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. 

BRAVE NEW WORLD

A review of Winston Churchill’s The New World (1956)

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

(Rating 4 of 5)

                Churchill’s first volume, The Birth of Britain, covers thousands of years.  This second volume covers only a little over two centuries.  What a few centuries it was!  The book begins with the rise of Henry VII and the Tudor dynasty and ends with the fall of James II in the Glorious Revolution.  In this volume the English monarchy rises to its highest of heights achieving near absolute power.  The three great Tudors Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I were magnificent monarchs whose power went unquestioned.  Their feeble replacements, the Stuarts, would struggle to hold onto what they had inherited and the monarchy would fall to its lowest states with one king being executed and another dismissed.   Churchill captures all with magnificent style.  As I noted earlier the best part about reading Churchill’s work is you get to see how a famous historical figure views other historical events. 

               

Henry VII

The book begins with the aftermath of the War the Roses.  With his new crown, King Henry VII, picks up the pieces of the short-lived York dynasty and sets the foundations of a powerful monarchy.  During his reign Henry gave the reputation of being a something of a miser, but doing this help stabilize his regime.  Churchill notes that although he was nice famous as some of his European cousins his achievements were no less impressive.

“His achievement was massive and durable.  He built his power amid the ruins and ashes of his predecessors.  He fiercely and carefully gathered what seemed in those days a vast reserve of liquid wealth.  He trained a body of efficient servants.  He magnified the Crown without losing the cooperation of the Commons.  He identified prosperity with monarchy.  Among the princes of Renaissance Europe he is not surpassing achievement in fame by Louis XI of France or Ferdinand of Spain.” (pg.20)

                

                   When any historian writes about King Henry VIII they all follow the same trap.  What you talk about?  Henry VIII had a lot of legitimate achievements during his reign.  He set the foundation that would lead England on the road to become a modern state.  Yet, we think of Henry is hard not to go over the six wives.  Only the first three are important those marriages and how they ended change the road England would be on forever.  Churchill does a good job covering the reign despite his limited space. (After all he still has over two centuries to cover with only a couple hundred pages to do it.)

“Henry’s rule saw many advances in the growth and character of the English state, but it is a hideous blot upon his record that the rain should be widely remembered for its executions.  Two Queens, two of the King’s chief Ministers, a saintly Bishop, numerous abbots, monks and many ordinary folk who dared to resist the Royal will were put to death.  Almost every member of the nobility in royal blood ran perished on the scaffold at Henry’s command.  Roman Catholic and Calvinist alike were burned for heresy and religious treason.  These persecutions, inflicted in solemn manner by officers of the law, perhaps in the presence of the Counsel or even the King himself, form a brutal sequel to the bright promise of the Renaissance.  The sufferings of devout men and women upon the faggots, the use of torture, and the savage penalties imposed for even paltry crimes, stand in repellent contrasts the enlightened principles of humanism.  Get his subjects to not turn from Henry in loathing.  He succeeded in maintaining order amid the turmoil in Europe without Army or police, and he imposed on England a discipline which was not attained elsewhere.  A century of religious wars went by without Englishmen taking up arms to fight their fellow-countrymen for their faith.  We must credit Henry’s reign with weighing the basis of sea-power, with a revival of Parliamentary institutions, with the giving of the English Bible to the people, and above all with strengthening a popular monarchy under which the seating generations worked together for the greatness of England while France and Germany were wracked with internal strife.” (pg. 66)

               

Queen Elizabeth I

                     Like any good English patriot Churchill has a warm spot for the year 1588 the defeat of Spanish Armada.  It was an important victory from England, they were only all half an island against the great imperial power.  Arguably, the threat the Spanish represented was a greater threat to England as a threat Churchill himself faced in his own time.  Despite his feelings he doesn’t go overboard with the legend, as fun as it would be to tell the story of the smashing of the great Spanish fleet he realizes history does not always work like that.  Nevertheless, it was crowning achievement for Queen Elizabeth I.

“The English had not lost a single ship, and scarcely 100 men.  But their captains were disappointed.  For the last thirty years they believe themselves superior to their opponents.  They had now found themselves fighting a much bigger fleet than they had imagined the Spaniards could put the sea.  Their own ships have been sparingly equipped.  Their ammunition had run short at a critical moment.  The gunnery of the merchant vessels had proved poor and half the enemy’s fleet had got away.  There were no postings; they record their dissatisfactions.
“But to the English people as a whole the defeat of the Armada came as a miracle.  For 30 years the shadow of Spanish power had darkened the political scene.  A wave of religious emotion filled men’s minds.  One of the metals strike to commemorate the victory bears the inscription ‘Afflavit Deus et dissipantur’—‘ God blue and they were scattered.’” (pg. 102)

               

Spanish Armada 

As England was getting to its feet the world the Europeans knew was expanding.  The voyages of Columbus opened up to new continents that the people did not know existed.  This created opportunity for the Europeans to create colonies. For certain English subjects it represented the opportunity to begin the world anew.  For those who are proud of their Englishness but found England unbearable due to whatever corruption they viewed as inexcusable, such as the Puritans they no longer had to hang out in Holland.  They now had the opportunity to build their own version of England in the form of a colony.  In his previous work the English-speaking peoples they were just one people confined to one island, now they were many expanding across the globe.  It was this phenomenon that Churchill gives the books title.

                The first half of the book covers the English monarchy at its highest; in the second half we could see it at its lowest.  Queen Elizabeth I died without heir.  The crown of England passes to the King of Scotland.  King James VI becomes King James I and moved from Edinburgh to London.  Churchill had some fun poking fun at this joke of a dynasty in his last volume.  As the Stuarts come to England they do not get any smarter.  Churchill portrays these sovereigns as being out of touch with reality and not up to the task of governing England.

King James I

“James and his Parliaments grew more and more out of sympathy as the years went by.  The Tudors have been discrete in their use of the Royal Prerogative and had never put forward any general theory of government, but James saw himself as a schoolmaster of the whole island.” (pg. 120)

                Despite his flaws, I personally have some sympathy for King Charles I and it appears in the book that Churchill does as well.  I have always found Cromwell to be an utter hypocrite and his regime to be more tyrannical than any king ever dreamed of being.  While reading this book it seems Winston Churchill was of the same opinion.

King Charles I

Oliver Cromwell

“We must not be led by Victorian writers into regarding this triumph of the Ironsides end of Cromwell as a kind of victory for democracy and the Parliamentary system over Divine Right and Old World dreams.  It was the triumph of some twenty thousand resolute, ruthless, disciplined, military fanatics over all that England has ever willed or ever wished.  Long years in unceasing irritations were required to reverse it.  Thus the struggle, in which we have in these days so much sympathy in part, begun to bring about a constitutional and limited monarchy, had led only to autocracy of the sword.  The harsh, terrific, lightning – charged being, whose erratic, opportunist, self- centered course is laid bare upon the annals, was now master, in the next 12 years of the record of well – meant, puzzled plungings and surgings.” (pg. 212)

                Earlier in this book we see King Henry VIII sending everyone and anyone including his own ministers and two of his queens to the scaffold to have their heads cut off.  In a completely different turn of events a King of England is sent to his death in the very manner that his predecessor had imposed onto others.  Yet this King, who many fought against him under the banner of fighting against tyranny, would be viewed as a martyr for liberty.

“A strange destiny had engulfed this King of England.  None had resisted with more untimely stubbornness the movement of his age.  He had been in his heyday the convinced opponent of all we now call our Parliamentary liberties.  Yet as misfortunes crowd upon him he increasingly became the physical embodiment of the liberties and traditions of England.  His mistakes and wrong deeds had arisen not so much for personal cravings for arbitrary power as from the conception of kingship to which she was born it was along with the settled custom of the land.  In the end he stood against the Army which had destroyed all Parliamentary government, it was about to plunge England into a tyranny at once more irresistible and more petty than any seen before or since.” (pg. 216)

After the fall of the protectorate, Churchill tells the story of how the monarchy was restored.  The king in exile, Charles II, was simply invited back by his people and not retuning at the head of conquering army.  For a Stuart, King Charles II was not that bad of a ruler.  He was fairly competent, unlike his younger brother, the Duke of York, who would succeed him as king, ruling as James II.  Despite his historical importance Churchill tells the story of the Glorious Revolution very quickly.  I expected it would be more detailed considering the involvement of his famous ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough.

I found this book to be a great summary of two chaotic and messy centuries in the history of Great Britain.  It tells a story of a powerful dynasty that rises and dies off, a Scottish dynasty which unifies the kingdoms, and a civil war that tore the nations apart.  It is a brief and great read.

PIRATE REPUBLIC

A review of Collin Woodard’s The Republic of Pirates: Being the True and Surprising Story of the Caribbean Pirates and the Man Who Brought Them Down (2007)

(Rating 5 of 5)

A small disclaimer: I actually had the opportunity to meet Mr. Woodard at the Maine Festival of the Book a few years back.  While there, I ran into him as he was on the way out.  I would have missed him entirely if he hadn’t noticed the fact that one of the two books I was carrying was one of his.  Woodard then stopped me and asked me if I was looking to get those signed.  When I told I was, he then told me that ‘Tony’ (author of a book I will be reviewing next) had left but he would gladly sign the other one.  It was an interesting forty seconds to say the least.  So if you think this is a biased review it might be.  However if you read it for yourself I think you will agree that it is an interesting book.

            What this book covers is the Golden Age of Pirates that took place in the first half of the eighteenth century.  During this time a group of pirates gained enough power in the Caribbean after the colonial governments there practically collapsed and pirate ships roamed almost unopposed.  They had been inspired by the example of Henry Avery, the first modern pirate who helped establish the principals that the pirates would come to live by.  What Avery started was the idea of ‘sailor reform’ where the shares of profit was more evenly distributed, decisions made more democratically, and leaders could be held accountable to their crews.

Blackbeard's Flag

            Pirates have been glorified in our culture.  Reading this book it is easy to see why.  The pirates did some nasty things but the people fighting them were hardly any better.  The European navies and merchants sold slaves, had crew that were literally kidnap victims who were treated as slaves, and acted in ways that were not honorable.  The situation with the British Navy of this time period kind of reminds me of problems with prohibition agents in the 20s and drug enforcement officers in present time.

            Avery disappeared from historical record and is believed to have lived a reasonable long—for late seventeenth-early eighteenth century standards—and comfortable retirement.  Most of his imitators who followed in his footsteps would not be so fortunate.  They would die young by hanging or going out in battle. 

            The book covers many of the post-Avery pirates, such as the ruthless Charles Vane, Sam Bellamy an early pirate commodore, and of course Edward Thatch more popularly known as ‘Blackbeard.’ Blackbeard is by far the most famous of all the pirates of anytime period.  The funny thing was prior to reading this book the only exposure I had to Blackbeard was in that silly Disney movie about his ghost and Ian McShane’s portrayal of him in the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie.  The later film shows Blackbeard still alive in 1750 sailing in the Queen Anne’s Revenge, which was decades after his ship was wrecked and Blackbeard himself had died.  The real one was more impressive despite the lack of superpowers that he displayed in the movies.  

          
           What I found the most surprising while reading this book was the politics of the pirates themselves.  These pirates not only tried to change how ships were run, but they had very strong opinions on who the King of England was supposed to be.  Almost every single pirate was an outright Jacobite, who regarded the present king, George I, as impostor who needed to be over thrown.

            Speaking on Jacobitism, there was one little passage in this book that I took a point with:

“Queen Anne had died, childless, in August of 1714.  Under normal circumstances, the crown would have passed to her half-brother, James Stuart, the next in the line of dynastic succession, a situation that, to thinking of many at the time, was ordained by God himself.” (pg. 101)

            Okay ‘under normal circumstances’ King James III would have received notice of the death of his sister, the Princess Anne, and would have been very sad that in twelfth year of his reign he was now devoid of siblings.  To Jacobites, Queen Anne may have been a Stuart but she and her sister Mary were just as much usurpers as William III and the Hanoverians who followed Anne.  I am sure Woodard was trying to simplify a complicated topic and did not have the space to go into things like the Glorious Revolution, but still false is false. 

            This is great a tale the sea of the sea.  I am so glad that I had finished it in time for the new Starz series Black Sails.  Reading this book before hand made the series more enjoyable.  This is a book I would highly recommend to anyone who wanted to know about the real pirates of the Caribbean.

{Video is from a Smithsonian Documentary}

 

A THORN IN THE SIDE OF LOUIS XIV

A review of Stephan Baxter’s William III (1966)

(Rating 4 of 5)

Stephan Baxter tells the story of the Dutchman who became the King of England. Both the people of Holland and the people of Britain knew him as William III. To the Dutch he was William III Prince of Orange, two of the previous princes being his father and his great-grandfather—the famous William the Silent. To the English he was King William III, the two previous kings to bear that name was the Conqueror himself and the useless son, William Rufus. This William would do the same things his predecessors (Silent and Conqueror) did, but the result would be far different.

William was born the only child of William II, Prince of Orange and Mary, Princess of Orange and Princess Royal of England. He was a citizen of the Dutch Republic, a very confusing political entity if there ever was one. Although a Republic, it still had nobility, hereditary princes, and the leadership of a ‘Great Man’ who dominated the Republic. Despite their size and confusing political system they were the premier power of their day.

However their day was quickly ending with the rise of France under the rule of King Louis XIV. The Sun King as he was called would be the most powerful man in Europe getting fellow kings, emperors, and popes to have to follow his directive. Baxter presents William as the hero of the Republic. The Prince would build and led coalitions against the emerging superpower. Although the era would still be the Age of Louis XIV, William would preserve the Republic’s independence, and carry the banner of Protestantism.


(King Louis XIV the most powerful monarch in Europe)

However, what William is most famous for is his role in what is known as the Glorious Revolution. The Glorious Revolution would result in the overthrow of his father-in-law, King James II, and would establish both he and his wife as the new King and Queen of England. William’s great-grandfather, the Prince of Orange known as William the Silent, set precedent of a foreign prince aiding an oppressed people. In addition, over six hundred years previous his distant ancestor William the Conqueror he would land in England during a succession dispute depose the King by force and take the crown itself. William III preferred to emulate his more recent Dutch ancestor. He wanted to be William the Deliverer who crossed the Channel to hold a free Parliament for the British people.


(William's uncle and father-in-law who be dethroned in the Glorious Revolution. He has the interesting distinction of being the only deposed King of England not to be murdered.)


(The winners: William and Mary now King William III and Queen Mary II of England)

The Prince of Orange also had a distinct advantage the Duke of Normandy did not. The Prince really did have the people behind him. King James II had been a terrible monarch, but he had none of the survival skills that his older brother, Charles II, had processed. In one way that I found Baxter lacking is the author discusses many things about James’ mind: that he lost his nerve, that he made foolish mistakes, and he might have been able to salvage the situation had he not turned into a coward. Yet, not once does Baxter mention the fate of James’ father, King Charles I, who was deposed, tried, and executed. I would think that during a Revolution against his rule that he feels he may not win, his father’s fate would be close to his mind. Nevertheless, he runs and gives a clear field to the Dutchman.

“One of the great myths of the Revolution of 1688 is that it was made by the nobility rather than the people of England. It was not. The ultimate cause of course, was the misgovernment of James II which so alienated the people that two abortive risings occurred as early as 1685.” (p.243-4)

In a way, William put himself in the same trap that King Henry IV fell into. By refusing to assume the role of conqueror he, like Henry, limited his right to rule based on competence and Parliamentary approval. As so he would find the position of monarch directly weakened as a result. Although William’s revolution was bloodless compared to the Dukes of Normandy and Lancaster, by unintentionally coping the later he found himself in a compromised position. Although, what was bad for the King was a good thing for long-term democracy and freedom codified in the English Bill of Rights. The right of a people to overthrow tyranny established by this Revolution would create precedent for people across the pond in less than a hundred years later.

“The rest of the Convention’s conduct was of a piece with its refusal to grant the King a life revenue. In February the King and Queen had accepted the crown of England on conditions, those contained in the famous Declaration of Right. William III was annoyed at any reduction of the royal power and hoped that the crown would not be the worse for his wearing it. At the time, the Declaration was explained to him as being a mere restatement of existing law. Whatever it might be, he hoped to have heard the last of it. Yet at the end of the years the Convention made the Declaration into a statute, known as the Bill of Rights.” (p.256)

William the Dutchman becoming the King of England would allow the British to copy the banking and merchant policies that allow little Holland to become a world power. The result would be the foundation of the great British Empire that would dominate the world for the next two hundred years.

Stephan Baxter tells a great story about a homely and shy prince who becomes not only one of the greatest monarchs the world had ever known but also a champion for freedom.

{In the video Eric Foner gives a good brief description of the Glorious Revolution and its impact on the colonies}