Rebellion, Persecution, or Both?

 

A review of Jill Lepore’s New York Burning: Liberty, Slavery, and Conspiracy in Eighteenth-Century Manhattan (2005)

                Jill Lepore’s New York Burning is about a little-known story in American colonial history. It is an amazing story that should be better known.  In the middle of 18^th century Manhattan, a generation before the American Revolution and a few decades after the Salem Witch trials, a different type of hysteria was taking place.  The belief of an organized slave rebellion that was going to lead to the burning of the city, the murder of the most the white populace, and the establishment of a black dominated new society to replace it.

                This led to the arrest over a hundred seventy people and later execution of over thirty people, often by burning at the stake.  Like with the Salem Witch Trials a lot of the accusations came from the few against the many.  Confessions that themselves were coerced.  As part of their conspiracy these rebels were going to install their leader, a white tavern keeper named John Hughson, as their King.  King John would then appoint the slave Caesar as his governor and declare Catholicism the new state religion.   

The fate of New York

      

“What those eighty-one New Yorkers confessed to was a plot dripping with plot, ripe to bursting with familiar characters and contrivances.  Smith delivered his speech in the very era in which the novel was born; not surprisingly, his argument echoed conventions established not only in early English novels but also in England’s vast store of quasi-fictional tales of rogues and pirates, whores, and mutinies, and ruthless gangs of highway robbers, as well as in growing literature of alarming reports from the colonies of rebellious slaves and bloodthirsty Indians.” (pg.10)

Trial, but not fair

One hand the plot seems like a downright bizarre fiction made up of over imaginative 18^th century white people.  Of course, the slave rebellion would have to be led by a white man, in their common world view there is no way a black man could have been their leader.  The recognizable fear of the rival Christian religion of Catholicism.  However, unlike the witch trials, which were absurd as witches are not real, slaves do not want to be slaves.   The idea that they will rebel is not a crazy conclusion to come up with in a society that practices slavery. 

“Plots to burn the metropolis flowed freely across the Atlantic, and up and down the seaboard.  When they were true, they were terrifying.  When they were delusions, they were droll.  In June 1738, New Yorkers received word that Jamaicans had been deluded by ‘a Discovery of a Plot concerted by the Negroes at Kingston, but by good Information, we find it to be no more than intended Meeting, to drink the Memory of an old Negro Felow, dead some time agoe, whom they used to call their King.’” (pg. 56)

brutal executions 

In modern times a slave rebellion is cheered not frowned upon.  So, for the modern readers we are curious to see if there was any truth here.  Was there steaming beneath the surface an actual attempt by the oppressed to overthrow their oppressors?  It is hard to say, it would not have been uncommon for there to be one. However, it would not have been anything like the disaster that we saw in New York. 

“If there was nothing else to be learned from the confession extracted in New York City in the spring and summer of 1741, there would be this: while slaves in Manhattan lived and worked alongside whites, they sought out other slaves, for news, for companionship, for love, and they found it, all over the city.  Forever conducting errands, fetching water, visiting friends and family scattered across the city, slaves circulated, even more than free whites, who lived in the same house as their husbands, wives, and children.” (pg. 149) 

                 Lepore’s main primary source is the writing of Daniel Horsmanden one of the main investigators into the conspiracy.  From him Lepore is able to piece together a narrative of an involving mystery.  Now I did enjoy this book better than her previous work on King Philip's War, however the narrative still goes down lots of rabbit holes that were not entirely relevant to the main event.  For example, I find Francis Williams the Jamaican scholar interesting but I am not sure that he had to do with the rest of the story.  The book is worth reading regardless.   

[Video is from the YouTube channel Raw American History]

IMAGES OF AMERICA

 

A review of Alan Brinkley’s Eyes of the Nation: A Visual History of the United States (2001)

(Rating 4 of 5)

                This will a short review because I don’t have much to say about this book.  This is not to say the book is bad for it is very much good.  However, it does give cause for me to write much.  That can be a good sign usually when I have a lot to say something that means something is usually highly objectionable generating a lot of words in response.  When I am reviewing a biographical work, I tend to try to look at the subject in the same way the author did in order to properly evaluate the author’s material.

Virginia map

                This book divides American History, from the Columbian Exchange right up to the end of 20^th century, into seven separate chapters.  The first few chapters cover a couple of centuries where the remaining five are measured in decades.  Each has a written sections that explains the period of history that it covers before going into the visual aspect which is why people bought the book.  The written pieces, as one can easily imagine, is overly broad and I do not fine anything objectional about them.  The visual pieces are amazing and contain great images.

Normandy landings 

                The only complaint I have about this book has nothing to do with author but the publisher of my copy.  The Chapter 4 write up which goes from pg.129-144 is duplicated.  So, after pg.144 it is suddenly 129 again not 145.  You do not get to 145 until you go by it a second time.  It was quite a shock as I read one chapter a sitting.  I started into the duplicated chapter and read about three pages before I realized what had happened. The image part was not repeated so I skipped to that.  I was pleased and I remember wondering after reading chapter 4 the first time why there was no images section like in the earlier chapter.  Considering that was the chapter the covered the time period from 1850-1870 I was glad that turned out to be a corrected mistake.       

AN EYE INTO 19TH CENTURY AMERICAN SLAVERY

 

A review of Frederick Douglass Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845) (1997, my copy)

(Rating 5 of 5)

                Frederick Douglass’s account of his journey as a person born into slavery who ultimately escaped to freedom was published in 1845.  It was the first time for many Americans, particularly those who would be mainstream voters, to see what American slavery was through the eyes of the enslaved.  He did not paint a pretty picture.  Douglass told tales of malnourishment, beatings with whips and other implements, forced illiteracy, and humans being bread for later sale when they were older.    

                When the book was first published it was attacked by southern slaveholders as forgery.  No slave could write as elegant as the passages in this book.  They were oppressing the enslaved population enough so they could be sure.  However, they didn’t count on a former slave who used to be named Frederick Bailey, armed with a little bit of luck and lot more craftiness, actually learning to read and write without their knowledge and passing that ability on to others.

Southern slavery

                Douglass’s target audience is the white population, particularly white men who could vote and impact the polices of the state and the federal governments.  One of the ideas that he reiterates throughout his work is that while all slavery is evil there is a spectrum of evilness.  Once you are enslaved it can still get worse for you.  Sometimes it can get better but the place you were before is always a place you can be sent back to.  During his enslavement Douglass experienced both ends of the extreme.  

               

“I have often been utterly astonished, since I came to the north, to find persons who could speak of the singing, among slaves, as evidence of their contentment and happiness.  It is impossible to conceive of a greater mistake.  Slaves sing most when they are most unhappy.  The songs of the slave represent the sorrows of his heart; and he is relieved by them, only as an aching heart is relieved by its tears.  At least, such is my experience.  I have often sung to drown my sorrow, and singing for joy, were alike uncommon to me while in the jaws of slavery.  The singing of a man cast away upon a desolate island might be as appropriately considered as evidence of contentment and happiness, as the singing of a slave; the songs of the one and of the other are prompted by the same emotion” (pg.30)

Douglass was born on a planation on date he was never told.  He was separated from his mother early on and his father was his owner.  That man was Captain Aaron Anthony who worked as an overseer on the plantation where Douglass was enslaved.  Despite being just the overseer, he did own a few of the slaves himself besides Douglass.  While living on the planation Douglass and the other slaves were treated as if they were farm animals given little to eat, poor clothes to wear, and beatings if they complained.  Then his owner/father died and he became the property of his half-sister Lucretia Auld, who then sent him to serve her brother-in-law and his wife, Hugh and Sophia Auld.

Plantation slavery 

                With this change his life instantly improved.  He went from being treated like a farm animal to being treated more like a live-in butler.  However, he was a butler who at any time could be sent back to be a farm animal.  He credits the change of status to the change of venue.  In a strange twist on the classical city mouse/country mouse, we have city slave/ country slave.  In this case it seems the city slave has the better deal.  Douglass points out that the slave/free population was reversed with the city having more free people.   Rebellious slaves were less of a risk and mistreating or malnourishing a slave tended to invite judgement from neighbors.  It is interesting point out that slave owner and US President James Madison also noted that slavery becomes more brutal the higher the slave population gets to the free population.

                This is also where Douglass has some important lessons for his readers.  All slaver holders were bad but there was a range of badness.  The majority that Douglass encountered would have redeemable traits that he would notice.   Then there were some who were just sadistically evil.  Douglass argued that the reason that any slave owner is going to be bad is that the nature of owning a slave is a morally corruptible one.  His analysis was similar to the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

The case of Sophia Auld is the one he gives as a prime example.  Sophia Auld was from the North where there were no slaves.  Slavery is new to her as she moved to Baltimore with her new husband.  When she first meets Douglass, she treats him and all the other servants with kindness.  She even begins teaching Douglass how to read.  His reading lessons were cut short when her husband found out.  Hugh Auld gave a speech to his wife where he reprimanded her behavior with the slaves.  He explained teaching them to read would ruin them as slaves.   The speech had an impact on both of them: Douglass resolved to learn to read, but Sophia went in another direction.  When he tried to read newspapers, she would stanch them away.  As time went on, although not overtly cruel Sophia Auld became a typical slave owner.

“But, alas! This kind heard had but a short time to remain such.  The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work.  That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice, made all of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid discord; and that angelic face gave place to that of a demon.”  (pg.46)

Still yearning to read Douglass had to go about it a different way.  One of the advantages of now being a city-slave instead of being one on the plantation is Douglass had more freedom of movement as he could be sent on errands or even employed elsewhere so long as he gave his owners the money he earned.  While traveling among the citizens of Baltimore he discovered an interesting truth that there were different classes of white people with some of them being very impoverished.  These poor white citizens had freedom, literacy and a genuine hope their lot could improve all things Douglass himself was denied.  However, he did have couple of things that they did not such as roof over his head and food security. 

Martha Anne Atavis, enslaved in Baltimore to a family who she had to act as caretaker to their children, one is Alice in the picture

Armed with this knowledge, Douglass befriended some of these poor whites and offered a swap.  He would give them the excess food that he has access to if they would give him reading lessons.  It worked and Douglass was able to master reading.  He doesn’t identify any of the white people that helped him as this book was published when they were still alive and could have faced both legal and social consequences if those in Baltimore learned who they were.  

Now fully literate Douglass now wanted to expand that knowledge to his fellow slaves and had that opportunity when he was hired out to William Freeland.   Freeland is described by Douglass as the least oppressive as all the white slave owners that he labored under.  He was easy-going and not strict with the slaves.   This gave Douglass an opportunity to teach a number of students and spread literacy throughout the plantation.  This success was his undoing as it was discovered and his owner, Mr. Auld, decided to relocate Douglass from Mr. Freeman’s planation to the farm of Edward Covey.

Edward Covey was a farmer who was not well off enough to afford many slaves.  However, he had a great many slaves from other slave owners who sent them to him often paying him to house them.  They did this because Covey had a reputation for being a slave-breaker (they used a different word that Douglass does quote) who would train slaves through beating them to submission and once they were fully compliant sent them back to their owners.  Thus, he got slave labor without actually having to buy it.  There is even a disgusting scene of him breeding a young woman that he owns as a slave so he can sell her children.

Douglass suffered brutality under Covey.  This lasted until a fellow slave named Sandy Jenkins, helped him make a totem from a certain root they found in the woods that he claimed would magically protect him from violence from white overseers.  Douglass was skeptical of any magic, but it did have what we would call a placebo effect where having the totem gave him the courage to stand up to Covey.  He did so and was able to defeat Covey in a fight and beat the crap out of him.  Under ordinary circumstances this could have been a death sentence for Douglass however he had something working in his favor.  Covey got free use of slaves because of his reputation for being able to bend them to his will.  Had he formally charged Douglass he would have lost his reputation.  It was in their best interest to keep this a secret.  

“This battle with Mr. Covey was the turning point in my career as a slave.  It rekindled the few expiring embers of freedom, and revived within me a sense of my own manhood.  It recalled the departed self-confidence, and inspired me attain with a determination to be free.” (pg. 80-1)

After Douglass is sent back to live with the much more tolerable William Freeland, and this makes it easier to plan an escape.  I have to say given that American slavery was still going to go on for another twenty years I am not sure it was wise of him to write all he did about Freeland.   He was the most tolerable master he had and yet was under him that he began a mass literacy project and ultimately escaped.   A slaver owner who reads this work might use it as a perverse how-to-guide in how to keep slaves in line.  No kindness and maximize cruelty.  I think it might have been smarter to say something like “Freeland was starting to take lessons from Covey, so I had to escape.”  Then issue a correction in his later biographies.  

The book ends with his finding freedom, changing his name from Bailey to Johnson to finally Douglass, and getting involved with the abolitionist movements.  At the end of the book, he also makes a distinction between what he considers real Christianity and the Christianity of the slave holder, as not to offend non-slave holding Christians. 

I highly recommend this book Douglass brings you right into the world of slavery as it existed in the 1800s.  The book is simultaneously complex and easy to read.  It is only 125 pages so you can get through it in a very short period of time.  Sometimes it might take longer when going over some of the harder passages.  However, the book ends on a very hopeful note.

[Video is a clip from The Story of US you can purchase it here.}

TRY TO TAKE A FOUR-THOUSAND-YEAR-OLD CIVILIZATION AND REDUCE IT TO LESS THAN SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES! GOOD, NOW DO TWO FOUR-THOUSAND-YEAR-OLD CIVILIZATIONS!

 

A review of Conrad Schirokauer’s A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations (1989)

(Rating 4 of 5)

                I first read this book as part of a class I had on China and Japan.  It is a good book and great introduction into the history of two important nations, with some additional throw-ins about Korea and Vietnam.  It is, however, a lot of information jam-packed into a relatively small volume.  It covers everything from the earliest days of civilization to modern communist China and democratic Japan.

                Reading this book, it is important to distinguish between China the modern state and China the civilization.  The reason is often on Western historical maps we will see the label “China” no matter what period is being displayed.  This gives the Westerner the impression “Wow, China is really old!” While failing to understand that the People’s Republic of China has as much to do with the Han Empire as European Union does with the Roman Empire.  Yes, they cover much of the similar landmass and the people are mostly their direct descendants but the very different “states’ to use a modern term. 

                Throughout much of its history China would go through periods of unification that would be interrupted by other periods of disunity.  This would occur when a dynasty got corrupted, pressure from external threats, or other domestic disturbances cause an empire to collapse.  Then everything is fragmented until a powerful leader or group commands enough support to put everything back together.  This would be called having a “Mandate of Heaven.”  China was in such a fractured state in the early half of the 20^th century.           

“The Qin (Ch’in) unification of China in 221 B.C. was the beginning of some 400 years of imperial rule, even though the Qin itself barely survived the death of its first emperor.  Building on Qin foundations, although overtly rejecting many of that regime’s polices, the Han erected a more lasting political structure.  Under the Han, Chinese civilization was reshaped, and China became a great imperial power comparable in achievements and historical to the Roman Empire.  Considering the importance of the period, it is perhaps not inappropriate that our English word “China” is ultimately derived from the name of this dynasty.  On the other hand, the Chinese refer to themselves ethnically as the Han people.” (pg. 51)

Han Empire (60 BC)

                Chinese civilization was so powerful and sophisticated that if a power was to come in and take over usually the conquerors would find themselves being more transformed by those who they had conquered.  New rulers would find themselves assuming traditional Chinese titles for their rule with only their own names substituted in, and their own people set up as the ruling class.  This would be true for both the Mongols (Yuan) and the Manchurians (Qing).   

“Within China the long and bitter struggle against the Southern Song left lasting wounds.  Chinese hatred and bitterness were matched by Mongol suspicion and distrust of the southerners.  A significant number of Chinese remained loyal to the old dynasty, continued to employ Song terminology, and dreamed of a Song restoration while refusing to serve the new power.  On the other hand, the Mongols relegated southerners to the lowest category in their fourfold division of society along ethnic lines. Highest status in this system was accorded to the Mongols.” (pg. 221)

  

Qing Empire

Unlike China, Japan’s throne was and is not considered something that someone outside the royal family could assume.  Dynasties cannot be replaced and presumed legitimate.  Only the ‘true’ family line can rule.  So, getting control of these emperors is the primary concern of any power holder.  One of the ways to do that is to have the current emperor tied up in so many religious ceremonies that they don’t have time for actual government duties.  If some emperors get fed up and abdicate in favor of their minor son as soon as they are finally able, so much the better.

     The Shogun, a position established in the twelfth century, becomes the default ruler of Japan for almost 700 years.  The position eventually becomes hereditary although, unlike the imperial throne, the position does change clans from time to time.   

“Legitimization for the new order came from the emperor, who in 1192 “appointed” Yoritomo shogun, or to use the full term, Seii Taishogun (Barbarian Suppressing General”).  Under the theoretical sovereignty of the emperor, the shogun’s government exercised substantial “delegated” power.  This was the beginning of an institution (the shogunate) that lasted until 1868.

“The most important power “delegated” to Yoritomo was legal control over the staffing of provincial posts, which enabled him to appoint his own men to administrative positions in the provinces.  He was also authorized to appoint his men to the newly created position of Land Steward or Overseer (jito) and Military Protector or Constable (shugo). “ (pg.266)

(The Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu)

The Shogun office came to an end when the Meiji Emperor has decided to rule in his own right and with help of supporters overthrows the Shogun’s government.  They create a constitution based on the Constitution of the Kingdom of Prussia.   This means the country has a weak legislature and the monarch is practically all-powerful.

“In 1889 work on the constitution was completed, and it was promulgated as a “gift” from the emperor to his people.  It remained in force until 1945.  The emperor, father of the family state, retained the power to declare war, conclude treaties, and command the army.  He also had the right to open, recess, and dissolve the legislature; the right to veto the latter’s decisions and the right to issue his own ordinances.” (pg. 435)

The Meigi Emperor

                 While the Japanese Throne kept getting stronger the Chinese Throne kept getting weaker.  By 1912 the imperial system comes to end and China falls into the hands of warlords.  Ultimately multiple powers die down to just two in the Nationalists and the Communists, and then the Communists finally prevail.  

“The march itself, was a heroic accomplishment, a vindication of Mao’s belief in the power of the human will and determination.  In just over a year, the marchers covered some 6,000 miles, traversing snow-covered mountain passes where they froze in their thin clothes and crossing treacherous bogs and marshes.  To the hardships provided by nature was added the hostility of man, for there was rarely a day without some fighting.  At one point they had no alternative but to cross a mountain torrent spanned by a thirteen-chain suspension bridge from which the enemy armed and waiting on the other side had removed the planks.” (pg. 537)

Mao's Long March

             At the end of the book, we come to the ‘modern’ era:  Mao’s Communists in China and the democratic Japan.  China is opening and Japan is about to dominate the car and video game industry. Again, if you know nothing about this area of the world this book is a good introduction, but you fly through everything at record speed.  

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. 

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.