So, if you asked me to judge the book by its cover, I'd assume the heroine's family were middle class and that the ladies of the house contributed work to the household (and possibly to the grounds as well.)

Bear with me because it’s been about 2-3 weeks since I read the book but from what I recall mentioned about the family and their home situation (which wasn’t much), the plantation grounds were extensive and I think mention was made that they had grown cotton. Mention is made about how Joel, the Union hero, thinks about how the grounds are in bad shape now but must have once been very productive – which is why I thought there must have been slaves there. Obviously something was grown there.

The plantation was outside of Petersburg and the family was prominent in local society. Cassie’s oldest brother is a doctor, something which apparently caused quite a fight between father and son as Cassie’s father wanted him to take over the plantation. Another brother fights for the Union – unbeknownst to the family.

But this does not seem to be the type of family or “plantation” represented in the book, does it?

If you’re interested, Catherine Clinton’s “The Plantation Mistress, Woman’s World in the Old South” provides a comprehensive study of the mythical “Southern Aristocracy” versus the reality, specifically female roles and expectations.

As to whether the family in Ms. Stang’s novel is meant to represent a more realistic planter’s family over the other, I can’t tell you.

I CAN tell you some interesting information regarding the house featured on the book’s cover. Oak Alley (dubbed Bon Sejour by its original owner, the Romaine family, back in the 1830′s) is a popular “poster child” for what people consider “Southern royalty.” It’s used in lots of films and on book covers.

In truth, Oak Alley is a very small house by the period’s standards, created to suit the needs of an upper middle-class family. The house looks quite imposing from the outside but its rooms are very modest. The building itself is constructed of bousillage and plaster, and the walls are thirteen feet thick. The house is built on a site where the original owner built a log cabin and planted the famous, lush avenue of oak trees spreading over a quarter mile all the way to the Mississippi River. The cabin was torn down and Mrs. Romaine’s father built the new house as a wedding gift. The rooms are quite small and there is no ball room or guest accomodations or even a garconiere.

I realize, to modern eyes, Oak Alley appears quite imposing and grand, but it’s actually a modest property compared to, say, Nottoway Plantation.

Oak Alley is an example of what I mean when I refer to the legend of the Old South versus the more prosaic truths. Yes, slaves lived and worked on this plantation; a memorial is set up on the grounds listing their names. However, the number’s smaller than you might suspect.

So, if you asked me to judge the book by its cover, I’d assume the heroine’s family were middle class and that the ladies of the house contributed work to the household (and possibly to the grounds as well.)

For every Thomas Jefferson, there were dozens of poor farmers living in cabins on large tracts of land. And yes, since developing the land and producing products was their “business,” the landowner did indeed work alongside his slaves IF he was lucky enough to afford some.

But this does not seem to be the type of family or “plantation” represented in the book, does it?

Returning to the original discussion, a plausible reason for slaves not being present at the plantation upon the Union troops arrival is that the slaves may have fled the plantation OR may have been ordered to leave. As the war grew more ornerous and limited resources, some slaveowners did manumit their slaves because they literally did not have the resources to provide for them. The Union army was notorious for its abuse of black Americans (slave or not — in Northern Louisiana invading Federals desecrated a church and stole its holy regalia — the church was built and sponsored by Augustin Metoyer, a wealthy Franco-African planter) and it makes sense slaves might flee, fearing for their safety.

Didn't Elspeth McKendrick (Morag McKendrick Pippin) write a romance called Perfidia, which was set in World War II Germany and had a Nazi sympathizing heroine and a German hero?

I didn't want to read the book so please correct me if my description is off.

The heroine was from the British upperclasses and echoed some of the then current beliefs about Hitler and the Nazi party. Until she gets a first hand view of the reality. I’m trying to avoid spoilers but the information about the hero isn’t quite right.

And the only book I've heard of that is set during WWII which has a Nazi in it is “The Kommandant's Girl” by Pam Jenoff. It's more a historical fiction than romance (according to the AAR review).

Didn’t Elspeth McKendrick (Morag McKendrick Pippin) write a romance called Perfidia, which was set in World War II Germany and had a Nazi sympathizing heroine and a German hero?

I didn’t want to read the book so please correct me if my description is off.

Would you be as able to enjoy a well written romance with a Dr. Joseph Mengele type as the dedicated, hardworking hero amid the backdrop of Auschwitz-Birkenau? Does your lack of judgement of historical events extend this far? The hero conducting his sick experiements on humans during the day and courting an Aryan beauty during his free time

I honestly don’t know, Barbara. I admit your above scenario would not garner my interest, but I believe many factors hinge upon a book’s entertainment factor. In the hands of a skilled, compelling writer with the craft and objectivity to look past the “bad,” perhaps the “good” can be brought to light. If the author achieves that balance, perhaps such a book would find an appreciative audience.

I have no right to deprive that appreciative audience of their enjoyment.

“That said, I'm not going to let that get in the way of enjoying a good story. I don't freak out over romances depicting serfdom, indentured servitude, and slavery in other countries (i.e., the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc.)”

Would you be as able to enjoy a well written romance with a Dr. Joseph Mengele type as the dedicated, hardworking hero amid the backdrop of Auschwitz-Birkenau? Does your lack of judgement of historical events extend this far? The hero conducting his sick experiements on humans during the day and courting an Aryan beauty during his free time.

Another question. Does anybody know if there are romances that romanticize the Nazis?

“Summer of My German Soldier,” while not a “true” romance, is a very romantic tale.

Regardless, I set out to learn as much as I could about the Civil War and while I like the American Revolution also, the Civil War (and, to an extent, Reconstruction) really makes my brain hum. The bases for conflict, the true factors leading up to Secession, the battles, the players -’ there really has been no other American war quite like it, in my opinion. And just the outright devastation in its aftermath. What great drama

I think one has to have this background knowledge — along with a good dose of objectivity — to enjoy any historicals featuring practices our more enlightened present-day society abhors.

I’m a little turned off by the popularity of historical “sheikh romances,” usually featuring a white, Christian heroine abducted into slavery and seduced by a handsome “master.” I mean, honestly, we’re talking about sexual slavery, yet the scenarios been a hot fantasy for generations. Look what it did for Rudolph Valentino.

I'm revolted by the very concept of Am. Civil War romances. I'm not a reader who has to identify with or relate to the characters, but for me I can't even see the humanity of any of the southern characters. To me they're all abominations and parasites and so not the stuff of romance.

Quoted for truth, Barbara B. I 100% agree. I’ve never seen the appeal of the Civil War romance novel, because mainly, from what I’ve seen, either the hero or the heroine tend to live on a plantation in the midst of the Deep South and, therefore, see nothing wrong with owning slaves. And some of the romances I’ve read often have the characters actively defending the “glorious” South and their way of life… Squick. Incredibly gross, and off-putting to me.

I can see why publishers don’t publish many Civil War-era romances, though. It’s a time period in history that is incredibly fraught with racial tension and horrific abuse towards People of Color. Knowing the reality of what slavery did to people, both black and white, doesn’t make for very good romantic reading.

Maybe it's the use of the term “plantation”, which implies a large holding to me. Anyone wealthy enough to own a “plantation” wasn't “working alongside their slaves” to run it anymore than the CEO of GM is working alongside the people building cars on the line to run GM.

Again, I am sorry to differ with you, but this is not correct to my understanding. The “Southern aristocracy” (which came in all races) fulfills the romantic notion that southerners were all wealthy, lived in palatial homes, were waited on hand and foot by slaves, and never lifted a finger to do anything. While I don’t claim such circumstances existed, those circumstances were the exception, not the norm.

Wealth wasn’t required to own a large plantation. The colonies were “land rich and cash poor.” In the Colonial era, anyone who wanted a land grant — usually a sumptious one — only had to apply to the proper authorities to get it. Various colonies and regions had different qualifiers to receive land grants, but…the land was granted. Not sold.

Some examples:

British West Florida includes coastal land of Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana) offered land grants to British soldiers. The amounts of property they received were based upon their service and their families (i.e., for each child in the family, additional acreages were allotted.)

Please understand, in the Colonial era, availability of land wasn’t the issue. Colonists were the scarcity, and colonists were needed to invest in the land and produce raw goods to benefit the mother countriy. So, yes, anyone who was willing to fulfill the parameters (usually the grants were conditional upon the petitioner inhabiting and developing the property) could acquire land, often lots of land. And yet, many of these people were not wealthy (military pay was miserly at best.) The idea was that cultivating the land would generate income and over time planters would acquire wealth. Sometimes it worked out that way, other times not.

For every Thomas Jefferson, there were dozens of poor farmers living in cabins on large tracts of land. And yes, since developing the land and producing products was their “business,” the landowner did indeed work alongside his slaves IF he was lucky enough to afford some. It was in his best interest to do this. Maybe a generation or three down the road, with lucky, his grandchildren didn’t have to do it, but he did it.

Check out some slave sale records. Cash deals weren’t the norm. More often than not, a planter offered a mortgage on his property with notes to be paid from his crops to buy a slave or slaves to help with the labor.

No moral high ground (or hero/heroine) possible.

It has nothing to do with moral high ground. It has to do with how things were and what moral — or amoral — sentiments existed at the time.

Slavery is still rampant in various nations. I’m sure there are slaveowners who treat their slaves “fairly,” but slaves are still slaves. Not a good condition.

That said, I’m not going to let that get in the way of enjoying a good story. I don’t freak out over romances depicting serfdom, indentured servitude, and slavery in other countries (i.e., the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc.)

I blame Gone With the Wind for my love of the Civil War. (I’m also going to blame John Jakes and Elswyth Thane.) Read GWTW and watched the film when I was 15 almost 16. Major, major life changes soon followed, so I kept “Tomorrow is another day” as my motto and decided that if Scarlett could survive, I could too. Perhaps not the most sound thinking for a modern-day 16-year-old.

Regardless, I set out to learn as much as I could about the Civil War and while I like the American Revolution also, the Civil War (and, to an extent, Reconstruction) really makes my brain hum. The bases for conflict, the true factors leading up to Secession, the battles, the players — there really has been no other American war quite like it, in my opinion. And just the outright devastation in its aftermath. What great drama

Most “plantations” were large farms and the planter and his family worked alongside their slaves to run them profitably.

Maybe it’s the use of the term “plantation”, which implies a large holding to me. Anyone wealthy enough to own a “plantation” wasn’t “working alongside their slaves” to run it anymore than the CEO of GM is working alongside the people building cars on the line to run GM.

I'm with Barbara B on this one. It doesn’t matter if the family worked “alongside” their slaves or not. It's not a freaken co-op, no matter how you slice it. They’re still slave owners and were still fighting to defend their right to own other people. No moral high ground (or hero/heroine) possible.

And the only book I’ve heard of that is set during WWII which has a Nazi in it is “The Kommandant’s Girl” by Pam Jenoff. It’s more a historical fiction than romance (according to the AAR review).

I know a lot of romance readers miss Civil War romances and I freely admit I don’t share the feeling. For you Civil War romance lovers, what is the appeal? I’ve read a few and being the great-granddaughter of slaves makes me extraordinarily biased; I’m revolted by the very concept of Am. Civil War romances. I’m not a reader who has to identify with or relate to the characters, but for me I can’t even see the humanity of any of the southern characters. To me they’re all abominations and parasites and so not the stuff of romance. That’s not to say that the Union soldiers felt any differently about the slaves but I particularly despise the Confederacy.

I feel the same way about the Am. Revolutionary War. You’ve got these people passionately orating about freedom and genuinely feeling used and abused by the British Empire. These same people had the gall to express THEIR right to freedom, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet at the same time trying to annihilate the people indigenous to the continent and importing Africans as beasts of burden. The hypocrisy is astounding but in the colonials defense, they didn’t see Africans in particular as human.

So, you lovers of romances set during the Civil War and the War for Independence, how do you separate the reality of people who were undeniably monstrous and find the romance in the situations?

Another question. Does anybody know if there are romances that romanticize the Nazis?