Careful Thought

I just finished two books - Bill Bennett’s epic history of the US called America: the Last
Best Hope (Vol 1) and Jay Worrall’s fictional Sails on the Horizon set in England in the late 18th century. Bennett is a student of history writing about a subject he loves. Worrall is a Quaker writing a fictional account of warfare. His disdain for all things military reduces Sails to a simpering revisionist diatribe against the military of the era.  Bennett’s love of freedom and his country, on the other hand, elevates Last, Best Hope.

I don’t care about Worrall’s characters. His Commander Edgemont becomes a hero through no valour of his own, but rather by being the last officer standing aboard his ship at the Battle of St Vincent. Commodore Horatio Nelson and Sir John Jervis (later Lord St Vincent) fairly worship the young officer for his supposed brilliance in staying alive. Edgemont woos a Quaker girl while at the same time mocking religion as being acceptable “so long as it doesn’t interfere with one’s life.” It’s also apparently fair to threaten an Anglican rector to get him to perorm your wedding. And surprisingly, enlightened British officers can lie with impunity to break men free from the evil press gang with no consequences. In truth, naval vessels of the era were often so poorly manned that officers recognized the need for coercive means. But then again, not all officers were hot for Quaker chicks…. And [SPOILER WARNING] guess what, it’s okay to bring in another author’s fictional character. (No, it’s not Aubrey or Maturin. That leaves the other guy….)

Bennett presents America’s history, warts and all, beginning with the 15th century voyages of discovery. This first volume of Bennett’s multi-volume edition ends with the events leading to World War One. Throughout this work villains and heroes abound. History I barely paid attention to in grade school and high school comes alive. If I have a critique of Bennett’s work it’s his fascination with statistics. Nearly every election result is presented with actual vote count. Do we need to know that Chester A. Arthur won with 1,856,847 votes to his opponent’s 1,652,084 votes and that Millard Fillmore received 2,420,938 votes to his challenger’s 1,827,197? I get the point. This is a minor quibble, though, and I found Bennett’s work fascinating. I struggled through Worrall’s book, but only out of a misplaced sense of duty. It reminds me of one of those negative comments found on a performance report: “His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of curiosity.”

Possibly Related Posts...

• No Related Post