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.")

NOT OVER THIS WAR YET?

A review of Tony Horwitz’s Confederate’s in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War (1998)

(Rating 5 of 5)

I should begin with a simple disclaimer.  I have absolutely no sympathy or respect for “the Lost Cause of the South.”  I do not see the entire event as “complicated.” It is actually very simple.  In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States.  He was first president who would not pay lip service to the institution of slavery as all of his fifteen predecessors had done, regardless of whatever their personal feelings on the matter.  He even dared to suggest that slavery in the territories of the United States should no longer be permitted and all new states admitted needed to be Free states.  This was so offensive to the leaders of the South that they went forth and committed treason by breaking up the nation and attempting to form their own where slavery could be practiced without challenge.  If you do not believe that go and read all the secession documents of the Southern legislatures, the Confederate Constitution, and speeches by Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stevens. 

            Nevertheless, the book is fascinating as Horwitz explores the South in the 1990s amongst those who care about the Civil War.  He comes across a diverse group of people from armature to hardcore reenactors, modern-day secessionists, and a famous historian in the now late Shelby Foote.

Confederate Reenactors

            Despite my disdain for the Lost Cause, I came to like many of the Southern characters that I came to know reading the book.  People like Rob Hodge one of the hardcore reenactors who distinguish themselves from those lesser reenactors they call “farbs.”  I do not have anything against the average Confederate soldier who took up arms for what he saw was an invader.  These reenactors also seem quite harmless.  They just excessive history buffs who want to know more about their ancestors and how they use to live, fight, and die.  I even felt very close to one of them, Mike Hawkins, who seemed the real world just disappointed him and he felt down about his life.  Hawkins finds his escapism following his own ancestor’s trials in the Civil War.  I can imprecated that.  As someone who has often felt let down by life, I often find an escape into the past but I do not take it to the same extremes that he does. 

            I also find some of the old Southern generals interesting, such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.  I think if I was from the South, I might view those men the same way a German might view Erwin Rommel, I would appreciate genius while still despising the cause that they served.  One of the scenes that I thought was interesting was the comparison to Jackson’s early death to that of famous musicians.

            “The analogy wasn’t airtight.  Morrison and Hendrix were sex-crazed hippies who OD’d on drugs; Stonewall was a Bible-thumping teetotaler who sucked on lemons and sipped warm water because he thought the human body should avoid extremes.  But Rob was onto something.  If Jackson had survived and failed to change the course of the War, his luster might have dulled by the South’s eventual defeat.  ‘Better to burn out than to fade away,’ Rob wailed, echoing Neil Young.” (p.229)

           
            One of things I appreciated about this book is that it does not shy away from controversy.  It could have just as easily focused on small groups of hardcore reenactors but instead Horwitz chose to take on some of the more difficult questions, such as “Is there any real way to remember the Confederacy when the driving cause behind it was slavery?”  Should schools be named after men such as Nathan Bedford Forrest, who in my mind was nothing but a war criminal and hatemonger who founded the Ku Klux Klan.

            In the end I must say that this a great book that I would highly recommend to people who are interested in people who are interested in the U.S. Civil War.

{Video was created by DontcallmeMikey72 on YouTube}

A LOOK BACK AT EMANCIPATION

A review of LaWanda Cox’s Lincoln and Black Freedom: A Study in Presidential Leadership (1981 original, 1994 my copy)

(Rating 4 of 5)

    

During the civil rights movement that—ironically—climaxed during the one hundredth anniversary the Civil War (1961-1965) many scholars began to challenge President Lincoln’s commitment to freedom.  Often these scholars would lack understanding of civil war politics, use anachronisms, and present the emancipation narrative as Lincoln vs. the Radicals as opposed to Lincoln having to deal with the multiple forces, some often stronger than the radicals.  In 1981, the year I was born, LaWanda Cox shattered the revisionist view with this work detailing how Lincoln’s Reconstruction ideas evolved, and how the cause to equality in the nineteenth century was blown when John Wilkes Booth made Andrew Johnson the president.  

I decided to read this book because it is cited so often in other Civil War books that I have read, most notable in Eric Foner’s Reconstruction.  The consequence to reading a book so often cited was that the first four chapters were just review for me because I have been exposed to this information so often before.  The final chapter was more fascinating a direct comparison and contrast with the Lincoln and A. Johnson Administrations.

            “Lincoln had recognized the historic challenge.  He was prepared to implement, so far as he would find practicable, ‘the principle that all men are created equal.’  The nature of presidential leadership helped shape events, and the leadership of Andrew Johnson and of Lincoln diverged markedly. Johnson lacked Lincoln’s political skill, finesse, and flexibility; more importantly, he did not face in the same direction.  Lincoln would expand freedom for blacks; Johnson was content to have their freedom contained.” (p.150)

In 1861, history met man and moment when Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as the President of the United States, in 1865 history missed when Andrew Johnson succeeded him.  Johnson’s presidency was in every way a disaster undermining progress and sending the country so far back racially that it would take a hundred years to overcome it. (By 'overcome it' I mean Johnson's regressed progress, not racism). Andrew Johnson is an another reason to hate John Wilkes Booth.