Library's review
While the Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War is fast approaching its first anniversary, a breathtaking title that challenges the historiographical orthodoxy has yet to appear (Foner's masterful examination of Abraham Lincoln's changing stance on slavery is the strongest contender to date.).
One of the early and key battlefields was the opinion not of mankind but a limited number of key states, foremost among them Great Britain. As the world's dominant power, a center of finance and major arms supplier, Great Britain was in the position to decide the outcome of the war. Its neutrality, severely tested by boorish US actions such as the Trent affair, guaranteed a Northern victory. Amanda Foreman's effort to write "an epic history of two nations divided" offers the possibility of examining the British influence on the war. While she succeeds quite well at capturing the reader, the main flaw of her approach is that the British influence became unimportant in the war of attrition after the Emancipation Proclamation. Thus, Great Britain is an important player from 1860 to 1863. Afterwards, not so much. Foreman tries to keep up the epic spirit in the second half of the book, hyping indecisive blockade runners and intrigues in England and Canada, Severe cuts to the second half of the book would have made a far stronger case for the British influence and a better read.
Her epic history told through British eyes suffers from the effect that most foreigners stay in the big cities and along the seaboard. A phenomenon that one can witness also in most American accounts of the Iraq War. The Civil War, however, was a continental war. The war in the West and in Tennessee are accorded too little space, especially compared to the extensive treatment of the hare-brained Confederate incursions from Canada. She often fails to truly discuss the Southern bias of many of her sources. Their reporting gives the book a pro-South bias unwarranted by the facts, e.g. she quotes the British war tourist LTC Fremantle on the good behavior of the Confederate forces during the Gettysburg campaign, which, apart from the war crime of enslaving free blacks, was a brutal requisition of all movable goods (see Brown's Retreat from Gettysburg for examples). On the positive side, the best character in her book is the misanthropic factotum in the American Legation in London, Benjamin Moran: Meanly denying African American "non-citizens" passports (in accordance with US policy at the time), complaining about his superiors, the American royal Adams family, and about the British. BY the time of the American Civil War, the British and the Americans had developed quite a number of national peculiarities. One joy of reading the book is noting how little has changed. The American aversion to international law is reflected in the American unwillingness to join the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856 because it wanted to reserve its right to employ privateers (a nicer name for pirates).
Overall, an excellent read up to the battle of Gettysburg that gets lost in the author's chase of side shows in the second half to last third of the book. Recommended.
Show More
Re-establishing the international context of the war is one of the promising areas. The Civil War started as a agrarian reactionary counter-revolution that was defeated by the industrialized North. In order to sustain the war, the North had to resort to a number of progressive innovations such as an income tax and the abolishment of slavery. No wonder that The Economist was no fan of Abraham Lincoln. One of the early and key battlefields was the opinion not of mankind but a limited number of key states, foremost among them Great Britain. As the world's dominant power, a center of finance and major arms supplier, Great Britain was in the position to decide the outcome of the war. Its neutrality, severely tested by boorish US actions such as the Trent affair, guaranteed a Northern victory. Amanda Foreman's effort to write "an epic history of two nations divided" offers the possibility of examining the British influence on the war. While she succeeds quite well at capturing the reader, the main flaw of her approach is that the British influence became unimportant in the war of attrition after the Emancipation Proclamation. Thus, Great Britain is an important player from 1860 to 1863. Afterwards, not so much. Foreman tries to keep up the epic spirit in the second half of the book, hyping indecisive blockade runners and intrigues in England and Canada, Severe cuts to the second half of the book would have made a far stronger case for the British influence and a better read.
Her epic history told through British eyes suffers from the effect that most foreigners stay in the big cities and along the seaboard. A phenomenon that one can witness also in most American accounts of the Iraq War. The Civil War, however, was a continental war. The war in the West and in Tennessee are accorded too little space, especially compared to the extensive treatment of the hare-brained Confederate incursions from Canada. She often fails to truly discuss the Southern bias of many of her sources. Their reporting gives the book a pro-South bias unwarranted by the facts, e.g. she quotes the British war tourist LTC Fremantle on the good behavior of the Confederate forces during the Gettysburg campaign, which, apart from the war crime of enslaving free blacks, was a brutal requisition of all movable goods (see Brown's Retreat from Gettysburg for examples). On the positive side, the best character in her book is the misanthropic factotum in the American Legation in London, Benjamin Moran: Meanly denying African American "non-citizens" passports (in accordance with US policy at the time), complaining about his superiors, the American royal Adams family, and about the British. BY the time of the American Civil War, the British and the Americans had developed quite a number of national peculiarities. One joy of reading the book is noting how little has changed. The American aversion to international law is reflected in the American unwillingness to join the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856 because it wanted to reserve its right to employ privateers (a nicer name for pirates).
Overall, an excellent read up to the battle of Gettysburg that gets lost in the author's chase of side shows in the second half to last third of the book. Recommended.
Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member rosalita
Amanda Foreman has written a magnificent history of the role played by Britain (and less intensely, other European countries such as France) in the American Civil War. It's an aspect of American history not often touched on in more general histories of the Civil War era, making Foreman's book an
It is only a small exaggeration to say that Britain's crucial role was to play no role at all. The British government, both in London and in the consulate in Washington, D.C., worked very hard indeed to maintain its neutrality. It had to work so hard because both North and South were desperate to claim the support of the former mother country. Confederate leaders were sure that the Union blockade keeping Southern cotton from reaching British textile mills would create an economic crisis that would force Britain to declare its support for the Confederacy.
On the other side, President Lincoln and his cabinet were sure that Britain's abhorrence of slavery would lead it to declare its support for the Union cause. Such confidence was shaken when they realized that few in Britain believed that the war was being fought to abolish slavery — a belief upheld by the reluctance of Lincoln first to enact and then to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. An overzealous naval blockade that repeatedly entangled British merchant ships in its web did little to garner Union support either in the halls of Parliament or the streets of Britain.
Although the official British position remained studiously neutral throughout the conflict, Foreman also undertakes to explore the lives of a number of British citizens who took it upon themselves to come to the United States to fight, some for the Union but many more for the Confederacy. Many of these individual soldiers found themselves taking on rather more than they bargained for in their "grand adventure", and British diplomats were often helpless to extract them from their misadventures.
A World on Fire is painstakingly researched and well written in a style accessible to more than an academic audience. Make no mistake, it is a tome of epic proportions — more than 1,000 pages. In reading, I couldn't help feeling that the book could have been significantly shortened without detriment to its main thesis by abbreviating or eliminating some of the detailed shot-by-shot battle recreations. There is a plethora of Civil War books that delve exhaustively into military strategy; the extent to which Foreman does the same seems superfluous to the main thread of the story.
Despite that minor quibble, I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in either the Civil War era or the history of British-American relations. Foreman's scholarship seems impeccable, and her narrative is engaging and thoughtful.
Show More
essential addition to any Civil War or American history library.It is only a small exaggeration to say that Britain's crucial role was to play no role at all. The British government, both in London and in the consulate in Washington, D.C., worked very hard indeed to maintain its neutrality. It had to work so hard because both North and South were desperate to claim the support of the former mother country. Confederate leaders were sure that the Union blockade keeping Southern cotton from reaching British textile mills would create an economic crisis that would force Britain to declare its support for the Confederacy.
On the other side, President Lincoln and his cabinet were sure that Britain's abhorrence of slavery would lead it to declare its support for the Union cause. Such confidence was shaken when they realized that few in Britain believed that the war was being fought to abolish slavery — a belief upheld by the reluctance of Lincoln first to enact and then to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. An overzealous naval blockade that repeatedly entangled British merchant ships in its web did little to garner Union support either in the halls of Parliament or the streets of Britain.
Although the official British position remained studiously neutral throughout the conflict, Foreman also undertakes to explore the lives of a number of British citizens who took it upon themselves to come to the United States to fight, some for the Union but many more for the Confederacy. Many of these individual soldiers found themselves taking on rather more than they bargained for in their "grand adventure", and British diplomats were often helpless to extract them from their misadventures.
A World on Fire is painstakingly researched and well written in a style accessible to more than an academic audience. Make no mistake, it is a tome of epic proportions — more than 1,000 pages. In reading, I couldn't help feeling that the book could have been significantly shortened without detriment to its main thesis by abbreviating or eliminating some of the detailed shot-by-shot battle recreations. There is a plethora of Civil War books that delve exhaustively into military strategy; the extent to which Foreman does the same seems superfluous to the main thread of the story.
Despite that minor quibble, I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in either the Civil War era or the history of British-American relations. Foreman's scholarship seems impeccable, and her narrative is engaging and thoughtful.
Show Less
LibraryThing member pierthinker
The American Civil War was a pivotal event in modern history. A violent, bitter, technology-driven clash between two cultures, two visions of what America was and was to become. Even today, 150 years after the War started and 145 after it ended, it raises great passions amongst Americans and
The War is perceived and portrayed as an American event with little or no outside interference or impact. This book puts the lie to those ideas in a most detailed, instructive and engaging way. Amanda Foreman’s book is a history of the Civil War focusing on two areas: how the War played in Great Britain, from both the British and the American viewpoint; and, the experiences of Britons who fought on both sides or were there to report on the War.
The book examines these aspects of the War in great detail and with great authority. Many sources are used and used well, especially the personal accounts of participants and combatants in the fighting and the politicking. The narrative flow is chronological and shows to great effect the fog of war and the impact of too little information, often too late, on decision making and in shaping opinions.
This is a long book and requires concentration and effort to sustain the arguments, keep all the characters straight in one’s mind and generally follow what’s what. But all that effort pays off in the sweep of historical fact and analysis that brings the War into sharper focus, perhaps, to a British audience than a purely military or American narrative could.
I absolutely recommend this book.
Show More
divides them still.The War is perceived and portrayed as an American event with little or no outside interference or impact. This book puts the lie to those ideas in a most detailed, instructive and engaging way. Amanda Foreman’s book is a history of the Civil War focusing on two areas: how the War played in Great Britain, from both the British and the American viewpoint; and, the experiences of Britons who fought on both sides or were there to report on the War.
The book examines these aspects of the War in great detail and with great authority. Many sources are used and used well, especially the personal accounts of participants and combatants in the fighting and the politicking. The narrative flow is chronological and shows to great effect the fog of war and the impact of too little information, often too late, on decision making and in shaping opinions.
This is a long book and requires concentration and effort to sustain the arguments, keep all the characters straight in one’s mind and generally follow what’s what. But all that effort pays off in the sweep of historical fact and analysis that brings the War into sharper focus, perhaps, to a British audience than a purely military or American narrative could.
I absolutely recommend this book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RobertP
Excellent read. Ms. Foreman has done a good job not only of explaining the mutual views of Americans (and confederates) to the British, but vice versa. Also, a good thumbnail sketch of the military part of the war, and of some of the characters in that grand story. Well done, well worth the read.
LibraryThing member Jaylia3
This long book about the British impact on the American Civil War follows the lives, motivations and impacts of so many people there is a thirteen page cast of characters, but I was mesmerized. In the preface Amanda Foreman writes that she treats all of the significant and many of the more minor
When I read A World on Fire I alternated between the ebook version I borrowed from my library, and the hardbound copy I bought once I realized it was a book I would want to continue to reference. The hardbound copy is large and heavy so the ebook alternative is much easier to hold, but the book is filled with many illustrations, maps and photographs which don't display well on small ereader screens; they might work better on a tablet. Having both copies for reading was ideal, but I'm glad the one I purchased is the more accessible ink on paper version.
Show More
individuals in A World on Fire as if she was writing their biographies, not just compiling a general history. Her attention to those details of both her American and British subjects brings their personalities and the Anglo-American world they lived in to life on the page. Seeing the Civil War from the shifting British point of view provided an absorbing look at how public opinion can evolve, and I learned much more about the course of the Civil War and the constraints political players on both sides of the Atlantic were under than I expected. When I read A World on Fire I alternated between the ebook version I borrowed from my library, and the hardbound copy I bought once I realized it was a book I would want to continue to reference. The hardbound copy is large and heavy so the ebook alternative is much easier to hold, but the book is filled with many illustrations, maps and photographs which don't display well on small ereader screens; they might work better on a tablet. Having both copies for reading was ideal, but I'm glad the one I purchased is the more accessible ink on paper version.
Show Less
LibraryThing member queencersei
A World on Fire is an exhaustive history that covers British involvement all the way through the American Civil War. Diplomatic wrangling on both sides of the ocean, the spin war waged in the British press and several personal accounts from among the hundreds of British citizens who fought on both
Show More
sides of the Civil War is covered. World on Fire is very thorough and manages to introduce an angle into the American Civil War that has been little noted. Show Less
LibraryThing member EpicTale
I include "A World on Fire" in my list, even though I managed to read only the first 240 pages (10 chapters) of 807 pages before needing to return it to the library. Foreman weaves a very interesting story about Britain's careful and, it seems, very principled neutral stance (at least up through
Show More
Spring 1862! -- which is when my time ran out) between the American belligerents and the Union's and Confederacy's attempts to take advantage of it for their respective causes. The book is as much about the American players (William Henry Steward, in particular, but also Charles Sumner and Jefferson Davis) as their Brit counterparts. Foreman blew away my old, crusty notions that Britain and France favored the South for the sake of preserving the cotton trade, leaving me with great respect for their anti-slavery principles despite the difficult economic hardships these values caused. I look forward to returning to and finishing Foreman's book. Show Less
LibraryThing member jvandehy
Excellent subject. Focuses on a wide variety of individuals across the wholespespectrum of activities in the American Civil War period. Makes for a wonderful presentation of some amazing personal interest stories. Also a thorough overview of the diplomatic and strategic concerns that affected the
Show More
outcome of the war and the following era. It was almost like reading two separate works spliced together. Well worth the read to be exposed to many aspects of this period of American history that are not usually encountered in other Civil War histories. Show Less
LibraryThing member nmele
I appreciated the capsule biographies of British citizens who volunteered in the armies and navies of both the Union and the Confederacy, but I most enjoyed Foreman's detailed discussion of the two sides' diplomacy vis-a-vis Britain and France throughout the Civil War. Among other things, it
Show More
fleshed out my pictures of some key leaders of Victorian Britain, such as Lord Palmerston, and of several members of the Adams family, including Henry Adams as a young man. Show Less
LibraryThing member vguy
Read Vol 1 of a multi-vol edition. Didnt inspire me to seek out the rest.. Intriguing angle. The Uk/US relationship during the CivilWar. Shows how closely the 2 were still linked, but the angle meant chasing too many hares, from high level diplomacy to obscure Brits who volunteered for one side or
Show More
the other and happened to write a diary or a discoverable letter; made it all rather scattered and hard to follow. " team of Rivals covers an equally vast canvas of the same period more successfully. Schama's Rough Crossing too illuminates the UKUS with better focus and narrative skill at an earlier period. Most interesting is how her picture of Seward differs from Goodwin's; here he appears as a risk-taking tub-thumping machine politician with an Anglophobia problem; in Goodwin he appears as a sophisticated man of culture and the ideal friend and confidant. Is it the same man? Show Less
LibraryThing member DarthDeverell
Amanda Foreman’s A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War is “an attempt to balance the vast body of work on Anglo-American history in the 1860s with the equally vast material left behind by witnesses and participants in the war – to depict the world as it was seen
Beginning with the pre-war era, Foreman writes, “For many Britons, the eradication of slavery around the globe was not simply an ideal but an inescapable moral duty, since no other country had the navy or the wealth to see it through” (pg. 24). Not only did the continuance of slavery in America make many Britons uneasy, but America’s designs on Canada and denunciation of England to rouse popular working-class sentiment further threatened Anglo-American relations. Foreman argues that the Union’s move to blockade ports early in the war opened up unforeseen issues, as legal definitions of a blockade implied formal war between two belligerents, which would enable the South to seek foreign aid and recognition (pg. 79-80). After much negotiation and a desire to avoid direct conflict with the United States, William Howard Russell argued that a direct conflict “would wrap the world in fire” (pg. 122). Britain passed the Foreign Enlistment Act, which “forbade a belligerent nation from outfitting or equipping warlike vessels in British waters, but there was nothing to prevent the construction of a ship with an unusual design,” like the future CSS Alabama (pg. 146). Despite this attempt at neutrality, Captain Charles Wilkes’ detaining of the British mail packet Trent in order to capture two Confederate commissioners threatened to worsen relations (pg. 172).
Prior to Antietam, Lee “understood as well as the Confederate government that Europe was waiting for a clear-cut victory,” though his loss at that battle and the subsequent Emancipation Proclamation weakened the South’s diplomatic power (pg. 296). Foreman writes, “There was no single reason why the British cabinet voted against intervening in the war. Economically, it did not make sense to interfere; militarily; it would have meant committing Britain to war with the North and once again risking Canada and possibly the Caribbean for uncertain gains; politically, there was no support from either party or sufficient encouragement from the other Great Powers apart from France; and practically, the decision to intervene would have required a majority consensus from a cabinet that had never agreed on the meaning or significance of the war” (pg. 329). Finally, Seward successfully warned Britain off with threats of the consequences should they enter the war.
While many Britons felt the Emancipation Proclamation weak and contradictory, “The news that the U.S. Congress had ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had an even greater effect on British public opinion than the North’s recent military victories. No amount of sneering by Henry Hotze in the Index could diminish the moral grandeur of emancipation” (pg. 742). Foreman concludes, “The United States had never supported Britain in any war, including the Crimean, and yet neither the North nor the South had seen the contradiction in demanding British aid once the situation was reversed. Both had unscrupulously stooped to threats and blackmail in their attempts to gain support, the South using cotton, the North using Canada. Both were guilty in their mistreatment of Negroes, both had shipped arms from England, and both had benefitted from British volunteers” (pg. 794). The Treaty of Washington “settled most disputes, potential and historical, for the next twenty years” (pg. 802). In resolving the Alabama claims, the treaty “brought the Civil War chapter of British-American history to a close. The prewar resentment between the two countries had finally played itself out and a new, less hysterical and suspicious relationship was forming” (pg. 805).
Show More
by Britons in America, and Americans in Britain, during a defining moment not just in U.S. history but in the relations between the two countries” (pg. 806). While Foreman is not the first to explore this relationship (she attributes that to E.D. Adams in 1925), she does use sources from either side of the Atlantic to corroborate each others’ perspectives and puts diplomats at the forefront of her narrative.Beginning with the pre-war era, Foreman writes, “For many Britons, the eradication of slavery around the globe was not simply an ideal but an inescapable moral duty, since no other country had the navy or the wealth to see it through” (pg. 24). Not only did the continuance of slavery in America make many Britons uneasy, but America’s designs on Canada and denunciation of England to rouse popular working-class sentiment further threatened Anglo-American relations. Foreman argues that the Union’s move to blockade ports early in the war opened up unforeseen issues, as legal definitions of a blockade implied formal war between two belligerents, which would enable the South to seek foreign aid and recognition (pg. 79-80). After much negotiation and a desire to avoid direct conflict with the United States, William Howard Russell argued that a direct conflict “would wrap the world in fire” (pg. 122). Britain passed the Foreign Enlistment Act, which “forbade a belligerent nation from outfitting or equipping warlike vessels in British waters, but there was nothing to prevent the construction of a ship with an unusual design,” like the future CSS Alabama (pg. 146). Despite this attempt at neutrality, Captain Charles Wilkes’ detaining of the British mail packet Trent in order to capture two Confederate commissioners threatened to worsen relations (pg. 172).
Prior to Antietam, Lee “understood as well as the Confederate government that Europe was waiting for a clear-cut victory,” though his loss at that battle and the subsequent Emancipation Proclamation weakened the South’s diplomatic power (pg. 296). Foreman writes, “There was no single reason why the British cabinet voted against intervening in the war. Economically, it did not make sense to interfere; militarily; it would have meant committing Britain to war with the North and once again risking Canada and possibly the Caribbean for uncertain gains; politically, there was no support from either party or sufficient encouragement from the other Great Powers apart from France; and practically, the decision to intervene would have required a majority consensus from a cabinet that had never agreed on the meaning or significance of the war” (pg. 329). Finally, Seward successfully warned Britain off with threats of the consequences should they enter the war.
While many Britons felt the Emancipation Proclamation weak and contradictory, “The news that the U.S. Congress had ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had an even greater effect on British public opinion than the North’s recent military victories. No amount of sneering by Henry Hotze in the Index could diminish the moral grandeur of emancipation” (pg. 742). Foreman concludes, “The United States had never supported Britain in any war, including the Crimean, and yet neither the North nor the South had seen the contradiction in demanding British aid once the situation was reversed. Both had unscrupulously stooped to threats and blackmail in their attempts to gain support, the South using cotton, the North using Canada. Both were guilty in their mistreatment of Negroes, both had shipped arms from England, and both had benefitted from British volunteers” (pg. 794). The Treaty of Washington “settled most disputes, potential and historical, for the next twenty years” (pg. 802). In resolving the Alabama claims, the treaty “brought the Civil War chapter of British-American history to a close. The prewar resentment between the two countries had finally played itself out and a new, less hysterical and suspicious relationship was forming” (pg. 805).
Show Less
LibraryThing member Steve_Walker
No war is local. War, especially, civil war, has an impact that is global in reach and scope. It is unfortunate that American History in the public schools is not taught with great depth. At best most students only get a survey course. If they are fortunate enough to attend college, and smart
Show More
enough to NOT test out of American History, they may get a more detailed look. Amanda Foreman has done us a great service in documenting the role that the British Empire played in the war. This is a long and very detailed book. But, it is worth being read carefully in order to understand how internal conflict can have international implications. Show Less
LibraryThing member tuckerresearch
A long, detailed book. But interesting. It is a good read, with a good perspective: the British contribution to the American Civil War. Soldiers who fought North and South; diplomats from all sides in Washington, London, Paris; politicians British, Confederate, and American; financiers; clerics;
Show More
shipbuilders; nurses; journalists; etc. Not only is the story told through their eyes, their diaries, letters, memoirs, but told well. The worth as a diplomatic history is well worth the price of reading almost a thousand pages. The thumbnail sketch of the main battles of the war is good too. Very good, all around. Show Less
Publication
London : Penguin, 2011.
Description
Presents a history of the role of British citizens in the American Civil War that offers insight into the interdependencies of both nations and how the Union worked to block diplomatic relations between England and the Confederacy.
Subjects
Original publication date
2010-11
Physical description
xxxvii, 988 p.; 20 cm
Pages
xxxvii; 988
ISBN
0141040580 / 9780141040585
Similar in this library
Awards
National Book Critics Circle Award (Finalist — Nonfiction — 2011)
The Economist Best Books (2010.6)
Fletcher Pratt Award (2011)
PEN Hessell-Tiltman Prize (Shortlist — 2011)
Lionel Gelber Prize (Shortlist — 2012)
Publishers Weekly's Best Books of the Year (Nonfiction — 2011)