An Epic History of Two Nations Divided - A World on Fire

The author has great, accessible prose, and that is her primary strength (that and good publicist and production team behind her). So the book is engaging and easy for the average reader to take and interest.

The history side of it all is fuzzier. As other reviewers have stated, this is a standard civil war history with a little bit more of Britain thrown in. No serious Civil War historian or enthusiast is going to find much new here, let alone big revelations, as it relies heavily on synthesizing established scholarship.

Amanda Foreman's " World on Fire" twelve years in the making and over 900 pages long, is not for the faint-hearted. It is not "Gone with the Wind" or "War and Peace" as some reviewers have suggested. There are no page-turning romances and women are very minor characters. But for the hard-core history buff, "World on Fire" is in some ways better than these great classic novels. It's plot zigzags among 200 characters -- including farmers, soldiers, cartoonists, politicians and labor leaders. It is gritty, off-center, more alive and more disturbing than these broad ranging novels. Unsentimental and a take-no-prisoners, bracing writing style, "World on Fire" is a work of great richness and descriptive power, a complex treat for those with strong concentration powers who don't mind an often confusing and abruptly changing plot strewn with dozens and dozens of unknown characters.

Foreman's research is prodigious,forthright and robust. It includes eye-opening accounts of poorly planned advances by both Union and Confederate armies, equipment pieced together like childrens' toys, and as always in war stories, countless vignettes of scared, hard-charging soldiers who are ultimately blown apart because of bad officers and bad equipment.

The British part of this story has been, for the most part, untold and unmined. Britain's political elites make it their business to constantly upbraid Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William Henry Seward. Above all, despite loftier proclamations against slavery, they don't want their lucrative cotton business ruined with the South and its slave labor. Former Tory turned Liberal Party leader, William Gladstone's role is eyebrow-raising throughout, as is the bad public relations gambit of the Union army when a famous journalist is unceremoniously drummed out of covering the war by Northern interests, unhappy at his balanced, often provocative coverage. Foreman has commented that she was struck in the course of her research by the large number of Brits who sympathized with the Southern states.

This wonderful, rich history can't be beat in terms of sheer real-life drama, complex, vulnerable characters and a depressed, tortured Cabinet in Washington, D.C. trying to deal with a President who has just lost a son to typhoid fever and a thousand other heart-searing problems. "World on Fire" is certainly worth the hard work.

This is an amazing combination of scholarship, research and story-telling. It describes the political and diplomatic struggles and the struggles of individuals, North and South. It is on a par with McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom."

This book was extensively reviewed, generally so positively that only better reviewers could have produced better reviews. I was disappointed to discover that it is not, in fact, a history. The author early on says the principal British diplomat in the U.S. was so painfully shy he couldn't bring himself to tell his manservant he wanted a different breakfast. This went on for years, she writes, and endnotes it. However, that endnote observes the story "may well be apocryphal". Readers should not be required to rely on endnotes to determine textual credibility. Too, the book offers little real insight, but it is the frequent appearance of questionable observations presented as fact that had me flipping time after time to the endnotes. I no longer trusted the writer.

Interesting, compelling, hard to put down but you must take a break ... after all it is over 900 pages. I recommend this book for Civil War buffs as well as folks who enjoy a good book. However, you may need a score card there are over 190 characters, many of them you know already and others are a delight to learn about.

I really enjoyed this book.

My only criticism is that the writer is obviously British and writes for an audience that has a broad understanding of the history of British politics, institutions, goverment format and war history.

How many Americans can knowledgably discuss the Crimean War? Not me.

But it is refreshing to hear the Civil War story told from a different perspective, and to learn that the North and South were both so attuned to what Great Britain thought about the relative merits of the two sides.

It's hard for Americans, sometimes, to recall how totally dominant Britain was on the world stage throughout the 1800s.

I read it cover to cover in a few days. It almost qualifies as a Page Turner.

Glaring errors of fact and sloppy scholarship make me question whether Dr. Foreman is more interested in achieving sales than historical accuracy. For example, on p. 124 she writes: "[Gen. Scott] had originally offered the position [leading the union forces] to Colonel Robert E. Lee..." That is patently untrue. A quick glance at Lee's account of those fateful four days in April prove this to be wrong. On p. 24, in a footnote she notes that slavery was in the south and nowhere else, but that a bit of research would have shown slaves were held in NJ until 1865. In 1861, it was legal to own slaves in Delaware, and there were still slaves in most northern states. Also, why would Dr. Foreman refer to Lee's son only by his nickname? Does that reflect a personal bias or lack of knowledge?

My advice: don't waste your money.

Amanda Foreman’s "A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War" is “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, and Americans in Britain, during a defining moment not just in U.S. history but in the relations between the two countries” (pg. 806). While Foreman is not the first to explore this relationship (she attributes that to E.D. Adams in 1925), she does use sources from either side of the Atlantic to corroborate each others’ perspectives and puts diplomats at the forefront of her narrative.
Beginning with the pre-war era, Foreman writes, “For many Britons, the eradication of slavery around the globe was not simply an ideal but an inescapable moral duty, since no other country had the navy or the wealth to see it through” (pg. 24). Not only did the continuance of slavery in America make many Britons uneasy, but America’s designs on Canada and denunciation of England to rouse popular working-class sentiment further threatened Anglo-American relations. Foreman argues that the Union’s move to blockade ports early in the war opened up unforeseen issues, as legal definitions of a blockade implied formal war between two belligerents, which would enable the South to seek foreign aid and recognition (pg. 79-80). After much negotiation and a desire to avoid direct conflict with the United States, William Howard Russell argued that a direct conflict “would wrap the world in fire” (pg. 122). Britain passed the Foreign Enlistment Act, which “forbade a belligerent nation from outfitting or equipping warlike vessels in British waters, but there was nothing to prevent the construction of a ship with an unusual design,” like the future CSS Alabama (pg. 146). Despite this attempt at neutrality, Captain Charles Wilkes’ detaining of the British mail packet Trent in order to capture two Confederate commissioners threatened to worsen relations (pg. 172).
Prior to Antietam, Lee “understood as well as the Confederate government that Europe was waiting for a clear-cut victory,” though his loss at that battle and the subsequent Emancipation Proclamation weakened the South’s diplomatic power (pg. 296). Foreman writes, “There was no single reason why the British cabinet voted against intervening in the war. Economically, it did not make sense to interfere; militarily; it would have meant committing Britain to war with the North and once again risking Canada and possibly the Caribbean for uncertain gains; politically, there was no support from either party or sufficient encouragement from the other Great Powers apart from France; and practically, the decision to intervene would have required a majority consensus from a cabinet that had never agreed on the meaning or significance of the war” (pg. 329). Finally, Seward successfully warned Britain off with threats of the consequences should they enter the war.
While many Britons felt the Emancipation Proclamation weak and contradictory, “The news that the U.S. Congress had ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had an even greater effect on British public opinion than the North’s recent military victories. No amount of sneering by Henry Hotze in the Index could diminish the moral grandeur of emancipation” (pg. 742). Foreman concludes, “The United States had never supported Britain in any war, including the Crimean, and yet neither the North nor the South had seen the contradiction in demanding British aid once the situation was reversed. 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 benefitted from British volunteers” (pg. 794). The Treaty of Washington “settled most disputes, potential and historical, for the next twenty years” (pg. 802). In resolving the Alabama claims, the treaty “brought the Civil War chapter of British-American history to a close. The prewar resentment between the two countries had finally played itself out and a new, less hysterical and suspicious relationship was forming” (pg. 805).

A long, detailed book. But interesting. It is a good read, with a good perspective: the British contribution to the American Civil War. Soldiers who fought North and South; diplomats from all sides in Washington, London, Paris; politicians British, Confederate, and American; financiers; clerics; shipbuilders; nurses; journalists; etc. Not only is the story told through their eyes, their diaries, letters, memoirs, but told well. The worth as a diplomatic history is well worth the price of reading almost a thousand pages. The thumbnail sketch of the main battles of the war is good too. Very good, all around.

4.5 out of 5

The book is not about details of military battles, but an account of Anglo-American wartime politics, British newspaper war propaganda and the lives and interactions of British and Americans caught up in the war. It includes information on diplomats and politicians from all sides, positions and opinions in the press, pirate activities such as the CSS Alabama, Confederate lobbying for British support, provisioning Confederate ships in England, southern blockade runners, plans for northern insurrection by Confederate spies in Canada or northern states, and accounts of British citizens fighting for the North or the South. The book gives details on how blockade run war supplies from Britain sustained the South. The book relates how Confederate diehards held out hope until almost the last month of the war that British recognition of the CSA would save them. In March, 1865, a CSA commissioner, Duncan Kenner, was sent to England to convey the southern concession of granting freedom for slaves if Lord Palmerston would at last recognize the Confederate States of America. The actual legislation was entitled "Confederate Law Authorizing the Enlistment of Black Soldiers, as Promulgated in a Military Order". It would grant freedom to slaves who fought for the South and was approved by the Confederate Congress and signed into law on March 23, 1865 in Richmond, Virginia. CSA commissioner Slidell took the message to the Palmerston, and discovered that it came far too late. The book has numerous illustrations from the period, including many by British wartime correspondent Frank Vizetelly, who was with Jefferson Davis until the Confederacy collapsed.

An example of events readers of history will likely find in few other places, late November 1864 after Lincoln's re-election, Confederate arsonists almost burned down the Winter Garden Theater in New York City the night John Wilkes Booth was performing Julius Caesar. The targets for arson were numerous hotels and public buildings, the objective being to create terror and save the confederacy. It was part of a failed effort by self proclaimed patriots of peculiarly American groups of fanatics, some of whom called themselves the Sons of Liberty. Wilkes, who was already planning his attack on Lincoln, survived the arsonists actions, of which he had no knowledge or advance warning. The book concludes with information on what happened to various persons after the war. It also notes that the British eventually paid over $15 million in damages for aiding the pirate ship, the CSS Alabama, in resupply and armaments in British ports.

One sees gushing (supposedly professional)reviews of so many historical and biographical works that, on reading, led at least this reader to wonder if he was reading the same books as the reviewer.

'A World on Fire', however, deserves every accolade it has received IMHO: for a 1000-page history which manages to get both 'big history' satisfyingly right as well as telling masterfully the stories of both notable and ordinary men and women involved in an epic conflict, this is hard to surpass.

REALLY well (and engagingly) written by Foreman, I learned a tremendous amount about two subjects I thought I already knew pretty well, the American civil war and 19th century political, social and military history, both British and American. I've read a good few 1000-pager histories and biographies and more than a few have caused me to lose the will to live (or at least finish the book), but this is such a scintillating read I regretted it ending. Probably the best historical work on any subject that I've read this year.

If you have any interest in either of these topics from a historical context (or even if you are just a reader of good historical work generally) then read this fine book: in this case the stellar reviews are justified!

The Civil War has fascinated Americans like no other era in United States history. One might begin to think after surveying the enormous list of books on the Civil War that everything and anything of import has already been written upon the subject. Amanda Foreman, an Anglo-American historian, has discovered a perspective that has not been thoroughly developed heretofore - that is the role of Britain in the Civil War. Its role turned out to be both critical and complicated while remaining technically neutral.

Despite Britain's antipathy to slavery, many were attracted to the South's saga of a small entity bravely fighting for its independence. The end result was that tens of thousands of British would volunteer as officers, infantrymen, sailors, nurses, spies and blockade- runners. These complex and conflicting sympathies were further complicated by the economic realities of the times. Britain was dependent upon the South for cotton to supply its extensive textile industry, and the Confederacy was almost totally dependent upon Britain for armaments to fight the larger, more industrialized Union. Due to these countervailing forces and the individuals who were to implement them, the United States and Britain would maintain a complicated and tortuous relationship over the course of the war that came frighteningly close to outright hostilities on more than one occasion.

The key figures in this story are not the usual players in most histories of the Civil War. Lincoln, Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Jefferson Davis are but minor actors in this narrative. Instead, the four individuals who are highlighted in this complex story of diplomacy and statesmanship are: Lord Lyons, the reticent British Ambassador in Washington; William Seward, the brash U.S. Secretary of State; Charles Francis Adams (the son of President John Quincy Adams) the fiercely patriotic U.S. Ambassador in London; and the abrasive Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell.

But what raises this history to well above the standard fare is a combination of the import of its facts in a lesser-known chapter of the history of the Civil War, and the beauty of the writing in a meticulously researched work on one of the more defining moments of this country's history.

This book serves as a reminder that behind the theory and battles were individuals, public and private who struggled with a monstrous upheaval.
Good to find out that it was the 'consuls' and 'trade representatives' (i.e., spies) at Liverpool, Union and Confederate who were the real conduits of influence peddling, more than the official representatives.
Some have wished for more context regarding race and the intertwining of interests with other European powers; hence my 4 stars.
"British Labor and the American Civil War," by Philip Foner sheds well detailed light on the class structure behind support for the North or South. English labor organizations idolized Frederick Douglass and were firmly anti-slavery. A weird little book called, 'The Glittering Illusion,' which accurately describes how the Gentlemen of English society were staunchly pro-confederate illuminates that it was too profitable arming both the North and the South for England to wish to do much more than watch and wait. But lets be clear, the Union did fight the English Empire, in that America's commerce and whaling fleets were devastated during the war by English raiders with English crews and southern captains. The surplus of arms and powder Johnston's army needed to fight Shiloh came from one blockade runner!
Another individual story that deserves much more publicity is that of Kentucky Abolitionist, Cassius Clay. He was Lincoln's point man during 1861 in that same state and served as Ambassador to Russia when its' monarch publicly rebuked the 'civilized' red, white and blue nations by supporting the United States.
A less well documented arena are the contacts behind Confederate Maury and Emperor Maximilian. Keep in mind that a British fleet deposited a French army with an Austrian Emperor on Mexican soil in the 1860's. When the French dropped all pretense of a temporary 'peace-keeping' mission, the Admiralty feigned 'shock and dismay' and to keep the Empire's gloves squeaky clean, sailed away in a huff.

This is an excellent book. It presents the American Civil War from an "outsider" prespective. Namely the British perspective. Its perspective allows it to distance itself from all the melodrama and moralizing that surrounds modern American narratives of the civil war. It is also very effective in answering how sympathy could exist within an anti-slavery Britain for the slaveholding Confederacy.

The book does well in communicating the ugly side of the Northern cause. From the crude violent raving nationalism of William Seward to the incompetent diplomatic efforts of Lincoln's government, its all here. And there is also the coverage of the war as a "international crisis" not all that different from many modern ones in other places. There is violence, there is bloodshed, there is the question of intervention on humanitarian grounds and the personal involvement of individual europeans in a conflict far away but yet not so far. But there is also the ultimate compentency of American policy in avoiding a worse-case situation. As much of a fool as Seward often acted in public, he was not a total fool in the exercise of policy.

But it also does well in dealing with the ambiguities of the Southern cause in Europe and its supporters. As well as the limits of what support they could obtain from outside and why. The question of how anti-slavery Britains could find sympathy for the slave-holding south is an important one. And one that sheds light on the moral ambiguities of the conflict as a whole. There is also the ultimate weakness of the southern cause morally due to slavery.

The book is full of interesting characters from the American diplomats to the "merchants of death" aiding the Confederates in London to the international trade in Cotton. There is just an incredible amount of story in the book and tells a well-known story from a very different point of view. That is a rare achievement especially in a subject written about as much as the American Civil War.

Some will find opportunity to be critical of the book for its outsider viewpoint. This is not a book from which to gain an understanding of the core narrative of the war in the United States. This is not a book that is going to be faithful to the written-in-stone story of the war that some are attached to either. But thats ultimately its real value. It uses the outsider persepective to break the story of the war out of its usually totally American context and insular American narrative.

This book is an example of how to do good history. It brings new stories to the table and a different perspective without restorting to gimmicks and sensationalism. It adds new perspectives to history in a reasonable way that brings more voices to the table without trying to revise all existing history.

“A World On Fire” chronicles Britain’s pervasive involvement in the American Civil War on both sides of the Atlantic and both sides of the conflict. This is a long book because it tells a very involved story.

Author Amanda Foreman examines the question from all angles. She writes of the diplomatic wrangling over the Trent and other vessels that were involved in controversial exchanges, Rebel schemes in Canada, Confederate purchases of ships and other material in Britain are examined in detail. You may have heard of the Confederate raid on Vermont, but did you ever read of the plan for privateering on the Great Lakes? The roles of many names that we have heard, such as Ambassador Henry Francis Adams, Confederate agent James Bulloch, Prime Minister Palmerston and Lord John Russell along with Col. Freemantle and numerous ordinary Englishmen who took their stands in Blue or Grey are told on these pages.

Readers of this book get a much deeper understanding of the role of Britain and other European powers in the Civil War. We read of Napoleon III’s adventure in Mexico, the struggle over recognition, neutrality and belligerent status for the CSA, and William Seward’s use of England as a whipping boy to build domestic support in the States inter alia. This work examines theories as to why one side or the other might have actually wanted war, and why they pulled back. British partisans of both North and South are identified along with their influence on the conflict.

“A World On Fire” puts the Civil War in a global context and helps the reader appreciate the time consuming role of international affairs during the War. For any student of the Civil War, this is essential reading.

Amanda Foreman documents well the pirouettes between William Seward, U.S. consul in London Charles Francis Adams, British ambassador to Washington Lord Lyons, British Prime Minister Palmerston and Foreign Minister Russell.

She also notes, through describing reporters, artists and editors, the leanings toward the South that much of the British press had. Ditto, through following some officer-class volunteers, the leanings that much of "better society" had toward the South, albeit with issues over slavery.

Foreman illustrates well various official and unofficial Confederate agents trying to stir up British public opinion, raise money for Confederate needs, and plant stories in that British press. Meanwhile, other Confederate agents were trying to get ships built, find crews for them, and bribe or deceive British officials about the war capacity of said ships.

Both sides came close to war not only over the Union seizure of Confederate diplomats to Britain and France, but over the ships, Confederate agents in Canada, British-Yankee general antagonisms and the worries of some in Britain over the general degree of bloodshed.

The five dancers in the pirouette, with lesser parts played by President Lincoln and Senator Charles Sumner on the American side, among others, became key to preventing this from happening.

I think Foreman is too harsh on Longstreet, though not throwing him under the "Lost Cause" bus, unlike D.S. Freeman. But, other than that quibble, and a few minor factual errors, such as the wrong year on a couple of dates, this is simply a great book. I've only scratched the surface of what it covers.

Wonderful new book that covers a topic on which even Civil War historians may lack much knowledge. Secretary of State William Seward and diplomat Charles Francis Adams dominate this book, which deals with four years of continual disagreements and accusations between the U.S. and Great Britain in a "cold" war of words occurring simultaneously with the "hot" Civil War. This is a good book for anyone who wants to learn more during the 2017 celebration of Canada's sesquicentennial about the international relations responsible for the rapid creation of the Dominion of Canada less than two years after our Civil War ended.

Many Brits left their country and came to America to fight in the civil war, far more for the south than the north. As the author said in an interview, a feeling developed among Brits if you supported the North, you were mentally deranged, perhaps evil.

One, a feeling that the southerners were gallant aristocrats and gentlemen and had honor and a distinctive culture, while the North were vulgar plebians, with a lot of Irish, which the Brits looked down on, and Poles and other Eastern European types not regarded as good as the Anglo Saxon. Two, there was a resentment at the power of the US. Already it was apparent that the US was going to be massively wealthy and powerful and outshine old Europe. The Brits felt that if the US was divided, it would be less powerful. Three, Brits had strong David and Goliath sentiments, supporting the weak and brave against tyranny. The rebellious South was less rich and developed than the North, which was perceived as the strong bully. British support was part of the romance of the rebel, a major feature of western civ, even when the rebel is the illiberal side.

Seems like the majority of Brits were anti slavery but they still loved the South. Some Brits believed that the South would halt slavery once they won the war. This belief was strong despite, as the author points out, none of the Brits she writes about ever encountered one Southerner who said they would free the slaves.

The length was off-putting at first, but then I was sorry that the book ended. The book is full of fascinating characters and detail about people during the war, north and south, american and british, ordinary citizens and government officials, spies and soldiers, would be terrorists for the south and the northerners who discovered the plots. Hard to put down.

One favorite was Moran, who manned the American embassy in London. He fulminated at being left out of social events that the ambassador Adams was able to attend. He was jealous that Adams and his family were accepted by upper class Brits. Moran was often petty and full of silly intrigue. But he was steadfast in his duty to his nation, as was Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state. Few found Seward a likeable man; he tended to rub people the wrong way, but he was one whose efforts secured the union, which was why he became the target of the same plot that murdered Lincoln.

Another favorite was Mary Hill, a British woman who, with her brother, went to America to support the south, and was jailed by the union side. She was eventually released on a dusty road somewhere, and somehow made her way back to England where she sued the US after the war. And she won.

Much heartbreaking detail about war's effect on men's bodies, the injuries and deaths, so much suffering. During the anti-draft riots, the northern rioters attacked an orphanage for black children in New York. All the children were taken to safety, except one little girl whom the mob discovered hiding under a bed. The mob beat her to death. I have a picture in my mind of that little girl.

Another book that puts the lie to the notion that the war was not about slavery. Slavery was the reason that the north and south were divided to the point the south seceded. Without slavery, there was no reason to secede. From northern opposition to slavery, the south recognized quite clearly that the days of the peculiar institution were finished. As this author and others have said, if the south had given up slavery, the war would have ended right away. Both the right and the left have their own special reasons for denying that the war was about slavery.

Read that BBC and HBO plan to film the book. I sincerely hope we won't get some horrible grossly unfair anti american polemic. That would be an insult to the writer and to all the people who fought.

The British government generally predicting the eventual survival of the Confederacy while walking a tightrope of favoring abolition while dependent on Southern cotton.

The book describes the ambivalence of the British population and government as they deplored slavery but relied economically on cotton from the South. Observations and effects of the blockade play a large role . Important was the attitude towards the blockade of Southern ports that was depriving the Lancashire mills of much needed cotton.

The usual suspects, Lincoln, Grant, Lee, etc. are deemphasized in favor of ambassadors Lord Richard Lyons, Charles Francis Adams, British journalists and a number of Southern agents. Among CSS political figures the role of Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secy of State, is emphasized. There are good descriptions of dissension in the CSS congress. She calls William Yownes Yancey "The Voice of Secession."

We follow machinations of ambassadors Charles Francis Adams and a number of
Southern agents as they try to expand trade and obtain arms and diplomatic aid.
We get a view of Palmerston and his government including Lord John Russel, Gladstone and others. We see British volunteers fighting on both sides. Among the interesting characters are Charles Mackay, later famous for"madness of Crowds' and Confederate sympathizer, Henry Morton Stanley who later found Dr. Livingston in Africa We hear the voices of parliamentarians, Cobden and Bright in favor of abolition. Women's roles are emphasized as with British sociologist Harriet Martineau and Southern sympathizing spy Rose Greenhow among others.

We follow the course of the war through the eyes of journalists like William Russell. The book is greatly enhanced by following the action with a series of illustrations, notably by London Times illustrator, Frank Vizetelly. There are good battle maps with a very unique feature, placement of the reporting war correspondent and/or illustrator.

It's a very readable, but complete examination of Britain's involvement in the American Civil War.

This is a superb study of US-British relations during the American civil war (1861-65). Britain was officially neutral; the British government never recognised the Confederate government, yet awarded it belligerent status. The British working class backed Abraham Lincoln, the North and the Union, against the slaveholders of the Confederate South.

Yet the Liberal government allowed Britain's possessions Bermuda and the Bahamas to become the chief supply depots for the South. Royal Navy Reserve officers were involved in running the North's blockade, shipping arms to the Confederacy.

The City of London, then as now the main source of reaction across the world, backed the South. The Times, finance capital's mouthpiece, also did all that it could to promote the cause of the slave-owners. Leslie Stephen, father of Virginia Woolf, wrote a brilliant exposé of its biased reporting (The Times and the American civil war, 1865).

A well written and interesting narrative of Britain's role in the US Civil War. This is essentially 2 parallel narratives. The first and most important is a good narration of the diplomatic history of US-British relations. The second is description of the experiences of Britons in the US Civil War. The diplomatic history is a useful combination of the diplomatic history per se, US and British politics, and the efforts of the Confederacy to obtain recognition from Britain and France. Major actors are the erratic but ultimately successful US Secretary of State, William Seward, the patient UK Minister to the US, Lord Lyons, the British leadership, the US Minister to Britain, Charles Francis Adams, and a variety of Confederate agents. Foreman does very well in charting the often complicated relations between the US and Britain, including a couple of war scares. There is a fair amount of standard narration of Civil War military history, but this is useful for understanding the responses of British politicians and the British public. The second component of the book, the experiences of Britons in the Civil War, is well done but of less interest.

This is a very well written and researched book. It has some drawbacks. The diplomatic narration is generally very good, as is the analysis of the difficult politics of the war effort in the USA. A more extensive description of British politics and public opinion would have been very useful. While there is a fair amount of text devoted to the activities of Confederate blockade runners and the "cotton famine" resulting from the war, it would have been useful to have some overall discussion of the economic impact of the Civil War on the British economy. Some scholars argue that it had global repercussions. Finally, it would have been useful to frame the British response to the Confederacy in the context of British behavior towards the emerging republics in Latin America.

Most Americans realize that the South entered the Civil War thinking that King Cotton would lead the British to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation, and those who have done additional reading or took a college course on the war are likely familiar with the Trent Affair and with Gladstone's comment about the South having made an army, a navy, and a nation.

However, in her new book "A World on Fire," Amanda Foreman shows that the British had a much, much wider role in the war than just about all Americans, including those who consider themselves Civil War buffs, realize. Her wide-ranging, outstanding history of the war shows the diversity and complexity of British opinion on the war and tells of the impact of important British politicians, diplomats, and journalists on the conflict. She also follows several of the thousands of soldiers fought, some willingly and some not, on both sides.

As a history of the Civil War, "A World on Fire" includes all of the aspects of the conflict familiar to American readers, such as Lincoln's struggle to find a winning general, the economic impact of the war, the blockade of the Southern coastline, all of the major battles (maps included). However, also intertwined is the British perspective on the war, including the back-and-forth swings of public opinion across the pond, the parliamentary debates on recognizing the Confederacy, and a superb account of the Trent Affair. There are also numerous pages of photos (with captions) of the British citizens Foreman profiles in the book, as well as many period cartoons from a prominent British magazine.

Most of us think of the Civil War as being fought largely between the Potomac and the Mississippi (Antietam and Gettysburg being the two big exceptions), but Foreman's account travels to such seemingly unlikely places as Niagara Falls, Vermont, Lake Erie, and San Francisco.

I learned a lot from the book, and would guess that even those who think of themselves as Civil War experts would learn a great deal from "A World on Fire." If you haven't read much about the war since your school days and would like a refresher while simultaneously learning how the British factored into the conflict, you would definitely find "A World on Fire" rewarding.

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.

When I first read that the writer of Georgianna: Duchess of Devonshire had written another book, I was already sold, having loved that first book. However, once I found out what is was about ("Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War" is the subtitle) was a little hesitant. I thought a diplomatic history of the Civil War would be dry stuff indeed. But I was so wrong....I have to disagree with one reviewer here who said this isn't a page turner (like GWTW): I thought it was, although not a all like GWTW. I was even fascinated by her many footnotes. The characters here are painted for you with such color and depth: I learned a lot more about Seward here than I did with Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln Although I describe it as a "page-turner", from the reviews (see the NYTimes review and a long write up in a recent New Yorker), the scholarship here is finely done as well. I'm not a big Civil War history buff, but I enjoy any history that is well written (I thoroughly enjoyed a recent history of wood: A Splintered History of Wood: Belt-Sander Races, Blind Woodworkers, and Baseball Bats ) and so I heartily recommend this book.

This book was fascinating. We rarely teach the foreign aspects of the Civil War, and how it affected the rest of the world. I never learned as a student in school that, in reality, it only took one move from a European power to change the outcome of this war. Had England or France provided assistance to the Confederacy, it would have been disaster for the Union and who know what would have happened. The subject led to some great debates. This book does an excellent job of providing detailed glimpses into the diplomatic world surroudning the war. The book is long but the subject makes it some great reading.

Thanks to the recommendation of a friend, I spent many weeks enjoying the 800+ pages of Amanda Foreman's fine history, A World on Fire: Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War. I knew a little about England's involvement before reading this book, but my knowledge became greatly enhanced and enriched thanks to the perspective that Foreman brings to the subject. Her thorough research provided the basis for a writing style that draws readers into the subject. The complicated machinations in England are unraveled with precision by Foreman. Readers who love history are those most likely to enjoy reading this finely written book.

Rating: Four-star (I like it)

Fascinating history of the global links to the American civil war. Foreman manages to bring together multiple threads and make a readable narrative out of a history spanning years and continents, with many players. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the Civil War or 19th century history.

Despite there being one or two earlier criticisms from others, 'A World On Fire,' at the store's present price and with 1,000 plus pages, works out at just over a British penny per page. Every page is a gem. Get it now.

This is a great big book so, if prospective purchasers don't fancy great big books, would they please stop reading this review now.

On the other hand, if prospective purchasers can cope with a great big book (9 ½ inches by 6 ½ inches by 2 ½ inches weighing about 3 ¾ lbs.), this is a work or rare genius, and I would go so far as to say that, for general historical readers and for 'Civil War' buffs in particular, 'A World On Fire' is a must-have and the book of the decade. It is wonderfully well written and a really great read.

One of the most insightful quotations in Amanda Foreman's masterpiece is by the British writer, William Michael Rosetti (brother of the artist Dante Gabriel Rosetti), who said that, during the war, expressions such as "'I am a Northerner," and "I am a Southerner"' were 'as common on Englishmen's lips as "I am a Liberal" or "I am a Conservative."' The partisan nature of the terrible strife was as much a part of the then British psyche and political scene as it was in America.

Though I am British, I have known since I was a child that I was a Southerner and I recall as if it were yesterday the day I first set foot in Virginia. I was in my spiritual home. It just felt right. I have never felt the need nor the desire to change my attitude and preference.

My guess is that the author is a Northerner in sympathy, but I absolve her of all partisan feelings as she has done her best to present the respective Northern and Southern causes in a fair light. Moreover, she shows an exceptional understanding of the sympathies of both British and American people, not only those who participated but also those who were interested but powerless bystanders like the hundreds of thousands of cotton workers thrown out of work by what was going on over the ocean.

It has been suggested that Ms. Foreman's work should have been better edited. Editing implies correction or cutting. I see no need for correction - other than the three typographical errors that I twigged - and certainly no need for cutting, for, if anything, the book leaves much out and isn't long enough. I could have coped with another 1,000 pages at least.

I was proud to read of distant relatives of both my wife and myself who had played parts on both sides (North and South) and on both sides of the ocean. Abraham Lincoln and William Henry Seward are studied thoroughly and it is again clear to me that Seward, as a drunk, was no credit to the State Department whilst Lincoln can never be absolved from the prime charge of the people of the South, namely, that he raised a great army to invade their states. That army burned houses and destroyed farms wherever it went, right from the start. Poor Virginia, indeed. Incidentally, the book's title is probably derived from the words of the drunken and irresponsible Seward - 'We will wrap the whole world in flames' (page 189).

An unexpected (to me) Southern hero was the British war artist and correspondent Frank Vizetelly (1830 - 1883), whose drawings graced the pages of the Illustrated London News. I had seen some of them before but I had not known what an important part this man had played, being on hand almost throughout and at the end of President Davis's doomed leadership of the equally doomed Confederate States. The book, already a magnum opus, is made better still by the inclusion of much of Mr Vizetelly's marvellous work.

Hundreds of books have been written about the American 'Civil War' (or 'War of Northern Aggression' or 'War for Southern Independence') and all bar a few describe the bitter divisions between peoples of similar blood and the almost indescribable suffering, especially of those in the invaded South. This superlative and stupendous tome succeeds as well as any other because it includes so many first-hand (and, in some cases, new) accounts of individual participants and on-the-spot observers.

The book's greatest strength - and its primary purpose - is its success in showing how important was the attitude of Great Britain and the British people. There were many occasions when British intervention could (and should?) have ensured the ending of the slaughter and there were more occasions than I knew of when Great Britain and the Lincoln regime might have found themselves at war. The then future of Canada was at stake, as was the governance of Mexico, for which France yearned.

Aside from Frank Vizetelly and many others who are mentioned and quoted at length, two more Southern heroes were Swiss-born Henry Hotze (1833 - 1887), a master of propaganda who worked with my Cambridgeshire-born cousin, John George Witt (1836 - 1906), and James Dunwoody Bulloch (1823 - 1901), uncle of Teddy Roosevelt and one of the Confederacy's principal agents in Great Britain. I have read of both previously, thanks to the store. Intriguingly, one of the the store critics of 'A World On Fire' is one James Bulloch. If the latter Mr Bulloch is a relative of the former Mr Bulloch, I forgive his criticisms and defer to his knowledge. If he is not, I hope that potential purchasers will give more weight to my remarks and buy this magnificent book that is enormously impressive in both scale and scope.

Despite there being one or two earlier criticisms from others, 'A World On Fire,' at the store's present price and with 1,000 plus pages, works out at just over a British penny per page. Every page is a gem. Get it now.

This is a great big book so, if prospective purchasers don't fancy great big books, would they please stop reading this review now.

On the other hand, if prospective purchasers can cope with a great big book (9 ½ inches by 6 ½ inches by 2 ½ inches weighing about 3 ¾ lbs.), this is a work or rare genius, and I would go so far as to say that, for general historical readers and for 'Civil War' buffs in particular, 'A World On Fire' is a must-have and the book of the decade. It is wonderfully well written and a really great read.

One of the most insightful quotations in Amanda Foreman's masterpiece is by the British writer, William Michael Rosetti (brother of the artist Dante Gabriel Rosetti), who said that, during the war, expressions such as "'I am a Northerner," and "I am a Southerner"' were 'as common on Englishmen's lips as "I am a Liberal" or "I am a Conservative."' The partisan nature of the terrible strife was as much a part of the then British psyche and political scene as it was in America.

Though I am British, I have known since I was a child that I was a Southerner and I recall as if it were yesterday the day I first set foot in Virginia. I was in my spiritual home. It just felt right. I have never felt the need nor the desire to change my attitude and preference.

My guess is that the author is a Northerner in sympathy, but I absolve her of all partisan feelings as she has done her best to present the respective Northern and Southern causes in a fair light. Moreover, she shows an exceptional understanding of the sympathies of both British and American people, not only those who participated but also those who were interested but powerless bystanders like the hundreds of thousands of cotton workers thrown out of work by what was going on over the ocean.

It has been suggested that Ms. Foreman's work should have been better edited. Editing implies correction or cutting. I see no need for correction - other than the three typographical errors that I twigged - and certainly no need for cutting, for, if anything, the book leaves much out and isn't long enough. I could have coped with another 1,000 pages at least.

I was proud to read of distant relatives of both my wife and myself who had played parts on both sides (North and South) and on both sides of the ocean. Abraham Lincoln and William Henry Seward are studied thoroughly and it is again clear to me that Seward, as a drunk, was no credit to the State Department whilst Lincoln can never be absolved from the prime charge of the people of the South, namely, that he raised a great army to invade their states. That army burned houses and destroyed farms wherever it went, right from the start. Poor Virginia, indeed. Incidentally, the book's title is probably derived from the words of the drunken and irresponsible Seward - 'We will wrap the whole world in flames' (page 189).

An unexpected (to me) Southern hero was the British war artist and correspondent Frank Vizetelly (1830 - 1883), whose drawings graced the pages of the Illustrated London News. I had seen some of them before but I had not known what an important part this man had played, being on hand almost throughout and at the end of President Davis's doomed leadership of the equally doomed Confederate States. The book, already a magnum opus, is made better still by the inclusion of much of Mr Vizetelly's marvellous work.

Hundreds of books have been written about the American 'Civil War' (or 'War of Northern Aggression' or 'War for Southern Independence') and all bar a few describe the bitter divisions between peoples of similar blood and the almost indescribable suffering, especially of those in the invaded South. This superlative and stupendous tome succeeds as well as any other because it includes so many first-hand (and, in some cases, new) accounts of individual participants and on-the-spot observers.

The book's greatest strength - and its primary purpose - is its success in showing how important was the attitude of Great Britain and the British people. There were many occasions when British intervention could (and should?) have ensured the ending of the slaughter and there were more occasions than I knew of when Great Britain and the Lincoln regime might have found themselves at war. The then future of Canada was at stake, as was the governance of Mexico, for which France yearned.

Aside from Frank Vizetelly and many others who are mentioned and quoted at length, two more Southern heroes were Swiss-born Henry Hotze (1833 - 1887), a master of propaganda who worked with my Cambridgeshire-born cousin, John George Witt (1836 - 1906), and James Dunwoody Bulloch (1823 - 1901), uncle of Teddy Roosevelt and one of the Confederacy's principal agents in Great Britain. I have read of both previously, thanks to the store. Intriguingly, one of the the store critics of 'A World On Fire' is one James Bulloch. If the latter Mr Bulloch is a relative of the former Mr Bulloch, I forgive his criticisms and defer to his knowledge. If he is not, I hope that potential purchasers will give more weight to my remarks and buy this magnificent book that is enormously impressive in both scale and scope.

Long. Loooong. Bible long. But filled with fascinating stories and plot lines surrounding the relationship between Britain and America during the Civil War. The extensive dramatis personae that greets you at the beginning of the book is a bit bewildering but the author does well to gently remind the reader who each person is as they come up through the pages. Really offers some interesting insight into just how important a role Britain played in the Civil War, as a source of officers and volunteers for both sides, a shipbuilding resource for the underreported naval aspect of the war, and as a diplomatic player.

I happen to have both the hardback and Kindle edition of this book and both have their drawbacks. The hardback is, frankly, hard to manage physically. Not necessarily a book to read in bed. The Kindle version suffers from poor replication of what are excellent maps and newspaper reprints in the physical copy.

In the immortal words of the tourist were I start to a journey into examining the American Civil War it wouldn't be from this point. By any standards "A World on Fire" by Amanda Foreman is a big narrative history which self proclaims itself to be "epic" in its title and it certainly is a beast when its comes to size (frankly my arm ached holding it) and scale amounting to 816 pages of narrative and a further 100+ of detailed sources. Some other reviewers have rightly complained about the lack of a bibliography. All I would say was that if one was added you would need to take our hernia insurance to read this book, although the lavish illustrations are some compensation.

Foreman's underpinning concept is however a very interesting angle namely a transatlantic view of the American civil war one of the most fascinating of all modern conflicts and which has attracted huge historical attention. Thus rather than another book primarily about the "usual suspects" namely Lincoln, Jackson, Lee, Sherman, Grant and Forest we have a different set of protagonists most notably Lord Lyons the UK ambassador to Washington and possibly one of the most introverted men who ever lived; US Secretary of State William Seward already charted in humongous detail in Doris Kearns Goodwin's truly epic "Team of Rivals"; Charles Francis Adams the grandson of the great John Adams and US ambassador to the Court St James and the spiky Lord John Russell the English Whig and Liberal politician who served twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century and was the Foreign Secretary throughout the course of the Civil War.

Coming from the premise that the Civil War was an international conflict allows Foreman to weave a huge narrative that charts the fact many years before the Spanish civil War thousands of people from these isles were inspired to fight in this conflict which prefigured uncannily much of the carnage of the First World War. One of these was Dr Livingstone's great chum and fickle Welshman Henry Stanley who started off with the confederate Company E, 6th Arkansas Regiment of Volunteers and who learned the "rebel yell" at the Battle of Shiloh which he described as "wave after wave of human voices, louder than all other battle sounds together". Stanley was eventually taken prisoner where he promptly deserted and joined the Union all before his great African adventures. In another quirk of fate David Livingstone's son Robert died in a Confederate prison camp.

Britain was also of course the great super power at this time American politicians particularly those in the Confederacy were desperate to gain British patronage and recognition in the maelstrom which followed. Foreman usefully charts the how the pro Northern Faction of MPs in the House of Commons led by the great John Bright and William Foster managed to hold back the tide of pro confederacy support particularly from those MPs with links to "King Cotton". Yet British neutrality was strained throughout the conflict and Foreman charts incidents such as the boarding of the British ship the Trent in 1861 which became a source of high irritation and intense friction in the conduct of British foreign policy. By any standards this conflict was a headache for Britain not least around a conflict of principled opposition to slavery abolished here in 1833 but in turn a desire to be a key player in the strategic and lucrative transatlantic trade around cotton. If the world wasn't complicated enough British Foreign Policy was also was grappling at the same time with Napoleon III's ambitions in Europe and Bismarck's rise in Germany.

The value of Foreman's book then is to come at the conflict from a vantage point that has been heavily neglected. she clearly has invested her heart and soul in the book although some of her facts are somewhat wayward (her summary of the Wilderness campaign for example is confusing) and some editing would not gone amiss. That said her chapters which chart the confederates procuring supplies and men particularly in Liverpool are fascinating and you genuinely can learn many facts and new dimensions of the war from this book that have hitherto been submerged. Thus as stated above this book it not a starting point for a study of the American Civil War. The curious reader would be wise to seek out James MacPherson's staggering "Battle Cry of Freedom" as a starter or Ken Burns comprehensive documentary series the "American Civil War" which is often shown on television with its brilliant narration by historian David McCullough. Foreman's weighty tome is far more specialist but is full of insights and a damn good read for Civil War aficionado's.

One problem with any diplomatic history of the Civil War with a title saying the country played a "crucial" role is the fact that foreign recognition of the Confederacy was never going to happen on a large scale. Some historians write as if the Brits and French were quite close to aiding the Confederacy, or even intervening for the South militarily. Such steps were simply not very likely to happen. Thus, the problem with Foreman's book. The maneuvering she describes on both sides of the Atlantic is quite well researched and written. However, too much of the book focuses on the mundane, such as minor Brit citizens who served in the war in very minor capacities. There is not enough diplomatic history and too much fluff in this book.

Very detailed, most grim, and exceedingly long, like that great national mass psychosis itself. Every other page revealed fresh horrors and I could not forget the whole enterprise was simply to enable the US to retain among its number such as Mississippi and Alabama. A bloody wasted fools' errand.

Not only is this book tremendously researched, but Foreman is a talented writer as well. She brings much insight into the American Civil War from the oft - forgotten perspective of non - Americans. Thanks to Foreman, readers can now understand the events as Britons saw them. However, Britons were not without their own prejudices. A must read for Civil War historians and buffs.

Very insightful! It convinces me that a war between the North and the South was inevitable regardless of who was elected president. If Douglas had won or if Lincoln had won and done nothing, the competing views would have torn each other apart anyway. If the South had succeeded and become a separate nation, the two would countries would have still have gone to war. This book reveals how flawed and incompetent both sides were. Based on what I have read here Britain did the right thing to stay out of the conflict. Unfortunately America did not learn from Britain and stay out of certain conflicts in this century.

So far it is excellent. Very factual and could be a textbook. It is taking me a while to get it read, since it is packed with info. I need to read lighter things scattered between reading this. Love the book but I need to keep telling myself that there is not going to be a test of the assigned chapters on Friday.

This is a magnificent book! There have been so many others written about the American Civil War, but Amanda Foreman has found a unique angle, and it is extraordinarily illuminating. Britain, of course, was the world's pre-eminent power in the 1860's and the attitude which the British government adopted towards the American conflict would set the standard for the rest of the world. The North's dealing with Britain was often hysterical (my judgment), especially by Secretary of State Seward, yet both countries were well served by their respective envoys and though they very nearly came to blows after the Trent affair, Britain managed to stay out of the war and keep a difficult stance of neutrality. The author has amassed an enormous amount of material (it is a VERY big book!), but she has organised it superbly and the pace of the story never flags. This is truly a great book, a marvellous achievement!

Well written, this book does a great job of introducing ideas and norms from the mid-19th century. Attempts to keep biases from showing through sometimes fall flat. The book is well organized and documented. It's quite lengthy, but it is a fascinating insight to our Civil War.

Although the title of the book surely suggests that the focus will and should be on what was happening in Britain during the civil war, in fact this is mostly simply another comprehensive work on the civil war with slightly more information about Britain's view of the war than most. The best parts of the book for me were indeed those that describe what was happening in London, both in the government and in the American diplomatic mission there and what was happening in the British legation in Washington headed by Viscount Richard Lyons. Those parts represent, however, but a small portion of the book.

Instead, the main focus is on the various battles that were raging across America that made up the civil war. This is information already available in many ways, in particular through James McPherson's seminal works on the civil war. The author brought in the British card by including discussions of actions of subjects of the queen who had come over to the United States to fight in the war. Indeed that individual penetration added interest to the book in the same way that Steven Ambrose's discussions on what specific individuals were up to added interest to his books about the Second World War. But the story was really just about what was happening in America and the fact that some of the described players were of British origin was not, in my mind, a story about the British effect on the war.

The Trent affair towards the beginning of the rebellion where the North and Britain almost came to war because of the captain who removed two Southern envoys to Britain from a British vessel, was dealt with at length. That part of the book was in point to the title, well written and very interesting.

Overall, the book was entertaining and written well, just too long and mostly off topic. I would have been happier with a book about a quarter to a third of the length that really focused on Britain's role in the civil war.

Though sometimes overzealous in the recording of minute details, this book presents a totally unique perspective of the US Civil War. Not only does it detail many of the major events of that period of US history, it also does so from the eyes of the British (and, at times, other European) government(s). Reading it in the present when US/British actions so often seem to be one, the reader gets an understanding of a period when the growth of American power was coming to the forefront and where a concatenation of economic, social and real-politik came close to allying the CSA with the power structures of the mid-nineteenth century and thus, potentially, defeating the Union cause.

I bought this book last weekend and, literally, did nothing else but read it for the next 3 days.

Amanda Foreman's lucid, compelling style made this marathon a pleasure.

I have read many, many books on the Civil War but was captured by the new and fascinating perspective of this tour de force.

Read the many thoughtful reviews below for content.

This book is a must read.

THIS RATING REFLECTS THE FORMAT OF THE KINDLE VERSION NOT THE QUALITY OF THE WORK. I was beginning to enjoy this book as I started reading through the prologue. I encountered a gap in pages. This was frustrating, but it happens occasionally in a Kindle version. Since it was the prologue, I wasn't too concerned that I had suddenly lost the story! When I found several pages missing in chapter one, I looked ahead. Almost every chapter us missing large chunks of text. I can't stay focused when I'm missing 10 or more pages on each chapter. I have never had this experience with even a free, public domain title.

This is an excellent book. It presents the American Civil War from an "outsider" prespective. Namely the British perspective. Its perspective allows it to distance itself from all the melodrama and moralizing that surrounds modern American narratives of the civil war. It is also very effective in answering how sympathy could exist within an anti-slavery Britain for the slaveholding Confederacy.

The book does well in communicating the ugly side of the Northern cause. From the crude violent raving nationalism of William Seward to the incompetent diplomatic efforts of Lincoln's government, its all here. And there is also the coverage of the war as a "international crisis" not all that different from many modern ones in other places. There is violence, there is bloodshed, there is the question of intervention on humanitarian grounds and the personal involvement of individual europeans in a conflict far away but yet not so far. But there is also the ultimate compentency of American policy in avoiding a worse-case situation. As much of a fool as Seward often acted in public, he was not a total fool in the exercise of policy.

But it also does well in dealing with the ambiguities of the Southern cause in Europe and its supporters. As well as the limits of what support they could obtain from outside and why. The question of how anti-slavery Britains could find sympathy for the slave-holding south is an important one. And one that sheds light on the moral ambiguities of the conflict as a whole. There is also the ultimate weakness of the southern cause morally due to slavery.

The book is full of interesting characters from the American diplomats to the "merchants of death" aiding the Confederates in London to the international trade in Cotton. There is just an incredible amount of story in the book and tells a well-known story from a very different point of view. That is a rare achievement especially in a subject written about as much as the American Civil War.

Some will find opportunity to be critical of the book for its outsider viewpoint. This is not a book from which to gain an understanding of the core narrative of the war in the United States. This is not a book that is going to be faithful to the written-in-stone story of the war that some are attached to either. But thats ultimately its real value. It uses the outsider persepective to break the story of the war out of its usually totally American context and insular American narrative.

This book is an example of how to do good history. It brings new stories to the table and a different perspective without restorting to gimmicks and sensationalism. It adds new perspectives to history in a reasonable way that brings more voices to the table without trying to revise all existing history.

Last week, in the evenings after long days of walking around the coast of Devon and Cornwall, at last I read this excellent book. Miss Foreman has produced a masterpiece: she has carefully investigated the primary sources, and assembled them into a coherent narrative in which not a word is wasted. She has written a lovely book of lasting value.

This book screams for an aggressive edit from page one. The reader get fair warning, early on, when Ms Forman's 'Dramatis Personae' lists 100 American and 96 British personalities who are critical to her story. From Observers, Politicians, Journalists, Diplomats, Military and 'At Sea' characters who are further divided into their Pro-Union or Pro-Southern inclinations her 'World on Fire' delves into a tedious description of her 'personae' in meetings, liaisons, social engagements and various official and unofficial gatherings. The bottom line is that the point of her historical thesis is never made and the reader is left to drown in a sea of useless information searching for meaning. Her research was impressive but the detail she decided to include became the reason why this book will not make the impact, or the point, that was intended

The war could have gone either way . . . but just then the weary Union soldiers started firing copies of THIS BIG FAT BOOK at the outnumbered rebels and they turned high tail and ran for the hills!!

I liked this book a lot. The hardest part for me was keeping track of all the names, especially if I put the book down for too long . . . like for sleep or something. But the British perspective on this "foreign war" was unique to me and very helpful. Also helpful to me was the cast of character listing in the front, which I bookmarked. Like a good American, I found the war segments exciting and the diplomatic intrigue . . . not as much. Charles Adams didn't get a dinner invite again?!

To me this is an immense well written book about our immense war. I agree with some of the other reviewers that Britain then reminds me of America today . . . Paternalistic, patriotic, prideful, emotional . . . with right and wrong and shades of grey and manipulators of the truth and good and bad guys and all sides clouding the key issue of slavery.

I appreciate what must have taken the author about as long as the civil war to write . . . glad she did.

Clearly this book is extremely well researched and well written. However, Amanda Foreman focuses on too many tangential characters and fails to paint the "big picture" this book promises to tackle.

I chose to read this book because I wanted to understand more about how the Civil War influenced and was influenced by Britain. Instead, the book was bogged down with hundreds of characters and vignettes that were interesting in their own right but of little value to the book's mission. I would have liked more focus on how Britain influenced American decision makers --- both North and South -- and fewer stories about Britons' personal experiences.

Crucially, Foreman never answers one central question: What would British intervention really meant? There are hints included in the text, but raw statistics and analysis is missing. For instance, Foreman talks much about the Union blockade against Southern ports and Southerners' insistance that the British could have easily broken it. But she never answers if that was actually true. What about the Union's Navy? How did it match up against the Brits before 1861? How about in 1864?

Diplomacy in this book is also given too little attention. While Foreman does a brilliant job in describing Secretary of State William Sewards role in Anglo-U.S. relations before the war, he slowly falls out of focus in the book. British ambassador to the U.S. Lord Lyons is similarly obfuscated by Foreman's wandering focus. While I know much about how he struggled to work long hours and deal with Washington's oppressive heat and subpar society, I don't know much about how he actually influenced Seward and his countrymen back home. Ambassador to England Charles Adams is treated similarly.

To create good histories, historians must weave together facts and anecdotes. Too many facts and your history is too dry. Too many anecdotes and your history is incomplete. I feel my understanding of Anglo-U.S. relations during the Civil War is incomplete.

I enjoyed the great detail and historical significance of this novel. I believe Amanda Foreman gave timely evidence not know to me about the Civil War. This should be considered a historical masterpiece. Definitely an interesting book that I would highly recommend.