A History of the English-Speaking Peoples

Product Information

urn:lcp:historyofenglish0000unse_v4s4:epub:9fd5904b-1b9f-481e-842c-04abebb526f4 Foldoutcount 0 Identifier historyofenglish0000unse_v4s4 Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t4dp4wd3m Invoice 1652 Lccn 56003775 Ocr tesseract 5.0.0-alpha-20201231-10-g1236 Ocr_detected_lang en Ocr_detected_lang_conf 1.0000 Ocr_detected_script Latin Ocr_detected_script_conf 0.9760 Ocr_module_version 0.0.13 Ocr_parameters -l eng Old_pallet IA-NS-2000267 Openlibrary_edition

One third of the last volume was devoted to the military minutiae of the American Civil War. Social history, the agricultural revolution, and the industrial revolution hardly get a mention. [4] Political opponent Clement Attlee suggested the work should have been titled "Things in history that interested me." [5] This book does not seek to rival the works of professional historians. It aims rather to present a personal view on the processes whereby English-speaking peoples throughout the world have achieved their distinctive position and character. I write about the things in our past that appear significant to me and I do so as one not without some experience of historical and violent events in our own time. I use the term 'English-speaking peoples' because there is no other that applies both to the inhabitants of the British Isles and to those independent nations who derive their beginnings, their speech, and many of their institutions from England, and who now preserve, nourish, and develop them in their own ways." The work itself was two decades in the making. The Churchillian conceptions that underpinnned it were lifelong. For those of us who believe that the Enlightenment values that have held Europe and America together for 400 years remain our best defence in the struggle with Islamic terrorist unreason, Roberts should not be permitted so crudely to limit the debate to either signing up to the Bush crusade or accepting the white feather.

I'd like to be notified of new arrivals in the following categories.

I am reading history lately. This is so I can better foresee if my country is heading towards political dissolution. That's all I'll say about my motivations. October 19, 2022: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume 3, The Age of Revolution, by Winston S. Churchill (Dodd, Mead & Company, Inc., New York, 1957) Churchill almost never reflects upon whether exercises of blatant military or political power were 'right'. He does, of course, discuss the political imperatives driving the decisions of the men (mostly) and women who controlled the state at the time. That is his major contribution. At the independent suggestions of British publisher Newman Flower [2] and American editor Max Perkins, [3] Churchill began the history in the 1930s, during the period that his official biographer Martin Gilbert termed the "wilderness years" when he was not in government. Work was interrupted in 1939 when the Second World War broke out and Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and became Prime Minister a year later. After the war ended in 1945, Churchill was busy, first writing his history of that conflict and then as Prime Minister again between 1951 and 1955, so it was not until the mid-1950s, when Churchill was in his early eighties, that he was able to finish his work . On the other hand, I admit some of the things he wrote did make my modern eyes wince. The warning signs were there from the very second chapter, the account of the Bouadicea rebellion: "No less", according to Tactitus, "than seventy thousand citizens and allies were slain" in these three cities. . . . This is probably the most horrible episode which our Island has known. We see the crude and corrupt beginnings of a higher civilisation blotted out by the ferocious uprisings of the native tribes. Still, it is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders' hearth. Well, that's nice. It really says it all, doesn't it? The stupid British natives were too bloodthirsty and resisted the loving embrace of the civilised empire come to invade them, but it's OK because everyone has the right to butcher race traitors. Of the Tasmanian Genocide off Australia he mentions only that the native tribes met a "tragic" end and "were extinct by the beginning of the twentieth century". He can't quite bring himself to say they were exterminated by the British in the only successful genocide in history. In fact, of the entire period of colonialism he remarks: The nineteenth century was a period of purposeful, progressive, enlightened, tolerant civilisation. The stir in the world arising from the French Revolution, added to the Industrial Revolution unleashed by the steam-engine and many key-inventions, led inexorably to the democratic age. . . . At the same time the new British Empire or Commonwealth of Nations was based upon government by consent, and the voluntary association of autonomous states under the Crown. Suffice to say, the fourth volume in particular is stuffed full of some -- how can I put it? -- outdated opinions. As a final example, when discussing early trade unionism in America Churchill notes that the organisations attracted "a host of fanatics ranging from suffragists to single-taxers".

Moving from American Reconstruction – we read of the Boer War; the first event that brought Churchill to the forefront of activity – it is this same chapter (and final chapter) to which we learn of the love the United Kingdom had for her majestic Queen Victoria – an era concluded with her death and as Sir WSC is compiling these words in the late 1950s he is clearly attempting to write for future generations the era to which he became a man and to which the British Empire had struggled to gain throughout all of her existence. Interested parties such as myself and for others who take keen interest to History must be able going forward to reflect upon these words, this History, this love of one’s nation, and in particular this extraordinary man and show to future generations what the struggles of others before us have achieved so that we may move forward. But that does not make him an unworthy guide through history. In fact, I assert some of the most appealing parts of the narrative are Winston's evaluations of the different characters and events, which he can be relied upon to deliver as they exit the scene. All of these are entertaining and some are downright enlightening. He points out that Charles I, for instance, had genuine qualities as a general, considering he ruled a country that had known seventy years of peace, while Oliver Cromwell is censured because he was the only military dictator England has ever known, ruling with no popular consent by force alone, and parallels are drawn with the twentieth century that I wouldn't have thought of myself. Burr is nothing more than an "evil genius". He has implied sympathy for the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, but he does a decent enough job justifying it and clearly isn't a fan of slavery. He also gives a much-needed new perspective on the Indian Mutiny: the British were not the only belligerents who shamed themselves in 1857. I was genuinely interested to see how he would take the U.S. Constitution, but somehow he manages to convincingly portray it as a restatement of British Common Law principles: At first sight this authoritative document presents a sharp contrast with the store of traditions and precedents that make up the unwritten Constitution of Britain. Yet behind it lay no revolutionary theory. It was based not upon the challenging writings of the French philosophers which were soon to set Europe ablaze, but on Old English doctrine, freshly formulated to meet an urgent American need. The Constitution was a reaffirmation of faith in the principles painfully evolved over the centuries by the English-speaking peoples. It enshrined long-standing English ideas of justice and liberty, henceforth to be regarded on the other side of the Atlantic as basically American. Sir Winston S. Churchill, who himself made history as Prime Minister of Great Britain twice, twice (1940–45 and 1951–55.) He began the book in 1939 and delivered the book prior to the outbreak of WWII to his publisher with about half a million words. This book was finally published in 1956. However, this book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume I, The Birth of Britain, was the one I read and finally, finished. I do not normally choose to read a condensed version of any book, but this is the one that happened to show up in my personal library, so ... Anyway, some of my impressions might not apply perfectly (or at all) to the full version.November 19, 2022: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume 4, The Great Democracies, by Winston S. Churchill (Dodd, Mead & Company, Inc., New York, 1958) Sir Winston S. Churchill has been rightfully penned as the “Last Lion” (William Manchester) and if this is the case then certainly the “First Lion” would have to be King Henry II (the “Coeur de Lion” is King Richard I). King Henry II legacy is lasting in terms of organization and of the continuance of the British Commonwealth today. The masterpiece of Sir Winston S. Churchill work lays the foundation for the persons who are interested to pursue new interest along old lines – I personally have discovered many topics of interest now and I wish to study deeper, and learn in a fashion that is both eager and willing in the new forthcoming journey of our collective History. The book was such an eye opening read for me, bringing together subjects and events I had heard about throughout my life, but didn’t ‘know’ about.

The third volume – The Age of Revolution Churchill charts the rise of Great Britain as a world power and the long rivalry with France, the shadow of the French Revolution, the rise of Napoleon and his defeat at Waterloo. This is not a new book, of course. Originally written in the mid-1950s, after Churchill's time in politics, his four volumes represented a well-researched, comprehensive review of history from pre-Christian Roman times to the eve of the First World War. This version is a single-volume abridgment by Christopher Lee, originally released in 1958.The English-speaking peoples are invoked against the unreliability of everybody else. This is the sort of history that makes Arthur Bryant read like an academic monograph. Roberts's message is simple: when the English-speaking peoples stand side by side, history has a happy ending; when they do not, civilisation is threatened. The greatest threat has always been the rot within - liberals, churchmen, intellectuals, whose introspection tempts right-minded people to doubt their own moral worth. Churchill writes British history the same way I would probably write American history: with strong opinions of who are the "good guys" and who are the not-so-good. That is not a criticism, it is an observation. I actually find this more honest than the pretense of "objectivity" in too many authors. It is rather amusing, too, how Churchill will go on about the faults and failures of an important figure, and then end with a paragraph about his virtues, or about how his folly brought good to England in the end.

Eventually, the small remaining area in and around Calais (Burgundian area) in France controlled by Britain was no longer an issue, due in part to the Wars of the Roses. The Earls and Lords were too busy killing each other.The second volume – The New World – explores the emergence of Britain on the world stage and a turbulent period at home. In Volume III we enter into the unrest to the 13 Colonies; unrest that had previously lay within embers smoldering until kindle had been placed to the stove. The Revolution of 1688 and later a war with Spain had forced a different focus upon Britain an ocean away. All the while, it was apparent that Colonists in America were learning how to thrive in a vast untamed wilderness with Native Americans or First Nation civilizations. It is a rather fascinating read to see the interpretations of Sir WSC. He gives credit where it is due of course; however, he introduces us to the concerns of the Parliament and King George III. Another fascinating point is that by the time we move from King George I who could speak no English to his grandson George III we are witness Hanoverian methodology of the throne that is never quite authentic “British”. A smugness of sorts seems to have existed – this is my American interpretation of course and is not designed to infuriate national feelings of any sort – these are after all Sir WSC’s words that I interpret. Beginning with Marlborough's victory at Blenheim in 1704 and ending with Wellington's defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, Churchill recounts Britain's rise to world leadership over the course of the eighteenth century. In this volume Churchill provides an excellent illustration of his unique literary voice, together with an introduction to his thoughts on the forces that shape human affairs. This book took me 10 days to read. My average read is one to two days, three max but there are a few reasons for taking so long on this great book.