm missing something but this felt if not exactly pulp, then not too far from it.
So is it OK to do just the narrative thing, to write a good story. Of course it is but there has to be more than this. Apart from one or two characters I never got more than a sniff of the powder of the war.
I was looking and hoping for a better writer than this book has led me to believe what Kenneally is about. Perhaps I'm missing something but this felt if not exactly pulp, then not too far from it.
November 8, 2010
The War between the states in America is probably one of the most written about events in history, but this adds a human dimension that is sometimes lost in other novels that give an overall view of the whole war. Here we have a very close look at some of the participants, including Stonewall Jackson, and get an insight into what it felt like at a personal level: the daily difficulties, mental anquish, confusion and uncertainty.
Keneally takes a short period in summer 1862 leading up to and including the terrible battle of Antietam, but focussing entirely upon a relatively small cast of characters.
It is a fine piece of work, shortlisted for the Booker Prize, and can only add to an understanding of how terrible and personal a war really is. It is fought and suffered by people, and not by anonymous named or numbered brigades, divisions and cyphers in uniform.
Keneally takes a short period in summer 1862 leading up to and including the terrible battle of Antietam, but focussing entirely upon a relatively small cast of characters.
It is a fine piece of work, shortlisted for the Booker Prize, and can only add to an understanding of how terrible and personal a war really is. It is fought and suffered by people, and not by anonymous named or numbered brigades, divisions and cyphers in uniform.
November 17, 2010
Thomas Keneally is one of Australia's most celebrated authors. He is know in the US as the author of Schindler's List. The book is a reprint of the original published in the 1980's when Keneally was doing a sabbatical in the US. The fact that he would attempt such a book, a historical novel of the American Civil War from the southern point of view, shows both great skill and a great intellect. The language can be difficult (accurate?) and a few of the situations off beat, but in toto this is a very good book. It follows a number of characters, including a duo of northern spies, and members of the Stonewall Brigade as Lee makes his first invasion of the North. For anyone interested in this epic war and the questions it still raises I highly recommend this book. Again, do not expect your "usual" Civil War novel.
July 11, 2014
I remember exactly where I was and with whom when I read this. I even remember my grandfather nodding at the novel as I read it and saying, "That was a bloody one" - meaning the American Civil War. And it was.
It's difficult to put something like a war into fiction. Thomas Keneally does it through following the stories of three people. At the age of sixteen I knew nothing of the American Civil War (having opted to learn German instead of History). What astonished me was not just the brutality, but the sheer depth of the conflict in a nation so young, and that the same nation had patched things up so well in just over a century.
A riveting, fast-paced novel. Thoroughly recommended.
It's difficult to put something like a war into fiction. Thomas Keneally does it through following the stories of three people. At the age of sixteen I knew nothing of the American Civil War (having opted to learn German instead of History). What astonished me was not just the brutality, but the sheer depth of the conflict in a nation so young, and that the same nation had patched things up so well in just over a century.
A riveting, fast-paced novel. Thoroughly recommended.
May 10, 2017
page turner, whilst learning at the same time. well researched, as usual.
October 18, 2019
This novel reminds me of the Shaara stories, or the B. Catton series on the Civil War. The story is centered around a couple of the battle, but especially Antietam.
It is well researched and well written. He has an interesting theory of how the infamous “Order #191” was lost by the Confederate army and then found by the Union army.
A totally enjoyable novel. If you enjoy Civil War history, and well told historical novels, you will like this one. I was not aware the was Australian, but got a clue when some words were ‘misspelled’ - waggon, colour, etc. I am impressed when a writer from another country can get the sense and feeling of the American conflict so well.
It is well researched and well written. He has an interesting theory of how the infamous “Order #191” was lost by the Confederate army and then found by the Union army.
A totally enjoyable novel. If you enjoy Civil War history, and well told historical novels, you will like this one. I was not aware the was Australian, but got a clue when some words were ‘misspelled’ - waggon, colour, etc. I am impressed when a writer from another country can get the sense and feeling of the American conflict so well.
September 1, 2024
Confederates by Thomas Keneally is a gripping historical novel set during the American Civil War. Keneally, known for his meticulous research and compelling storytelling, delves into the complexities of the conflict through the eyes of various characters. The narrative offers a nuanced portrayal of the war, exploring themes of loyalty, betrayal, and the moral dilemmas faced by individuals on both sides of the conflict. The rich historical detail and well-drawn characters make it a captivating read for anyone interested in this turbulent period of American history. Keneally’s ability to bring historical events to life with emotional depth and authenticity is on full display in this novel.
November 23, 2022
I grew up in the Deep South during the Jim Crow days. I never studied the Civil War during elementary, middle, or high school history classes. As a Sophomore, I realized all of a sudden in a ten minute flash of clarity that the Civil War premise was unjust, evil. Reading this book is educational indeed. More later.
August 5, 2018
Having read a couple of Bernard Cornwall novels on the same subject from the same viewpoint, it is great to see what a great novelist can do with the same material. This book is a stark reminder of the stupidity and shocking waste of life that this particular war encapsulated.
October 1, 2019
Powerfully told novel that straddles the line between historical and literary fiction.
Taking place over the several months of the Northern Virginia campaign of 1962 and reaching its climax in the bloody battle of Antietam, this pivotal time in American history is captured at a tightly personal level. Keneally gives us a number of well-drawn characters both historical and fictional, and the insights into their makeup and how they're changed by war ring true.
These aren't modern people dressed up in costume. The formal mannerisms of the educated characters are presented alongside the down-home ignorance of the yokels. Keneally, an Australian, seems to have done a fine job capturing the idioms and mindset of these mostly rural Americans of 150 years ago.
The prose is well-crafted and a pleasure to read. Dialogue is aptly colloquial and often very funny. The battle scenes are horrific, verging into the surreal - a precursor to (and perhaps an influence on?) Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Fair to call this an anti-war novel.
Despite the politically contentious subject-matter, nobody is presented as villainous. Neither is it a Lost Cause apologetic. The takeaway from the novel is of many varied and decent people destroyed by a war fought in a bad cause.
If Keneally hits a false note, it's with the depiction of women. While the several female characters are portrayed in a rounded and sympathetic way, by the end of the novel pretty much every one of them has given in to lust for a male character she has known on short acquaintance. Sometimes very short. Maybe the author is trying to make a point about female agency from the vantage of 1978, or how war overturns social norms. But it comes across as cheesy wish-fulfillment in an otherwise honest novel.
I'd hesitate to recommend the Confederates without reservation to fans of military history. While it authentically captures the lives of soldiers and their experience in war (as far as I can tell from the comfort of a keyboard in 2019), it's not really military fiction in the vein of The Killer Angels. But as a multi-faceted depiction of how war shaped the lives of a myriad of characters in a very particular time and place, it's a success.
Taking place over the several months of the Northern Virginia campaign of 1962 and reaching its climax in the bloody battle of Antietam, this pivotal time in American history is captured at a tightly personal level. Keneally gives us a number of well-drawn characters both historical and fictional, and the insights into their makeup and how they're changed by war ring true.
These aren't modern people dressed up in costume. The formal mannerisms of the educated characters are presented alongside the down-home ignorance of the yokels. Keneally, an Australian, seems to have done a fine job capturing the idioms and mindset of these mostly rural Americans of 150 years ago.
The prose is well-crafted and a pleasure to read. Dialogue is aptly colloquial and often very funny. The battle scenes are horrific, verging into the surreal - a precursor to (and perhaps an influence on?) Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Fair to call this an anti-war novel.
Despite the politically contentious subject-matter, nobody is presented as villainous. Neither is it a Lost Cause apologetic. The takeaway from the novel is of many varied and decent people destroyed by a war fought in a bad cause.
If Keneally hits a false note, it's with the depiction of women. While the several female characters are portrayed in a rounded and sympathetic way, by the end of the novel pretty much every one of them has given in to lust for a male character she has known on short acquaintance. Sometimes very short. Maybe the author is trying to make a point about female agency from the vantage of 1978, or how war overturns social norms. But it comes across as cheesy wish-fulfillment in an otherwise honest novel.
I'd hesitate to recommend the Confederates without reservation to fans of military history. While it authentically captures the lives of soldiers and their experience in war (as far as I can tell from the comfort of a keyboard in 2019), it's not really military fiction in the vein of The Killer Angels. But as a multi-faceted depiction of how war shaped the lives of a myriad of characters in a very particular time and place, it's a success.
April 27, 2016
Mr Keneally did his homework. His research was right on and yet he was able to weave several "fictional" plots into this segment of the War Between The States. This is not a read for the faint of heart, as Thomas Keneally tells it as it was. Nothing glorious about the slaughter that occurred on both sides of the lines. This tale related by the Confederate view. The descriptions of the condition of the troops, their heart breaks and trials are right up there with the account of "Andersonville" by MacKinlay Kantor. "Andersonville is also not for the faint of heart.
You will walk and live the lives of Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson's troops through Manassas and Antietam.
"Confederates" will grip you.
You will walk and live the lives of Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson's troops through Manassas and Antietam.
"Confederates" will grip you.
September 7, 2016
The US Civil War has always been a subject I've wanted to understand better and this was a great novel to do that. The book covers a relatively short period in the war and follows several characters, from lowly foot soldiers through to the Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. Kenneally manages to capture the horror of the battles along with the minutiae of human experience as well as explaining the rationale for the South wanting to secede from the Union. The characterisation is really good and the plot as driven by the history itself is well done.
June 27, 2015
A belter. A great set of characters and dramas (Bumpass, Searcy... Stonewall Jackson) and never weighed down by the wonky military strategy stuff (which frankly I've never got). Appropriately gory, profane and saucy. Sympathetic without sympathizing. I love that line from Cate about the blood of the young being the mortar that builds history. Marvelous.
April 28, 2016
As good as fiction can be about this awful war, particularly the common men fighting a useless war they never understood.
On a par with All Quiet on the Western Front. Beautiful and sad and awful. No sense of glory., no sense of the worth of the pitiful cause. But a heartfelt study of the best and worst of each of us caught
in an insane river of destructio
On a par with All Quiet on the Western Front. Beautiful and sad and awful. No sense of glory., no sense of the worth of the pitiful cause. But a heartfelt study of the best and worst of each of us caught
in an insane river of destructio
July 30, 2012
Good historical novel about Confederate soldier. Showed endurance, courage, etc. of poor ragtag army.
April 16, 2019
I kind of want to kiss the ground right now because I finally finished it. I’m a fast reader, and I usually have more than one book going, but this one made me so bored that I didn’t even feel like picking up another book, for six days. I should have known, because Schindler’s Ark made me feel the same way. Thomas Keneally is just not a writer for me.
Worse still, at the end of it, I still don’t know why this story is told from a Confederate point of view. It stops at Antietam. Maybe it should have gone on, as much as I would have hated the page length increase, and showed us what a demoralized army would look like, the one that’s losing battles. I wouldn’t even have minded Battle of Manassas from a Union point of view.
I also did not agree with the portrayal of women. Like are they so desperate that they’ll sleep with any sad-sack soldier with crotch lice? Within a year of the start of the war? Maybe one or two women of the kind but all of them? Even Mrs Whipple who is gutsier and has more conviction than anyone else? Okay. The main thread of the book hinges on a rather pathetic love triangle, and I was hoping they’d go boil their heads somewhere, because I didn’t want to be reading about three people who wouldn’t or couldn’t grow up in the face of war and death, when there was also Stonewall Jackson plotting a daredevil move.
Ultimately, I don’t think I want an unknown soldier’s history of war, unless the person was compelling. Usaph Bumpass is absolutely not. I would have rather read about motivations, personal bravery, something other than a blow by blow account of people I can’t differentiate between because there’s not enough information about them. And, from this book, I don’t know why the South fought. I mean there’s no one who speaks of fighting because they don’t want to give up the institution of slavery. Everyone has vague reasons that have nothing to do with slavery. Not one person questions their motivations. Surely a fiction book centered on unknown people could have probed further? I would have happily read Usaph’s confusion had it been because Decatur Cate talked to him about social ideas that he’d never thought of before. Instead it’s some junk about who’s sleeping with who’s wife.
Worse still, at the end of it, I still don’t know why this story is told from a Confederate point of view. It stops at Antietam. Maybe it should have gone on, as much as I would have hated the page length increase, and showed us what a demoralized army would look like, the one that’s losing battles. I wouldn’t even have minded Battle of Manassas from a Union point of view.
I also did not agree with the portrayal of women. Like are they so desperate that they’ll sleep with any sad-sack soldier with crotch lice? Within a year of the start of the war? Maybe one or two women of the kind but all of them? Even Mrs Whipple who is gutsier and has more conviction than anyone else? Okay. The main thread of the book hinges on a rather pathetic love triangle, and I was hoping they’d go boil their heads somewhere, because I didn’t want to be reading about three people who wouldn’t or couldn’t grow up in the face of war and death, when there was also Stonewall Jackson plotting a daredevil move.
Ultimately, I don’t think I want an unknown soldier’s history of war, unless the person was compelling. Usaph Bumpass is absolutely not. I would have rather read about motivations, personal bravery, something other than a blow by blow account of people I can’t differentiate between because there’s not enough information about them. And, from this book, I don’t know why the South fought. I mean there’s no one who speaks of fighting because they don’t want to give up the institution of slavery. Everyone has vague reasons that have nothing to do with slavery. Not one person questions their motivations. Surely a fiction book centered on unknown people could have probed further? I would have happily read Usaph’s confusion had it been because Decatur Cate talked to him about social ideas that he’d never thought of before. Instead it’s some junk about who’s sleeping with who’s wife.
March 10, 2019
I always feel I'm getting two books in one from the wonderful Thomas Keneally.
First there's the historical account of events at a pivotal time - the rise and fall of the Nazi regime, an Australian aborigine challenging colonialism, the inside of the carriage where terms of the First World War peace settlement were imposed, and here one aspect of the American Civil War when the confederates came much closer to Washington than I ever imagined.
But it's not Keneally's painstaking research and respect for accuracy that really impresses; it's his imaginative power that puts one in the centre of the action, in the minds of his characters and makes one feel what it was like to live, to eat, to fight, even to defecate as they did.
Confederates weaves three stories - the progress of the campaign involving the Shendandoah Volunteers, the anguish of one of its reluctant members Usaph Bumpass as he is thrown together with the more educated Decatur Cate, the man who has seduced his wife, and that of Times correspondent/Union spy Horace Searcy and his contact, matron Dora Whipple.
There is just enough characterisation to make the personal conflicts as gripping as the tale of the war itself, told in graphic terms. One gets a real sense of the language and the mores of these ragtag soldiers, from the simple mountain boys up to the daring Stonewall Jackson. There's a great portrait near the end, also of Colonel Wheat, his men facing annihilation, who turns the tables of the battle by smearing himself and others with his own blood, and rousing them into a savage horde.
The book does not cover the entire war. How I'd hoped, despite the greater sympathy it evokes for the independent spirit, if not the social sentiments of the Confederates, to read of their ultimate defeat. But the book stops short of the turn in the military tide, and deals with the futures of Bumpass and Searcy in little more than footnotes.
First there's the historical account of events at a pivotal time - the rise and fall of the Nazi regime, an Australian aborigine challenging colonialism, the inside of the carriage where terms of the First World War peace settlement were imposed, and here one aspect of the American Civil War when the confederates came much closer to Washington than I ever imagined.
But it's not Keneally's painstaking research and respect for accuracy that really impresses; it's his imaginative power that puts one in the centre of the action, in the minds of his characters and makes one feel what it was like to live, to eat, to fight, even to defecate as they did.
Confederates weaves three stories - the progress of the campaign involving the Shendandoah Volunteers, the anguish of one of its reluctant members Usaph Bumpass as he is thrown together with the more educated Decatur Cate, the man who has seduced his wife, and that of Times correspondent/Union spy Horace Searcy and his contact, matron Dora Whipple.
There is just enough characterisation to make the personal conflicts as gripping as the tale of the war itself, told in graphic terms. One gets a real sense of the language and the mores of these ragtag soldiers, from the simple mountain boys up to the daring Stonewall Jackson. There's a great portrait near the end, also of Colonel Wheat, his men facing annihilation, who turns the tables of the battle by smearing himself and others with his own blood, and rousing them into a savage horde.
The book does not cover the entire war. How I'd hoped, despite the greater sympathy it evokes for the independent spirit, if not the social sentiments of the Confederates, to read of their ultimate defeat. But the book stops short of the turn in the military tide, and deals with the futures of Bumpass and Searcy in little more than footnotes.
April 24, 2022
Another history viewed from the other end of the telescope - and although perhaps subsequently overshadowed by 'Schindler's Ark', I found Confederates every bit as good.
For me it compares with Peter Carey's later 'The True History of the Kelly Gang' in its eye for historical detail. Both Keneally and Carey lay bare the unenviable choices of the underdog whose machismo belies a child-like terror. Disagregated from the maligned defenders of slavery, and caught on the wrong side of history, we get behind the eyes of individuals in the Confederate Army. Like Carey's Ned Kelly, Keneally's Usaph becomes haunted not only by the inescapable forces of war that kill his comrades, but also feelings of pining love and worries that others would compete for these same affections. Indeed the same could be said of Decatur Cate, the pressed Unionist made to fight for the opposing side, or again the spies working behind Confederate lines, each of which have enmeshed love interests.
Usaph is a Confederate soldier who leaves his wife Effie to the care of an aunt while he serves under Stonewall Jackson's southern army. His pangs of jealousy that Effie may have been unfaithful with the roving artist Cate cause infighting within the ranks that simmers alongside the fight against tbe nominal enemy. Keneally's great achievement is to weave these biographies together in the foreground, and still not lose sight of the big themes and events at the macroscopic level.
Keneally gives us people caught up in the forceful rush of history, whose choices and agency remain, but are nevertheless circumscribed by the impersonal imperatives imposed by their times. As with 'Gossip in the Forest' (about the 1918 Armistice as viewed from the German camp) and 'Schindler' (about resistance to Nazi genocide from within Germany), 'Confederates' makes war the focus, in this case the US Civil War as focused on 1861 and 1862. Men are pressed, and bowels are spilt and limbs severed - so the crushing and tearing horror of history is to a large extent beyond individual human control. But decisions are still possible and potentially transformative. It is this humanising element that made what could have been an unappealingly gory bloodfest a deeper meditation on love, loyalty, kinship and destiny.
For me it compares with Peter Carey's later 'The True History of the Kelly Gang' in its eye for historical detail. Both Keneally and Carey lay bare the unenviable choices of the underdog whose machismo belies a child-like terror. Disagregated from the maligned defenders of slavery, and caught on the wrong side of history, we get behind the eyes of individuals in the Confederate Army. Like Carey's Ned Kelly, Keneally's Usaph becomes haunted not only by the inescapable forces of war that kill his comrades, but also feelings of pining love and worries that others would compete for these same affections. Indeed the same could be said of Decatur Cate, the pressed Unionist made to fight for the opposing side, or again the spies working behind Confederate lines, each of which have enmeshed love interests.
Usaph is a Confederate soldier who leaves his wife Effie to the care of an aunt while he serves under Stonewall Jackson's southern army. His pangs of jealousy that Effie may have been unfaithful with the roving artist Cate cause infighting within the ranks that simmers alongside the fight against tbe nominal enemy. Keneally's great achievement is to weave these biographies together in the foreground, and still not lose sight of the big themes and events at the macroscopic level.
Keneally gives us people caught up in the forceful rush of history, whose choices and agency remain, but are nevertheless circumscribed by the impersonal imperatives imposed by their times. As with 'Gossip in the Forest' (about the 1918 Armistice as viewed from the German camp) and 'Schindler' (about resistance to Nazi genocide from within Germany), 'Confederates' makes war the focus, in this case the US Civil War as focused on 1861 and 1862. Men are pressed, and bowels are spilt and limbs severed - so the crushing and tearing horror of history is to a large extent beyond individual human control. But decisions are still possible and potentially transformative. It is this humanising element that made what could have been an unappealingly gory bloodfest a deeper meditation on love, loyalty, kinship and destiny.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews