A World on Fire: Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War

Most regard the Civil War as a uniquely American experience, a conflict that tested the resilience of the nation and then determined the form that nation would take. In this book, Amanda Foreman views the Civil War through a different lens, which focuses on global issues and in particular the Anglo-American relationship. At the time of the Civil War, this relationship was affected by prior affinities and prior animosities. It would be the working through of these issues that would help to determine the outcome of the war, and the nature of the Anglo-American relationship for years to come. The notion that Great Britain assumed a crucial role in determining the war’s outcome and that the war was part of a worldwide conflagration seems a bit overstated. Yet the meaning of these alludes is addressed in this epic tale of national and multinational involvement in this seemingly quintessential American event. Amanda Foreman is relatively new to the task of historical writing. Yet she seems to have been born to the task of writing this book. She is bi-national, with British and American citizenship and was educated both in this country and in the United Kingdom. Her father was Carl Foreman, a legendary screenwriter who fled to England in 1951 after being blacklisted by the United States for being a former Communist and refusing to name names. He was reinstated in 1997, only to return to his country of birth in 1984 to die and to receive the accolades of his fellow citizens. Who better to write a story of the Civil War as a global event, than a global citizen such as Amanda Foreman? Amanda Foreman has fashioned a book, which is impressively researched and overwhelming in its completeness. Its length of over 900 pages, is somewhat intimidating and occasionally too much for the reader, but overall, the reader is rewarded for his patience and diligence. The author tells the story by employing a myriad of vignettes and a cast of well over 200 characters. The author has combined two narrative tasks, one a description of the diplomatic efforts on both sides of the Atlantic and the second a description of individual participation by immigrants from many countries, with special attention to British involvement. The diplomatic story is the central narrative of the book, yet the tales of individual involvement are more engrossing, and in the end more meaningful for both countries. The central diplomatic event of the war was the Trent affair. It was a diplomatic dance, with many twists and turns that would set the pattern for subsequent diplomatic efforts of the two nations. It is a complicated story centered on the American seizure of Confederate diplomats from a British mail ship, The Trent. Unfortunately the author mixes this event with others and spreads it over two chapters. The author commits the heuristic sin of further complicating an already complicated issue, a strategy that she would pursue throughout the book. Nonetheless, this event introduces the reader to the diplomatic heavyweights on both sides: Richard Lyons, the Minister of the British Legation in Washington, Richard Russell, the British Foreign Secretary and most of all William Seward, the American Secretary of State who figured prominently thought-out the war. In a description of the Trent Affair Seward is presented as a bombastic individual who threatens war to obtain peace. Foreman concludes that Seward was a supremely talented diplomat who the English came to know and trust. We recall the judgment of Walter Stahr that Seward was Lincoln’s indispensible man. Overall, the diplomatic efforts of the North and Great Britain were mostly successful, with success being defined as furthering the foreign policy of both nations. The policy of the United States was to keep Britain out of the war and the policy of Great Britain was to remain neutral. Although there was some tension between Britain and the United states, the relationship never sank to belligerence and was at least officially friendly. Although the British regarded the south as a belligerent, they never recognized the Confederacy as a nation. The diplomatic goal of the South was to secure British recognition, and to break the Northern blockade. In these respects they failed. Which brings us to the title of the book, “A World on Fire, Britain’s crucial role in the American civil War.” The title is cryptic, since the author uses words in an unconventional way. The title of the book, “A World on Fire” were the words used by Seward to threaten diplomats of Great Britain to back off and to thus avoid off igniting a worldwide conflagration. After all was said and done it was a figure of speech, but like many figures of speech, it was pregnant with meaning. In the book title the fire referred to was not a worldwide conflagration but a fire in men’s hearts. It was a fire ignited by the disappointment of the European revolutions of 1848. The failure of these efforts spelled the doom of democracy in Europe with monarchy the clear winner. Those drawn to freedom were attracted like moths to the flame burning in America, both in the North and in the South. The North was fighting for the equality of all men while the South fought for the freedom to live the sort of life they cherished. In this country a large number of immigrants were poor, without good family support and without the support of their homelands. Amongst other reasons, but mainly to recapture the meaning in their lives, they chose to join the fight for their new country. Most fought for the North. The northern army was multicultural and multinational. One third of the soldiers who fought for the north were immigrants: 10% were German, 7.5% Irish as well as French, Italian, Polish and Scottish. There were no British Units; the Neutrality Act had forbidden British nationals from active participation in the war. Nevertheless, numerous individuals served as observers and as both officers and fighting men. It was this shared experience that shaped the nature of relationship between the United States and Great Britain. The old memories were extinguished, and a new role based on shared values was created. In a manner similar to the way she used the word fire, Foreman used the word crucial in an unexpected way. To most, the word crucial implies some sort of action. Foreman used the word, to mean an absence of action. The crucial role of Great Britain in the Civil War was, in fact, no official role. The Southern quest for independence was quixotic and doomed to failure. The Confederacy was simply outclassed by the North in every way. The British played a crucial role by simply not interfering and thus allowed fate to take its course. There are times when diplomacy takes unexpected paths. Ironically, Britain’s major contribution to the Civil War was to take no military action. The most important interaction were the personal ones, the shared experiences that would establish that special relationship between the countries that would have a major impact in two world wars and several minor ones. For the foreseeable future, the fate of both nations appears to be intertwined.

Good read though at near 800+ pages, a little too long and detailed for the subject matter. Still worth checking out for a read!

Amanda Foreman first demonstrated her ability to bring history to life with her biography Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. Now she has surpassed herself with A World On Fire, a magnificent history of the American Civil War and the highly important part Great Britain played during it. Most Americans who have an interest in the Civil War period will already know that both the North and the South courted British support during the conflict, and that many British subjects were either strongly pro-Federal or vehemently pro-Confederate. But few will have realized the extent to which the war dominated British politics during the 1860s and the amount of British money and the numbers of British people who took an active part in the conflict. Nor will many British or American readers have understood until now the extent to which the Civil War and Britain's response to it shaped the "special relationship" the two nations have enjoyed for over a century.In the years before the shooting started Britain and the United States had a troubled history. Britain played a major role in the US economy, particularly through the large amount of cotton she purchased each year for her textile mills. Neither fully trusted the other. Boundary disputes over the US Canadian border and other arguments dating back to the Revolution kept Anglo-American relations tense. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 brought matters to a head, first because it led the South to secede and start to fight for its independence, and second because of Lincoln's appointment of William H. Seward as Secretary of State. Seward was ambitious to see the US grow and looked longingly north towards Britain's North American possession, Canada. For their part the British had an assertive government of its own dominated by Lord Palmerston, who was just as determined as Seward to see his nation grow ever stronger and more powerful. Complicating matters was the economic problem caused by the US blockade of the Confederacy, which meant Britain's textile industry was deprived of Southern cotton. The Confederacy hoped that this would bring Britain into the war on their side, and indeed many British leaders advocated intervention, but the idea of fighting to preserve slavery and (even more importantly) alienating the North, kept Britain neutral throughout the conflict.Foreman's well known ability to skillfully detail personality and clearly describe complex historical events make the 800+ pages (not including another 150 pages of notes and index) of A World On Fire flow beautifully. Battles are described succinctly but with great attention to the fine human details, so that the reader feels the terror of Charleston's population as it comes under Federal bombardment, for example. Foreman is at her best when covering the negotiations and interplay between British and American politicians, so its easy to understand the motivations of men like Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis in America or Lord Russell and Lord Palmerston in Britain. Less well known figures like Charles Francis Adams, the US ambassador to Britain and James Mason, the Confederate commissioner, as well as Lord Lyons, the British representative in Washington, are also vividly described. Then there are the multitudes of private individuals who were drawn into the conflict on one side or another, sometimes tearing apart British as well as American families, such as what happened to the Duke of Devonshire when his son and heir joined the Confederate army while a younger son supported the North. Women's roles are not neglected, and the exploits of spies like Rose O'Neal Greenhow and Belle Boyd are well and colorfully described. I also appreciated Foreman's witty descriptions of some of the more eccentric Britons who got involved like Alfred Rubery, "one of life's nincompoops," or Feo Monck, "a force of nature, though a gentle one." Those stories made me laugh aloud even though the general tone of the book is naturally one of conflict and turmoil.Perhaps the most important point Foreman makes in A World On Fire is that it changed Anglo-American relations forever. Both sides came to understand that the other could potentially be a terrible enemy or a great friend, and after the fighting came to an end both began to work towards a more cordial relationship. Cooperation slowly replaced competition in politics and diplomacy, and the foundations of what Churchill later called The Grand Alliance began to be laid. To me, as a native Southerner with great-great-grandfathers who fought for both the North and the South and who takes great pride in his more distant British ancestry, this was the most important and moving section of A World On Fire: the beginnings of that special relationship which still means so much to both nations.

In 2012, I had the chance to visit the Gettysburg battlefield and there near the Eternal Light Peace memorial are two confederate artillery pieces; British Armstrong Whitworth breech loading 3pdr with rifled barrels. Possibly, for that time, the most technically advanced artillery pieces on the battlefield. This book goes a long way to explaining how they got there.On the face of it the American civil war had very little to do with us Brits and as such we only tend to come across it via American sources such as TV and the movies where understandably the view point in focused inwardly. As this book explains the truth is that we were almost as much involved as America and the civil war had a much wider international dimension. In fact had we played it differently the South would have been able to go its own way. Be warned this is not a light read, it needs, and repays, your full attention. It also outlines the troubled relationship between the USA and Britain during most of the 19th century. Basically we were the bogie man and every ill that befell the USA leading up to the start of the civil war was laid at the feet of Britain by US politicians. In fact, the book points out that the Republican party's great plan to avoid the south from seeking independence was to invade Canada and provoke a war with Britain. The book also highlights how slavery and cotton bound our two nations. Victorian Britain was dedicated to wiping out the slave trade yet approximately 5 million people (Lancashire's dark satanic mills) depended on the south's slave economy cotton. British industry wasn't above selling arms to the south either. The confederate navy's best warships were all built in British shipyards and their soldiers often carried British weapons, as did many in the Northern army. In fact many officers and men on both sides were also British but it was on the political front where Britain had the most influence. Packed with detail, the book shines a light onto a part of British history very few of us probably know much about. Well worth it if you have any interest in this period.

When I purchased this book over a year ago, I sensed that I would be undertaking an Olympian journey because there is much more about the history of the American Civil War than meets the eye at first glance. The story of Anglo-American relations during this period is a very complex and complicated one. It abounds in drama with a variety of rich and compelling characters (great and small) not unlike that in an epic novel. I learned SO, SO MUCH from reading "A World on Fire." I had been largely unaware of the British influence and contribution (not always voluntary) in both North and South. There was also the various pressures both sides placed on Britain, which did not always maintain a wholly neutral position. Indeed, as Dr. Foreman asserts "... neither the North nor the South had seen the contradiction in demanding British aid .... 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 benefited from British volunteers."Dr. Foreman richly deserves all the plaudits she has received for this book, for it is a true tour de force, likely to be the definitive source for any readers and historians wanting to better understand and analyze the nature and dynamics of the Civil War as it affected Washington, Richmond, and London. I enjoyed the journey and now that it is over, I feel somewhat bereft.

I'm an avid reader of British history from the 19th century and I readily confess to being ignorant on American history in general and especially the (2nd) US Civil War. I figured Foreman's weighty tome - all 816 pages - would perhaps give me a comprehensive snapshot of the entire period. And it didn't disappoint in most respects. Firstly I have to admit that the sheer size and weight of the hardback made it difficult to read on crowded public transport and I think I now have carpel tunnel syndrome from carrying the book (joke). The presentation is exceptional from the black & white prints (of which there are four sections to the numerous maps and Vizatelly sketches. There has been talk on Amazon about contradictory page counts, inaccuracies, factual and grammatical errors etc; being a novice on the subject I cannot comment on the factual discrepancies but from a continuity perspective I have no complaints.The book is long, detailed (mostly) and professionally comprehensive. It explodes yet another legend of American historiography. The raison d'etre was morally reprehensible, the loss of life among the soldiery was appalling, the suffering of the South and of Britain was nasty, the generalship (in the cold hard light of day) was amateurish and the political leadership was childish. In short this whole episode, regardless from which side of the Atlantic you root for, is nothing short of seedy. This strong impression is the result of Foreman's outstanding scholarship and talent for wordplay. Amanda presents an even-balanced view of British (official and unofficial) involvement in a war concerning genetically related races. She utilizes a significant amount of hitherto fore unknown primary sources which adds color and a deep texture to the story.Did I like it? Did I enjoy it? I have to say that I lost interest about half way through on account of the veil of majesty (given from childhood) of the (2nd) US Civil War being rent asunder; the whole war lacks honor and heroics because the moral cause was not espoused until well into the war (and even then given under pressure). Lincoln did not fully commit to the emancipation until late in the game, which makes him out to be, not the mythologized hero, but a plodder who recognized political opportunism. The story is incredibly complex which Foreman readily admits to but she has done a sterling job in trying to achieve here aims, namely to tell the story of the (2nd) US Civil War through the eyes of Britons in America and Americans in Briton. Reading the book, one gets strong impressions of certain personalities and factions at certain points in history which then fade into the background at other moments. For example, at the beginning of the book, Seaward is described in forceful detail and yet as events progress his personality fades from the stage to become a scantily referenced caricature in later sections. The story of Seward's conversion from Lincoln's enemy to supporter is not convincing nor is his antipathy towards Lyons and later conversion to friend and supporter. Lincoln and Davis are similarly two dimensional; Lee, Grant and Sherman etc are but names on a page. This is the impression from one who knows nothing about these personalities except through skewed childhood history.At the end of the 816 pages I was as weary as any American combatant and fully came away with the impression, like I had done recently about the Crimean War, that it was all a fruitless waste of resources (man, beast and material) and in this impression, Foreman has triumphed. War is hell and should never be resorted to lightly. This is an impressive work and should be recognized as such but overall I feel that the subject is beyond any one person's ability to tell in a positive, refractory light. The (2nd) US Civil War was a dirty, underhanded, dishonorable business, but Foreman's sympathetic work has allowed the ghosts of the war to be rightfully honored. Lest We Forget!

A World on Fire is a very fat book which has four thinner books struggling to get out.First, and most interesting, is a detailed history of diplomatic relations between the UK, USA and (to a lesser extent) CSA during the Civil War. It's amazing how poisonous the relationship was for how long, with US requests for many billions of dollars compensation for the damage caused by the commerce raider CSS Alabama only finally negotiated away in 1870.The second is the tale of Confederate resistance groups based in the USA and Canada and their shambolic but persistent attempts to sow terror (e.g. fire bombs in New York) and capture US gunboats on the Great Lakes.Third, is the account of the exploits of various Brits who either got caught up in the war or actively volunteered to fight for one side or another (and, in one instance at least, both). Flashman is sadly omitted but would fit right in with many of the characters described.Finally there is a general history of the ACW. This (if one is to believe some of the Amazon reviews) is occasionally wrong and is, in any case, unecessary for readers who know the history already but not in enough detail for those who don't. It occasionally works when you're given Brits' eye views of different aspects of the same battle (e.g. Gettysburg) but generally is the least succesful part of the book.All in all I enjoyed it, but suspect I would have enjoyed it even more if it had concentrated on any one of the first three sub-books described above.

This is a balanced and well researched account of the American Civil War. With 75% of it yet to read I would not wish to sit in judgement, but I am enjoying it. As a Lancastrian I wanted to to get an in depth knowledge as to how the Civil War affected the Lancashire Cotton Industry; I am learning that and much more, but I still have some way to go. Comparing American politics and diplomacy then and now, it is clear to me that both America and Britain have still many lessons to learn. What I find frustrating is how the 'experts' - mainly politicians, learn so little from history; perhaps they don't read it. This is a good book; full marks to the author. By the way; don't be daunted by it's size - try reading it on Kindle.Edward Gill