What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples #4
The Great Democracies
The fourth of Churchill's grandly ambitious four-volume A History of the English-Speaking Peoples begins with the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars-and ends with the Boer War of 1902. In it, Churchill makes an impassioned argument for the crucial role played by the English-speaking people in exporting not just economic benefits, but political freedom.
Written in Churchill's characteristically compelling style, this volume is the only one in the series to benefit from Churchill's own personal experience as a soldier and a wartime journalist during the Boer War. It provides fascinating reading for those interested in world history and England's impact on it.
Written in Churchill's characteristically compelling style, this volume is the only one in the series to benefit from Churchill's own personal experience as a soldier and a wartime journalist during the Boer War. It provides fascinating reading for those interested in world history and England's impact on it.
403 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1958
About the author
Winston S. Churchill
1,413 books2,369 followersSir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can) was a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945, and again from 1951 to 1955. A noted statesman, orator and strategist, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army. A prolific author, he won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 for his own historical writings, "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values."
Out of respect for the well-known American author, Winston Churchill, Winston S. Churchill offered to use his middle initial in any works that he authored.
Out of respect for the well-known American author, Winston Churchill, Winston S. Churchill offered to use his middle initial in any works that he authored.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews
November 1, 2016
It only took this book 20 years to move from my TBR pile to this. This whole series has been wonderful. I can see now that it is probably continued somewhat in Churchill's books about the WWI and WWII. What a man Churchill was. What a way with words and thoughts. Highly readable and continually thought-provoking.
In this volume, there is quite a bit of American history especially Civil War battle history. You can see that Churchill was also in danger of 'loving war too much' as he remarks about Lee and Jackson. His perspective as an outsider makes this all the more thoughtful. I especially enjoyed hearing about the battles surrounding my town, Chattanooga.
In this volume, there is quite a bit of American history especially Civil War battle history. You can see that Churchill was also in danger of 'loving war too much' as he remarks about Lee and Jackson. His perspective as an outsider makes this all the more thoughtful. I especially enjoyed hearing about the battles surrounding my town, Chattanooga.
October 10, 2022
За мен беше голямо приключение с този труд на Чърчил, от самото раждане на Британия до колониалната империя , войните с Наполеон ,Великата Армада , новите демокрации Сащ , Канада , Нова Зеландия ,Австралия , царуването на кралица Виктория епохален труд .
August 15, 2021
Fourth and final volume of Churchill's history of the English speaking people. I think half of the book focused on American history so there wasn't much here I didn't already mostly know, but I enjoy Churchill's writing and am glad to have finished this series.
July 20, 2022
AmblesideOnline year 10 book. I finished this at the end of last school year, not sure how I missed marking it! lol. I don’t know if Churchill’s writing is growing on me, if I just had a better idea of what was going on, or what but I think this one felt easier to read. Well written and very informative as most of his are. We did add in a mid more focused information on the American civil war since it’s the same time period and not very well covered in this British book ( as one would expect).
June 10, 2016
I began listening to this 4-Volume masterpiece back in mid-March -- the Audible version, finely narrated by Christian Rodska. Having written a separate review on Volume 1, I can only broadly summarize some highlights here of Volumes 2, 3 and 4:
Volume 2 covered the years 1485-1688, which included, in part, the Renaissance and Reformation, the English Civil War, the beginning of the Tudor line and of the American colonies, and the controversial rise of Oliver Cromwell (of whom Churchill was not a fan).
Volume 3 focused on the 1688-1815 time frame, known particularly for the three great revolutions that occurred: The "Glorious" Revolution in England (1688), the American Revolution (1775), and the French Revolution (1789). The latter portion of this period also saw the rise of Napoleon, up to and including Waterloo.
Volume 4 covers less than a century, from 1815-1901. Here was included the long reign (63 years) of Queen Victoria, and the American Civil War (upon which Churchill expounded at significant length). Also covered was the continued imperial reach of Britain, to India, South Africa, and many other places.
This was a lengthy read, but so very worthwhile. The span of English speaking history is truly amazing, and having the viewpoint of someone like Winston Churchill, who made no small amount of history on his own, was invaluable. True, these volumes emphasize what Churchill in particular thought was important; he also had a penchant for the military scenarios of each epoch, and the sometimes minute details of different battles. Nevertheless, his wit and his wise insights kept the narrative interesting and illuminating, and I would highly recommend this project to anyone with an interest in history!
Volume 2 covered the years 1485-1688, which included, in part, the Renaissance and Reformation, the English Civil War, the beginning of the Tudor line and of the American colonies, and the controversial rise of Oliver Cromwell (of whom Churchill was not a fan).
Volume 3 focused on the 1688-1815 time frame, known particularly for the three great revolutions that occurred: The "Glorious" Revolution in England (1688), the American Revolution (1775), and the French Revolution (1789). The latter portion of this period also saw the rise of Napoleon, up to and including Waterloo.
Volume 4 covers less than a century, from 1815-1901. Here was included the long reign (63 years) of Queen Victoria, and the American Civil War (upon which Churchill expounded at significant length). Also covered was the continued imperial reach of Britain, to India, South Africa, and many other places.
This was a lengthy read, but so very worthwhile. The span of English speaking history is truly amazing, and having the viewpoint of someone like Winston Churchill, who made no small amount of history on his own, was invaluable. True, these volumes emphasize what Churchill in particular thought was important; he also had a penchant for the military scenarios of each epoch, and the sometimes minute details of different battles. Nevertheless, his wit and his wise insights kept the narrative interesting and illuminating, and I would highly recommend this project to anyone with an interest in history!
May 11, 2019
Read this for the ap us history exam. Shit was amazing. Winston Churchill was the original Malcolm x. Ere with caution though, it’s stupid thick.
September 18, 2012
This was a really good overview of English and American history. I have now read both the first in the series, A History Of The English Speaking Peoples, Volume I: The Birth of Britain, and this volume. I learned a lot of 19th century British history that I had heard almost nothing about, and also about Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and India. His section on the American Civil War and Reconstruction was superb. I understood some of the battles like I never had before. I like Winston Churchill's writing, and his views on the history as well(you can't read a history book without the author having a bit of a slant). His view on American history is that of an Englishman, and it was interesting to get a different perspective, especially of the dealings between England and the U.S. I also learned a lot about British politics and politicians, and it was interesting to get historical context after I had read a biography on Queen Victoria--this book basically covers the history at the time of her reign and life.
I have really grown as a reader since starting this book, because I had to read a lot slower to understand at the beginning then at the end. He uses big words and narrates concisely and well. I had to pay attention to get everything--there was a lot of information packed into a paragraph. He mentions the Mormons and treats them well. I loved this description for his word choice: "Within three years a flourishing community of eleven thousand souls, combining religious fervour, philoprogenitiveness, and shrewd economic sense, had been established by careful planning in the Salt Lake country." Isn't philoprogenitiveness a great word to describe Latter Day Saints?
I thought the last paragraph was wonderful, and read in the context of the time he wrote it, profound: "Here is set out a long story of the English-speaking peoples. They are now to become Allies in terrible but victorious wars. And that is not the end. Another phase looms before us, in which alliance will once more be tested and in which its formidable virtues may be to preserve Peace and Freedom. The future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope. Nor should we now seek to define precisely the exact terms of ultimate union."
I have really grown as a reader since starting this book, because I had to read a lot slower to understand at the beginning then at the end. He uses big words and narrates concisely and well. I had to pay attention to get everything--there was a lot of information packed into a paragraph. He mentions the Mormons and treats them well. I loved this description for his word choice: "Within three years a flourishing community of eleven thousand souls, combining religious fervour, philoprogenitiveness, and shrewd economic sense, had been established by careful planning in the Salt Lake country." Isn't philoprogenitiveness a great word to describe Latter Day Saints?
I thought the last paragraph was wonderful, and read in the context of the time he wrote it, profound: "Here is set out a long story of the English-speaking peoples. They are now to become Allies in terrible but victorious wars. And that is not the end. Another phase looms before us, in which alliance will once more be tested and in which its formidable virtues may be to preserve Peace and Freedom. The future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope. Nor should we now seek to define precisely the exact terms of ultimate union."
September 25, 2012
At last, I managed to finish Churchill's History. I can tell that he intended to tell this story to unite the English speaking peoples in an alliance against the threat of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism. The history outlines the common heritage of the people inhabiting the British Isles, and all the lands they colonized. It also records all the internecine conflicts between them, from the Anglo-Saxons vs. the Britons, to the American Civil War. He recognizes that despite their common roots, English speaking nations were anything but united, but despite their conflicts, they can always point to a tradition of freedom and the rule of law, brightening their spirit even in the darkest of times.
"Here is set out a long story of the English-speaking peoples. They are now to become Allies in terrible but victorious wars. And that is not the end. Another phase looms before us, in which alliance will once more be tested and in which its formidable virtues may be to preserve Peace and Freedom. The future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope. Nor should we now seek to define precisely the exact terms of ultimate union."
"Here is set out a long story of the English-speaking peoples. They are now to become Allies in terrible but victorious wars. And that is not the end. Another phase looms before us, in which alliance will once more be tested and in which its formidable virtues may be to preserve Peace and Freedom. The future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope. Nor should we now seek to define precisely the exact terms of ultimate union."
April 24, 2023
The last of Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples. It starts at the end of the Napoleonic Wars and ends with the Boer Wars. In between, he covers not only British history, who was prime minister, etc, but also, the history of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa. And he covers European affairs, the rise of the German state, the trials are tribulations of France and the Austrian empire and the weakening of the Ottoman empire. I feel that I have a more rounded view, a more interconnected view, of the historical period.
And anyone who thinks Churchill is somehow racist, I have yet to hear anything that would indicate that. He tried to be a fair arbitrator of history and did not shrink from pointing out the deficiencies of British government, for instance, when it came to Ireland or the concentration camps in South Africa (Boer War).
At the end, he foreshadows the coming wars, and yet, he is optimistic for the future. Maybe it took an optimist to steer his country through war, but I am ever so grateful for it.
And anyone who thinks Churchill is somehow racist, I have yet to hear anything that would indicate that. He tried to be a fair arbitrator of history and did not shrink from pointing out the deficiencies of British government, for instance, when it came to Ireland or the concentration camps in South Africa (Boer War).
At the end, he foreshadows the coming wars, and yet, he is optimistic for the future. Maybe it took an optimist to steer his country through war, but I am ever so grateful for it.
December 25, 2023
Churchill finished his four-book HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War. This book is volume four, and it focuses on the 19th Century, including the Crimean War; the massive exodus of Britons to settle Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand; the sepoy rebellion in India; the rise of Germany under Bismarck; key figures such as Gladstone, Disraeli, and of course Queen Victoria herself; Gordon's tragic fate in the Sudan; the beginnings of Irish self-rule; and the Boer War in South Africa. Of particular interest to me was Churchill's view of the American Civil War, which he examines in great detail, and Reconstruction, as well as the changing role of the Unites States in world affairs.
Churchill was an excellent writer, and his grasp of the events and issues of the Victorian Era is considerable. The maps which accompany each chapter were very useful, and I felt that I gained at least a workable knowledge of the major political and military events of the 19th Century.
Churchill was an excellent writer, and his grasp of the events and issues of the Victorian Era is considerable. The maps which accompany each chapter were very useful, and I felt that I gained at least a workable knowledge of the major political and military events of the 19th Century.
May 23, 2017
This is a huge subject. In four short volumes, Winston has given the significant events of western civilization, and concisely explained everything up till 1900. Amazing. Much of it is a whirlwind. It is not so great in its detailed analysis of particular events as it is an explanation of how things fit together in the grand scheme of things.
October 23, 2023
Finally finished this incredible series after 4.5 years. Originally started it with my kids as part of homeschool history and continued it on my own. As an Australian the series has helped me grasp a better understanding of our (British) roots and heritage. I will miss Churchill's "voice"!
August 21, 2022
it carries on...and on...
May 28, 2023
Fantastic book. It took me four years of slow reading, but I finally finished the four-volume series, which I would recommend to just about anyone.
February 3, 2019
As many have pointed out, Churchill makes a major detour into American politics, in particular the Civil War. I did not feel that this was a major problem as far as the flow of the book was concerned. Remember it is a history of the English-speaking peoples. Not just the history of Britain. What I do have a problem with is how he approaches the Civil War. Churchill falls into the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, hook, line, and sinker. There is a strange attempt to improve the standing of General McClellan whose caution left huge opportunities go begging. There are multiple references to slaves serving their Southern masters loyally, but nothing of slaves joining the Union armies. The history of Reconstruction also follows the same narrative. Reconstruction appears in double quotes and is portrayed as carpetbaggers manipulating freed slaves to exploit the South. The activities of the Klan and other acts of white supremacism are simply stated without any commentary as to their values. And the plight of the freed slaves is simply glossed over or blamed on the North.
September 10, 2018
Finally in the fourth volume we reach the point in the history of English Speaking Peoples that American history takes up approximately one half of a volume. Churchill moves with his characteristic aplomb from Tory district buying to Britain’s accidental conquest of India to repeating a source myth about the American Civil War (i.e., that it wasn’t about slavery, it was about States rights—which is correct, but as a legal matter only). Churchill spends quite a bit of time on the War Between the States, and treats it fairly well, though it still seems rushed. He enjoys the generals more than the troops, which is, naturally, old school.
I kept expecting to hear about China and the Opium Wars and the taking of Hong Kong, and perhaps the British support for the development of the Japanese navy, but even though he reaches the end of the 19th Century, Churchill never makes it further east than Bengal.
I kept expecting to hear about China and the Opium Wars and the taking of Hong Kong, and perhaps the British support for the development of the Japanese navy, but even though he reaches the end of the 19th Century, Churchill never makes it further east than Bengal.
December 23, 2022
This is about the third or fourth time I have read this Churchill masterpiece. He doesn't dive deep but offers a high level overview of British and American history. Written in his inimitable style, Churchill provides his personal opinions about major historical figures as well as the decisions they made. A good introduction for people new to British history and a solid refresher for long time fans.
October 9, 2023
Churchill's fourth volume of the English speaking people - I hesitate to say last as it finishes with almost a teaser for his World War histories - continues his concise judgements of people and description of events.
The difficulty of a chronological narrative catches up in this volume as it nominally starts in 1815 but in many of the threads has to jump back before this date for context. This can be confusing especially for the time where Prime Ministers Gladstone and Disraeli are in and out of power and you can't remember in which dates that happened in the thread you are on.
The bias of 'things that interest Churchill' comes to the fore as the book covers in detail the colonies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa in their own chapters but doesn't reserve chapters for any other 49 commonwealth states. This is particularly noticeable when discussing the Franco-Prussian War in which English Speaking countries role can at best be described as spectating.
Very in depth coverage of the American Civil war, from causes to minor actions, with a great esteem felt by Churchill for General Lee as a man of conviction fighting for his state's self-governance. As with the previous historical figures of Marylebone, Wellington and others Churchill lays blame at the door of the government for not supporting generals during war time with McClellen as an almost tragic hero who is bought down by political in fighting. This leads to Lincoln not being portrayed in a flattering light and Churchill's conclusion of his greatness and that he could have prevented the evils of the reconstruction is a bolt from the blue.
USA Civil war
Argues slavery was easier than life in Africa. "The slave was protected by his market and procreative value "
Downplaying how many owned slaves of 6 million White inhabitants only 350,000 owned slaves and only 40,000 had plantations of 20+ field hands. That's still over 5% owning people, not counting those who were family members or worked in slave industry but technically didn't own any slaves.
Southern states wanted to annex Texas Republic in order to create more slave states to out vote the North.
State of Liberia created to try and send Negro slaves back to Africa. This was the liberal solution, they were surprised that the blacks preferred to stay in the USA
In the beginning of the Civil War the south believed they could always beat the north in the field and the army began to go home.
The southern states had no arsenals, they lacked armourys, steel and factories. Flintlocks were rare and the artillery was smooth bore rather than rifled.
Halleck, who was credited for victories against his orders, was made commander in chief.
After the monitor and merry Mac battle the royal Navy completely rebuilt. Biggest change in warfare since Cannons. The riveted steel, steam engines and armour. British policy is to drift lazily downstream with an occasional boat hook to prevent collision
Lee has no reserves, if I shorten my lines he will turn me, if I weaken my lines he will break me. Grant's troops stopped because "more is expected of a supreme commander" than butchery with 7000 dying.
“Lee's long left arm which Jackson was the fist must curve around the back of the northern army to the rear,” which is an insane mixed metaphor.
Lincoln promised a McDowall's Core, which was protecting Washington, twice but never sent it. Lincoln vacillations is an example of the damaging interference of civilians in matters of war.
In the UK Opinion on the American civil war were split. The upper class were with the south, and Gladstone concurred. Disraeli the conservative leader was neutral. The working class were solid against slavery. The commercial class began to feel the cotton famine.
Robert e Lee fighting for his state for a cause in which he didn't believe
Second battle of bull run, killed 13500 federals with the confederacy losing 10,000. He'd defeated 75,000 with 50,000. The north had been within 5 miles of Richmond when Lee was appointed and now Lee threatened Washington.
By 1864 the south knew they had lost the war, it was "to their glory" this didn't matter to them. In the north where victory was certain they could afford division, but the south had to stay united.
The assassination of Licoln did "more damage to the usa than all the cannonade of the confederates" as without his political influence and forgiving steady hand the country couldn't be brought back together.
An excellent overview of the period with some questionable focus on various elements that doesn't devalue the whole. It's incredibly difficult to narrow focus and whilst parts show their age as more relevant to a 50s audience than today it's a good background and analysis even if Churchill's biases are more apparent.
Choice Notes
1850 was peak of Britain's economic dominance. Until 1870 Britain had still mined 50% of world's coal, we're biggest producers of pig iron and had £700million in trade against £300million of USA, £340million France and £300mil German Others had then begun to build railway to bridge the distance between resources.
Cecil Rhodes dreamed of a united south Africa and a railway from Cape Town to Cairo travelling through British Territory the whole way.
Crimean war wasn't thought about strategically, having won the port of Sebastipool found out they couldn't invade Russia from there. The charge of the light brigade was a part of the war, ordered ambigiously to charge the wrong guns only a third of the calvary was able to answer muster. The commander retired to dine and drink a bottle of champagne.
Florence Nightingale with scant resources or nurses reduced the death rate form 42/100 to 22/1000
Disraeli complaining that people looked on the colonies as a burden by the financial account. Forgetting the political and moral aims. There was no decision on how to work the defense of them or in what conditions aide might be provided.
Egypt couldn't be left as a power vacuum, to Annex was expected but disliked by liberals, hence the worst of both worlds, occupation was settled on.
Enfranchisement (of 1 in 6 adult males) by appointing enough peers in the Lords to push the bill and telling the opposition to abstain unless they wanted a lords filled with radicals. Gladstone fought the election on the basis of wanting to abolish income tax at 3p in a pound. He regretted to the end of his life not abolishing this. He retired thinking his reformation work done but the old man was called back in his later years.
Gladstone's exultation of unity was bow an exultation of hypocrisy In 1871 Cardwell prohibited the purchase of commissions, the martini-henry rifle was issued, Flogging was abolished and the regiments were arranged on a country basis. Then as so often happens in British history the pendulum swung back
In the 40 years before 1870 there were 42 coercion acts passed and nothing to protect from landlords. The intention was to create a peasant class of day labourers like in England.
New South Wales, Australia, sheep farming economy, bringing in £2mil with sheep outnumbering people 16:1
Panama Canal started USA UK special relationship Princess Victoria was isolated from the people and court and taught by ecclesiasty and constitutional experts with a correspondence to King Leopold. Does this sound like a cult? Because maybe that's the best way to raise figurehead monarchy.
Revolution coming from dissatisfaction, low wages and triggered by bad harvests. Robert peel believed than "an honest despotic government would be the best for ireland"
Peel knew Free trade wasn't the complete answer but all the advancement was being done privately rather than by government and it was clear the landed interest of government wasn't the answer.
Seems to have admiration for monopolistic corporations
“They [the politocal parties] were described as being like two stage coaches who flingm mud on each other but go to the same destination by the same route”
Wellington anti democracy. Never has a democracy been founded in the world that didn't immediately make an enemy of the landed class and default on the public debt. His opinions likely came from his experience in Spain
Wellington as PM said that no changes to parliament were needed at enough of the landed class were already in the House of Commons. When asked to summarise a minister said "we're going out [of power]"
The difficulty of a chronological narrative catches up in this volume as it nominally starts in 1815 but in many of the threads has to jump back before this date for context. This can be confusing especially for the time where Prime Ministers Gladstone and Disraeli are in and out of power and you can't remember in which dates that happened in the thread you are on.
The bias of 'things that interest Churchill' comes to the fore as the book covers in detail the colonies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa in their own chapters but doesn't reserve chapters for any other 49 commonwealth states. This is particularly noticeable when discussing the Franco-Prussian War in which English Speaking countries role can at best be described as spectating.
Very in depth coverage of the American Civil war, from causes to minor actions, with a great esteem felt by Churchill for General Lee as a man of conviction fighting for his state's self-governance. As with the previous historical figures of Marylebone, Wellington and others Churchill lays blame at the door of the government for not supporting generals during war time with McClellen as an almost tragic hero who is bought down by political in fighting. This leads to Lincoln not being portrayed in a flattering light and Churchill's conclusion of his greatness and that he could have prevented the evils of the reconstruction is a bolt from the blue.
USA Civil war
Argues slavery was easier than life in Africa. "The slave was protected by his market and procreative value "
Downplaying how many owned slaves of 6 million White inhabitants only 350,000 owned slaves and only 40,000 had plantations of 20+ field hands. That's still over 5% owning people, not counting those who were family members or worked in slave industry but technically didn't own any slaves.
Southern states wanted to annex Texas Republic in order to create more slave states to out vote the North.
State of Liberia created to try and send Negro slaves back to Africa. This was the liberal solution, they were surprised that the blacks preferred to stay in the USA
In the beginning of the Civil War the south believed they could always beat the north in the field and the army began to go home.
The southern states had no arsenals, they lacked armourys, steel and factories. Flintlocks were rare and the artillery was smooth bore rather than rifled.
Halleck, who was credited for victories against his orders, was made commander in chief.
After the monitor and merry Mac battle the royal Navy completely rebuilt. Biggest change in warfare since Cannons. The riveted steel, steam engines and armour. British policy is to drift lazily downstream with an occasional boat hook to prevent collision
Lee has no reserves, if I shorten my lines he will turn me, if I weaken my lines he will break me. Grant's troops stopped because "more is expected of a supreme commander" than butchery with 7000 dying.
“Lee's long left arm which Jackson was the fist must curve around the back of the northern army to the rear,” which is an insane mixed metaphor.
Lincoln promised a McDowall's Core, which was protecting Washington, twice but never sent it. Lincoln vacillations is an example of the damaging interference of civilians in matters of war.
In the UK Opinion on the American civil war were split. The upper class were with the south, and Gladstone concurred. Disraeli the conservative leader was neutral. The working class were solid against slavery. The commercial class began to feel the cotton famine.
Robert e Lee fighting for his state for a cause in which he didn't believe
Second battle of bull run, killed 13500 federals with the confederacy losing 10,000. He'd defeated 75,000 with 50,000. The north had been within 5 miles of Richmond when Lee was appointed and now Lee threatened Washington.
By 1864 the south knew they had lost the war, it was "to their glory" this didn't matter to them. In the north where victory was certain they could afford division, but the south had to stay united.
The assassination of Licoln did "more damage to the usa than all the cannonade of the confederates" as without his political influence and forgiving steady hand the country couldn't be brought back together.
An excellent overview of the period with some questionable focus on various elements that doesn't devalue the whole. It's incredibly difficult to narrow focus and whilst parts show their age as more relevant to a 50s audience than today it's a good background and analysis even if Churchill's biases are more apparent.
Choice Notes
1850 was peak of Britain's economic dominance. Until 1870 Britain had still mined 50% of world's coal, we're biggest producers of pig iron and had £700million in trade against £300million of USA, £340million France and £300mil German Others had then begun to build railway to bridge the distance between resources.
Cecil Rhodes dreamed of a united south Africa and a railway from Cape Town to Cairo travelling through British Territory the whole way.
Crimean war wasn't thought about strategically, having won the port of Sebastipool found out they couldn't invade Russia from there. The charge of the light brigade was a part of the war, ordered ambigiously to charge the wrong guns only a third of the calvary was able to answer muster. The commander retired to dine and drink a bottle of champagne.
Florence Nightingale with scant resources or nurses reduced the death rate form 42/100 to 22/1000
Disraeli complaining that people looked on the colonies as a burden by the financial account. Forgetting the political and moral aims. There was no decision on how to work the defense of them or in what conditions aide might be provided.
Egypt couldn't be left as a power vacuum, to Annex was expected but disliked by liberals, hence the worst of both worlds, occupation was settled on.
Enfranchisement (of 1 in 6 adult males) by appointing enough peers in the Lords to push the bill and telling the opposition to abstain unless they wanted a lords filled with radicals. Gladstone fought the election on the basis of wanting to abolish income tax at 3p in a pound. He regretted to the end of his life not abolishing this. He retired thinking his reformation work done but the old man was called back in his later years.
Gladstone's exultation of unity was bow an exultation of hypocrisy In 1871 Cardwell prohibited the purchase of commissions, the martini-henry rifle was issued, Flogging was abolished and the regiments were arranged on a country basis. Then as so often happens in British history the pendulum swung back
In the 40 years before 1870 there were 42 coercion acts passed and nothing to protect from landlords. The intention was to create a peasant class of day labourers like in England.
New South Wales, Australia, sheep farming economy, bringing in £2mil with sheep outnumbering people 16:1
Panama Canal started USA UK special relationship Princess Victoria was isolated from the people and court and taught by ecclesiasty and constitutional experts with a correspondence to King Leopold. Does this sound like a cult? Because maybe that's the best way to raise figurehead monarchy.
Revolution coming from dissatisfaction, low wages and triggered by bad harvests. Robert peel believed than "an honest despotic government would be the best for ireland"
Peel knew Free trade wasn't the complete answer but all the advancement was being done privately rather than by government and it was clear the landed interest of government wasn't the answer.
Seems to have admiration for monopolistic corporations
“They [the politocal parties] were described as being like two stage coaches who flingm mud on each other but go to the same destination by the same route”
Wellington anti democracy. Never has a democracy been founded in the world that didn't immediately make an enemy of the landed class and default on the public debt. His opinions likely came from his experience in Spain
Wellington as PM said that no changes to parliament were needed at enough of the landed class were already in the House of Commons. When asked to summarise a minister said "we're going out [of power]"
June 28, 2023
Churchill in the plain style, unapologetically recounting the nineteenth-century history of Britain and her former possessions for the general reader of sixty years ago. He is particularly interested in the American Civil War, which is the subject of about a third of the book, with much attention paid to campaigns and battles – some, such as Gettysburg, recounted in detail. It is clear that he was writing with an American readership largely in mind.
The British Empire was in decline and imperialist remorse had already begun to set in by the time this book was published, but you wouldn’t know that from reading it: Sir Winston presents the course of modern Anglophone history as a series of military and cultural triumphs. Regret for the fate of the Native American peoples is briefly expressed, but Churchill regarded lands without pre-existing settled civilizations as ‘empty’; the right of Westerners to expropriate them from their native inhabitants in order to ‘develop’ them is serenely assumed. Such was still the prevailing attitude in the West at the time, of course; but Churchill was one of those who set the intellectual tone of the times.
The history of one particular English-speaking people – African-Americans – gets rather less space than it should. Speaking of them, the author’s tone grows paternalistic and rather detached; he is evidently more concerned with the political consequences of slavery and the presence of a large Black minority in an otherwise largely White country than with African-Americans themselves.
Besides America, he also gives the nineteenth-century histories of English-speaking colonies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Africa; the last gets somewhat more attention than the rest due to the South African (‘Boer’) War. Even so, about half the book is concerned with liberal reform and the extension of the franchise in Britain. The Irish Home Rule issue is broadly covered. Non-white colonies receive no attention save for India; the Indian Rebellion or ‘Mutiny’ is discussed, though again more in terms of its effect on politics at home than on the course of Indian history. In fact, the scene of most of the ‘action’ in this book, battle scenes apart, is Westminster. One expects no less of one who spent the greater part of his career there.
Still, aside from a few paragraphs about his father Randolph’s illustrious though short-lived career in Parliament, the personal note is struck only once, when Churchill quotes the opinion of ‘a young Hussar’ who had fought at the Battle of Omdurman and described it as ‘the greatest triumph ever gained by the arms of science over barbarians.’ The hussar was Churchill himself.
The quote well serves to illustrate the general tone of the book. It is almost superfluous to note that it reads wonderfully well, as did everything Churchill wrote. Present-day grammaticians and style gurus won’t care for his use of the definite article in places where, nowadays, it is more commonly elided, nor approve his cavalier attitude towards commas. But, as he once remarked, style fetishism was the kind of nonsense up with which he would not put.
The British Empire was in decline and imperialist remorse had already begun to set in by the time this book was published, but you wouldn’t know that from reading it: Sir Winston presents the course of modern Anglophone history as a series of military and cultural triumphs. Regret for the fate of the Native American peoples is briefly expressed, but Churchill regarded lands without pre-existing settled civilizations as ‘empty’; the right of Westerners to expropriate them from their native inhabitants in order to ‘develop’ them is serenely assumed. Such was still the prevailing attitude in the West at the time, of course; but Churchill was one of those who set the intellectual tone of the times.
The history of one particular English-speaking people – African-Americans – gets rather less space than it should. Speaking of them, the author’s tone grows paternalistic and rather detached; he is evidently more concerned with the political consequences of slavery and the presence of a large Black minority in an otherwise largely White country than with African-Americans themselves.
Besides America, he also gives the nineteenth-century histories of English-speaking colonies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Africa; the last gets somewhat more attention than the rest due to the South African (‘Boer’) War. Even so, about half the book is concerned with liberal reform and the extension of the franchise in Britain. The Irish Home Rule issue is broadly covered. Non-white colonies receive no attention save for India; the Indian Rebellion or ‘Mutiny’ is discussed, though again more in terms of its effect on politics at home than on the course of Indian history. In fact, the scene of most of the ‘action’ in this book, battle scenes apart, is Westminster. One expects no less of one who spent the greater part of his career there.
Still, aside from a few paragraphs about his father Randolph’s illustrious though short-lived career in Parliament, the personal note is struck only once, when Churchill quotes the opinion of ‘a young Hussar’ who had fought at the Battle of Omdurman and described it as ‘the greatest triumph ever gained by the arms of science over barbarians.’ The hussar was Churchill himself.
The quote well serves to illustrate the general tone of the book. It is almost superfluous to note that it reads wonderfully well, as did everything Churchill wrote. Present-day grammaticians and style gurus won’t care for his use of the definite article in places where, nowadays, it is more commonly elided, nor approve his cavalier attitude towards commas. But, as he once remarked, style fetishism was the kind of nonsense up with which he would not put.
January 30, 2021
Many readers are familiar with Winston Churchill as the British Prime Minister who together with Roosevelt and Stalin defeated Hitler, Mussolini and later the Japanese during the Second World War. On top of that Churchill is also a prolific writer producing many books ranging from his autobiography to many on politics sharing his life experience in the government and later in the administration of the country. Among his more notable books are his memoir on the war he helped win, "History of the Second World War"(in 6 volumes) and "A History of the English Speaking People" (in 4 volumes). "The Great Democracies" is the fourth and final volume in "A History of the English Speaking People."
"The Great Democracies" cover the period from 1815 to the end of the 19th century and focus mainly on the politics of Great Britain and the United States during this period. However, as Great Britain was then already a big Empire with colonies straddling across the globe this volume also touches on the early beginnings of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand towards nationhood. On Great Britain, this book will especially interest readers who are keen to know and understand the dynamics of the main political parties (Liberals, Whigs and Conservatives) as they adopt strategies to canvass for the votes of their constituencies. It also reveals to us the contrasting policies adopted by the main political parties on their handling of the colonies. The chapters on the United States are especially interesting because it was during this period that having obtained independence from Great Britain the leaders of the Union were saddled with the issue of slavery. The book gave a very detailed account of the battles fought between the Union and the Confederate Armies, the strategies applied by the two sides and the pivotal roles played by Abraham Lincoln and the generals leading both armies.
It is amazing that Winston Churchill was able to undertake the kind of research to produce such an in-depth examination of the progress of the two sides during the Civil War. His write-up on the goings-on in Great Britain during this period was also interesting and enlightening because as a politician who has grown up with the parliamentary system in the country he was able to provide us the insight that others may fail to notice.
This is a good book for anyone keen to understand better the political development during this period (1815 - 1900) in Great Britain and the United States.
"The Great Democracies" cover the period from 1815 to the end of the 19th century and focus mainly on the politics of Great Britain and the United States during this period. However, as Great Britain was then already a big Empire with colonies straddling across the globe this volume also touches on the early beginnings of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand towards nationhood. On Great Britain, this book will especially interest readers who are keen to know and understand the dynamics of the main political parties (Liberals, Whigs and Conservatives) as they adopt strategies to canvass for the votes of their constituencies. It also reveals to us the contrasting policies adopted by the main political parties on their handling of the colonies. The chapters on the United States are especially interesting because it was during this period that having obtained independence from Great Britain the leaders of the Union were saddled with the issue of slavery. The book gave a very detailed account of the battles fought between the Union and the Confederate Armies, the strategies applied by the two sides and the pivotal roles played by Abraham Lincoln and the generals leading both armies.
It is amazing that Winston Churchill was able to undertake the kind of research to produce such an in-depth examination of the progress of the two sides during the Civil War. His write-up on the goings-on in Great Britain during this period was also interesting and enlightening because as a politician who has grown up with the parliamentary system in the country he was able to provide us the insight that others may fail to notice.
This is a good book for anyone keen to understand better the political development during this period (1815 - 1900) in Great Britain and the United States.
August 28, 2021
Easily the weakest of the four volumes, for a variety of reasons:
1. As we get closer to Churchill's own lifetime (and, in the end, into the years of his youth), his judgements become more predictable by his own political leanings. So: Tory Democracy good, "radical" liberalism and Home Rule League bad, imperialism good
2. Churchill stays true to his focus on high politics, diplomacy, warfare, which are more defensible in the earlier volumes (for a lack of sources on economic, social, cultural matters) and less when it comes to the 19th century. Not even industrialization is mentioned more than a few times as a major change (but that is not expanded upon) and a way to increase general wealth.
3. Five of the nine chapters on the US deal with the Civil War - minute details of how the campaigns in north and south, on the Mississippi and the Atlantic seaboard were fought. Comparatively little time is spent with everything else in 19th century American history, including the political context of the Civil War. That may be a blessing, because Churchill's narrative is dripping with Lost Cause tropes (paraphrased, in italics):
- Slavery surely is bad, but not as bad as "African barbarism". - I guess the slaves should have been thankful for being carried off and used as cattle?
- After the Civil War, the freed former slaves had to go back and work the same fields, so what had they gained? - I also think the plantations should have been broken up and "forty acres and a mule" been given to the previously enslaved, but that doesn't seem to be what Churchill is going at.
- Reconstruction was an operation of politically immature Black Americans led by carpet-bagging and/or southerner-hating Northern Whites which established race-based "minority governments" - And what were pre-abolition southern governments, if not race-based minority governments? The idea that treason to the Union should be shrugged off and nothing much changed about the way the traitors run their states as long as they don't secede again also strikes me as wild.
The audio production (read by Christian Rodska) was reliably solid. Still, in hindsight I could have done without this fourth volume. My favorite remains the second (on the Tudor and Stuart dynasties and the Protectorate).
1. As we get closer to Churchill's own lifetime (and, in the end, into the years of his youth), his judgements become more predictable by his own political leanings. So: Tory Democracy good, "radical" liberalism and Home Rule League bad, imperialism good
2. Churchill stays true to his focus on high politics, diplomacy, warfare, which are more defensible in the earlier volumes (for a lack of sources on economic, social, cultural matters) and less when it comes to the 19th century. Not even industrialization is mentioned more than a few times as a major change (but that is not expanded upon) and a way to increase general wealth.
3. Five of the nine chapters on the US deal with the Civil War - minute details of how the campaigns in north and south, on the Mississippi and the Atlantic seaboard were fought. Comparatively little time is spent with everything else in 19th century American history, including the political context of the Civil War. That may be a blessing, because Churchill's narrative is dripping with Lost Cause tropes (paraphrased, in italics):
- Slavery surely is bad, but not as bad as "African barbarism". - I guess the slaves should have been thankful for being carried off and used as cattle?
- After the Civil War, the freed former slaves had to go back and work the same fields, so what had they gained? - I also think the plantations should have been broken up and "forty acres and a mule" been given to the previously enslaved, but that doesn't seem to be what Churchill is going at.
- Reconstruction was an operation of politically immature Black Americans led by carpet-bagging and/or southerner-hating Northern Whites which established race-based "minority governments" - And what were pre-abolition southern governments, if not race-based minority governments? The idea that treason to the Union should be shrugged off and nothing much changed about the way the traitors run their states as long as they don't secede again also strikes me as wild.
The audio production (read by Christian Rodska) was reliably solid. Still, in hindsight I could have done without this fourth volume. My favorite remains the second (on the Tudor and Stuart dynasties and the Protectorate).
December 26, 2022
The writing is still good, although lacking some of the poetic beauty of earlier volumes. What made me give this such a low mark (even though I would happily read it again at some point) is the complete lack of anything anything approaching a moral compass. After spending the entire book discussing how one set or another of white British invaders brutalised and destroyed nations he has the gaul to suggest in the final summary Britain had brought to the world a hundred years of peace! The idea of the Commonwealth is thrown in there to placate those who do not believe that colonial rule was anything but brutality.
In Churchill’s history might is right, Britain is a civilising force over barbarians. When a people fight against the invaders they are lacking civilisation which Churchill and his historic ilk are happy to bring just so long as the figures add up. The only way to gain any sort of respect from Churchill is to fight and defeat the British forces (as the Boers did for a time)
The fact that within a dozen years of the end of the story of ‘peaceful leadership’ reluctantly taken by Britain the greatest war in history breaks out doesn’t make him think that his thesis is somewhat flawed. The way he describes the carving up of Africa as if it was such a civilised undertaking because the greed of the European savages was so satiated that they generally agreed on which limbs to tear is put forward as some great example of democracy. Like hyenas there was just so much food to be had that the animals did not need to fight each other like they have been doing for over a thousand years. Disgusting ‘history’ which speaks volumes of the decrepit soul which put the words to the page.
In Churchill’s history might is right, Britain is a civilising force over barbarians. When a people fight against the invaders they are lacking civilisation which Churchill and his historic ilk are happy to bring just so long as the figures add up. The only way to gain any sort of respect from Churchill is to fight and defeat the British forces (as the Boers did for a time)
The fact that within a dozen years of the end of the story of ‘peaceful leadership’ reluctantly taken by Britain the greatest war in history breaks out doesn’t make him think that his thesis is somewhat flawed. The way he describes the carving up of Africa as if it was such a civilised undertaking because the greed of the European savages was so satiated that they generally agreed on which limbs to tear is put forward as some great example of democracy. Like hyenas there was just so much food to be had that the animals did not need to fight each other like they have been doing for over a thousand years. Disgusting ‘history’ which speaks volumes of the decrepit soul which put the words to the page.
May 13, 2023
It has taken me the last two years but I've finally finished Winston Churchill's four volume History of the English Speaking Peoples. While I gave this volume 5 stars, it would be rounded up from 4.5. The reason for the 4.5 is that Churchill writes as though all of us know English and global history. It was easy to get lost a few times in this volume, especially in the first part which details the period between the end of the Napoleon Wars and the beginning of the Victoria Age.
What I found particularly fascinating was Churchill's middle section which focused on the American Civil War, its causes and its aftermath. I learned a number of new, interesting facts that Sir Winston detailed about the Civil War and some of the main characters. It was also interesting to read how America was perceived by other nations during the time.
The last section of the book is devoted to the Victorian Age, led of course by Queen Victoria who until Elizabeth II was the longest serving monarch in British history. Queen Victoria became a widow at a young age with the death of Prince Albert, but that tragedy in her life only seemed to fuel her intensity. It was under her leadership that she oversaw a "Commonwealth" of many subject nations for many decades. The book ends with the Boer Wars in South Africa at the beginning of the 20th Century. Interestingly, Churchill humbly chooses not to recount his own distinguished service in that war as a participant.
These volumes are not light history reads but if you want to know more about the history of the English this four book set is highly recommended.
What I found particularly fascinating was Churchill's middle section which focused on the American Civil War, its causes and its aftermath. I learned a number of new, interesting facts that Sir Winston detailed about the Civil War and some of the main characters. It was also interesting to read how America was perceived by other nations during the time.
The last section of the book is devoted to the Victorian Age, led of course by Queen Victoria who until Elizabeth II was the longest serving monarch in British history. Queen Victoria became a widow at a young age with the death of Prince Albert, but that tragedy in her life only seemed to fuel her intensity. It was under her leadership that she oversaw a "Commonwealth" of many subject nations for many decades. The book ends with the Boer Wars in South Africa at the beginning of the 20th Century. Interestingly, Churchill humbly chooses not to recount his own distinguished service in that war as a participant.
These volumes are not light history reads but if you want to know more about the history of the English this four book set is highly recommended.
June 5, 2024
For most of the series, "English-speaking peoples" means "English", but for Churchill's final volume this really widens the scope, with the United States being an ever more important entity through out the time period of the book.
However, the first section is pretty much all domestic English politics from after the defeat of Napoleon to the mid-Nineteenth Century. There's some diversions for things like fears of Russia, and the end talks about the mass migrations that happened during this time, but mostly we're looking at prime ministers, and the bigger events, often legislative, of their governments. For an overview book covering almost a century, this isn't a bad thing, but as a man engaged in British politics his entire adult life, you can easily see here where his interests lie.
The second part is the American Civil War, which is by no means a bad 130-page summary. Churchill isn't trying to put any particular 'spin' on things, but this means it is representative of the books he had read when composing this in the '30s and finishing it in the '50s. It's not Lost Cause by any means, but elements of it are here, including a full "Man of Marble" view of Lee.
The last part is largely a return to British politics, just with more attention on the international stage, with things like the unification of Germany being called out. There is a good chapter on Reconstruction, as well as America's emergence onto the world stage. The book doesn't really give itself a hard ending date, but does wrap up with the death of Queen Victoria and the Boer War.
Despite only covering about 87 years, this possibly the weakest book of the set, possibly because of the variety of things Churchill has to cover, and certainly it is trivial to get better coverage of much of the contents. But it does finish up the series nicely, and Winston Churchill could write. If you don't know much of the period, this isn't a bad place to start, and better-written than many, otherwise, its value is more in the prose, or to see some of the attitudes of someone who once wrote, "history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
However, the first section is pretty much all domestic English politics from after the defeat of Napoleon to the mid-Nineteenth Century. There's some diversions for things like fears of Russia, and the end talks about the mass migrations that happened during this time, but mostly we're looking at prime ministers, and the bigger events, often legislative, of their governments. For an overview book covering almost a century, this isn't a bad thing, but as a man engaged in British politics his entire adult life, you can easily see here where his interests lie.
The second part is the American Civil War, which is by no means a bad 130-page summary. Churchill isn't trying to put any particular 'spin' on things, but this means it is representative of the books he had read when composing this in the '30s and finishing it in the '50s. It's not Lost Cause by any means, but elements of it are here, including a full "Man of Marble" view of Lee.
The last part is largely a return to British politics, just with more attention on the international stage, with things like the unification of Germany being called out. There is a good chapter on Reconstruction, as well as America's emergence onto the world stage. The book doesn't really give itself a hard ending date, but does wrap up with the death of Queen Victoria and the Boer War.
Despite only covering about 87 years, this possibly the weakest book of the set, possibly because of the variety of things Churchill has to cover, and certainly it is trivial to get better coverage of much of the contents. But it does finish up the series nicely, and Winston Churchill could write. If you don't know much of the period, this isn't a bad place to start, and better-written than many, otherwise, its value is more in the prose, or to see some of the attitudes of someone who once wrote, "history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
November 19, 2020
This final volume of the four-volume set, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, was interesting but disappointing to this reviewer. Published in 1958, one might expect that it would cover both of the two world wars of the 20th Century, or at least The Great War (WWI). Instead, it wraps up at the opening of the 20th Century.
To its credit, the concept of world war in Churchill’s consideration did not begin in 1914. Several times throughout the series, Churchill refers to primarily European theater wars as world wars. In the European viewpoint, anything which included all of the continent was essentially “world-wide”. This concept, though somewhat Euro-centric, might explain the thinking behind this exclusion. More realistically, historians generally want to have a more lengthy curing period before looking back and writing about the events.
Additionally, Churchill likely did not want to write about history in which he was personally involved. He chose to abstain mention of his involvement in the Boer wars (see Dr. Larry Arn’s work for more on this). Churchill played a key role in so much of the 20th Century history of Britain and her descendants; he likely preferred to let others judge his role, accordingly.
Take the time to read this series. It is well worth your while. Any consideration of world history which does not consider the import of the English-speaking nations ignores a key component to its detriment.
To its credit, the concept of world war in Churchill’s consideration did not begin in 1914. Several times throughout the series, Churchill refers to primarily European theater wars as world wars. In the European viewpoint, anything which included all of the continent was essentially “world-wide”. This concept, though somewhat Euro-centric, might explain the thinking behind this exclusion. More realistically, historians generally want to have a more lengthy curing period before looking back and writing about the events.
Additionally, Churchill likely did not want to write about history in which he was personally involved. He chose to abstain mention of his involvement in the Boer wars (see Dr. Larry Arn’s work for more on this). Churchill played a key role in so much of the 20th Century history of Britain and her descendants; he likely preferred to let others judge his role, accordingly.
Take the time to read this series. It is well worth your while. Any consideration of world history which does not consider the import of the English-speaking nations ignores a key component to its detriment.
May 27, 2020
Here Churchill’s survey history of society through the interesting lens of the spread, empire and legal evolution of English Speaking Peoples has diverged into a realm dangerous to anyone but the trained historian: analysis of times through which the author either lived or times in which the author’s family or even acquaintances played a part. He attempts to set the stage for his worldview, even before he arrives on the scene of history as an infant in the 1870’s; his mother being an American Churchill bounds
into the history of the American civil war with what begins as a fascinating perspective defending the likes of McClellan, and then outright endorsing the white souths post-war rewriting of history without his usual attention to detail; declarations of and references to the “corrupt carpetbagger governments” supported by “negro stooges” abound. Churchill’s analysis of political goings-on in the United States is likely biased by his own lifetime policy of racial Darwinism and patrimony - largely a product of his time. Even so, much good information is to be found in this volume besides. But here it becomes especially important to discern not only facts from national consensus on the legend of an event, as is necessary in his previous volumes, but now also from personal opinion and I defended assertion.
into the history of the American civil war with what begins as a fascinating perspective defending the likes of McClellan, and then outright endorsing the white souths post-war rewriting of history without his usual attention to detail; declarations of and references to the “corrupt carpetbagger governments” supported by “negro stooges” abound. Churchill’s analysis of political goings-on in the United States is likely biased by his own lifetime policy of racial Darwinism and patrimony - largely a product of his time. Even so, much good information is to be found in this volume besides. But here it becomes especially important to discern not only facts from national consensus on the legend of an event, as is necessary in his previous volumes, but now also from personal opinion and I defended assertion.
January 13, 2019
Churchill finishes his History of the English Speaking Peoples with a fourth volume focused on the democratic transition in Britain, the growth of the United States, and the growing intensity of conflict in Ireland. The book is a good recounting of the political horse race of the 1800s in the UK and how the two main political parties developed by competing to expand the franchise. The book does suffer as an impartial recounting of events, however, as the passage of time in the narrative brings events closer to the lifetime of Churchill himself. Churchill also devotes more time in the story to his father's "Tory Democracy" than is perhaps warranted from a view from the 21st century. Anyone perplexed by the insanity of debate in the House of Commons on Brexit today could see the politics could be just as complex and dysfunctional in the 1880s discussing Irish home rule. For me, the fourth volume was less intriguing than Churchill's first three, probably because I am much more familiar with the 19th century US history as well as Victorian Britain, than I did of England in the Middle Ages or earlier.
December 3, 2021
This final volume of Churchill's History of the English-Speaking people is a beautifully written narrative of the history of Britain, the British Empire and the USA in the nineteenth century. Its span is the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the end of the second Anglo-Boer War. As with the earlier volumes, the historiography was old-fashioned at the time of publication in the 1950s and Churchill's preference is to discuss military campaigns and high politics over social and economic change. These latter areas are not ignored but are given short shrift in terms of attention.
The best things about this volume are the coverage of US politics and the American Civil War in particular (again with campaigns and battles given prominence). So if the reader desires a readable overview of the course of that war, Churchill's account is the answer.
The reader needs to be aware of the limitations of this volume in terms of a work of history. But having taken this into account, "The Great Democracies" is a enjoyable read with shrewd judgments, engagingly expressed.
The best things about this volume are the coverage of US politics and the American Civil War in particular (again with campaigns and battles given prominence). So if the reader desires a readable overview of the course of that war, Churchill's account is the answer.
The reader needs to be aware of the limitations of this volume in terms of a work of history. But having taken this into account, "The Great Democracies" is a enjoyable read with shrewd judgments, engagingly expressed.
May 31, 2022
The fourth volume from Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples, The Great Democracies discusses the end of the Napoleonic War through to the Boer War.
There are two things that I have come to admire about Churchill’s history writing. The first is his enthusiasm for military strategy. He spends much of the book describing battles, especially that of the American Civil War. This gives the reader great insight into the difficulties of war. The second thing I appreciate is his sympathy for the various leaders, whether military generals or political leaders. When describing bad decisions he strives to find the many possible reasons which had an effect on those decisions—lack of information, interference in the ability to make decisions in the field by presidents behind a desk, for example. His portraits of important shapers of the 19th century were insightful and thought-provoking. It gave more heart and depth to the events, humanizing them.
I greatly appreciated his perspective, especially when it was different to those I had read before.
There are two things that I have come to admire about Churchill’s history writing. The first is his enthusiasm for military strategy. He spends much of the book describing battles, especially that of the American Civil War. This gives the reader great insight into the difficulties of war. The second thing I appreciate is his sympathy for the various leaders, whether military generals or political leaders. When describing bad decisions he strives to find the many possible reasons which had an effect on those decisions—lack of information, interference in the ability to make decisions in the field by presidents behind a desk, for example. His portraits of important shapers of the 19th century were insightful and thought-provoking. It gave more heart and depth to the events, humanizing them.
I greatly appreciated his perspective, especially when it was different to those I had read before.
December 23, 2017
Churchill wades through some thrilling stuff (American Civil War, Boer War), some turgid parts (Gladstone was a great PM who introduced huge changes but the narrative doesn't exactly romp through these parts) and some chunks of history that I knew very little of (the Irish Home rule question).
Views upon history have changed much since Churchill wrote these volumes - for example with the American civil war, while Churchill acknowledges the evils of slavery he barely gives black America a role in the story. His portrayals of Generals Lee and Stonewall present men of honour, ability and courage whose loyalty to their states forced them to be on the wrong side. This is a view that would, surely, be unpublishable today.
However, his prose is grandiose; he is telling a story rather than presenting dry academic facts. This is a book that will make me seek out more on the issues he presents (esp the Civil War and Irish history).
Views upon history have changed much since Churchill wrote these volumes - for example with the American civil war, while Churchill acknowledges the evils of slavery he barely gives black America a role in the story. His portrayals of Generals Lee and Stonewall present men of honour, ability and courage whose loyalty to their states forced them to be on the wrong side. This is a view that would, surely, be unpublishable today.
However, his prose is grandiose; he is telling a story rather than presenting dry academic facts. This is a book that will make me seek out more on the issues he presents (esp the Civil War and Irish history).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews