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

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

• 
  Matt

  This is a very big book about a footnote of the American Civil War. That footnote is Great Britain’s decision to maintain its neutrality while the Union and Confederacy bled each other white from 1861-1865.
  
  Of course, I don’t mean to diminish the importance of that decision. Certainly, if Great Britain had entered the Civil War, the contours – if not necessarily the conclusion – of the conflict would have been drastically altered. Still, this is a decision point that is usually relegated to a sentence or two in most Civil War histories. In A World on Fire, Amanda Foreman devotes over 800 pages to the topic.
  
  Following the outbreak of the Civil War, both sides – North and South – figured that Great Britain would support them. The North believed it was the legitimate nation-state involved, and should’ve had a diplomatic leg-up due to its prior relations. The South figured that King Cotton, so important to Britain’s textile mills, would rule the decision. Great Britain did recognize the South, and turned a blind eye towards the construction of Southern blockade runners and raiders (a winking attitude that eventually cost them a hefty settlement). Ultimately, though, despite some tense moments (such as the infamous Trent Affair), Britain stayed out of the fray.
  
  The story behind Great Britain’s decision – more specifically, its inaction – is exhaustively told in Foreman’s generous book. This volume is overflowing with virtue: a large cast of well-drawn characters; ample space for the story to unfold; and a wealth of newspaper clippings, period cartoons, and other illustrations. There is a lengthy dramatis personae at the beginning, so you can keep the names straight; and there is a glossary at the end.
  
  And the maps! There are global maps and battle maps and even street maps. Do I need a street map of 19th century London? Not really. At least not until I finish my time machine (right now it’s a vacuum cleaner duct-taped to a microwave). But I’m glad it’s there. In most history books on the market, the illustrations and maps are an afterthought. At most, you get a lazy inset of Library of Congress plates, and maybe a map or two that was drawn for another purpose. A World on Fire is different. The author and the editor and the publishers took their time on this one.
  
  There is so much crammed between these pages, it reminds me of one of those Thanksgiving gourds of lore, spilling out its bounty. That is what this is: a history gourd, crammed with knowledge. And did I mention that there are annotated endnotes? Oh yeah. Annotated. Just in case you wanted another 100 pages of facts and discussion that couldn’t be fit into the body of the text.
  
  Foreman is an extremely capable writer, nicely balancing pure narrative with critical analysis. She has a good eye for revealing details and colorful personages. She also recognizes – and lets unspool – the many different genre-stories within the overall epic of war. There are battles, to be sure, but also romances, spy games, class conflicts, political infighting and diplomatic shenanigans galore. The scope is incredible, but the dimensions are human.
  
  (As Foreman constantly shows, the people on this stage are all too human. Tragedy and farce sit on the same razor’s edge. For instance, there is Charles Frances Adams, head of the U.S. legation in Great Britain, taking a break from keeping Great Britain neutral to engage in an intra-U.S. squabble regarding court protocol, literally, who stood where in line).
  
  Anyone who’s read about the Civil War before will find some redundancies in Foreman’s work. That’s because she is telling two parallel stories. One thread concerns the diplomatic front, with Confederate and Union legations struggling for Britain’s favor. The other thread follows the travails of British subjects in the war itself, both observers and participants (those who enlisted, and those who were dragooned into service). It is this second thread that feels a little tired, since it is basically a recapitulation of battles that have been written about a hundred thousand times before.
  
  Still, there is a good reason that Foreman includes these stories. As she herself points out in the book, many of these English observers provide extremely important eyewitness accounts of the war. For example, British correspondent Frank Vizetelly was the key witness to Jefferson Davis’s attempted escape after the fall of the Confederate government. Were it not for Vizetelly, this period would have been lost to history, and the modern reader would not have the pleasure of picturing a cowardly, utterly delusional Davis attempting to flee the prison he’d made for himself.
  
  There is very little outcome-based drama in history. When you pick up a book about the Civil War, you know how it’s going to end. Everyone knows that Great Britain did not intervene. If you didn't know that…well, our public schools have failed once again.
  
  Despite our hindsight, Foreman (like Shelby Foote before her) attempts to interject a lot of process-based drama into the proceedings. Even though Great Britain doesn’t join the Civil War, there is a certain thrill to seeing how it all played out in real time. Foreman pays close attention to that.
  
  Still, in my humble opinion, it’s a bit overblown. I don’t think there was a chance Great Britain was ever going to war. I say this for several reasons.
  
  First, as Foreman herself points out in her handling of the Trent Affair, it would’ve been devilishly hard for Britain to invade the United States. This wasn’t 1812, after all. The early days of the Republic were over, and we no longer depended on ill-trained militia and gouty, drunken officers for our national defense. To the contrary, the Union fielded a well-equipped army in the tens of thousands, with a professional officer class in charge. Any troops landed in America would have to cross an ocean, and be supplied across that ocean. To be sure, Britain could’ve used her Navy to open the blockade and threaten American ports. But her entry would have risked Canada. Undoubtedly, Sherman would’ve make Saskatchewan howl, and today we’d talk about his famous march from Regina to the Sea.
  
  Second, most of the support for the South came from gut emotion, not logic. Many of the pro-southern forces in England seemed swept up in the drama and romance of the breakaway Confederacy. You see this in the British observers who traveled to the South and were seduced by the grateful attention lavished upon them by a Confederacy desperate for aid. Here is the thought process of a typical Englishman crossing Rebel lines: I am an objective observer from Great Britain. I am against slavery, but I want to see…OH MY GOD. Is that General Lee?! LOOK at his BEARD! It is so white! Where are my values again… I seem to have misplaced them… In General Lee’s perfectly manicured beard. The thing about passion, though, is that it burns away, while cold logic remains.
  
  Third, Great Britain wasn’t going to war for the Confederacy because the Confederacy wasn’t ever going to give up her slaves. Indeed, the South seceded to protect her human chattel. Great Britain, of course, abolished slavery in 1833. There really was no way in hell she was going to back a slave-state when the majority of her people were anti-slavery. Even the most bellicose pro-Southern Englishmen recognized this tension. Abraham Lincoln was astute enough to realize this as well, and it was part of his thinking when he drafted the Emancipation Proclamation.
  
  Foreman tends to be fairly kind to these Southern-leaning Englishmen, despite their rank hypocrisy. She’s also fairly tough on Union politicians, especially Secretary of State William Seward. Her treatment of Seward’s early days in the cabinet make him seem (a bit harshly, I might add) totally unhinged.
  
  Really, though, I have no strong criticisms of A World on Fire. It is hugely entertaining, well-researched and argued, and fills a gap left in most previous histories of the American Civil War.
  
  
• 
  Geevee

  This is a big and weighty book and is a thoroughly interesting approach that focusses on the relationship between Great Britain and the two combatants.
  
  If you're looking for a book that deals with the battles, strategy and tactics in great detail this is not the right volume for you, although these are covered to some extent as the narrative progresses, with some excellent accounts of predominently British subjects fighting on either side that shows the reach the war had across the Atlantic.
  
  What the the author does well, and I very found interesting, is to describe the political strategies and intrigues that were adopted by the two combatants. The discussions and disagreements the respective US and CS Governments had and their willingness to influence, ignore and provoke Britain (and France) was fascinating, as was the two "great" powers' own reactions and strategies.
  
  Cotton, blockade running, ship building, slavery, newspapers: reporting and propaganda; financial bonds and cash flow, prisons, volunteering, impressment, marriage and spying are all included.
  
  The involvement of British subjects in the war at various levels using diaries, letters and other documents was very good, as was the regular spattering of Punch cartoons, and the maps are clear and easy to digest.
  
  It has left me wanting to read far more about some of the people I met in this book most notably William Seward and Lord Lyons.
  
  
  
  
• 
  KOMET

  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.
• 
  Brian Eshleman

  The subject is most interesting, emphasizing the role of diplomacy, even world diplomacy, in deciding what has been looked at as primarily an American military event. The way in which the author recaps the major momentum movement of the American Civil War is also helpful. But she chooses such a massive subject that she could use some leavening to make her work more appetizing.
  
  More individual human illustrations would have been helpful in increasing passionate interest in the reader. The relationship between British ambassador to the United States Lord Russell and Secretary of State Seward is well documented, and she makes the astute observation that Seward imparted political skill to Russell and that Russell imparted diplomatic finesse to Seward. In a book of this length, more of that would have been helpful.
  
  More opportunities taken by the author and historical narrator to back away from the daily, at times plodding, details and offer insight on human nature would have been intriguing. Not that everyone can be Edward Gibbon, but these kinds of pause-and-reflect jewels were what kept me going through his similarly lengthy and plodding work.
  
  SECOND READING: If I still agree with all of the above five years later, perhaps I haven't become the more discerning, more patient reader I had hoped. Still, the work is worth reading and rereading, especially to give thoughtful consideration to the influence the culture in which we live, like the British expatriates, impresses upon us. There are genuine, even essential, opportunities to minister among the culture's jagged divisions. There are also manifold distractions in the culture's proponents' insistence that we take sides in every internecine conflict.
• 
  Jerome Otte

  A readable, engaging and fascinating history of Britain’s involvement in the American civil war. Foreman does a great job describing the widespread sympathy for the Confederacy among the English upper class, even though Britain had been a leader in the international movement against the slave trade. Wealthy Brits convinced themselves that the Confederacy would end slavery soon after independence and that supporting the South would speed emancipation. Foreman makes this flight of self-interested fancy almost understandable.
  
  Foreman’s most important contribution, of course, is that on diplomatic relations. Heavy treatment is given to Lord John Russell, British secretary of state for foreign affairs and Lord Lyons, the British ambassador to the United States. The views and ingenuity of Charles Francis Adams, the U. S. ambassador to the Court of St. James and his son and private secretary, Henry, are vividly portrayed. Among those who might be new to readers are such pro-Northerners as the Duke of Argyll, Lord Privy Seal, and William E. Forster, M. P. and pro-Southerner John Laird, M. P., owner of Laird and Sons shipyard of Liverpool.
  
  Foreman gives us a great and sweeping history of Britain’s complex relations with both the US and Confederate governments. While Britain’s interests often clashed with those of the US, they were just as often in conflict with those of the Confederacy. In New Orleans, self-appointed vigilantes forcibly conscripted British citizens into their army, and any northern sympathizers were jailed without trial.
  
  The Confederates also tried to blackmail Britain into intervening in the war on their side. To do this, they imposed a cotton embargo, hoping that Britain, starved of her cotton (most of which came from the southern states), would intervene in the war. But this did not work because according to the rules of war at the time, the Confederacy had to proclaim the Union blockade ineffective if Britain was to recognize them. But how could they proclaim the blockade ineffective if no cotton was reaching Europe because of their embargo? And the South couldn’t admit the existence of the embargo, in order to avoid the appearance of blackmailing Britain, which was, after all, what they were doing. Even more unluckily for the South, Britain actually had a surplus of cotton at the time, so the Britain didn’t really need any Southern cotton, plus it was good for the British textile industry. As if this isn't hilarious enough, the effectiveness of Confederate commerce raiders (many of them, ironically, built privately in Britain in defiance of British neutrality laws) in driving the US merchant marine from the seas forced most of the trade to be carried by British ships, and not too many Confederates were about to raid them. The irony here is delicious.
  
  Foreman's most egregious error is citing Delaware as Greenhow's burial site when it should be Wilmington, NC (p.685). Certain typos are understandable (H. Adams' "chief" (his father) becomes a master cook ("chef") on one page), but other errors should have been caught with spell-check. Some maps have missing or inaccurate state borders while the southeast Confederate map omitted towns cited in the text. Especially given the level of detail in most parts of the book, it is wrong to state Savannah is east of Atlanta Foreman references the .45 caliber Colt Single Action Army revolver as being at the 1851 London Exhibition. Even though the Colt Single Action Army was produced starting in 1873-4, some 20 years later, and is still being manufactured today by Colt. She must mean the 1848 Dragoons, at .44 caliber.
  
  But that technicality aside, Foreman’s book proved to be quite an impressive read. The book is basically divided into three main topics; the direct participation of individual British citizens in the conflict, the efforts of both Confederate representatives (most of whom were amateurs) to secure British support (both material and political) and the American representatives to deny them that support, and finally, an examination of the relationship between the US and British Governments which is mostly seen through the lens of relations between Seward and Sumner on the American side and Lyon and Russell on the British side. Palmerston is also given heavy treatment, and Foreman’s portrayal of him is very well done. As a realist, Palmerston had firm convictions when it came to safeguarding Britain’s national interests, but he also had strong enmity toward the US as a nation and slavery as an institution. The conflict and interplay between Palmerston’s views are presented very well.
  
  The slavery question proved to be a stumbling block for both sides in their bid to win the support of the British public. The South was fighting to preserve slavery (more specifically, the right to expand slavery into the territories), which did not endear them well to the fiercely antislavery British public. When dealing with the british, the Confederates tried to avoid mention of slavery and emphasized “Southern independence” and “liberty” etc., but this placed them in a dilemma: slavery and Southern independence were each a means as well as an end in a symbiotic relationship with the other, each essential for the survival of both. Secession was a means of preserving slavery, and slavery was a means of preserving the Confederacy. The North tried to avoid the issue during the early years of the war, which also did little to help them win British sympathy.
  
  This last part, the formal relations between governments, is the strongest part of the book. The author reveals how Seward tried, early in the war, to "play both ends against the middle" by whipping up popular sentiment against the Brits in a desperate effort to unify the North and South, at the same time as he was trying to communicate to the British that he didn't really want to go to war with them. Foreman also does a great job of giving us a lot of anecdotes from Brits who participated, some willingly, some unwillingly in the Civil War and she does an excellent job of telling the story of the attempts by various Confederate representatives to secure both warships and ultimately political recognition from Her majesty's government as well as the attempts of the members of the US legation to prevent this.
  
  Foreman gives us a lot of eyewitness accounts by the various Britons that participated in the conflict, but the presence of so many Englishmen means that Foreman can too easily slip away from “Britain’s crucial role” to a general history of the war and its every battle. However, in all, this was an excellent read.
• 
  Aaron Million

  Amanda Foreman has written a sweeping narrative full of action on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. The title is exactly what this book is about: Britain's often neglected role in the Civil War here. Foreman has such a large cast of characters that she helpfully provides a glossary of them at the beginning of the book; I consulted this frequently. Although I occasionally found someone dropped into the narrative who was not in this glossary, and thus I could not really tell what their role or position was. She also fills the book with photos, drawings made by a British war correspondent named Frank Vizetelly, British political cartoons, and battle maps. All of these help to keep the mammoth narrative flowing.
  
  Foreman goes back and forth across the ocean, spending time in London with American Minister Charles Francis Adams (yes, of that Adams family), Foreign Secretary Lord Russell, and the many commissioners that Confederate President Jefferson Davis vainly kept sending over in the hopes that they could help gain recognition for the South. On the American side, she follows British Minister Lord Lyons, Secretary of State William Seward, and many of the British volunteers on both sides of the conflict. Seward was focused on early, but seemed to fall out of the picture somewhat in the later stages of the book. Foreman seems to reach a mixed verdict on him, criticizing him for his bluster and threats towards England while acknowledging his considerable political talents at home. The British legation in Washington D.C. was one of the least desirable spots that a member of the British Foreign Office could hope to land. Lord Lyons made the best of it and helped keep the peace between the two countries - no easy feat. As ludicrous as it sounds now, there were people then who actually wanted to go declare war on Britain while the Civil War was going on. The U.S. still had its eyes on taking Canada away from Britain, and moreover many in the North did not appreciate what they thought was a distinctly pro-Southern feeling coming out of London.
  
  I was surprised at the amount of that pro-Southern sympathy. Given that Britain had already abolished slavery years before, I did not think there would be many people who would naturally gravitate to the Confederacy's side. But there were. Many people even came and fought for the Confederacy (this actually takes up a large part of the book). In Britain, the prevailing sentiment was that all of America treated blacks poorly (I would say this was accurate then, and sadly still all too accurate today), so the North did not have a monopoly on morals. Although you still have to wonder how anyone could openly, or even covertly, support a cause that was dedicated to preserving slavery. Britain also depended on the South for most of its cotton, and did not want its supply cut off. Nor did many Britons like America in general, always wondering when America would make another attempt to wrest Canada away from them. Officially, the government was neutral. Prime Minister Palmerston, Russell, and many others wanted to steer clear of picking sides. But this allowed the South to build and equip warships and other vessels to attempt to run the blockade put up by the Federals around Southern ports. This became a big bone of contention as the war progressed, with the British government more often than not sticking their collective heads in the sand like an ostrich so as to claim ignorance.
  
  Foreman juxtaposes all of this with battle scenes, and the recollections of the many Britons who came to fight. I noticed that we got much more of this on the Confederate side rather than the Union side. I am not sure quite why that is. Was it simply that more archival material was available concerning people who had fought for the South than the North? Or were their stories more interesting to Foreman? Or was she more interested in focusing on the Southern part of the conflict? The Northern part was not ignored, I do not wish to imply that. But there is a definite imbalance, and I am not sure why.
  
  If you are particularly interested in reading about Abraham Lincoln, this is not the book for you. He is for the most part on the sidelines of this narrative, as is his Cabinet outside of Seward. That is not bad nor good, just noteworthy in that Lincoln is central to so many Civil War works. I was disappointed that Queen Victoria was barely mentioned. What did she think of the war? Did she care who won? Did she pressure Palmerston to remain neutral? This is not explored. It is refreshing to read something about the Civil War that is not focused mainly on the military parts of the war, just going from battle to battle. Overall this is a very good, if lengthy, book that reads well and provides a detailed epilogue at the end that allows the reader to find out what happened to many of the vast number of characters that were interwoven throughout the story.
  
  Grade: A-
• 
  Joseph

  The best single volume treatment of the British involvement in the war, this volume does not disappoint. We meet the Adams family, an eccentric but well placed window into the comings and goings of the British elite in America. My overall opinion is that if you have an interest in foreign affairs during the war,give this book a shot.
  
• 
  Steven Z.

  A WORLD ON FIRE: BRITAIN’S CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR by Amanda Foreman is an amazing book. The breadth of knowledge and research in a narrative that encompasses over 800 pages of text and 100 pages of footnotes is to be praised and warmly received. There are numerous books written about the Civil War, but few that focus solely on the role the British played in the conflict. The story treats the diplomacy of the war in depth ranging from the interplay between Secretary of State William Henry Seward to British Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell and British Prime Minister Henry John Temple Palmerston. Included, are lesser figures in each country’s foreign policy establishment, the most important being Charles Francis Adams, the American Minister in London, and Richard Bickerton Pemell, Lord Lyons, the head of the British legation in Washington. Apart from the diplomacy of the war the role of propaganda in the United Kingdom is dealt with in detail and the major characters involved who worked assiduously to try and gain British recognition of the new Confederate government on the one hand, and opponents who tried to lower the temperature between the Lincoln administration and Palmerston government. Other important components of the book are the role of British volunteers in both Union and Confederate militaries, and the forced conscription of British citizens. Foreman’s sources are enhanced by her use of letters and diaries from Britons who were involved in key battles and discussions during the war and it offers a different flavor that many books on the conflict seem to miss. Foreman’s work is impeccable, however at times it can be a bit drawn out and one gets the feeling that every piece of minutiae involving the British has to be included in the text.
  
  The author integrates all major components of the war into her narrative, but what separates her approach is her reliance on the personal stories of men like Francis Dawson, a British volunteer who joined the Confederate navy, and later army who was also present Gettysburg, and the Wilderness campaigns and was wounded during the last month of the war; Frank Vizetelly, an artist and reporter for the Illustrated London News, whose drawings permeate the entire book and was present at almost every important occurrence during the conflict. Others whose letters and diaries proved to be wonderful source material include; Francis Charles Lawley, the pro-Confederate reporter for the London Times, Dr. Charles Mayo, a British surgeon who traveled to the United States to gain further surgical experience and wound up at Vicksburg and other major battles and whose reports reflect the death and mutilation that resulted from the intensity of the fighting. Two other soldiers stand out in Foreman’s narrative, Sir Percy Wyndham, an English soldier of fortune who had served with Garibaldi in Italy, joined McClellan’s staff during the Peninsula campaign and later was involved in other major actions; second was Major John Fitzroy De Courcy, a former British magistrate and Crimean War veteran who Seward promoted to Colonel and fought with the 16th Ohio Volunteers.
  
  The driving force behind the books preparation was Foreman’s goal to ascertain why progressive classes in the United Kingdom, journalists, university students, actors, social reformers and clergy felt that the Confederacy had the moral advantage over the Union during the Civil War. Lord Palmerston summed up British opinion of the United States nicely in an 1857 comment to Lord Clarendon, “The Yankees are most disagreeable Fellows to have to do anything about any American Question….They are on the Spot, strong….totally unscrupulous and dishonest and determined somehow or other to carry their point.” (19) Foreman’s greatest strength is her descriptive prose that captivates the reader. She is able to ply historical details and integrate her stories into the narrative at a marvelous rate as each page has portrayed on it another wonderful vignette. She is able to tell a story that has been told in parts by previous books, but she is able to synthesize her information in creating an immensely readable account that is very fluid and keeps the reader engaged despite the book’s length.
  
  The first few chapters form a review of Anglo-American relations from the conclusion of the War of 1812 through the election of Abraham Lincoln. Figures as diverse as Charles Dickens, Fanny Trollope, Harriet Beecher Stowe; and numerous politicians such as Charles Sumner and John Bright make their appearance. Each provides their opinion of Britain or the United States and the tension that existed between the two countries. What clearly emerges is that most Americans despised the British who they saw as an empire in decline. From the British perspective, they looked down upon their former countrymen and what seemed to drive British opinion before the war and during its conduct was its hatred of slavery. British hypocrisy is fully evident since their importation of cotton fueled the profitability of the south’s “peculiar institution.”
  
  It is clear throughout the book despite certain episodes that Palmerston’s cabinet was united and felt it was imperative for Britain to stay out of the conflict in America once Lincoln was elected. The Palmerston government had to fight off intense pressure from southern lobbyists and certain British business men and members of Parliament to retain neutrality during the war. British shipping interests built a number of ships for the south, including the CSS Alabama that in two years “captured or destroyed a total of sixty five U.S. ships, causing more than $5 million worth of losses to the Northern merchant marine trade.” (624) Throughout the war the British government had to try and prevent blockade runners and ramming ships that were sold to the south from leaving British ports to be turned over to the Confederate navy. British shipping and Union blockading of the south formed two issues that frustrated all sides and on occasion almost brought England into the conflict or at the very least recognition of the Confederacy. The Union seizure of two southern diplomats from a British vessel in the Trent Affair was another episode that breeded great distrust between Washington and London. Once both sides, as in most cases, realized that a working relationship between the Union and the British was much more conducive to the success of their economies accommodations were reached.
  
  Plots abound in Foreman’s presentation. Smuggling of ships, weapons, food, and supplies from English ports involved numerous characters ranging from the work of James Bulloch, the Chief Confederate secret service agent in England and the architect of Confederate plans to fulfill the needs of the Confederacy to Jacob Thompson, a Colonel in the Confederate army, and the head of clandestine operations in Canada. Thompson largest operation came in November, 1864 when he wanted to purchase a steamer and convert it into a warship in Guelph, Ontario. John Yates Beall who conducted terror raids against the north earlier in the war, would captain the ship, renamed the CSS Georgia and would try and sink the USS Michigan and create havoc along Lake Erie against undefended cities from Buffalo to Detroit. The plot failed when Lord Monck, the British Governor-General of Canada had the ship seized and a number of conspirators arrested. Not to be considered defeated, Thompson when on with another operation this time to set fire to New York City in retaliation for Union army’s torching of buildings in the south. The operation did set fire to a few hotels and created some panic, but overall it must be categorized as a failure. Propaganda played a major role in the conflict and the Confederacy supplied millions of dollars to Henry Hotze, sent to London in 1862 and became the editor of the pro-Southern Index to convince the British people and government to recognize and supply the Confederacy. He was able to befriend William Gladstone, a member of Palmerston’s cabinet and leader of the British opposition to the Tory government as well as the future Prime Minister, who became the Confederate voice for recognition within the British cabinet. Foreman has a number of detailed descriptions of the spy operations that existed, particularly from the southern point of view. This material is interesting and entertaining and reflects a different aspect of the war that most do not think about.
  
  Foreman describes all the major battles and their political implications between the states, as well as how they affected British policy toward the war. Much of this has been told in other monographs, but Foreman’s use of British citizens and their involvement in these battles presents a new and interesting perspective. Examples include the battlefield and naval illustrations of Frank Vizetelly of Charleston’s harbor channel as Confederates deployed torpedoes, or his illustration of the fall of Fort Fisher as Wilmington fell to union forces, in addition to the many Punch cartoons that are interspersed in the narrative; as well as the opinions offered by William Howard Russell of The Times as he described the southern mindset as one of delusion and naiveté as they dealt with their prospects of victory. Dr. Charles Mayo’s descriptions of the injuries sustained at Antietam and Gettysburg provide further insights into the concept of total and technological warfare that did not exist before 1861. On April 2, 1863, Francis Lawley unburdened himself to in a letter to a British MP concerning the bread riots in Richmond. “The Confederate capital was a microcosm of the many hardships being endured in the south; hunger, and disease were spreading. Smallpox had invaded the poorer neighborhoods as more refugees arrived…” (424) Lawley further stated after a brief visit to Charleston after the battle of Wilmington, “that the empty streets reminded him of Boccaccio’s description of Florence after the Black Death.” (726)
  
  Foreman delves into the thought processes and analysis of the major characters in the conflict. She spends a great deal of time trying to explain the actions of Secretary of State Seward as he seemed to alternate between bellicosity and conciliation on a daily basis in dealing with the British. Less time is spent on Lincoln than in most studies and there is little that is new here, but her portrayal of Jefferson Davis is intriguing as she delves into his personal life and fears as realized by the Spring of 1864 that his policies that were based on achieving British recognition, the pressure from British labor who were suffering because of lost jobs due to a lack of cotton, and the expectation that Robert E. Lee would deliver military victories that would result in independence had all fallen by the wayside. Foreman has an excellent chapter dealing with Davis’ support for changing northern opinion by raids from Canada that would also provoke a war between the Union and England. This did not pan out as Palmerston withstood pressure from Parliament to at least mediate the war that would have allowed the south to maintain slavery. But, it was the slavery issue that the south could never overcome, though Davis, desperate after Sherman had ravaged Savannah and Wilmington was about to collapse on December 27, 1864 sent an emissary to London to offer to abolish slavery in return for recognition of the South. In reality, the offer was moot once the U.S. House of representatives ratified the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery on all American soil on January 21, 1865.
  
  Foreman brings her narrative to a successful conclusion by providing an update on the lives her main characters following the Civil War. Further, she goes on to discuss the outstanding issues that remained between the United States and Great Britain. The negotiations between the two nations were at times contentious but because of the work of Charles Francis Adams and his cohorts settlements were reached. First, the Treaty of Washington, signed on February 24, 1871 “established two tribunals, one to arbitrate the claims of private individuals against the United States for actions committed during the Civil War, the other to rule on the Alabama claims.” (802) On September 14, 1872 the tribunal ruled that Britain owed $15.5 million plus interest for the damage caused by Confederate cruisers built and facilitated by the British. According to Foreman, A WORLD ON FIRE was an attempt “to balance the vast body of work on Anglo-American history in the 1860s with the equally vast material left behind by witnesses and participants in the war—to depict the world as it was seen by Britons in America, Americans in Britain, during a defining moment not just in U.S. history but in the relations between the two countries,” (806) it is quite obvious that the author has achieved her goal.
  
• 
  Pamela

  At eight hundred pages and counting, Foreman’s narrative threatens to be a forbidding slog up a mountain of dispiriting data. Mind numbing statistics like “Twenty-five thousand men were killed, wounded, or missing” on a single day at Antietam loom hazily, but large, in our collective memory. But it isn’t. In fact, Foreman’s way with the data is very reader friendly.
  
  A World on Fire proceeds mainly through biographical material. Family letters, personal journals and memoirs are given as much weight as diplomatic correspondences, political wrangling, and military maneuvers. We get to know the usual suspects, pivotal diplomatic actors such as William Seward, U.S. Secretary of State, Lord Lyons, Minister of the British legation in Washington, and Charles F. Adams, Minister at the U.S. legation in London, at work, at home, and on holiday. Their domestic trials, petty personal grievances, and the alliances they make or fail to secure over the dinner table flesh out the men behind epoch making decisions.
  
  Thankfully we also meet people whose lives in official histories are typically buried in statistics - the numbers dead, wounded, or on their feet at the end of the day. Among these are British subjects whose personal war stories complement the diplomatic wars being waged in the offices of state as well as the drawing rooms of the rich and/or powerful on both sides of the Atlantic. Some were colorful career soldiers of fortune for whom the battlefield was their drug of choice. Others had volunteered for one side or the other out of - often misplaced - idealism. And there were men like immigrant Edward Sewell, formerly of Ipswich, who cursed their luck to wake up one day and find themselves in the army. Sewell dozed off riding the train to work in New York then “woke up and found myself on board a steam packet...I found that I was then in uniform as a soldier, and had been robbed of my money, jewels, and clothes...” He’d been crimped (an illegal Civil War version of impressment).
  
  On the journalism front we follow Frank Vizetelly, the most famous war illustrator of the day (whose drawings adorn this book), and Francis Lawley, a debt-ridden gambler turned freelance writer. Both worked for the Times and both were seduced by the the Confederate elite, whom they trailed from battlefield to burned city and back. Their reports idealized the Southern cause and strained the truth to the point of misinforming the British public about the South’s aims and military achievements. And the opinion of the British public mattered a great deal. The Southern cotton embargo plunged 1.5 million Lancastrians into poverty and created a humanitarian crisis in Britain. The War between the States was never just that and Forman’s focus emphasizes its global reach.
  
  Both sides sought legitimacy and aid from Britain and France whose governments maintained a rigorous neutrality, even while their economies suffered from trade embargoes. Confederate and Federal agents lobbied politicians, ran propaganda campaigns, and, in the case of the Confederates, sought to acquire a navy out of Britain’s shipyards. Ultimately, the Confederate agents were mystified by their failure to make allies of Britain’s unemployed mill workers. The Southern elite couldn’t seem to get their minds around one simple fact that Confederate General Cleburne acknowledged far too late for remedy: “England has paid hundreds of millions to emancipate her West India slaves and break up the slave trade. Could she now consistently spend her treasure to reinstate slavery in this country?”
  
  Kudos to Amanda Foreman and her editors for maintaining great control over mountain of disparate sources and turning it into a great read.
  
• 
  Martin

  This book is too long by half. 400 pages would've been more than adequate for the author to present her evidence of Britain's supposed 'crucial' role in the American Civil War; the diplomatic shenanigans, spies, plots, and whatnots get redundant and tiresome after a while. Intermixed with the relevant and interesting segments of History, we get side stories about people we've never heard (and therefore couldn't care less) about. These are what - at times - made this book somewhat of a chore to read.
  
  I've read a few books on the American Civil War, so there was the inevitable information overlap with these other books, but I did learn quite a few interesting things, such as the fact that Lincoln's assassination was only one of three planned 'simultaneous' assassinations: Vice-president Andrew Johnson was to have been killed by one George Atzerodt (who lost his nerve and retreated to a hotel bar); and Secretary of State William Seward to be killed by one Lewis Powell. Long story short: Seward was greatly injured (as he was struggling to defend himself) by Powell hacking at his head and neck with a bowie knife. Seward lived, though his throat had been slashed several times and his right cheek nearly sliced off. Two sons of Seward also faced the attacks of Powell: Frederick ended up in a coma, his skull broken in two places; and Augustus suffered two stab wounds to the head and one to his hand. Kind of dark and gloomy, yes, but very interesting.
  
  So, in the end, this book's rating would've been higher if the book had been more streamlined and had left out all the 'bonus' information. Here's a thought: Keep the interesting bits together, say for about 400 pages, and then put the other tedious bits together in a separate section (like 'notes' or 'appendix'). As it stands, the book will appeal mostly to die-hard anglophiles and history buffs.
• 
  Jonathan

  This is simply one of the best books ever written on the diplomatic complications between the USA and Great Britain that were caused or exacerbated by the Civil War. The smart money, at the beginning of the war, seemed to be on the Brits supporting the Confederacy, not least because the UK's enormous textile industry was dependent on the South for its cotton. However, it should be pointed out that, in spite of support in some sectors, it was politically impossible for Palmerston's Liberals to help the rebellion because of the Confederacy's widespread use of chattel slavery, give or take a commerce raider or two. So, while USA/UK relations were occasionally rocky, the efforts by statesmen and diplomats in both London and Washington kept those relations on an even keel. The role of Lord Lyons, Britain's unassuming but hard-working minister in America, was especially fruitful in this regard. It should be said that one of the book's strong points is the author's extensive use of correspondence between the various American and British characters. And the cast is vast: diplomats, journalists, soldiers, dozens of bored Englishmen who relieved their situations by coming to America and volunteering to fight on either side (many others were unjustly swept up in the drafts imposed by the Union and Confederate governments), politicians from both sides of the pond with their own agendas, the list goes on and on. I was glad to see that Foreman treated American Sec'y of State William Steward with the mixed reviews that he deserves: he was certainly not a master of diplomacy and constantly played to the gallery rather than work to soothe the difficult and even dangerous situations the two countries found themselves in over the war and Britain's complicated position of neutrality. A must for any Civil War fan.
• 
  Clay Davis

  One of the best researched books about the Civil War in recent years. The author did mention the pillaging of the Union soldier more often then what the Confederates did.
• 
  Caroline

  I've read innumerable books on the American Civil War, but this one is really quite unique - the American Civil War from the British perspective. There were thousands of British volunteers on both sides of the War - Northern and Southern - and their stories are quite fascinating.
  
  But this book is more than just the story of the soldiers. It focuses very heavily on the British government's reaction to the war, the desperate maneuverings to remain neutral, a decision which pleased neither the North nor the South - despite Britain supplying both sides with men and matériel, through varying legal and less-than-legal means. The South was convinced that recognition by Britain would establish them as a nation in the eyes of the international community and would end the war; the North was convinced that Britain was doing everything it could to support the South bar recognition, which would almost certainly lead to the North declaring war on Britain.
  
  The public opinion was equally divided. Despite the majority of the country supporting the North, even the hardest-hit regions such as Lancashire that depended so desperately on Southern cotton, there was an incredibly vocal minority that supported the South. Perhaps if the South had not clung so doggedly to slavery it might have attracted even more support - many people sympathised with its revolutionary claims and struggle for independence but could not in all conscience support a nation built on slavery.
  
  This is an exceptional book, from a much-neglected viewpoint. I'm almost surprised this angle has never been explored in this kind of detail before - one would have thought the historic close links between America and Britain alone would have warranted it. It's a long and complicated book, but oh so worth it.
• 
  Jaylia3

  This long book about the British impact on the American Civil War follows the lives, motivations and impacts of so many people there is a thirteen page cast of characters, but I was mesmerized. In the preface Amanda Foreman writes that she treats all of the significant and many of the more minor individuals in A World on Fire as if she was writing their biographies, not just compiling a general history. Her attention to those details of both her American and British subjects brings their personalities and the Anglo-American world they lived in to life on the page. Seeing the Civil War from the shifting British point of view provided an absorbing look at how public opinion can evolve, and I learned much more about the course of the Civil War and the constraints political players on both sides of the Atlantic were under than I expected.
  
  When I read A World on Fire I alternated between the ebook version I borrowed from my library, and the hardbound copy I bought once I realized it was a book I would want to continue to reference. The hardbound copy is large and heavy so the ebook alternative is much easier to hold, but the book is filled with many illustrations, maps and photographs which don't display well on small ereader screens; they might work better on a tablet. Having both copies for reading was ideal, but I'm glad the one I purchased is the more accessible ink on paper version.
  
• 
  Christopher Saunders

  Sprawling account of the US Civil War through British eyes. Foreman presents a wealth of engaging detail, from battles and events to various personalities. The book succeeds best depicting the era's diplomatic machinations, with both North and South rather clumsily trying to win over Britain. She shows British statesmen thoroughly ambivalent: distrustful of American republicanism, respecting the South's chivalry while loathing slavery, the strangling impact of the Union blockade on cotton imports. She recounts the era's many Anglo-American flashpoints with verve: the Trent affair, construction of Confederate commerce raiders in England and use of Canada as a base for Rebel terror plots. Her depictions of familiar battles and military campaigns are less effective and often error-riddled (claiming that Hood's final defeat came at Franklin rather than Nashville, say). Worth reading though for its unique perspective.
• 
  Colleen Browne

  I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book but could not award it 5 stars because there were a few inaccuracies and because at times, I detected a bit of the British superior attitude toward Americans in play by the author. That said, Foreman did a fine job of researching an aspect of the American Civil War that is not well understood. Her writing style engages the reader and the biographical notes are interesting and appropriate to the book. I learned a great deal from the book and at the end of the day, isn't that the measure of a truly good book?
• 
  Jim

  I give it 3 stars just for the author's efforts but i found it too much of an effort to finish the 800-page book. It contains a tremendous amount of details, most of which i found tedious and of little value to the story. I guess a person serious about the subject of the Civil War might think it interesting but it was way too much for me, a novice on the subject.
  
  And in my opinion, "Britain's Crucial Role" in the war (the subtitle of the book) is basically insignifcant in the book.
• 
  Brad Hodges

  I've read many books on the Civil War, but I haven't read one like Amanda Foreman's A World on Fire before, because it is the story of the American Civil War through the prism of the British. Foreman, in telling a big story, has written a big book that entails the entire spectrum of the war as it relates to Britain--from the Prime Minister to ambassadors in Washington and London to the Confederate attempts to acquire British recognition and aide to the British citizens who fought on either side of the war.
  
  Some of the details of Foreman's book, particularly the information about battles, may seem overly familiar to Civil War buffs. Certainly some of it was to me, but I chose to approach it from what must have been Foreman's target audience: the British themselves. Just as Americans don't know British history beyond Henry VIII having six wives and King George going mad, so too might the average British reader know the name Gettysburg, but not what it meant, or who exactly Stonewall Jackson or William Sherman were, and what they did.
  
  But the richest part of Foreman's work is her telling the story of what went on between the two (or three) nations. The United Kingdom was put in a tough spot from the get-go, and the public split in its sympathies. Many favored the North because of the slavery issue. Books like Uncle Tom's Cabin had fueled the British hatred of slavery: "In 1852, its first year of publication, the book sold a million copies in Britain--compered to 300,000 in the United States." British actress Fanny Kemble, who lived for a time on a Georgia plantation, also wrote a memoir detailing the cruelties of slavery. But, as Foreman writes, "Northern supporters were not allowed to claim that the war was to end slavery, and Southern supporters naturally could not say, as John Stuart Mill had so trenchantly put it in an essay published shortly before the debate, that the South was fighting for the right 'of burning human creatures alive.'"
  
  The sympathizers for the South in Britain seemed to be so for one of two reasons. The more noble was rooting for the underdog, for a nation yearning to break free. But this seems to be overwhelmed by the economic reason: cotton. Foreman quotes a Senator Wigfall of Texas declaiming, "'Cotton is King...He waves his sceptre not only over these thirty-three states, but over the island of Great Britain.' Queen Victoria herself, Wigfall roared, must 'bend the knee in fealty and acknowledge allegiance to that monarch.' The South could turn off the supply of cotton and cripple England in a single week."
  
  But Britain would never take an official stance on the war. It never recognized the Confederacy, no matter the pleading of various envoys. I was surprised to learn that at the end of the war Jefferson Davis promised to abolish slavery if the British recognized the South. Davis had longed for this: "Recognition, in legal terms, meant granting the South the status of a sovereign country. The North would not only then suffer a psychological blow but might also find itself facing a united Europe that was prepared to protect the supply of cotton at the point of a gun."
  
  The North was not pleased with some things that went on in Britain, though. Ships were built that managed to fall into Confederate hands, none so important as the CSS Alabama, captained by the able Raphael Semmes, which wielded much mayhem against Union merchant ships around the world before finally being sunk in a fierce battle in the English channel. The Union claimed that the British looked the other way in allowing the Alabama to sneak out of a British port and be turned over to Confederate hands in neutral waters. In fact, there was still bickering and legal wranglings years after the war ended determining the damages the British owed the U.S. for the havoc the Alabama did.
  
  The U.S. and Britain were also constantly flirting with war. Secretary of State William Seward was obstreperous in the beginning, making constant noise about invading Canada (it was only when Canada proclaimed itself a dominion in 1867 that most of this talk ended, but even then many held a dream that the U.S. would one day encompass all of North America).
  
  Then there was the Trent Affair. Two Confederate envoys to England were seized when a U.S. ship stopped a British mail ship. The British cried foul, and tensions mounted until the U.S. finally released them. I find it interesting that the common story about what Abraham Lincoln said about this: "One war a time," he was said to have joked, insisting that the envoys be released, is not in Foreman's book. In fact, she makes it sound as if Lincoln was reluctant to let them go.
  
  In addition to Seward and Lincoln, other dignitaries make prominent characters in Foreman's book. The British legation to Washington was led by Lord Lyons, a man whose patience slowly drained over the course of the war, to such an extent that he finally left shortly before the war ended. He had to deal with British citizens being conscripted into both sides of the struggle, and also had to deal with Seward. Though, Foreman relates that "Lyons' regard for Seward...had matured from barely concealed contempt to admiration. After an acrimonious beginning, each had learned and benefited from their forced collaboration. The politician had become a true statesman, the diplomat a true ambassador."
  
  In London, Charles Francis Adams, son and grandson of presidents, was the American ambassador. Foreman notes that he was not much for small talk, an odd disability for a diplomat, "he is usually praised on the unfounded assertion that he prevented Britain from supporting the South, whereas his real triumph--when he transcended his own limitations and acted with visionary patriotism--was his brave decision to intervene at the Alabama tribunal in June 1872." His assistant, Benjamin Moran, provides vibrant copy with entries from his diary, where he notes triumphs and disappointments throughout the war with vehemence.
  
  Foreman also discusses the British press. The most famous war correspondent in the world, William Howard Russell, was ousted from his post after writing even-handed articles. The Times was pro-Southern, and ended up using Francis Lawley, who doctored his accounts to make the South sound stronger. Frank Vizetelly was also sympathetic to the Southern cause, but drew magnificent renderings of the scenes of war, many of which are reprinted in the book. Foreman includes an amusing anecdote about a member of Lincoln's cabinet: "The secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, was an avid reader of the English press, particularly those journals that were sympathetic to the South. Stanton would shut his office door, settle down on the sofa, and spend the afternoon discovering from Britain's finest journalists why the North deserved no pity and why he, especially, was the worst sort of bungler. According to one his clerks, it was almost a form of relaxation for him."
  
  Foreman's most sympathetic writing is for the lowly British fighting men who were involved in the conflict. One fellow, Sam Hill, gets drafted against his wishes, and his sister, Mary Sophia Hill, begins a long and terrifying odyssey trying to get him out, and then ends up suing the government after she is deported. Henry Morton Stanley, whom Foreman labels a "serial deserter," has a number of posts in the Union Army, while Robert Livingstone will fight and die for the South. Of course, Stanley would later become world famous for finding Livingstone's father, David, in the African jungle. Foreman also doesn't spare her opinion of some of the sad sacks of the fight: "Twenty-year-old Alfred Rubery was one of life's nincompoops."
  
  I even learned some things about the American side of things I never knew before. For example, Foreman notes that Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois threatened to lead a second secession from the United States, which would make its own peace with the South. Also, we learn that Seward approached the Italian hero Garibaldi to lead the U.S. Army, but Garibaldi made ending slavery a condition of his employ.
  
  The richest stew to savor in Foreman's book is the complicated relationship between the U.S. and England, which still wasn't solid. "'Why,' wrote a nineteenth-century American journalist, 'does America hate England?' He answered: 'Americans believe that England dreads their growing power, and is envious of their prosperity. They detest and hate England accordingly. They have 'licked' her twice and can 'lick' her again."
  
  But Ulysses S. Grant, writing his memoirs at the end of his life, comes to a realization. When he became president, he was cool toward England, but then wrote, "England's course towards the United States during the rebellion exasperated the people of this country very much against the mother country. I regretted it. England and the United States are natural allies, and should be the best of friends. They speak one language, and are related by blood and other ties. We together, or even either separately, are better qualified than any other people to establish commerce between all the nationalities of the world."
• 
  Tom Schulte

  This is a fascinating, detailed international view of the American Civil War. There is as much about Liverpudlian plots, blockade running, and Secretary of Seward's
  complex diplomacy to stave off British involvement. Indeed, the view suggests both sides were in denial of the role of slavery in secession. The North didn't want to leap to emancipation and the South did not want to overtly move against its "peculiar institution". Britain, who for years had boarded American vessels in search of inhumane cargo, could have aligned behind a side taking such a stand as it did with the passage of the
  Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, had the South disavowed slavery when Robert E. Lee dominated the battlefield, Britain could have been involved and thus it appears the secessionists lost their independence by clinging to the right to own human beings while claiming that was not the point.
  
  Of course Britain did not send troops even as American resurrected its century old desire to annex Canada. Even the post-conflict consideration of the
  CSS Alabama was able to be settled as an important development in international law. Imagine if the states could have settled their differences in a court of law?
• 
  Andrew

  This book has a lot of good stuff, but is just a bit too long and dense for my taste. Very detailed and interesting information about diplomatic relations between Britain and America during the latter's Civil War. I got about a third of the way through when I realized it just wasn't up my alley. Well-written though!
• 
  Ietrio

  Every time the small mind discovers something, that something is "crucial", "essential", and other superlatives. A complex situation reduced to one aspect. The mark of a shallow understanding of the subject.
• 
  Walter

  This book is excellent! And exhausting (because it's so exhaustive)!
  
  Author Amanda Foreman has truly created a masterpiece, a(n exhaustively) comprehensive treatment of the role of Britain and its citizens in the American Civil War. In a word, it's fantastic! And in a second word, it's overwhelming. I have rarely felt so dualistic about my experience of a book: I am at once absolutely amazed at the incredible historical treatment of what is clearly an underappreciated subject ... and I am absolutely exhausted from and by the author's thoroughness and commitment to (seemingly every) detail.
  
  Simply put, this is a great because it's so comprehensive and it's a hard book to read because it's so comprehensive. Not that I didn't enjoy it - I most certainly did and feel so informed and elevated by the experience. But I am equally tired: I can't remember the last time that a book has been this good and yet this exhausting. At times, it felt like the author was doing too good a job elucidating the details of this multi-faceted subject because even though I thoroughly enjoyed reading it - it was a true page-turner if one can apply that term to a book whose prose alone exceeds 800 pages - because I was also "plum tuckered out" in doing so. I'm not convinced that some percentage less detail - 10%? 20%? 30%? Etc. - wouldn't have been almost (if not more) effective in conveying an incredible picture of the world of that era and how the relations between England and America were affected by our national internecine struggle.
  
  So, perhaps, the reason that this book's not perfect is that it's so(/too) detailed/authoritatively/exhaustively researched and relayed ... but it's just so very, very, very good! The wealth of information and perspectives shared here is almost inconceivable: we are treated to views of the war from myriad leaders and rank-and-file members of the warring Union and Confederacy - and the British citizens who fought on both sides of this conflict - as well as from the political and social elite of England and its populace (who were far more involved in the American intramural struggle than seems to be appreciated now). And we learn not only about the progress of the war but also about the incredible backstory especially as this relates to the international relations and diplomacy of the time. Even the avid student of history may not know or remember that Canada was not yet a nation (but a British possession) during the Civil War, so it served as a flashpoint for minor and potentially major conflicts throughout the war. And who among us now fully appreciates that at several junctures, due largely to the idiosyncratic approach of William Seward, the U.S. Secretary of State, the Union was almost at war with England in addition to the Confederacy? And who among us fully appreciates the communications challenges of that time and how these affected both the experience and the conduct of the War? (Suffice it to say that in our own instantaneous, internet-connected world, it's hard to imagine that on the most urgent of issues of the day nation-states communicated via letters/diplomatic dispatches that often took weeks to deliver and months to complete a communication cycle and that the popular perceptions of the conflict were influenced greatly [if not shaped entirely] by journalistic coverage that often overtly advertised its bias?) [Just for giggles: in reading about the almost universally slanted press coverage of the time, especially in England, I am reminded that "the liberal media" and Fox News are not such recent developments after all....]
  
  I could go on, but won't. Let me sum this up by saying that this is a masterpiece of history from myriad perspectives (i.e., national. military, social, etc.). I recommend it highly to anyone interested in history generally, American and/or British history specifically, military history, social(/anthropological) history and to those who just like to read non-fiction that seems more incredible than the best fiction as real life so often is ... with one caveat: this book requires a significant commitment given its volume and heft. Luckily, it's so well-written that it's a page-turner, so said commitment will feel more like the gift that it is than a burden....
  
  
• 
  Jeremy

  This book focused, sometimes painfully so, on Great Britain’s role in the American Civil War. It jumped chronologically between British subjects in North America who spent the war as soldiers, journalists, diplomats, and observers/tourists on both sides of the conflict and their struggles or triumphs. There were parts that gave detailed and vivid accounts of battles, living conditions, and American culture that were brilliant at times, but also long dry passages explaining certain diplomats angst for not being invited to all the grandest social events in Washington or Richmond that didn’t contribute much to the narrative. Overall though, this is an interesting read that expands one’s knowledge and understanding of the war.
  
  One can certainly be amazed by how many times Britain and France nearly recognized the rebel government, only to back away after they couldn’t secure that one grand victory that would truly convince Europe that the war’s outcome would be anything else but a complete Federal victory. Britain and France didn’t nearly recognize the rebels because they supported their cause, in fact both countries were vehemently opposed to slavery, but only debated recognition of the breakaway states as a way to keep the U.S. from interfering in their interests on the continent. Britain was growing ever and ever more worried about a U.S. invasion and annexation of Canada, and France wanted to deflect attention as it attempted to conquer and colonize Mexico. However, recognition for the rebels was never really a possibility until they promised to abolish slavery, which they did not realize until the desperate closing months of the war. Nonetheless, the rebels tried vigorously to convince them that recognition was the lesser of two evils.
  
  Britain certainly had more to lose from a prolonged American civil war than France. The southern states supplied Britain with nearly all of its cotton for its large textile industry and while the Union blockade of southern ports was only 50% effective at best, the British economy still felt the shock from it. However, it was still not enough to push parliament to recognize the rebel cause and risk another war with the United States. The other main worry that Britain has was that they would lose their vast colony of Canada to the United States. The rebels made it no secret that they would plan to terrorize the north by launching raids on towns and freeing large rebel forces from Federal prison camps around the Great Lakes. Because of this, the U.S. thought that launching a preemptive invasion of Canada was in their best interest because it would take months or years even for the British to send a substantial enough force across the Atlantic. At the very worst, the U.S. would lose its southern states, but gain a much larger swath of territory north. This caused British diplomats at home and abroad to carefully play politics to prevent this from happening. In all honesty, the British probably should have recognized the rebels in the early years of the war, because by 1865 the United States had the largest and most modern armed forces in the world with a force of over 1 million men in the army alone and was thinking of invading Canada anyways after reuniting the country. The horrors of the war though made the American public and eventually the American government so sick of conflict that this plan didn’t last much past Appomattox.
  
  While reading this book, one can’t help but imagine how different the world would be today had any of these other possible scenarios presented in this book happened. It truly makes the reader realize how critical this conflict was not just to the United States, but the entire world as we
• 
  Anthony

  May 11, 2015
  
  A review by Anthony T. Riggio (Tony) of the book A World On Fire (Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War) by Amanda Foreman
  
  I purchased this book in the Kindle format from Amazon in July 2014 for $1.99 and saved it for future reading. As I started reading the book, I knew instantly that this was a book I would want in hardbound edition in my library and through an on line used book store, I bought it in hardbound. I continued to read the book on my Kindle as the hardbound edition was too heavy to hold at almost a thousand pages how spoiled we have become with the digital age.
  
  This book is an absolute gem of a work and something as a student of history and this period, never considered the effects the American Civil War had on Great Britain and also the rest of Europe. The Author, Amanda Foreman I had never heard of but her work and research are indicative of an accomplished historian. The characters on the American side were well known to me but the British players in the dramas played out during the war were not as well known to me and the author laid out a compelling and exciting read.
  
  While most students of the Civil War probably knew that the war impacted on England beyond the Trent affair. I guess I knew this but never dwelt on it. The North’s blockade impacted on England’s textile industry as Cotton was a needed raw material. In fact, the blockade resulted in over 400,000 workers being laid off which affected the economy of England. The lack of tobacco impacted on France and other European countries as well.
  
  I never realized that London became a chess board for both Northern and Southern diplomats and spies. Power brokers on both sides lobbied Parliament for its attitude on recognition of the Confederate States of America (CSA) as a nation. Recognition would have given legitimacy to the CSA and impeded the goal to reunite the country. The issue of slavery was an anathema to the people of England but economic issues allowed English capitalists to view it in a more subjective light and in some cases they ran the US blockade to help the South and their own pockets.
  
  While the Trent affair may have sensitized politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, Secretary of State Seward threatened an invasion of Canada. While this threat was handled adroitly, by the members of Parliament, and mainly the efforts of the ambassador to England, Charles Henry Adams, a son and grandson of two former Presidents, we almost had a World War.
  
  One of the surprising things I learned was how many Brits volunteered to fight for both sides, notwithstanding a British prohibition against its citizens becoming involved. England viewed this as a possible violation of its neutrality. Many Brits were able to identify with the Southern society because it resembled England’s sense of Aristocracy, notwithstanding their strong feelings against slavery. They were more easily identified with the Southern sense of aristocracy as opposed to the heterogeneous population mixtures and industrialized capacity of the North.
  
  There was so much historical references that impacted on the world such as Napoleon III’s invasion of Mexico right in the middle of the Civil War in direct contradiction to the firmly established Monroe doctrine. The United States was too preoccupied with its own goals of unification and slavery to object too loudly. Imagine, if the United States had declared war on either France or England the outcomes? We would be a completely different country.
  
  I have to say, I loved reading this book and highly recommend it to any enthusiast of the American Civil War. I gave this book five stars out of five.
  
• 
  Anson Cassel Mills

  Foreman calls this book “a biography of a relationship, or more accurately, of the many relationships that together formed the British-American experience during the Civil War.” Whatever a “biography of a relationship” might be, there are certainly many biographical sketches in this 800+page volume. The author first intended to write a history of British volunteers in the Civil War, then expanded her vision to include the diplomatic history of the two (or three) countries. The latter story is the most cohesive and, ultimately, the most satisfactorily told, though I did enjoy reading the whole book and learning from it.
  
  One important take-away for me was the significance of Canada (a not-yet-united group of provinces) both in the thinking of the Her Majesty’s government and in the minds of some influential Americans. The British government feared the Yankees might take Canada, while some Yankees anticipated that Manifest Destiny would indeed include lands to the north as well as to the west. Another surprise to me was how many Englishmen were able to convince themselves that the South held a moral advantage over the North and that support for Confederate independence would aid emancipation of the slaves.
  
  On the biographical front, I gained new appreciation for Richard Bickerton Pernell Lyons, Lord Lyons (1817-87), the British minister in Washington, who if not heroic, at least was a dedicated servant of his country, a man of slight stature and modest gifts who genuinely sought the best for both England and the United States. Contrariwise, U.S. Secretary of War William Seward (1801-72) comes across—especially in the early chapters—as a thoughtless and unscrupulous politician who, with his diplomatic bomb throwing and an absence of level heads elsewhere, might have succeeded in bringing the United States and England to war. The reputation of Charles Francis Adams (1807-86) also suffers in Foreman’s telling because Adams, though “dutiful, honest, and hardworking,” was overly antagonistic to the British government and had a personality ill-suited to diplomacy.
  
  Foreman’s multiple biographies of Englishmen fighting for the North and the South are less compelling than her diplomatic history, in part because to tell all their stories, she has to effectively refight the whole Civil War. (At least the battle maps are good and plentiful.) Unfortunately this attempt at prosopography doesn’t tell us much about how British volunteers came to fight for either North or South (or in a few cases, both).
  
  Finally, a word about the title. I don’t like it. The compromises made by leaders in Washington and London kept the American Civil War from becoming a world war. So, this is not a story about A World on Fire but of a potential international conflagration successfully smothered.
  
• 
  Raj

  It usually takes me ages to read non-fiction books, but I raced through this one, and given that it's over 800 pages, that's not to be sniffed at. It's very well-written, and keeps you turning the page, with a well-structured narrative, and lots of interesting characters. Despite its prevalence in popular culture, the American civil war is not one that I know very much about. This book has its particular angle, regarding the British links and reasons for British neutrality, but it also does a good job in covering the major reasons for and battles of the war.
  
  I did find myself struggling a bit towards the end, as the number of people increased. Keeping track of who was who and which side they were fighting on was much harder by then, but made easier thanks to a very comprehensive index.
  
  The book covered the political and diplomatic aspects of the British involvement with the civil war quite well, with Lords Lyons (the British "Minister" to the American Legation [not embassy]), Russell (the foreign secretary) and Palmerston (the prime minister) on the British side and William Seward (the American Secretary of State) and Charles Francis Adams (Lyons' counterpart in London) on the American. It also covers individual stories well, following Britons who joined both sides of the war through their letters and other historical documents.
  
  What I think it does less well is talk about the reasons that the average Briton joined or supported the different factions of the war. I was surprised by just how popular that the Southern cause was in Britain (Liverpool, in particular seems to have been a hotbed of sympathy for the South), given the general disgust with slavery, and I would have liked to have seen more on that.
  
  Something else that I never really appreciated with the depth of enmity of America (both sides) to Britain in this period. It seems Seward in particular was happy to whip up the public against foreigners (particularly Britain) to bolster his political standing (plus ça change, eh?). This leads me to view the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the US with more than usual cynicism.
  
  This is a very readable, in-depth history of the American civil war, from the very particular perspective of the British links, but it's a page-turner, and with nearly 200 pages of endnotes if you want to go into more depth. A good overview of the war.
• 
  Rodney Harvill

  A history buff who grew up in the South, I remember going to various Civil War battlefields and being completely fascinated by the monuments and cannon scattered around these sites. Because of these experiences, I have read a number of books about the Civil War but have generally focused on the important land battles. Dr. Foreman’s book has exposed and provided a corrective to a significant hole in my Civil War knowledge base, the role of Britain and other European powers in the war along with their conflicting motivations. While these nations officially remained neutral, they cast a shadow over the conflict with state actions and decisions as well as the involvement of their people in the war as private citizens.
  
  Even before the Civil War, the relationship of the British Empire with the United States was exceedingly complex, primarily due to the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Some bad blood still remained, and the U.S. still harbored an ambition to absorb Canada as part of its Manifest Destiny, ignoring the refusal of Canadians to cooperate with them in the War of 1812. In the eyes of the British, the War of 1812 had been an unnecessary war whose final battle was unnecessary. The primary cassus belli had been the impressment by the Royal Navy of American citizens, but Parliament had voted to end the practice three days before the U.S. declared war. The final battle, a major British defeat at New Orleans, after the signing of the war-ending Treaty of Ghent. In both cases, the time required for the news to cross the Atlantic had been a factor. In the eyes of the Americans, they had won the war by whooping the British at New Orleans, ignoring their numerous defeats along the Great Lakes and in Canada and the fact that the Royal Navy, after improving its ship-board weaponry and changing tactics to leverage its superior numbers, had bottled up the U.S. Navy in port. This faulty conclusion gave Americans an unjustified sense of superiority relative to the mother country, an attitude that manifested itself in a suspicion that Britain was shaping its foreign policy with the goal of keeping America down. As a result, American politicians couldn’t be overtly friendly to the British. Interestingly enough, they would treat British diplomats with respect and politeness in private while railing against them in public to avoid appearing pro-British to their voters. A politician acting one way in private and another in public! This is my shocked face!
  
  With the outbreak of war, the relationship between Britain and America was further complicated and strained:
  
  • The British textile industry was dependent on cotton imported from the southern states, and the Confederacy attempted to use this dependency as leverage to force Britain, as well as France, to recognize its independence from the Union and intervene in the war. British refusal to do this throughout the war caused a deep feeling of resentment in the South.
  • The British declaration of neutrality awarded belligerency status to the Confederacy, which was perceived by the Union as granting it some legitimacy and resented.
  • In spite of legislation prohibiting the involvement of British subjects in the war, various business profited from the war by smuggling war supplies to the Confederacy through the Union blockade and by building ships that would be as blockade runners and commerce raiders, exploiting loopholes in the law to build war-like ships with gun ports and reinforced decks, just no guns. The Confederate Navy would then add the armaments in international waters. Although most of the officers on the commerce raiders were southerners, the majority of the crews consisted of British subjects recruited in British ports. This was a major source of tension between the U.S. and Britain both during and after the war.
  • Many British expats living the northern and southern states were conscripted into the Union and Confederate armies. Some were victims of the practice of crimping, in which unscrupulous men would kidnap and rob British subjects in northern cities and enlist them into the army, pocketing part of the bounty. This resulted in numerous complaints to the British legation by the victims of the practice in an effort to be released from service.
  • In an attempt to address manpower shortages, the Union engaged in a recruiting effort in Ireland to encourage Irish men to emigrate and join the Union army.
  • Many men with military experience in the British army and/or other European armies came to America to fight for both the Union and the Confederacy. This was a not uncommon practice to develop and hone martial skills.
  • The Confederacy used Canada as a base for espionage, sabotage and raiding operations against the North. Because Canadians resented the American lust for Canada, most were pro-Confederacy, and their officials had to walk a tightrope. They had to avoid giving the appearance of pandering to American interests while simultaneously doing enough to suppress the Confederate agents to avoid provoking the Union.
  • As a result of the Union blockade of southern ports, Britain experienced a “cotton famine” that idled much of its textile industry and put tens of thousands of textile workers out of work and impoverishing them, placing pressure on Parliament to intervene in the war and restore the cotton supply.
  • One obstacle to British recognition of the Confederacy was slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was initially seen as a cynical attempt to forestall British support for the South, but growing northern opposition to slavery helped to keep the British on the sidelines. Towards the end of the war, the Confederate government, in a desperate attempt to grab victory from the jaws of defeat, offered to abolish slavery in exchange for British assistance.
  
  As a result of these issues and others I am forgetting, the relationship between Britain and the U.S. was often strained, and on several occasions the two countries were dangerously close to war. Fortunately, skillful diplomacy and the serendipitous cool head prevailed in these instances.
  Dr. Foreman brought these issues to life by presenting a survey of the Civil War with a focus on certain key individuals such as the American legate in London, Charles Francis Adams, and the British legate in Washington D.C., Richard Lyons. She also followed various British subjects who participated in the war as soldiers, journalists, doctors, nurses, etc. She had to walk a fine line, providing enough detail to bring the characters to life while keeping the historical survey at a high level. This was both a strength and a weakness. It allowed her to do an exceptional job of fitting the disparate campaigns, battles and skirmishes into the overall big picture of the war. On the other hand, it produced an exceedingly long book. I listened to it as an audiobook, which was almost thirty-three hours in length, and was glad to be done with it. This length may be a negative for readers with short attention spans. Regardless, it is a well written book that is very informative.