From Across the Pond

Book review "William Wilberforce: The Life of the Great Anti-slave Trade Campaigner"

by William Hague (link)

This was a book whose publication coincided with the bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act of 1807. To some extent then it should be seen as a commemoration of the efforts of one of the chief architects of that Act, William Wilberforce. However, this book is not just concerned about Wilberforce's involvement with the campaigns to first outlaw the slave trade, and later on to outlaw slavery altogether; but he also draws attention to some of the other causes that Wilberforce supported and also some of the details of his parliamentary career.

The slave trade trade however is, just as it was in Wilberforce's own life, is the predominant theme. William Hague does not try to claim all the credit for Wilberforce, he acknowledges the work of Thomas Clarkson and others, but he is writing a book on William Wilberforce and not a book on the abolition movement itself, and due to that distinction it is only right that he focuses on one man's work. And the picture that emerges of that one man: if there is one word I would use to describe Wilberforce on the basis of this book it is indefatigable. We are presented wtih a picture of an ardent campaigner, one who perseveres through defeats and disappointments, always seeking a way to try again.

The book also provides a perspective on British parliamentary politics during the generation that squatted aside the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In this respect this book, I think, should be seen as the second part of a pair: for William Hague has previously written a book on William Pitt the Younger, the Prime Minister who in many ways defined the last decades of the eighteenth century and the struggle against revolutionary and Napoleonic France. The two were great friends in life, but had their disagreements (about the war particularly), but they were very different men. Nearly the entirety of William Hague's career was spent in office, and very nearly all of that as Prime Minister. Wilberforce never held office, and tried to steer an independent course through the turbulent waters of his day which, as a result, saw him being allied with Charles Fox over the issue of slavery even though he was opposed to him (and therefore allied to Pitt) in other issues. The two persectives provided in these books on the politics of the day show not just the different focuses of each man, but also provide a better view of the politics in the period which they cover. Indeed, one feels that William Hague should really publish a third book, on Charles Fox, to make complete this trio of parliamentary stars.

William Hague is generally non-critical about Wilberforce, and is often laudatory. He appears to have little patience with certain criticisms of Wilberforce which he refers to at various places of the text. Indeed, the only one he responds to with any seriousness at all is one made by one of Wilberforce's contemporaries (and which I believe has been repeated since). This is the contention that while Wilberforce was seeking freedom for slaves he was wilfully ignoring the plight of the working poor in Britain. It is a contention that I feel has more noise than substance, but I will let others decide that on their own.

In any event I can recommend this book. It is well-written in an easy style. And while it is clear a great deal of research has gone into it it is no academic's book. There is no new bold theory here, rather it is an attempt to introduce people to the extra-ordinary man that was William Wilberforce.

A-

Assassinations - Revolution or Republicanism

Over at Oxblog David Porter notes today is the Ides of March, and notes:

Blogging for an audience with many Americans in it, this got me thinking about political assassination. Obviously they happen under all sorts of political systems. But I've often speculated that republics or republican movements, founded on the principle of anti-monarchism, have produced more intensely ideological justifications for regicide or tyrannicide. So, are there books out there which explore the history not of assassinations, but of the political and intellectual foundations for justifying it? Are there continuities in republican thought that link the likes of Brutus, Booth, or Cromwell (who authorised one at least)?

I think David is confusing two separate, but related, things here. The first is the genuine political assassination, as with Brutus or Booth. The second is the political show trial followed by execution, the fate of Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France. However, I also wonder if by identifying these movements with republicanism he is missing out of another factor present in all three examples he mentions, and is also present in the one I mention: revolution.

The Rome in which Caesar was murdered was a Rome undergoing a monarchical revolution. Abraham Lincoln, for all his apparent ambivalence, had overseen a dramatic revoluation called the ending of Slavery, and had just led the USA through to victory in the civil war his election sparked. Cromwell and Robespierre (though to be fair to both they did not act alone) were revolutionaries themselves who had, for the moment, won.

There is a necessary difference. Both Brutus and Booth belonged to effectively defeated parties at the time of their deeds, both Cromwell and Roespierre belonged to victorious parties at the time of the executions of Charles I and Louis XVI. To demonstrate the point a little further it useful to remember the most famous assassination of the French Revoluation: that of Jean-Paul Marat at the hand of royalist Charlotte Corday. Someone from the losing side engaging in a lone assassination attempt.

Let us look for a moment at the victorious side's position. They have emerged dominant from a struggle, and have overthrown the previous order. They have usurped power, and in the process may have plunged, or are plunging, the country in some kind of civil war. The object of their ire is in their possession. Usurpers are always weak, and so it is natural to try and prove that your revolution was justified (though not always followed through). Also, the captured ruler is a figurehead for opposition, so it natural to seek to remove that figurehead. Of course, in the process all that often is achieved is the creation of martyr or a myth, and can often spark even more trouble (look at what happened to France in 1793). 

The position from the 'losing' side is harder. Obviously the opportunity for the show trial does not exist, and so I think revenge must enter greatly into these actions. Revolutions are intense times, with intense themes. I do not find it difficult to understand that individuals could become consumed by those times, aiming to strike that one final blow at a great figure, hoping to turn the tide.

Is there a link with republics? I think only in so far as republics are often born of revolution. Of the examples discussed here it should be remembered that Corday was a royalist; the Dictator Caesar was the revolutionary in his day, not to republican Brutus; and that the Southern Succession was in many ways a counter-revolution (and by extension Booth).

Of course this a just a tiny number of incidents to base an idea, and I have strictly kept to areas I know at least a little about. It is also very general, so general as to be full of holes, However I hope there is enough there to see what I am trying to say.

Fulton and Today

I have just come across, indirectly via the BBC, this site which has a full recording of Winston Churchill's speech at Fulton, on the 5th March 1946. It is in length forty-five minutes, but I strongly urge any readers to listen to one of the greatest orators of all time at work. It was his sunset, you can sense his prime is past, and yet it is a marvel. There is more. I have never read the full transcript of this speech, but only previously know of the most famous extracts. It became famous for his description of the Iron Curtain, but in some ways that is incidental. He himself called it "The Sinews of Peace" - and it set out a vision for a peaceful and prosperous humanity following the horror of world war.

History has shown that Churchill was far-sighted with regards to the threat of Soviet Russia, that his fears were entirely justified. What is clearly less well known is that Churchill made other assertions, that equally have been vindicated. Of the then nascent United Nations he warned:

We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.

Alas, when one reviews the sad and sorry record, it is only possible to conclude that we have failed in ensuring that the United Nations held true to its high and lofty mission. I see 'we', because Churchill himself is certain who the pillars of the United Nations were to be, the peoples who were 'The Sinews of Peace'. He says

Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.

He ennumerates a vision of what today we call the Anglosphere. It is, along with the Soviet threat, the major theme of this prescient speech, that speaks as much to our own time and travails as it does to the time in which it was first heard. From across sixty years he makes a declaration, a manifesto, a mission statement that needs no improving, no alteration.

... we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.

All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practise - let us practise what we preach.

These words, this grand injunction, needs no updating, no revision. Six decades separate us from him, sixty years of toil and torment, and the job is not yet done. The peace has proven far more complicated that the war.

But Churchill was not a pessimist, and so I will end this post with a final quite, from near the end, and while reading it I would urge you to remember that currently British Armed Forces are deployed in more places than at any time since the post-WW2 demobilisation, and that the vast majority of those deployments are various peacekeeping operations or similar. He had faith we would yet achieve his grand vision, and it is surely incumbent on us to try.

Because you see the 46 millions in our island harassed about their food supply, of which they only grow one half, even in war-time, or because we have difficulty in restarting our industries and export trade after six years of passionate war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come through these dark years of privation as we have come through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century from now, you will not see 70 or 80 millions of Britons spread about the world and united in defence of our traditions, our way of life, and of the world causes which you and we espouse.

Book Review: Wellington - A Personal History

by Christopher Hibbert (link)

This is a book, one of many, that I have had on my shelves for a very long time. Although I found it very interesting, when compared to two other similar books I have read (William Pitt the Younger and Children of Henry VIII) it is a let-down, for a simple reason. It is just not as well-written as those other two books. It is also less focused.

This is, I think, a result of the books' length. It is quite short (400 pages of text), which is really not very many space to cover the life of a man like the Duke of Wellington. This is after all a man who, having had one of the most glorious military careers in known history, climaxing with the Battle of Waterloo, proceeded with a political career that saw him become Prime Minister, and for the entire rest of his life remain and advisor to monarchs and ministers. He was a national hero, but also for a time an object of national hatred. He died and remains a national icon. How can 400 pages encompass such a man? They cannot, which is why reading this book I feel unsatisfied. A great deal goes undeveloped, such as his unhappy marriage, or even his life while on campaign.

In short this is an average book. Not unreasonable if you just want a bare outline, but I feel it does not do justice to the subject.

Book Review: The Spanish Civil War

by Anthony Beevor (link)

I had read Stalingrad and Berlin by Anthony Beevor before and had been very impressed. I picked up this book hoping to find out some detail on a war I knew next to nothing about, other than the broadest outline. With that aim in my this was an extremely good book for me to buy and read. However, compared to those other two works this book is a lesser creature, for reasons I'll examine in a bit.

First however, this book is a very good overview of the Spanish Civil War. In the first chapters Anthony Beevor goes through the long and short term causes of the Civil War, in more and more detail the closer the tale comes to 1936. Once the war breaks out with the military coup he tells the tale as a story of the various offensive operations by either side. Interspersing this largely chronological narrative are chapters looking at other aspects of the war: the diplomatic side of things in Europe, the internal politics of both proto-states. He pays particular attention on the Republican side to the acitivities of the Communists. He is equally condemnatory of both sides when it comes to atrocities and massacres, and evinces very little sympathy for either the Nationalists or the Republicans. As a book it does not get lost in detail, and rarely spends more than a few pages over any one particular event. The result is you get a true overview: exactly, in other words, what I needed. A general work of reference that will allow me to place details in context as and when I come across them.

Therein, I think, is its weakness compared to the other two works. For me the high-point of this book as an exercise in reading was the chapter devoted to the failed coup itself, those critically important few days in the summer of 1936. That chapter reminds me more of his earlier work and it is no surprise, it is really the only time when this tale achieves a level of detail and concentration that is obvious in the other works.

In Stalingrad the book is focused the on a single place, in a relatively short timespan. Once the intial introductory chapters are dealt with, the action is entirely centred on Stalingrad. That initial passage takes about 80 pages or so, and by that point there are still about 350 pages to go. Likewise in terms of time, those initial patches sketch out the German campaign in the East in 1941 and early 1942, and in doing so introduce the main characters (such as General Paulus) who will figure in the story. The bulk of the book concentrates on just six of seven months of terrible conflict.

Berlin is even more compact in terms of time covered. It begins on New Year's Day 1945, and ends with the surrender of Germany in early May. It is a little less concentrated in terms of space, as the battle for Berlin itself was actually quite short. The battle was really mostly fought outside the city, in the immediate months preceeding it, and the book reflects that.

In both there is tremendous attention to little details, and a real sense of atmosphere is evoked. Likewise the various historical figures are sculpted against these epic tableux. The Spanish Civil War cannot compete. But then, it is a slightly different work. A great overview, decent history, but not at that exceptional level that Beevor has achieved elsewhere.

Book Review: The Children of Henry VIII

by Alison Weir (link)

This book, so the front cover tells me, was formerly entitled <em>The Children of England</em> and is an account of the ten years between the death of Henry VIII in 1548, and the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558. It is not a political history per se, but a story of the lives of the three monarchs of this decade, and their eventual successor. They are Edward VI, Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, and of course Elizabeth. It is a story of their lives, and their relationships with each other. The political and religious history of those times is the backdrop, the canvas on which their portraits are painted.

And this is a mixture of literary portraiture and historical story-telling. The story of these ten years is a compelling one, the personal stories of some of the main characters are riveting. It is very easy to be sympathetic to all the three women, each of whom faced various hardships with a fortitude that one has to commend. In contrast Edward, spoiled from birth, is someone that the distance of time allows me to pity, but not like in any particular fashion. He comes across in the book as rather cold.

There is plenty of tragedy in these ten years, and not very much happiness. There is scandal and betrayal, a litany of revolts and conspiracies. It helps explains why Elizabeth's reign is so praised: it provided a stability that had been torn completely away the previous decade. The pinnacle of both the tragedy and the farce though is at the midpoint, and that briefest of reigns that belongs to Lady Jane Grey. Alison Weir is more than able to bring out the dramatic elements of this story, though is left with a renewed since that no matter how fanciful fiction can be, history will always be more absurd.

Through it all we get a definite sense of these our main charcters, but Weir does not neglect the supporting cast, the nobles of England and the Ambassadors of France and Spain, not to mention Philip II and the off-stage Charles V. The final character, if you will, are the English people themselves. The people who in an undemocratic age made their feelings all too evident in their support for Mary in 1553, and Elizabeth towards the end of her sister's reign.

This is not a history, but if one wants to get a sense of the main people at play here, an inkling of the atmosphere in which they lived, a few details of the perils of their lives, this is an excellent book.

Review: Willliam Pitt the Younger

by William Hague

I got this book in paperback 1/3 off, and so bought it remembering that it had received generally good reviews when it was published a couple of years ago. It certainly did not disappoint me.

I know very little in detail of the political history of the period that was dominated by William Pitt the Younger. His father was in many ways the architect of Britain's victories in the Seven Year's War in the mid-eighteenth century. A second son, he became First Lord of the Treasury (the office which over the course of history morphed into today's office of Prime Minister) at the tender age of twenty-four, in 1784. He retired briefly in 1803, returned to office in 1804, and died in 1806. He is one of the great men of British history, especially in more recent times. And yet I knew very little about him.

I know a good deal more now. William Hague is able to deftly portray an image of a man devoted to political life. He also has a sense of the dramatic. The book opens with the funeral of Pitt's father, and ends with his own. comparing the differences between the scorned hero that was Pitt the Elder, and the truly national mourning that occured at the passing of his son. He writes with an effective style that passes information from the dry page to a thereby enriched brain with a minimum of fuss and bother. There are also a few nice touches about the way he organises things. For example, this was a period when many people would receive a peerage half-way through their career. William Hague scrupulously follows the practice of referring such people by their family names before their peerage, and then by their title (as was custom) afterward, with a point of transition clearly made. This helps to gain a feel of the period, in many respects as important as just knowing some bare and thereby embarrased facts.

His portrait is generally sympathetic, and it is hard to escape the idea that this book is in many respects a paean of praise. There is very little genuine criticism to William Hague's account, and where there is it is usually tempered by reminding the readers of the particular circumstances that Pitt was operating in when he turned his back on Parliamentary Reform after the outbreak of the French Revolution. The one primary exception is that Pitt did not force through the abolition of the slave trade, something he argued strongly for but never comitted the political capital to achieve.

No man is entirely isolated however, and William Hague also richly captures some of Pitt's contemporaries. In particular Wilberforce and Fox emerge best-formed after Pitt himself.

Finally, William Hague is of course a politician himself. In some of his discussions of why Pitt made this or that decision you can see William Hague the poltician behind the visage of the author, nodding thoughtfully.

Of course since this a period where my knowledge is limited to military matters, and this book really is concerned with British domestic politics, I cannot make any judgements on its various accuracies. I liked it however, and I sincerely hope that William Hague will consider another foray into the field in the future.

Review: The Command of the Ocean

by N A M Rodger (link)

This is the second part in a series about British Naval History. I have not read the first, though I recently purchased it, and will review it in due course. This tome, and it is a tome, covers the period 1649-1815, or to put that in terms of events from the execution of Charles I to the end of the Napoleonic Wars. This is the period when Britain became the dominant naval power of the world. It is also the period when a great deal of modern naval mythology was formed.

The book itself is very well writen. It is crammed with information, and there is very little fluff, if any at all. Yet it is not a dense tome, and the words flow readily. It is technically a wonderful example of concise, efficient, and effective writing. If anything the tone is slightly breathless, since the reader is assailed with so much information it is not always easy to appreciate what we have. It is also one of those wonderful books with plenty of appendices to get lost in as well, along with maps and tables.

It is organised thusly: at the start we get a very important introductory section discussing such things as dating conventions. For a time when Europe used a number of different calenders at different times this is important. There is also some useful information regarding terms of weights and measures, different ranks, and the like to allow the reader to get their bearing in the pages that will follow. Next there are the maps, all handily put together at the front. The book proper then begins. The chapters are organised thematically. There are usually two or three "Operations" chapters, giving an overview of events, be they battles or revolutions, or more ordinary politics that are important to understand this remarkable tale. After these there is an "Administration" chapter dealing wtih the rather vital, and highly interesting, development of the structures of the Royal Navy, and some of their impacts on wider British life. Following this there will be a chapter of "Social History" dealing with the men who manned the Navy. Then it begins again. There are also two chapters throughout the book on "Ships" with a more detailed look at the ships themselves, and the later social history chapters are divided into "Officers" and "Men and Manning". Finally a conclusion, and then no less then seven appendicies packed with historical goodies (they are entitled Chronology, Ships, Fleets, Rates of Pay, Admirals and Officials, Manpower, and Naval Finance). This is followed, along with the usual Notes, Bibliography, and the like with two comprehensive Glossaries of various weird and wonderful English and non-English terms that are littered throughout the book.

Mr Rodger does have a definite tale to tell, but that tale is not quite the history of the Royal Navy. It is the Naval History of Britain, and in many respects the "Administration" chapters were most interesting. As the Admiralty and Navy Board struggled to form efficient logistics needed for victualling the fleet we see it helping to form a national agricultural market, to streamline the building of ships the development of various industries including, incidentally, the first industrial production line. There is also the role the Navy has on the public psyche of these times, and plays in the politics of the day. He also debunks a few of the more popular myths, from the frequently inaccurate representations of impressment in action to the image of flogging. As regards to this last he points out that the Great Mutiny the men did not complain about flogging but pay, and that in the War of 1812 a sailor was twice as likely to be flogged in the nascent United States Navy as in the Royal Navy.

He also does mention something of the histories of Britain's main naval rivals of the period: principally the Dutch, France, and Spain. He is particularly critical about France's naval establishment of the time, but also very positive of Spain's, which he argues was mostly hamstrung being tied to a French foreign policy. He is truly scathing about Napoleon in naval terms, and with a fair bit of evidence on his side.

This is also a story about the great personalities of these times: of Monke, Peypes, Anson, Howe, St Vincent, and of course Nelson to mention just a few. He sticks up for some unfashionable causes, arguing very strongly that Charles II was a vital (and positive) link in the development of the navy because of his personal interest and expertise. He brings out these people very well, and the rather curious world through which they moved.

It is the "Operations" chapters which are in many respects the poorer. He does not have the time or space to go into detail about this or that battle, and this is particularly where the breathlessness I mentioned earlier becomes apparent however. They are more general, the inforation better known. These chapters are, however, poorer only by degree. For areas where I had only little or partial knowledge they were informative and useful, and even in an area I knew more (like the run-up to Trafalgar) odd details demanded attention.

What these chapters really reinforce however is the importance of logistics. In the Dutch Wars the British fleet was simply unable to maintain a blockade of a relatively near foreign port for want of a decent victually system. Less than one hundred years later British vessels would be carrying out operations on the far side of the world, backed by a system of supply unrivalled. This capabilty, enabled because of various administrative and financial reforms that had parallels in much else of British life and led to the Industrial Revolution, the author thinks is the real reason why Britain, and not some other country, came to dominate the Ocean.

I could go on, but I'll stop now. I cannot recommend this read highly enough.