HAMILTON AND JOHN ADAMS

After seeing the great musical Hamilton when it premiered on Disney+ earlier this month I found myself enjoying it immensely.  I thought it would be fun to do a short compare and contrast with another great work that I have enjoyed: John Adams.  This was a miniseries that HBO produced and aired in 2008, which like Hamilton was met with rave reviews from critics and was given numerous awards.   

The differences are immediate and visually obvious Hamilton is a stage play while John Adams is mini-series for television.  John Adams has seven episodes each slightly over an hour making the entire project over eight hours long, where Hamilton total run time is two and half hours.  It is true that Hamilton only lived about half as long as John Adams but that the play has less than a third of the time to tell his story.   The star of Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda, also wrote the play, while John Adams starred Paul Giamatti and was written by Kirk Ellis.

David Morse as George Washington in John Adams. 

Then there are the aesthetics.  Hamilton is a musical and it bills itself as “the story of America then told by America of today.” The genre of music is a diverse selection of R &B, soul, hip-hop, and traditional-style show tunes.  The casting of Hamilton is revolutionary diverse with roles of white historical figures going to actors who are people of color.  This is done following the “America then told by America today” standard.  The nation is a much more diverse place then it was in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries.  Not only has the diversity increased, but as a measure of the country’s progress, the positions people of color now have the opportunity to fill has changed as well.  The play was written and premiered during the presidency of Barrack Obama.   It was a powerful message of inclusion in a narrative where people of color were traditional excluded.   

Christopher Jackson as George Washington in Hamilton. 

John Adams on the other hand is a period piece which does its best to retain an authentic look from the period.  This can be seen from the wardrobe trying to replicate the type of fabrics of the period; to the props trying to insure authentic appearance to the carriages, fire arms, etc; finally to the make-up trying to make the actors look more like the historical figures they are trying to represent.  In short, their set tries to re-create the world as it existed in the late 18^th century.

Daveed Diggs as Thomas Jefferson in Hamilton. 

Now we come to the similarities.  Both works are based on a life of an American Founding Father.  Both works are closely based on popularly written biographies about those founders.  John Adams was based on David McCullough’s 2001 biography of the same name, while Hamilton was based on Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography titled Alexander Hamilton. 

Stephen Dillane as Thomas Jefferson in John Adams. 

The most important similarity between the two works (and if you take anything away from this review let be this) is while the settings of these works are the American Revolution and the establishment of the U.S. Constitution these events are not what either is about.   Both are about its principal subject be it Alexander Hamilton or John Adams.  Every event we witness and every other historical figure we meet is based on what the subject perceived.  However when one glances back with that in mind it again brings us to important distinctions in each work. 

In John Adams the American Revolution is a gruesome and undesirable necessity carried out in order to defend the rights of the colonists as citizens, because that is what the Revolution was to Mr. Adams.  In Hamilton, the American Revolution is exciting and wonderful opportunity for talented people born without high privilege to “rise up” and above their station.  This is because that is what Revolution meant to Alexander Hamilton.   Hamilton presents George Washington as this courageous general who doubles as a father figure, because that is who he was to fatherless Alexander Hamilton.  While the John Adams George Washington is a noble, stoic, and often distant figure because that is how he appeared to Adams.     

Then there is Thomas Jefferson.  The Thomas Jefferson of Hamilton comes off as the villain of the piece.  Easily one of the most enjoyable characters of the play Jefferson is exciting to watch and he is foil to poor Mr. Hamilton in every instance of the play’s second act. Again, this is who Jefferson was to Alexander Hamilton, so they play presents him as such.  In John Adams, Jefferson is often quiet and self-conscious, Adams is one of those who help him find his voice.  He recruits him to write the Declaration of Independence.  Once Jefferson has his voice and once America becomes a nation complete with a new Constitution the two friends become rivals.  The relationship of Adams and Jefferson as one-time friends who turn on each other mirrors the relationship between Hamilton and Burr in the play, except for that disastrous ending. 

Speaking of Burr, he had no role in the HBO miniseries.  Not only was Aaron Burr absent but James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, is mentioned only in passing.  This has little to do with the historic importance rather their impact on the life of John Adams in comparison with other figures.  Likewise the play Hamilton does not include the John Hancock, Samuel Adams (mentioned only as the name of a drink) and most importantly does not have a character of Benjamin Franklin.  This is not an over-site of Lin-Manuel Miranda just a reflection of those historical figures impact on Alexander Hamilton.

What is most interesting is how Adams and Hamilton are presented in each other’s drama.  In Hamilton Adams never makes an appearance, but he comes up in discussion and song a number of times.  He first mentioned by Eliza as she tries to get her husband to come out to the country pointing out that Adams does this for his wife.  To which Hamilton responds that, as Vice President, Adams does not have a real job.  Later after Adams becomes President, Jefferson and Madison are discussing how he and Hamilton had a fall out leading to Adams dismissing Hamilton and Hamilton coming out and publicly attacking the leader of his own party.  This damages the Federalists so badly that it practically hands the election to the Democratic-Republicans.  After Jefferson and Madison are done talking it over the audience sees Hamilton from the raised flat of the stage and dropping a book down to the floor shouting John Adams name.

Rufus Sewell as Alexander Hamilton in John Adams

In John Adams, Hamilton as a character appears in two episodes.  His first appearance is in the fifth episode “Unite or Die.” In this episode Hamilton appears at an early meeting of George Washington’s cabinet.  During the meeting he basically schools Thomas Jefferson on economics and lays out plans to set up a National Bank and assume the states’ debts.  This of course laid the ground work for stability of the United States Government.  A success from the Washington Administration that when Jefferson became President in 1801 he found that messing with it would be detrimental to the Union.  Hamilton’s second appearance is in the sixth episode “Unnecessary War” in which shows the clash between Adams/Hamilton more sympathetically to Adams.  Their fallout shows a Hamilton who has bitten off more than he can chew and needs Adams to bring him back to reality.

In closing I highly enjoyed both works and would encourage anyone to watch them.  Just remember when doing so with each presentation you are learning about a great historical figure who existed in an extraordinary setting of the American Revolution.  The setting and the characters in it are seen only from the view of the main character.  This is not to say you might not learn a thing or two about these periods but just keep in mind how it is slanted.                  

“YOU ARE SPAM!” MY DISAPPOINTMENT WITH FACEBOOK AND MY LOST LITTLE STAR TREK BLOG

               

               One of my most enjoyable hobbies is blogging.  I am not a big time blogger by anyone’s standards.  I first started blogging about 12 years ago when I started this blog where I would review history books I had been reading, an occasional political opinion I would want to strongly express, or an occasional tribute to a lost loved one.  Around that same time I joined Facebook and one of the things that I loved about it, in addition to being able to contact with lost-by-distance friends and relatives, was being able to share your likes and hobbies with other like-minded people.

                In 2016 with the new Ghostbusters movie coming out I decided to go down a trip in memory lane and watch the classic films and animated series.  I started a blog documenting that journey and would share it with my friends on Facebook.  Lately with the 2020 movie, now moved to 2021, I started re-watching episodes, re-editing posts (that Ghostbusters blog was a rushed job it needs it), and re-sharing with my current Ghostbusters Facebook groups.

                Around this time last year I decided to work on a life dream.  With my CBS subscription giving me access to the entire franchise I would start a new blog where I would cover the entire Star Trek universe.  Not on a time limit set to make a new movie or series date, just in order bit by bit putting quality over quantity.  Chip away at it as a hobby.  Like with my other blogs, I also chose to share the posts on Facebook with my fellow fans.

                In my short time plugging away on my blog I had written an article on it about Continuity and Canon, made reviews for every episode in the first season, an article about why production order is the best way to watch The Original Series, and I started posting episode reviews from season two.  And when I shared them with my Facebook groups I received positive and constructive feedback from my fellow fans, which was great.  There was a bump or two in the road when one group didn’t approve my review for “Mudd’s Women” because I called Harry Mudd a pimp!  However it is their group and they can approve whatever they like.  I also enjoy being able to respond with a written review if anyone randomly asks what I thought of an episode I already covered.

I am currently a member of seven Star Trek Facebook groups: Star Trek, Star Trek Forever, Everything Star Trek, Star Trek Forever and Always, The Original Star Trekkers, The Star Trek Fan Pagefor Everyone, and Star Trek Universe.  I want to point out that in these groups I will often like, comment on, or visit links to other fan created content not just to air my own stuff.  Now I wouldn’t always post the same reviews to each group as I joined them at different times.  When I joined a new group it seemed ridiculous to me to post a bunch of post on that new group right away.  I wanted to do so in the same timing as I did with the older group.

I usually share a new post with my own page then with Star Trek and Star Trek Forever over the course of the next two days as those were the first two groups I joined.  A day later I would share a post that was 4 posts older than the new on Everything Star Trek.  A day after that I would share one that was about 20 posts-old in Star Trek Forever and Always and the Original StarTrekkers.  Then a day or so later I would do the same in Star Trek Fan Page For Everyone and Star Trek Universe. 

               

Okay not my stairs but you get the idea!

                Last week I was in a horrible freak accident where I fell down a flight of stairs while carrying a laundry basket and I broke my leg.  I am writing from there now and I wanted to say that the hospital doctors and staff at Central Maine Medical Center have been incredible.  When I was able to access to social media again I got flood of loving messages from family and friends who because of the outbreak can’t actually come and see me.   However there was also a note on several of my groups that a number of my posts were being pulled off as spam.  At first I thought I was being spam-targeted by a fellow fan upset by something I had written.  That had happened once before.  However after taking with several of the administrators of the groups I am a part of we quickly determined that this was not the case.

                The truth was worse: I was somehow caught up in an anti-spam algorithm.  All of my links in all seven of my groups and my own personal page have vanished.  My blog still exists safe at blogger.com but my connection to the Star Trek Facebook community reduced to a whisper.   Now I want to be clear Facebook told me this was spam, it was not a trademark or copyright issue which normally would be covered by fair use anyway.  I am very broken-hearten it is like getting kicked when you are down, or in my view hospitalized after surgery.

                I messaged Facebook and they have not yet responded.  To be frank customer care was never their specialty.  As disappointed as I am by Facebook I can never say they cheated me.  I had always been a defender of theirs and my defense was this: if you don’t like the product ask for your money back for you always get it.  So I am now going to be looking for a new audience for my blog and I hope this can serve as a warning to others to be careful about sharing your posts too much you might not get invited back to the party.         

GETTING READY TO FIGHT AND THE EARLY FIGHTING

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm (1948)

Part of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 4 of 5)

                In the last few books I read by Winston Churchill he was discussing the history of English-speaking peoples.  That is a subject that he was not really that impartial about but he was certainly more so than about this topic.  For this is the first volume of his personal war memoirs and World War II was the event that was going to define his legacy.  Primary sources are always fascinating because you get into the head of the great actors who performed on the world stage.  You get to see their point of view on everything, how they saw other historical figures, and their thoughts on individual actions.  In that Winston Churchill never disappoints.

                This volume, The Gathering Storm, divides into two books.  The first book deals with Churchill as a parliamentary backbencher battling against the establishment, trying to alert the government and the people of the coming threat of the Nazi menace, and getting beaten back each time.  The second book deals with Churchill as the First Sea Lord, the British equivalent to the Secretary of the Navy in the United States, managing the Royal Navy in the first year of the war.  Of the two books I find the first and most interesting, it deals with a lot of political intrigue and the nature of humans particularly humans who have just gone through great conflict not too long ago.  The second book I find almost kind of dull. It consists Churchill’s day to day running of the Navy trying to decide to place what admiral where,  occasionally going to dinner with Prime Minister, and even though it’s about a great conflict doesn’t seem to have  much drama until the fall of the Chamberlain Government.

                In the beginning of this volume Churchill discusses the allotment of what led up to the war, like any good World War II story and he begins of course with a disastrous Treaty of Versailles.  Churchill points out the one hand the treaty left Germany practically intact with the largest homogeneous racial block in Europe, while on the other hand it ruthlessly punish the Germans trying to force them to pay these indemnities that would give fuel to the anger in the average German that would lead to the rise of Adolf Hitler.

“The economic clauses of the treaty were malignant and silly to the extent that it made the modestly futile.  Germany was condemned to pay reparations on a fabulous scale.  These dictates give expression to the anger of the victors, and to the belief of their peoples the any defeated nation or community can ever pay tribute on a scale which would meet the cost of modern war.” (pg. 7)

He also discusses in length of the Great Depression.  Americans tend to think of the Great Depression as an American event, it begins with the administration of Herbert Hoover is finally chased away by Franklin D. Roosevelt.  But in reality the Great Depression was a worldwide phenomenon that hurt many nations including those in Europe.  As bad as it was the American and British institutions survive the crisis, but many nations in Europe had governments that were now far younger and far more experimental.  For those fragile regimes the Great Depression would destroy them, for the people had very little faith in them to begin with.  Whereas the American and British Experience only saw the fall of politicians; both Herbert Hoover and Ramsay MacDonald paid the political price for being in office at the wrong time.  That is not to say that either one could not have done better but universal blame is beyond ridiculous.

“The consequences of this dislocation of economic life became world-wide.  A general contraction of trade in the face of unemployment and declining production followed.  Care restrictions were imposed to protect the home markets.  The general crisis brought with it acute monetary difficulties and paralyzed internal credit.  This spread of ruined unemployment far and wide throughout the globe.  Mr. MacDonald’s government, with all their problems behind them, saw unemployment during 1930 and 1931 bound up in their faces from one million to nearly three millions.  It was said that in the United States ten million persons were without work.  The entire banking system of the great Republic was thrown into confusion and temporary collapse.  Consequential disasters fell upon Germany and other European countries.  However, nobody starved in the English-speaking world.” (pg. 35)

I also found the view of Winston Churchill on what Germany should have done to be very interesting.  Ever a loyal monarchist, Churchill believed that many of the defeated European nations instead of tossing off their old monarchies should just embrace the British model and retained the sovereign for at the very least to be a rallying figurehead with little actual power in practice even if substantial power was retained on paper.  In Churchill’s view Hitler and the Nazi Party might have had a difficult time coming to power if Germany was able to retain a Kaiser in some form.  He was disappointed in failure of German officials to carry that through.

“This policy, if achieved, would have filled the void at the summit of the German nation towards which Hitler was now in evidently making his way.  In all the circumstances this was the right course.  But how could Bruening lead Germany to it?  The conservative element, which was drifting to Hitler, might have been recalled by the restoration of Kaiser Wilhelm; but neither the Social Democrats nor the trade-union forces would tolerate the restoration of the old Kaiser or the Crown Prince.    Bruening’s plan was not to re-create the Second Reich.  He desired a constitutional monarchy on the English lines.  He hopes that one of the sons of the Crown Prince might be a suitable candidate.” (pg. 63)

                Churchill was also does a great job explaining the political climate of the day.  There was a very strong and powerful antiwar movement in Great Britain; these were people who believe the tragedy of the First World War was caused by nations running into the conflict with reckless haste. If anything the lesson I think we should take from this is not to be overly simplistic in politics. The antiwar movement in the 1930s was right about the problems of World War I but they’re completely wrong about the situation World War II.   A generation later that antiwar movement would be in the right again and would find mainstream resistance mostly based on the legacies of the Second World War.  In Churchill’s view although being a politician in such climate is hard it is no excuse for negligence.

“It would be wrong in judging the policy of the British Government not to remember the passionate desire for peace which animated in the uninformed, misinformed majority of the British people, and seem to threaten with political extinction any party or politician who dared take any other line.  This, of course, is no excuse for the political leaders who fall short of their duty.  It is much better for the parties or politicians to be turned out of office than to imperil the life of the nation.  Moreover, there is no record in our history of any Government asking Parliament and the people for the necessary measures of defense and being refused.  Nevertheless, those who scared the timid McDonald – Baldwin Government from their path should at least keep silent.” (pg. 112)

Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, who Churchill blames for Britain's failed state of readiness for World War II 

One of the most interesting pieces of this book is the character of Neville Chamberlain. Most people remember Chamberlain from his embarrassing press conference in which he declared “peace in our time.”  Most Americans tend to associate Chamberlain as the British Herbert Hoover, the out of touch in at political leader who is pushed aside for a more dynamic Roosevelt in the person of Winston Churchill.  But nothing would be further from the truth.  Roosevelt was a Democrat and Hoover was a Republican.  Churchill and Chamberlain belong to the same party.  Chamberlain died shortly after leaving office, he had been set to hold a position Winston Churchill’s Government and if he had he might’ve repaired his broken legacy.  Since he can not, Churchill takes it upon himself to defend him.  Churchill wants the reader to know that the true villain of the story was not Neville Chamberlain but rather Stanley Baldwin.  In Churchill’s view Baldwin left the country dangerously unprepared and Chamberlain had little to work with.  Chamberlain was tasked with buying time so Britain could prepare to take on Germany.  Churchill says that Britain could never go to war for Czechoslovakia she just didn’t have the means.  Chamberlain’s failure to block it was not a failure like most people thought.

Neville Chamberlain, not so bad?

“Thus an administration more disastrous than any other in our history saw all its errors and shortcomings acclaimed by the nation.  There was, however, a bill to be paid, and it took the new House of Commons nearly ten years to pay it.” (pg. 180)
“There was also a serious and practical line of argument, albeit not to their credit, on which the Government could rest themselves.  No one can deny that we were hideously unprepared for war.  Who have a more forward in proving this and I and my friends?  Great Britain had allowed herself to be far surpassed by the strength of the German Air Force.  All are vulnerable points were unprotected.  Barely a hundred anti-aircraft guns could be found for the defense of the largest city and centre of population in the world; and these were largely in the hands of untrained men.  If Hitler was honest and lasting peace had in fact been achieved, Chamberlain was right.  If, unhappily, he had been deceived, at least we should gain a breathing – space to repair the worst of our neglects.  These considerations, and the general relief and rejoicing that the horrors of war have been temporally averted, commanded the loyal sent of the masses of Government supporters.  The House approved of the policy of His Majesties Government, ‘by which war was averted in the recent crisis,’ by 366 to 144.  The 30 or 40 dissident conservatives could do no more than register their disapproval by abstention.  This we did as a formal and united act.” (pg. 326-7)

As I mentioned earlier the second part of the book is simply Winston Churchill as the First Sea Lord.  It is a very good account of the day-to-day life of the First Sea Lord during World War II.  This section of the book was hardly interesting until the government battle at the end.  That battle resulted in the fall Neville Chamberlain’s Government.  What is interesting is that Chamberlain was not forced out of office in any sort of landslide election.  It is important to remember in  a parliamentary system they have what is called a vote of no-confidence that has the power to bring down a prime minister.  Chamberlain never received a vote of no-confidence his majority prevailed in Parliament.  It had however gotten smaller and this concerned him seeing as he was trying to fight a war.  Churchill urged him to stay on the Chamberlain felt he was too much of a lightning rod and a new government had to be formed with all the parties cooperating.  Chamberlain suggested to King George VI that Churchill be appointed his place.

“The King had made no stipulation about the Government being nationally character, and I felt that it my commission was in no formal way dependent upon this point.  But in view of what happened, and the conditions which had led to Mr. Chamberlain’s resignation, a Government of national character was obviously inherent in the situation.  If I had found it impossible to come to terms with the Opposition Parties, I should not have been constitutionally debarred from trying to form the strongest Government possible of all who would stand by the country in the hour of peril, provided that such a Government could command a majority in the House of Comments.” (pg.665)

So the book ends with Winston Churchill becoming his nation’s Head of Government.  He would be the coalition of all the parties against Nazi Germany.  His actions in that office are the subject of the following volumes.

{Video is from the film The Gathering Storm 2002}

NOT THE END

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Great Democracies (1956)

Part of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

(Rating 4 of 5) 

               
The first installment of the Winston Churchill's English-Speaking Peoples series covered thousands of years, the next two volumes averaged two centuries.  The final volume only covers a mere eight decades, from the fall of Napoleon to the start of the 20th century.  At no point does Churchill discuss his own career but he does talk about his father's.  The book focuses on the changing political landscape in Great Britain, the expanding United States that would tear itself in half before becoming a world power, and wars in South Africa.

                When in Great Britain itself, Churchill's main focus is on the rapidly changing society.  The main focus is on the ever expanding franchise.  As more people get to vote-although still just men--it changes the foundation of society.  Issues such as public education, workers’ rights, and Irish Home Rule were moved to the forefront of political thought.  Politicians, much to the horror of Queen Victoria, began to make direct appeals to the people.  Two rival politicians who were masters of the new age of politics were William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli.   

William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli

                 "We now enter upon a long, connected, and progressive period in British history--the Prime Ministerships of Gladstone and Disraeli.  These two great Parliamentarians in alteration ruled the land from 1868 to 1185.  For nearly twenty years no one effectively disputed their leadership, and until Disraeli died in 1881 the political scene was dominated by a personal duel on a grand scale.  Both men were at the height of their powers, and their skill in oratory in debate gripped and focused public attention on the proceedings of the House of Commons." (p.219)

                Queen Victoria is one of  those historical figures whom there seems to be very little agreement on.  She reigned for a long time but it was also during that reign that the crown lost a good deal of its actual power.  That was for a number of reasons one of which had to do with ministers now gaining or losing their jobs not on royal favor but rather on the results of popular elections to the House of Commons.  Churchill is very much in the Pro-Victoria camp.  To Churchill, her role as Queen was essential to the rise of the British Empire.  In his view, if the British Governments had been more willing to understand the peoples of the Empire as she did a lot of their problems could have been avoided, especially in Ireland. 

Queen Victoria

                "The Sovereign had become the symbol of the Empire.  At the Queen's Jubilees in 1887 and in 1897 India and the colonies had been vividly represented in the State celebrations.  The Crown was providing the link between the growing family of nations and races which the former Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, had with foresight christened the Commonwealth.  Disraeli's vision and Chamberlain’s enthusiasm had both contributed to this broadening Imperial theme.  The Queen herself was seized with the greatness of her role.  She sent her sons and grandsons on official tours of her ever increasing dominions, where they were heartily welcomed." (p.294)

                Churchill's take on several of the American conflicts did not strike me as overly interesting, with exception of his take on the American Civil War.  Churchill had no sympathy with the "Lost Cause" of the South; however he did have a respect for Virginia's position and admire Robert E. Lee for his principled stand.  Most of his view is very traditional and he gives a good blow by blow account of the conflict.  There is one position he takes that I found just amazing: he admired the military mind of George B. McClellan.  This is one of those things that I would really like to talk to him about if I had a time machine.  I consider McClellan to be something of a joke.  A mediocre commander who was better at making speeches than fighting.  Churchill thought otherwise.

Churchill had a rather traditional view of Lee: principled man with the wrong principles

                "If these two Presidents had let McClellan and Lee fight the quarrel out between them as they thought best the end would have been the same, but the war would have been less muddled, much shorter, and less bloody." (p.170)

               

General McClellan, Churchill's views on him are outright bizarre 

                 Now that I have reached the end of the series I must say that I am a little disappointed that we didn't get into the World Wars.  The series was excellent, but really learned anything new but I am some who is well read on the subject anyway.  I think the work is a good 101 look into British history.  The series has a much stronger focus on events after 1485 than before it.  The book is also an easy read not to bogged down in vocabulary, Churchill's personality strongly comes through you feel as if he is in the room with you explaining these events to you.  I also want to make a small note on capitalization; I much prefer Churchill's style with words such as king, president, minister, general, etc. to be capitalized when referring to an actual person. ("The King mounts his horse." as opposed to "The king mounts his horse.")

RIGHT OF REVOLUTION

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Age of Revolution (1956)

Part of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

          (Rating 4 of 5)
               

            Churchill’s first volume in this series covered thousands of years (pre-history to 1485), his second covered only two hundred four (1485-1489), and this volume only covers one hundred twenty-six (1689-1815).  Yet in this limited space of only three hundred pages Churchill covers the War of Spanish Succession, the War of Austrian Succession, the Seven Years’ War, American Revolution and War of Independence, and the French Revolution and Wars of Napoleon.  Those are some pretty large topics.  As I mentioned in the two previous reviews the most fascinating part about reading Winston Churchill’s history is he is such an important historical figure himself that it leaves everything with an added weight.     

            He begins where he left off in the last volume; King William III is establishing his new government in England.  Churchill shows the King as being frustrated with England’s lack of enthusiasm for international adventures.  England is also becoming less enthusiastic about their new Dutch monarch.  Politicians in the Kingdom would go back in forth from supporting the monarch on the throne to the pretender over sea based on their own circumstances. Churchill explained that William tolerated this out of necessity, he had no heir and the people would naturally want to protect themselves if his government fell.  His successor, Queen Anne, was even more tolerant of what could be viewed as treason.  Of course Churchill shows her as even more conflicted about her own place on the throne to judge harshly others.       

William III the Dutch King of England

“Queen Anne felt herself in her inmost conscience a usurper, and she was also gnawed by the feeling that she had treated her dead father ill.  Her one justification against that self-questionings was her absolute faith in the Church of England.  It was her duty to guard and cherish at all costs the sacred institution, the maintenance of which was bound up with her own title and the peace of the realm.  To abdicate in favor of her Papist brother would be not only to betray her religion, but to let loose the horrors of civil war upon the land she ruled, loved, and in many ways truly represented.” (pg. 38)

          

Queen Anne, conflicted on the throne

            Churchill clearly enjoys writing about his famous ancestor John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough.  He actually wrote a whole biography on him. Churchill writes about his ancestors, the Duke and Duchess, and their contemporaries as if he personally knew them.  I assume he had to have access to some of his ancestor’s documents and must also know of personal family stories.  

 

Churchill's favorite ancestor

“Marlborough’s reign was ended.  Henceforward he had to serve.  His paramount position in Europe and with the armies made him indispensable to either party as long as the war continued.  First he served the Whigs and afterwards the Tories.  He served the Whigs as plenipotentiary and General, later he served the Tories as General only.  His great period from 1702 to 1708, was over.  There still remained three difficult campaigns, upon a scale larger than any yet seen; but he no longer had control of the policy which alone could render fruitful the sombre struggles of the Army.” (pg. 64)

            

             With the end of Queen Anne arrives Great Britain’s modern royal family, the Hanoverians—though nowadays they call themselves the Windsors.  The German speaking King George I was not interested in the day-to-day workings of government, he was only concerned with the final actions.  Robert Walpole would, in the reigns of Kings George I and II, single-handily create the office that Churchill himself would one day serve.  Although he made the office, Walpole did not invent the title.      

“By his enemies Walpole was now mockingly called the ‘Prime Minister’—for this honourable title originated as a term of abuse.  The chances of a successful Opposition seemed to be gone forever.  ” (pg. 98)

Robert Walpole, called "prime minister" as an insult and the name stuck

            Walpole might have been the first prime minister, but it was William Pitt the Elder, who would be the first person called to that office by a popular mandate and getting power through the support of the House of Commons.  Churchill clearly admires Mr. Pitt, and I would guess he would feel some sort of bond for Churchill calls the Seven Years’ War that Pitt waged to be the true first world war.  Considering the role Churchill would play in those twentieth conflicts he would naturally feel a connection between himself and the early prime minister.  He might also see a connection with Pitt’s son William Pitt the Younger for the role he would play in the Napoleonic Wars.  

“Whether Pitt possessed the strategic eye, whether the expeditions he launched were part of a considered combination, may be questioned.  Now, as at all times, his policy was a projection on to a vast screen of his own aggressive, dominating personality.  In the teeth of disfavor and obstruction he had made his way to the foremost place in Parliament, and now at last fortune, courage, and the confidence of his countrymen had given him a stage on which his gifts could be displayed and his foibles indulged.” (pg. 124)

William Pitt

            When discussing the American Revolution Churchill gets quite interesting with his writing.  His father was British but his mother was American, he once joked before Congress that if it had been the other way around, he would have probably have stood at that podium on his own merit.  When discussing the Revolution he takes a bit of a pro-American side, but he is quick to remind his readers of the conflict that took place of both sides of the Atlantic.  There were of course loyalists in America, but there were also those in Britain and in the British Parliament who strongly supported the cause of the Revolutionaries and felt that “no taxation without representation” was a good excuse to take a look at Parliamentary reform at home. 

When the Revolution was over and the former colonies, now the United States of America, put together a constitution.  Churchill would find that the U.S. Constitution was one of the great accomplishments of the English-Speaking Peoples.

“Of course, a written constitution carries with it the danger of a cramping rigidity.  What body of men, however farsighted, can lay down precepts in advance for settling the problems of future generations?  The delegates at Philadelphia were well aware of this.  They made provision for amendment, and the document drawn up by them was adaptable enough in practice to permit changes in the Constitution.  But it had to be proved in argument and debate and generally accepted throughout the land that any changes proposed would follow the guiding ideas of the Founding Fathers.  A prime object of the Constitution was to be conservative; it was to guard the principles and machinery of State from capricious and ill-considered alteration.  In its fundamental doctrine the American people acquired an institution which was to command the same respect and loyalty as in England are given to Parliament and Crown.” (pg. 210)

            As I noted throughout this review the best part of reading Churchill’s history is get to get his take on other historical figures.  His writing on George Washington is basic but nevertheless really interesting.  After all it can be argued that Washington dealt the biggest blow to the British Empire in history, the Empire that Churchill himself held dear. 

“George Washington holds one of the proudest titles that history can bestow.  He was the Father of his Nation.  Almost alone his staunchness in the War of Independence held the American colonies to their united purpose.  His services after victory had been won were no less great.  His firmness and example while first President restrained the violence of faction and postponed a national schism for sixty years.  His character and influence steadied the dangerous leanings of Americans to take sides against Britain or France.  He filled his office with dignity and inspired his administration with much of his own wisdom.  To his terms as President are due the smooth organization of the Federal Government, the establishment of national credit, and the foundation of a foreign policy.  By refusing to stand for a third term he set a tradition in American politics which has been departed from by President Franklin Roosevelt in the Second World War.” (pg. 283-284) 

President Washington

When discussing the Napoleonic Wars I did not find anything particularly unique on his views.  Since it was reality recent—historically speaking—I was hoping for more of a contrast between these wars and the wars the Churchill had to deal with in his own time.  I suppose I might see more of that in his next volume.

             In closing I must say that this was a great follow up to the other two volumes.  He tries to cover a great deal of ground in very few pages but he does it rather well.