Very good piece of fiction which is not a genre I usually read but this was really good. A Civil War novel, written when many of its readers still remembered the conflict, with often-overlooked perspectives regarding Abraham Lincoln and other figures of the era. Jan 14, Sean rated it it was ok. I really took my time on this one and it really just dragged out. I did find it interesting as a study of the mindset of Americans in the s and how the author, and likely many other Americans, viewed the Civil War at that time.
It is so clearly a pro-northern book, but at the same time does not ever really come across as anti-slavery. It romanticizes the Southern perspective and portrays almost all characters as honorable, never really unpacking slavery itself. With few exceptions, the women characters are weak and in my opinion, poorly written. I would recommend it as a glimpse into perspectives of the past, but apart from that aspect, I found it lacking.
Nov 09, Patrick Barry rated it really liked it. Indeed he did in I read it 96 years later. It takes place in ss Missouri with four principal characters: Jinny, a Southern Belle from a traditonal Southern family; her unprincipaled cousin who spouts "the cause" as a means to win Jinny's approval; Stephen, a lawyer with Boston roots whose for Abraham Lincoln's cause gives Jinny pause; and Eliphalet, an earnest clerk with social and monetary amb That Winston Churchill wrote a novel about events leading up to the American Civil War?
It takes place in ss Missouri with four principal characters: Jinny, a Southern Belle from a traditonal Southern family; her unprincipaled cousin who spouts "the cause" as a means to win Jinny's approval; Stephen, a lawyer with Boston roots whose for Abraham Lincoln's cause gives Jinny pause; and Eliphalet, an earnest clerk with social and monetary ambitions.
The story includes real life figures entwined in the lifes of the characters incuding Grant, Sherman and Lincoln. The story centers around the transformative power of suffering and the empathy it can bring. I enjoyed it and hope someday to read more from this man whose talents extended beyond the oratory to the pen. Jun 07, Rick rated it it was amazing Shelves: weekly-reader It took me ten years to get back to this book because it was misplaced in a flurry of many moves.
This writing is not accredited to Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill, which I actually discovered early in the reading, but that doesn't take away from the form and punch of the book whatsoever. Winston Churchill of St. Louis has crafted a realism and view of a maturing and learning Abraham Lincoln and events leading up to the Civil War unlike any I'd expected. The depiction of North vs South terri It took me ten years to get back to this book because it was misplaced in a flurry of many moves.
The depiction of North vs South territories, mindsets, and portrayals of Ulysses S. Grant as well as Lincoln's utmost 'Crisis" is prescient even with a publication. Jun 29, Jeff Mayo rated it liked it. There are a couple of things you have to be able to do in order to read historical fiction. The first thing is, you have to accept that these fictional characters are going to have chance encounters with a lot more real people than would be possible.
Once you get past that, you get a nice glimpse at what Missouri was like during the Civil War. There's a lot about Lincoln, which I liked, but most of this is pulp that isn't necessary. Dec 01, Susan C Lance rated it it was amazing. The Civil War. Fiction written in early 's. Vantage of contemporaries. People sat in their buggies watching the battles in the distance. Jun 24, Martha Samsell rated it it was amazing. Fictional but makes a point that Lincoln cared about the whole country.
Louis, because that was the site of pivotal events in the western theater of the Civil War, with historica The best book I've ever read about Abraham Lincoln, in the same sense that the novel "Ben Hur" is about Jesus Christ. Shelves: all-time-favorites. This is one of the best books I have read this year. I put the book in the bathroom so I would only read a chapter at a time once halfway through - it is one of those books I did not want to end too soon.
I love the style, vocabulary, plot, history, characters, and charm of the era when and where the story takes place as well as the author's talent when he writes The Crisis at the turn of twentieth century. The language of that time in this fictional history maintains the story's integrity and is This is one of the best books I have read this year. The language of that time in this fictional history maintains the story's integrity and is not intended to offend, at all.
Winston Churchill, himself, a native of St. Louis, incorporates the feelings, beliefs, and mores through the characters' interactions. These characters include both strong-willed, admirable men and women along with the self-important, deprived, and greedy. Louis, Missouri, and Illinois. Louis is a blend of Southerners and Northerners with the protagonist, a new arrival from Boston, and a flavor of immigrants from Germany. The community's distinguishing elders from both sides are congenial with one another but each have fervent opinions and loyalties when it comes to Union or Confederate.
A much reviled and loved character emerges from Illinois; one who sees both sides of the inevitable calamity, who decisively follows his heart in burdensome times evidenced by his love of God and country. This man is Abraham Lincoln. The story's palpable love interest piques the imagination with the reserved manner of the courting etiquette appropriate for these times. One woman, Virginia, a major character, is the desire of most men who lay eyes upon her but she dictates who is worthy.
Her emotional fluctuations poignantly intertwine with the theme of the book, thus, both sides, North and South, unfold in the telling of her suitors' escapades. The best of the human spirit, the noblest qualities of men and women under the duress of war fill the bulk of the plot. The story ends after the Civil War but the story's memory lingers. The Crisis is written in an elegance that captures moments seen through Churchill's vision for every reader's pleasure.
No, it's not that Winston Churchill, though that was my assumption when I read the book years ago. There's North and South romance, political games in Washington, and a huge cast of characters. It was filmed in , one year after D. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and rivaled it in popularity. It still exists , but is not readily available. I remember liking the book, though I don't recall any details. H No, it's not that Winston Churchill, though that was my assumption when I read the book years ago.
However, here's the synopsis of the film: In the South, just before the Civil War, Stephen Brice, a lawyer newly arrived from Boston, falls in love with Virginia Carvel, a staunch Southern Democrat. She rejects Stephen, however, because of his abolitionist sympathies, and becomes engaged to the dashing Clarence Colfax. After the war begins, Stephen is wounded while fighting for the Union and then becomes an aide to President Abraham Lincoln.
Virginia, meanwhile, becomes less and less interested in Clarence and finally breaks her engagement with him; but when he is captured by Union forces and condemned to death, she goes to Lincoln to plead for his life. Lincoln, wishing to show mercy to the defeated Southern forces, commutes Colfax's sentence. When Virginia then sees that Stephen is the president's aide, the two embrace and look to the future. Sep 06, Peter Pactor rated it it was amazing. The Crisis was the best selling book of , and deservedly so.
The story covers about fifteen years of American history from the repeal of the Missouri Compromise to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The story captured the tenor of the times of the times, representing well the passions and struggles of the common people preceding and during the Civil War; including the breaking up of families and old friendships.
Even though the writing style was that of the nineteenth century, the book is The Crisis was the best selling book of , and deservedly so. Even though the writing style was that of the nineteenth century, the book is exceedingly enjoyable and engaging for the modern reader.
There are some passages; particularly, those in which Lincoln was a character in the book, which were particularly well written. You could feel the passion the author had for the sixteenth president. This is a book well worth reading. I had a hard time putting the book down. Incidentally, this is not the same Winston S. Churchill who became the prime minister of England.
I had never heard of this author and am forever grateful for the reading challenge who introduced him to me. Just as I am grateful to this author for introducing me to this side of Abraham Lincoln. A look at a time in America's history when it's still fresh in the memory of the readers. To me that is where the wonder of this book lies - in how the author has shown the I had never heard of this author and am forever grateful for the reading challenge who introduced him to me.
To me that is where the wonder of this book lies - in how the author has shown the Civil War and portrayed it so well in a place so full of conflicting politics - and conflicting emotions. I wish I had more time to think this review through. Later maybe I will edit it. But I was well-pleased and looking forward to Mr. Churchill's other books.
Feb 17, Marla Olson rated it really liked it. I enjoyed this glimpse of history. Two of my favorite morals from it: "A miracle had changed Virginia. He poise, her gentleness, her dignity, were the effects people saw. Her force people felt. And this is why we cannot of ourselves add one cubit to our stature.
It is God who changes,--who cleanses us of our levity with the fire of trial. Happy, thrice happy, those whom He chasteneth. The other interesting element is seeing very clearly what Churchill learned in WWI that helped him lead Britain in I'd have probably given this book 4 stars, however Churchill first writes there is no need to delve into the Battle of Jutland.
This second point, while an inference, is also very clear. I was surprised Churchill got so close to the action.
I was surprised to learn that even when Churchill was "out" of the Cabinet, he was really still in. I'd always thought that Churchill was an organizational genius. The portion of the book describing how he organized business once he was put in charge of munitions makes it clear he was an organizational genius. Churchill never mentions the "little people. He is too quick to call a victory late war battles in which the losses were OK, you've captured some dirt, but when the losses in a month exceed ,, are you really winning?
The last chapter of the book, in which he describes his experience at the time of the signing of the armistice remains very compelling. His words, written in the 's are compelling in that he can see the danger in international relationships which became WWII. Great narrator! He sounds just like Churchill.
Ole Bak rated it really liked it Oct 10, Ronald Nation rated it it was amazing May 04, Tim rated it liked it May 25, Gayle Friedle rated it it was amazing Jan 02, Apr 01, Anne rated it it was amazing.
Incredible read! My interest in WWI began when I read one of the books I purchased for my homeschooled kids to read for 20th Century history. After reading that book all I could think about was "Why? I found the first volume of World Crisis available for free on Incredible read! I found the first volume of World Crisis available for free on Prime and began reading. The more I read the more I developed an understanding of the rulers of countries and military minds of that time and how they perceived things.
And the society that was so intertwined between the countries involved by friendships and marriage made it all seem so incredible to me that this could ever happen. Before reading all three volumes I knew very little about Winston Churchill, but reading about the events in his own words has been a real treasure and along the way I developed a deep respect for his character and began to feel like I was getting to know him as a person. And how better to do that than by reading his own words!
Churchill leaves nothing out, he articulates his thoughts extremely well, and throughout supplies the reader with copies of documented correspondence and memorandums from himself as well as others.
If you can manage your way through the meticulous details you will come to know Churchill in a way that isn't covered in history books or autobiographies. You will discover Churchill through his thought processes and understand his motives. That is one thing I particularly liked.
These volumes unveiled for me many truths about WWI. That was what I was looking for when I first asked myself why, and I was not to be disappointed.
If your interest lies more toward detailed accounts of actual battles you won't find that in these volumes, but you will certainly come away with the knowledge of the strategic planning that went on by the allies and by the beligerant countries regarding many of the battle fought in the eastern and western fronts and at sea, as well as how they turned out.
I know there is so much more I need to know, and these volumes don't cover. Churchill is was a most gifted person and an excellent author.
Nikolay rated it it was amazing Jan 18, Arline Trew rated it it was amazing Jun 03, David Carroll rated it really liked it Aug 19, Jared rated it really liked it Nov 21, Alastair Stewart rated it it was amazing Dec 30, The basis of the European integration should be agreements between states and good faith in their relations. The common institutions should be just common 57 Winston Churchill and Robert Rhodes James, supra note Nevertheless, Churchill did not radically rejected the British involvement in the European integration process based on integration, as he declared at the European Assembly in July , where he addressed the intergovernmental- federal debate by suggesting that all possibilities be explored.
But our friends on the Continent need have no misgivings. Britain is an integral part of Europe, and we mean to play our part in the revival of her prosperity and greatness. Hence, negotiation was the solution. When the British government rejected the invitation to participate in the ECSC Churchill bitterly attacked the British government for isolating the country and not even presenting their ideas about Europe. His last year affected by sickness entailed some references to the European integration.
It would tend not to unite Europe but to divide it — and not only in the economic field. NATO is the third pillar of his idea about Europe, including defence. The meeting was presided over by Winston Churchill and brought representatives from different countries and different ideas about how to build a joint Europe.
The participants were politicians, intellectuals, and major representatives of the European culture who took three main positions towards European integration: the unionist, the federalist, and the supporters of Pan-Europe. The unionists were under the moral leadership of Winston Churchill and entailed mainly Anglo-Saxon and Nordic people who were keen supporters of European cooperation among states. According to their ideas, any European organization could work based just on agreements between governments.
The decision-making could still be in the hands of the member states, adding economic cooperation based on free trade agreements, not on a common market. The federalists supported a European federation similar to the United States of America. Their main leader in the Congress was Altiero Spinelli, an important figure in the further European Communities where he was Commissioner of the European Commission and afterwards an important leader of the European Parliament.
The third group, the supporters of pan-Europe, had a middle approach, between federalist and unionist, suggesting a Confederation of European states deeper than the cooperation of the unionists, but far from the federal idea of one European state.
The Council of Europe is an organization outside of the European Union and based on common general principles, as defence of human rights, democracy and cultural understanding.
It was created in by the Treaty of London, reassuring the prominent role of UK in its foundation, including ten members, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom; five out of the six original members of the European Communities took part in this European initiative. Currently it has 47 member states. The institutional framework of the Council of Europe was organized based on three main institutions, a Committee of Ministers, a Parliamentary Assembly and a Secretary General, very similar to the institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community.
When Eden resigned because of the Suez Crisis in , Macmillan succeeded him as Prime Minister and led the conversations for the new European organization, the EFTA, following the pattern already established by his mentor. The EFTA worked well economically, fostering trade between the members from 3. It was based on cooperation against the EEC model of integration, which eventually followed a model closer to cooperation through a the decision making based on unanimity, but was open to future integrationist reforms, as the Single European Act in , that really created the European market.
The proposal expressed the defensive essence of the new military association, the creation of a common leadership trough a European minister of defence under the supervision of the member states, democracy and freedom as principal common values, active collaboration with USA and Canada NATO and integration as a regional force in the United Nations.
A treaty was signed in but it never came into force, as the French National Assembly rejected the idea due fears about national sovereignty and the strong opposition of de Gaul and the French Communist.
Enlargement and Integration Pinter, Nevertheless Churchill argued against the development of the European integration without the involvement of UK, a consequence of the British lack of interest for integration models and the lack of flexibility of the European Communities to negotiate the British proposals and reach a compromise. In his speech to the House of Commons during the debate about the Schuman plan, Churchill affirmed that: The absence of Britain deranges the balance of Europe. I am all for a reconciliation between France and Germany, and for receiving Germany back into the European family, but this implies, as I have always insisted, that Britain and France should in the main act together so as to be able to deal on even terms with Germany, which is so much stronger than France alone.
Without Britain, the coal and steel pool in Western Europe must naturally tend to be dominated by Germany, who will be the most powerful member. This debate is currently important again, as Germany is taking the undisputable leadership of the European Union with a depressed France and a reluctant Cameron after an initial political French domination in the European Communities, followed by an equal tandem between Mitterrand and Kohl.
Churchill was an Europeanist beyond a doubt, as this research has demonstrated; however, his model of Europe differed from the current European Union. Currently there are two main sides in the European debate, to be for or against the EU; but there were other options in the early stages of the integration, and Churchill was the main advocate of a third way.
Hence, the use of Churchill by the Eurosceptics is made possible by a partial use of history, usually citing quotes from Churchill without contextualizing them and using them as absolute truths. Even those supporting a special British association with the European integration use Churchill for their political purposes when Churchill repeated in numerous occasion his will to commit the UK fully in the process. Just as in political circumstances such as the Cold War, the intention to keep influence over the former members of the British Empire and the federal approach made Churchill support a special relation of the UK to the European Communities.
Hence, it was a pragmatic approach rather than a dogmatic position. It is a clear attempt to include the UK through this iconic figure in the European building process based on integration. He was a supporter of Europe, but his ideas did not always fully match with the current European Union. The main arguments supported by David Cameron are also linked with the traditional British attitude towards the European Union defined by Winston Churchill or his close associates.
First of all, the current British Premier is trying to negotiate with his European colleagues a special relation of the UK inside the EU. Churchill always advocated for direct negotiations with the European partners. Even if the possibility of agreement was reduced, direct contacts build bridges and establish 78 Massimo Gibilaro, supra note 3—6.
On the other hand, Churchill advised against unilateral decisions because the voice of UK would be lost in the global perspective. David Cameron is following this approach; his possibilities to negotiate the British membership are reduced well beyond cosmetic reforms, but he is actively visiting his colleagues all over Europe to present his vision about the involvement of UK in the European affairs. Another common approach is related with the special and unique situation of the UK in Europe as a consequence of its insularity, imperial past, the special relation with USA, and the particularities of its society organization, in many cases far from the continental system.
This special treatment was proposed already by Churchill, but at that time the UK had alternative options that currently seem utopian. Historically, the British government has been a world leader pursuing free trade. Churchill was a main figure in the British debate between free trade and protectionism, and his ideas shaped the current British dominant vision related with free market, free trade area, and minimum regulation to the market forces.
His main complaint is about the interventionism of the European institutions in British affairs, pretending the predominance of the British Parliament over the decisions of Brussels and fewer obstacles to trade increasing the economic relations between the member states. Free trade and free economic relations between European states are a clear influence of Churchill on the current British position over the European affairs.
Addison, Paul. Aitken, Norman D. Alldritt, Keith. London: Hutchinson, Browne, Anthony Montague. Cassell, Bruyning, Lucas.
Cannadine, David. The Aristocratic Adventurer. Penguin, Carter, Violet Bonham. Winston Churchill: An Intimate Portrait. Charmley, John. Churchill, Winston S. Rosetta Books, Never Give In! Painting as a Pastime. Churchill, Winston, and Robert Rhodes James. Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, Chelsea House Publications, Churchill, Winston, ed.
Random House LLC, Churchill, Winston. In: Randolph S. Europe Unite— Speeches The Second World War. Houghton Mifflin,
0コメント