Don Doyle's “The Cause For All Nations” came very close to earning a place in my list of Must Read books on the Civil War.
When I first started reading the book, I had to compare it with Amanda Foreman’s A World On Fire. A large part of Foreman’s book talks about foreign relations between Great Britain, the USA, and the CSA---but from the perspective of a British Scholar.
Doyle’s book similarly discusses foreign relations, but from an American perspective. Initially, I felt Foreman’s book was superior. There were several places where I could not help but think, “Er, Foreman, who is a British Scholar, reached a different conclusion” or “You are showing your American bias.” At one point I considered putting this book aside. What I came to realize is that this difference compliments each other.
For example, most American historians take it for granted that the Emancipation Proclamation kept England and France from joining the side of the Confederacy. They teach that Seward was a diplomatic mastermind.
Foreman refutes this point of view. She argues that England stayed out of the war despite Seward’s, not because of him. She states that Parliament was sophisticated enough to realized that the EP was nothing more than an executive order that could be reversed by the current or future president. Doyle’s views are more in line with the traditional American interpretation. At first, I was ready to discount Doyle’s view, but then the nuisances between the two perspectives becomes clear. Doyle acknowledged that Parliament responded negatively to the E.P. The difference between Foreman’s and Doyle’s presentations is that Foreman focused on the “elites” POV, while Doyle talked about the average British citizen. According to Doyle, the E.P. resonated with the common person and worked its way up the British heirachy.
The big difference between the two books is that Doyle covers more ground. While Foreman focused on Great Britain/USA/CSA, Doyle included Mexico, Italy, Spain, and Russia. His book covers more international ground, and the successes and failures of both the USA and CSA.
My biggest complaints with the book is that Doyle’s Americancentric view sometimes comes across too strongly.
If you want to know how the Civil War fit into the global perspective, I would recommend reading Foreman’s book first and then Doyle’s book, and Matthew Karp’s This Vast Southern Empire.
When I first started reading the book, I had to compare it with Amanda Foreman’s A World On Fire. A large part of Foreman’s book talks about foreign relations between Great Britain, the USA, and the CSA---but from the perspective of a British Scholar.
Doyle’s book similarly discusses foreign relations, but from an American perspective. Initially, I felt Foreman’s book was superior. There were several places where I could not help but think, “Er, Foreman, who is a British Scholar, reached a different conclusion” or “You are showing your American bias.” At one point I considered putting this book aside. What I came to realize is that this difference compliments each other.
For example, most American historians take it for granted that the Emancipation Proclamation kept England and France from joining the side of the Confederacy. They teach that Seward was a diplomatic mastermind.
Foreman refutes this point of view. She argues that England stayed out of the war despite Seward’s, not because of him. She states that Parliament was sophisticated enough to realized that the EP was nothing more than an executive order that could be reversed by the current or future president. Doyle’s views are more in line with the traditional American interpretation.
At first, I was ready to discount Doyle’s view, but then the nuisances between the two perspectives becomes clear. Doyle acknowledged that Parliament responded negatively to the E.P. The difference between Foreman’s and Doyle’s presentations is that Foreman focused on the “elites” POV, while Doyle talked about the average British citizen. According to Doyle, the E.P. resonated with the common person and worked its way up the British heirachy.
The big difference between the two books is that Doyle covers more ground. While Foreman focused on Great Britain/USA/CSA, Doyle included Mexico, Italy, Spain, and Russia. His book covers more international ground, and the successes and failures of both the USA and CSA.
My biggest complaints with the book is that Doyle’s Americancentric view sometimes comes across too strongly.
If you want to know how the Civil War fit into the global perspective, I would recommend reading Foreman’s book first and then Doyle’s book, and Matthew Karp’s This Vast Southern Empire.