Historically accurate?

Read the 5th chapter of The Dead Spend No Gold at writer's group, and it pretty much passed muster.

The thing the readers have the most problem with is my Indian girl character, who I have as made a well-spoken, well-read character --- opposite of the pidgin English cliche.  She was raised my missionaries from young age.

So I'm more or less doubling down on her being well spoken, and trying harder to show why.  I'm thinking of throwing in the occasional "thees and thous" into her conversation to make the difference even more noticeable.

The other thing that comes up when you write historical novels is attitudes towards sex and religion and race.  You can't really write the characters in the most accurate manner and have a modern novel, not unless you're Charles Portis. 

The trick is to hint at the differences, but not so that they distract from the story.  You want it to "feel" authentic, without going so far as to make is seem too anachronistic to enjoy.

So for example -- when reading Richard Stark or John D. MacDonald, the differences in attitudes toward race and sex -- and especially toward women, just leaps out at you.  It seems crazy that we had those attitude just 50 years ago, much less the 160 years ago that I'm writing about.

But you take the time and space into account when you read those stories.

However -- if you wrote a modern novel in that time-period, and you used the same "historically accurate" attitudes, I think the subject would be exactly that -- not whatever else you wanted to write about.  It would be "ironical."  It would be Little Big Man.  Which is a great book, but isn't what I'm writing.

So the trick is to acknowledge the differences, to show them in passing, but not let them take over the story.  You're writing for a modern audience.  You have to reflect modern attitudes, while at the same time being respectful of the actual events, trying not to tip too far in either direction.