I'm probably not the intended audience for a novel centered on a quilting circle in a small Pennsylvania town during the Civil War. "The Union Quilters" is part of a series called the Elm Creek Quilts, which I understand is popular especially among people who like quilting today, which does not happen to be one of my hobbies.
But after reading Chiaverini's "Mrs Grant and Madame Jule" as part of research on Ulysses and Julia Grant, I appreciated the author putting a woman front and center in what's usually told as a man's story. (Yes, I consult fiction in learning about history, less for facts than for context and atmosphere. I do try to remain vigilant, but most of the historical fiction I read is well researched).
I wanted to read "The Union Quilters" to see how Chiaverini centered more female characters in a story that's even more focused on men, the war itself. And since "Madame Jule" was as much the story of an enslaved Black woman as it was of her white mistress, told skillfully I thought, I was also eager to see if Chiaverini handled race so explicitly in her wartime story.
I was prepared for a story about women on the home front. And "The Union Quilters" did not disappoint. The ladies of the quilting circle of Water's Ford, Pennsylvania who start out in 1862 by saying goodbye to their men heading off to war and then coming up with ways to support them from home. They start by constructing a patriotic quilt made by many hands and auctioning it off as a fundraiser to send supplies to the troops. They end up building a performance and meeting hall and spinning off their quilt design across the North, becoming local philanthropists and national entrepreneurs. One politically minded character, Gerda, publishes patriotic opinion pieces in the town paper that gets her into a war of words with the editor of the region's local Copperhead newspaper.
These stories would be enough for a good sized novel. What surprised me was how Chiaverini didn't just stick to women on the home front but also wove in stories of those women's husbands, brothers and sons in the army and on the battlefield.
In its narrative of two of the town's sons who wind up fighting at the Battle of Gettysburg, Chiaverini's book compares well to Michael Shaara's 1974 novel "The Killer Angels," and its epic movie version, "Gettysburg." The movie version, clocking in at about four hours long and featuring a cast of dozens of actors and thousands of battle reenactors, lacked even a single speaking role for a female character. By contrast, Chiaverini's book, purportedly focused on women, offered lots of action by men too.
I don't think the film or Shaara's book are alone. Plenty of Civil War fiction from Stephen Crane to Ambrose Bierce is written by dudes, about dudes and for dudes, focusing on battles and featuring women on the side if they're lucky. Otherwise women are totally absent. William Faulkner is the notable exception among literary fiction writers, but his stories are less about battles than about the social consequences of the war. And in popular fiction, of course there's Margaret Mitchell. But her "Gone with the Wind" may be good entertainment but it's inaccurate history, distorted through the lens of Lost Cause propaganda.
Chiaverini seems to have done her Civil War history homework diligently, and her angle is the opposite of Mitchell's, focusing on the better cause of Union and freedom for slaves.
I'm no expert on Civil War fiction by women authors but if Chiaverini is any indication, then perhaps there's also more diversity of characters by sex? In her Civil War there's certainly more diversity by race than in Shaara's too.
Not to pick on the movie version again, but among of the thousands of white men on screen in "Gettysburg," there's exactly one Black character, who pops up right about half way through the film. He's a fugitive slave whose wounds are being tended by some of the Union troops. His appearance gives Col. Joshua Chamberlain an excuse to talk about the purpose of the war, but this one single Black character doesn't have any lines of his own.
Again, "Gettysburg" and Shaara's book are not alone in their apparent lack of interest in race even while they tell stories about a war fought about slavery. Many Civil War novels are not just penned by men, but by white men. They're about white men and presumably for white men. These books often forget about the Black enslaved people whom the war was largely about and they also forget the Black soldiers and sailors who contributed so substantially to the war's outcome. Abraham Lincoln himself said that the Union wouldn't not have won without help from 180,000 US Colored Troops and 19,000 Black men in the navy. They have been edited out of Civil War history and Civil War memory, including novels and movies, for too long.
One of Chiaverini's most interesting plot threads centers on a Black family in the town whose man is a sharpshooter who keeps trying to enlist in the Union Army but is refused because he's not white. Only after the Emancipation Proclamation can he get his wish to serve, participating in the siege of Petersburg and serving bravely at the Battle of the Crater.
Another part of the story concerns the Underground Railroad and an escaped mother who was captured and dragged back into slavery but not before she gave birth to a child who the slave catchers didn't know about and who was left behind in the care of the white townspeople. The next book in the series apparently deals with the fate of this mother in slavery and beyond.
Entertaining and historically credible, "The Union Quilters" does what every modern Civil War novel should do: It brings women and African Americans into a story that has for too long been too masculine and too white. At the same time, even while she tells a bigger, more interesting and more accurate story of the war, Chiaverini doesn't have to kick the white guys out of the tale. Chiaverini's authorial approach is not subtraction, but addition, and I'm grateful to her for it.