Under normal circumstances this book would get three stars from me, which I consider a neutral rating. Historical romance is my guilty pleasure, and I would read a book, rate it three stars, and never think about it again. I don't normally review them, but this book did something that irked me. It features the main characters running around London trying to figure out why everybody wants a near eastern religious artifact. It has supernatural elements, but they aren't pronounced enough to be considered a paranormal romance. This is the Victorian era, and the hero is from the American South. Did you catch that? I haven't read the first book, so when they mentioned he fought in the war, I was like which war? The war of 1812? The Mexican-American war? But no, they are talking about the Civil War, and this is the part that really, really annoyed me because this book mischaracterizes the Civil War to justify falling in love with a man from the American South. Most people know that the Civil War was fought over slavery. As in the Confederacy fought to keep the institution of slavery. This does not mean that Union fought to abolish slavery. The Union fought for nationalism, to preserve the Union. Most white people in the North were apathetic about the issue of slavery, unless they were abolitionists. Freeing the slaves was incidental. The Emancipation Proclamation explicitly "freed" slaves that were in the territory of the Confederate States, which means that when it was issued no slaves in those territories were actually free. The issue of slavery is brought up in the clumsiest way, where the protagonist asks her love interest if he owned slaves. The protagonist's parents are very progressive, which, ok. He acts really offended about this, because as it turns out he turned his back on his family to fight for the Union because owning slaves is wrong. The two protagonists bond over this, and this is part of the reason why the love story is so weak. This would ring true if he was specifically depicted as, like, an abolitionist, which if that is the case why is he still in London? The cause isn't over just because the 13th amendment was passed. The author clearly included this to reassure the white reader that even though slavery is very much a thing, that he isn't a bad guy. My advice, as a black reader, would be to not touch this issue with a 40 ft pole if this is how you are going to handle it. It wasn't necessary. We know from his actions in the book he is a good guy. Fighting for the Union doesn't make him any less complicit in the institution of slavery and racialized subjugation than the female protagonist is complicit in colonialist imperialism whenever she drinks tea. Why wasn't his struggle with PTSD or something to that effect? Tl:DR this book was trying to be woke, but it just called attention to how hard we were trying not to be racist.