Troublesome Young Men ~ by Lynne Olson ~ April Book Club Online

[Ella Gibbons]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  everyone is welcome to join in.

Troublesome Young Men: The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power by Lynne Olson

The 1930's.  Depression years . Tough times for America.  The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.

And what was going on in Europe?  In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.

The question is why?  Perhaps you think you know?  Not really, not until you read this book.  

Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of  TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.

JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst

______________________________

Reading Schedule

April l-8          Chapters 1-5
April 9-15       Chapters 6-10
April 16-22     Chapters 11-15
April 23-30     Chapters 16-end

Discussion Leaders:   Ella and Harold

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:

For generations, the old boy network, small, tight-knit and insular - dominated British government and society.  Is it true today, do you think?  Do you see parallels in our government?  

Isn’t it true that "party loyalty" is necessary to get ahead in our own government, to get the power, to get the chairmanships of the "right" committees?  David Margesson, the chief whip  of the Tory party, a prime example, never doubted the rightness of his party; Would more doubts have made a difference?


In the Introduction Edward R. Murrow reporting from England in 1939 states:  "the machine is out of control, we are all passengers on an express train traveling at high speed through a dark tunnel toward an unknown destiny.  The suspicion recurs that the train may have no engineer, no one who can handle it."   What are your thoughts on this statement, does it resonate with anything in the USA in your lifetime?

How did the USA public react to what was going on in Germany in the decade of the thirties?  How did the public in England react?

How did the leaders, the political leaders, of both countries react?

Neville Chamberlain, how did he come to office, how did he stay in so long?  Were you shocked by some of the facet of the man’s personality?  What amazed you the most?

Many of the men that the author has focused on in these first few chapters are veterans of WWI.  Are you surprised by their attitudes toward impending war?

Consequently, are you surprised by the attitude of the older men in Parliament?




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




JONATHAN MAKES THREE!  Three from parliamentary governments!   Oh, that's just grand, we will (I will need you!) to explain a few matters in the book!  WELCOME JONATHAN, happy to see you.

Perhaps we should say a few words about our author, LYNN OLSON, former White House correspondent for the Baltimore Sun, who makes her home in Washington. D.C.  Don't you wonder how she got interested in WWII and wouldn't you think she would have to have traveled or lived in England a bit while doing her research for this book?  

If you look at the first page of the Bibliography you notice that she did study the archives at several English libraries.  Where did she reside when she did all that research?

Here is her home page - http://www.lynneolson.com/index.htm - and as you can see, she has a new one out with reviews from Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews, both historians in their own right.

Have any of you read her other two books or her new one, which looks very good!

When I think of WWII, it was a turning point in many ways; halfway through the 20th century, a world war in the mightiest sense of that phrase.  We will never see its like again.  And it was the source of thousands, nay, millions of books, movies, histories, etc.

[Ella Gibbons]

For maybe the third time I saw the movie QUEEN last night on TV; you learn something new each time you see it.  Helen Mirren did such an excellent job, don't you think?  Queen Elizabeth, according to the movie, believed the abdication that CAROLN and JOAN mentioned brought about the early death of her father, King George VI.  She is surviving well, isn't she?

[joangrimes]

Ella, I have just bought Lynne Olson's new book The Citizens of London:The Americans Who Stood With Britain in its Darkest,Finest Hour .  I am going to start reading it immediately.  I am sure it is going to be very good.

[FlaJean]

Just reserved Citizens of London from our library and am 6th on the list.  It really sounds interesting.  What would we do without forums like this?  I so appreciate the suggestions and opinions of everyone here.

[joangrimes]

Yes this place really is great..Don't know what we would do without it.

[kiwilady]

I should have my book tomorrow afternoon. I will start it at once. My daughter is a librarian but her position is interesting in that she is what is called the relief librarian so she travels around all the branches to substitute for those on leave. Tomorrow she is at the Main branch where my book is waiting for me. I never go there weekdays as there is no parking. Our Main library is part of the Unitech campus (City and Unitech did a joint venture with this magnificent library) so when all the students are in class the car park is absolutely full. My daughter is picking the book up for me today and I will collect it tomorrow from her house when I go up to mind the children after school.

We have the best library system in the Auckland region. The powers that be have decided to combine all the city councils into one entity coming into effect early next year. So I will actually live in Auckland city from next year instead of Waitakere city. I am afraid that all the money will go into the CBD and we will lose out. It is the fear of many. Its a ridiculous idea as there is such diversity in the area and a huge geographic area including many rural counties are being included. I can see the parks and trails out here being neglected so that where the tourists all go in the CBD gets all the money spent there. We truly have wonderful trails and parks where I live. Wonderful libraries too I think the best in the region. We are worried about it declining.

[kiwilady]

Is there any way I can extend this window for posting. I can only post a couple of paragraphs and then it starts jumping around and not allowing me to post any more. I tried dragging down the window like in some other sites but that does not work. I use IE as my browser.

Carolyn

[Ella Gibbons]

CAROLYN, I will ask some of our "techs" to come in and help you; I can't help at all.  I have to call the Geek Squad or with my new modern box I can pick it up and take it in when there is a problem.  My daughter is as helpless as I am.  Oh, for a grandchild, but, alas, I am not blessed.

For those of you who do not know, CAROLYN, is from New Zealand.  Oh, what I wouldn't give for your climate, but we have a beautiful spring coming in OHIO (in the midwest section of the USA, Carolyn).

[JoanP]

Hello, Carolyn!

I hate when that post box starts jumping around - impossible to post, isn't it?  Fortunately, there's an easy fix.  If you look up at the very top of your screen where the browser line is located, and then follow to the right, you will see a blue box with something that looks like a torn page in the middle.  It's the "Compatability View"  box.  If you click that, your problem should be solved.  Let us know how you do.  And welcome aboard, old friend.

[kiwilady]

Thanks Joan!

I have already got my book. My daughter is working at the library on the fringe of our city so she had a ways to travel this morning. She dropped Grace off here so I could take her to school and dropped off my book too. Graces school had "wheels""day today so she had an extra bag with her roller skates and helmet in it. I took her in the car instead of walking my dog with her as we usually do on days where Nicky has to leave early. I should add both my grandaughters are avid readers! My 12 year old grand is anxious for me to read her fantasy books like Twilight so she lends books to me. I love being able to relate with the girls with reading and with technology. Brooke also reads history (NZ history) and she lends me books not available when I was at school. ( much of our history documented at the time was untrue due to political reasons)

Looking forward to the start of what is sure to be a very interesting discussion.

Carolyn

[Ella Gibbons]

WELL, HERE IT TIS - THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL - APRIL FOOL’S DAY -  is everybody here and awake and ready to begin to discuss our book.   A drum roll maybe?  A joke!

There is a bit of news to tell you; our author, Lynne Olson, has emailed her interest in our discussion and may drop in when she has time.  Isn’t that interesting news!   Didn’t  a couple of you say you had bought her new book?  I wonder if she is busy on a new one and if she will write one on the same period, on England, or what?  Perhaps we can ask her.  

We have put a few questions in the heading that will, maybe, keep us on target; keep us in the first five chapters of our book.  There is so much to discuss here and if you like history, you will want to stay for the whole month, indeed, yes!

We’ve discussed parliamentary procedures  in our pre-discussion, but in these five chapters we get into many facets of the characters of the members of Parliament.  Were you aware of the fact they have no assigned seats -   in fact, there are not enough seats for all in the House of Commons; they all meet in a smoking room to discuss issues?

And that a member of Parliament, Josiah Wedgwood of the famed pottery family, made the comment that in the U.S. House, where every member had his own suite of offices there is no family life, nothing to discuss in common.  It is not social, it is not the life of ideas, it is a business.”  (pg.27)

What are your thoughts?

[joangrimes]

Hi Ella,  I am here.  Although I do not have book I will be here lurking in the corner.  I will be learning from your discussion.  I am reading Citizens of London: The Americans Who Stood With BritainIn its Darkest Finest Hour. By Lynne OLson also.  It is really interesting and well written.

Joan Grimes

[mrssherlock]

The picture Olson paints of Britain's ruling class is appalling.  There is such a wide gulf between them with their lives of frivolity and hedonism, and the workers, yes, Marx' proletariat though he didn't live to see The Great Depression.  As self-centered as they were it is not surprising that Hitler's philosophy was attractive since, in the abstract, a dictatorship is very efficient and self-fulfilling.  Especially those old men, isolated from the horrors of WWI.  750,000 killed!  What a relief to them to have those potential ambitious "young Turks" gone before then could threaten the status quo.  One can better understand the insanity of the struggle over a few yards of mud which represented most of the war's efforts since the trenches were full of pawns, not living, breathing men.

[Ella Gibbons]

AH JACKIE!  Yes.

You have just commented about our first question in the heading - For generations, the old boy network, small, tight-knit and insular - dominated British government and society.  Is it true today, do you think?  Do you see parallels in our government?

 

[marjifay]

I suppose there are some parallels in our government -- look at the two Bushes becoming president, and all the cronies of Bush Sr. and Reagan who came into the Bush Jr. administration.  But then there is our current president, Obama.  He sure wasn't among the "ruling class" here.

I have a couple of questions maybe someone would know:
Why had Britain pledged to take up arms in defense of Poland if Hitler were to invade?  Of course they didn't do so, but I just wondered why they made that pledge.

Also, the book says that in April, 1940 Hitler invaded Denmark and routed the British army and navy from Norway.  Why did Britain have an army and navy in Norway?

Marj

[Dana]

Hitler's philosophy was attractive to very few people in Britain, just Oswald Mosely and some others, including , unfortunately, the Prince of Wales.  But having seen the horrors of the 1st world war many politicians were ready to do almost anything to prevent another slaughter, hence appeasement.  I don't think the British upper class were any more hedonistic than any privileged group are.  In the US to be privileged you just have to have money, in the UK unless you came from the right family having money just made you an upstart!!

I always thought that Britain pledged to defend Poland not directly but because they had a treaty with France which had a treaty with Poland, but my Hitler book seems to suggest that after the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia debacle Chamberlain and the cabinet decided Hitler was going to have to be stopped, that he was, after all, intent on German expansion, and therefore they told him  they would intervene if he invaded Poland, at the same time leaning hard on the Poles to compromise with German demands and give up Danzig.

[Jonathan]

Good questions, Marj. Both the pledge to defend Poland and the invasion of Norway pointed to the ineptitude of Chamberlain as a wartime leader; and played an important part in the plot to get him out of office. But this all comes up later in the story. If you have to know now, the Poland question is answered on page 189, and the Norway debacle a hundred pages further along.

What a turmoil Europe was in, in the first half of the 20th century. Leaders were distracted by the problems facing their countries. Men like Stalin, Hitler and Mussolin were very aggressive in finding solutions. England and France were drifting, still in shock following the devastation of WWI.

There is a curious little sidelight on the attitudes of the upper class ruling class in the introduction. War has been declared, but very little is being done or not enough, in mobilizing the military. Quote:

'Mobilization was lethargic: able-bodied men were still working as chauffeurs and as doormen at London's private clubs and luxury hotels.'

I wonder what ruling lord made that observation in his diary for the benefit of the author historian. Was that the extent of his contact with the working class? What a fine thing to be served in these little things. Ted Sorensen in his book COUNSELOR admits he missed his chauffered limousine when he no longer was counselor to the president. It  meant closing the door after getting out of his car.

[mrssherlock]

Peter Duffy's The Bielski Brothers recounts the true story of Polish Jews, three brothers, who saved hundreds of Jews during WWII by constructing a village deep in in the forest.  The beginning of the Nazi  invasion is recounted, one brother was an officer in the Polish Army, where it is stated that Poland begged Britain for arms to no avail.  The Polish cavalry confronting German tanks has been a joke but it seems that was all they had.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans

[HaroldArnold]

We have a great discussion beginning here.  I regret my necessary late arrival.  I certainly remember Chamberlain, Hitler and other European leaders going back to 1938.  I remember Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden going back to 1940.  I remember them from their roles as war time leaders.  Now from this book I am seeing them differently through the events leading them to their Wartime leader positions.  Previously I knew that on May 10, 1940 the local news paper and radio news told us that the Chamberlain Government had fallen and a Winston Churchill had formed a new government.  Our book has detailed the events that led to this historic even.  I had never heard of the other troublesome young men mentioned in the book  including Robert Boothby, Ronald Cartland, Leo Amery, and other names.  Even prominent players such as Harold Macmillan and Harold Nicolson did not come within my knowledge until later when they became Prime Minister in the 1950’s and 60’s.  Now through the reading of the first five chapters we see the details of the governmental events leading to the beginning WW II and the events leading to the fall of the Chamberlain Government.    

I wouldn’t call Olson’s picture of the English ruling class appalling:  History reveals an acceleration of social reform going back to the renunciation of the divine right off Kings in the late 17th Century.  The reform movement accelerated in the early 19th century with the abolition of Slavery in 1833.  It continuing strong through the 19th and 20th centuries.  Much of the leadership of the reform movements came from this ruling class not only within the Tory Party, but also the leaders of the Liberal Party and later Labor Party who were from this ruling class.

[kiwilady]

Interesting comments here. About the different forms of Govt - Constitutional Monarchies v Republics, my personal thoughts are why did America get rid of a Monarch and then as time went on promote the Office of President to an equivalent of a Monarch. This is how it seems to me as a foreigner. The Queen as a Constitutional Monarch has little political power, yet the President as Head of State has enormous power. Its an interesting conundrum to us as non Americans.

I have read the introduction and there is much written here that I did not know. I think its going to be a very enthralling discussion. My dad is English. ( he only has NZ residency and has never changed his Nationality) He served in the British Navy from the age of 14 as a Naval Cadet and from the age of 19 in combat right through to the end of the war. I have heard much about the war from family and also from history books but yet this background information is all new to me. I do know my grandfather did not care much for Chamberlain. My grandpa was a left winger all his life and served in the Great War when we were still very much part of Great Britain. He said at the time he would never fight again. There were so  many upper class incompetent Commanders. However his hatred of Fascism was such that he was amongst the first to sign up for the Home Guard ( being too old to fight and also in a vital industry - The Railroad. )The Home Guard was supposed to guard the population while the able bodied young men were away fighting the Nazis.

Britain lost so many young men in the Great War I can understand in a way why many were so reluctant to engage in another conflict.

Carolyn

[mrssherlock]

Harold:  Interesting to learn about the social reforms.  Not knowing English history as you do, I was reacting to the picture she painted of the social acceptance of moral laxity.  My middle class background, I guess.  I shall search for some of the references that led me to this conclusion.

[Ella Gibbons]

THE RULING CLASS!   Several of you have mentioned it.  I'm not sure what is meant?  

MARJFAY put it in quotes and commented that Obama certainly wasn't included.  Does it mean your wealth?  Your forbears?  Your education?

DANA called them the privileged group and remarked that in England wealth didn't necessarily guarantee you were a member.

JONATHAN alluded to the upper class and also those in the "lower class" I presume; the chauffeurs and the doorman.  In America we might call them the blue collars and the white collars!

Hi JACKIE  We will get into that Polish question soon.  It's difficult, I know, to stick our schedule, but it's so much more fun in the long run.

And thank you, HAROLD, whether late or early I am so glad you are here.

WE HAVE SUCH A GRAND GROUP, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS.  

It seemed when reading these five chapters that all these young men came from wealth or position in society.  Was I wrong?  

Another thought I had was there is little about Chamberlain's background.  Although the book is about those men around the PM at the time, still he was the leader so I took myself off to the Library to find a biography of the man.  I COULDN'T, NOT IN MY LIBRARY.

There should be one, he is such an interesting man.  Arrogant, don't you think?

But getting back to the question of the old-boy network, it was certainly working during this period in England wasn't it?  In Chapter Two Olson emphasizes how loyal these men were to each other; they were all educated at elite institutions with great reverence for tradition and adherence to loyalty.  THEY PLAYED THE GAME.

I think we shall see the disadvantage to that later in the book.  

If you look at America during this period Roosevelt dominated the scene and his heritage?   Uncle Teddy, weath, privilege, all of it!

[Ella Gibbons]

CAROLYN, we were posting together and you bring  us so many interesting subjects!  Our revolutionary leaders, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, just to the name early presidents, spent countless hours on the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain and later, of course, our Constitution.  I'm not a proper historian but they certainly were tired of the Monarch of England who they believed was taxing them and making rules and laws that were outrageiouly difficult for them to swallow.  Hence the three branches of goverment, each with an oversight of the other.  As I recall, John Adams wanted to call George Washington, our first president, Your Excellency, but Old George wanted nothing that resembled a Monarch.

HAROLD would be better at explaining our system of government than I.

We must discuss the attitude of the young men toward engaging in a war and the older men.  I found that fascinating, what did all of you think of that?

[JoanK]

CAROLYN: I think one of the most interesting things (for me) coming out of this discussion will be thinking about the differences between the English parliamentary system and ours. Both have servived the test of time in preserving Democracy, but both are different.

The US system does not create the president as a monarch -- far from it. The basis of our system is an idea of "balance of powers". There are three branches of government: executive (the president), legislative (Congress) and the Judiciary (Supreme court). Each is independent, yet each has a check over the activities of the other. The President or the Congress can propose laws, but each can block the others proposal, and the Supreme Court can declare them constitutional. The members of the Court can't be fired, but the President appoints new ones, but the Congress must confirm them, and all presidential appointees. And so forth.

The weakness of the system is that it can lead to stalemate. That Obama managed to get something so new to this country as a healthcare bill enacted is almost a miracle. Usually, only in times of war or major economic crisis (the great depression) are major changes made. Particularly in situations where the President is one party and the Congress another nothing gets done. In England, such a government would fall, or be forced to make coilitions to avoid falling.

[JoanK]

Ahh, the upper class. We have one in this country, too, but it's less obvious because we don't like upper classes, so we pretend we don't. The people with real status, money, and power are more tactful about displaying it (unlike the Donald Trumps, who go around saying "look how rich and powerful I am"). While the British like their upper class and display them.

In the US, as in England,it used to take more than money to be upper class. Those who made money were the "New Rich". It took a generation or two of going to the "right" schools and marrying the right people to be considered "upper class". How much influence the "upper class" has in politics, now, I don't know.

I think the fact that a Congressman from a district or state has to actually live there, prevents the Congress from being dominated by a small number of families, as Britain was.

[kiwilady]

That is what puzzles me! The stalemate issue ! It would probably result in a new election here. A vote of no confidence in the Govt in power.  We have proportional representation so both major parties have to make some concessions to remain in power. I think its much better than first past the post as if you get a Very right wing or left wing party they can't get all their own way. It all seems to work out so far.

Why were the older politicians so against armed conflict. The devestation of the population due to the Great War was one reason. Money probably had a lot to do with it also. The Great War was costly to Britain. I don't think that the older politicians believed that Hitler would invade Britain due to the German Connections of the Royal family. The Royal family had a German name and it was changed to Windsor because of the First World war. Some of the older members of the Royal family had very close German connections.

Carolyn

[JoanK]

Carolyn: I meant to ask you about those terms. What is "first past the post"? Does "proportional representation" mean that seats are assigned to a party according to the proportion of votes that the party gets nationally, and the party determines who will get those seats? That's how they did it in Israel when I lived there.

[kiwilady]

We have two votes. One for a party and one for our Parliamentary representative. According to the party vote each political party gets extra reps. They are on a party list and we know who they are in order of seniority before the election. Now the ordinary vote is for a set number of seats in Parliament and we all vote for the man we want to represent us. The list reps which are selected according to the percentages of the votes gained by their party are not directly elected by the people. You can vote strategically like I have in the past. I gave my party vote to the Greens because they espouse my environmental beliefs and my other vote to the sitting member ( who belongs to the major party of my choice) because he always has a safe majority in this seat. If the margin was small I would have given my party vote to the Political party I wanted to govern. The system is called  MMP. First past the post is a two party system and those who get the most seats and not necessarily the most votes becomes the Government. It is not really a fair system. The Conservatives here would like to go back to First past the post and are constantly pushing for a citizens referendum vote on the matter. It has been brought up once before and we voted to keep MMP.

I think personally Proportional Representation is truly democratic.

[kidsal]

The House of Commons had a commons room where the politicians would spend time smoking, drinking and talking to one another.  Many of our older politicians today lament the fact that many politicians no longer form friendships with the opposite party.  There is a lack of civility which certainly makes progress harder to come by! 

[Ella Gibbons]

Thanks you, JOANK, for that explanation.  You are so clear-eyed, so concise.  Unlike myself, who is somewhat scatter-brained and it's to late in life to collect!

Two votes, CAROLYN!  That is so interesting.  We register for a party, (sometimes to stick to the party candidate, sometimes not), but have only one vote.  Your vote of no confidence still has me stymied.  I'm not sure just how that works.  And I think with horror of how it might have worked here, e.g., if the healthcare bill had not been approved by Congress, Obama would have been out of office?  And then what???

Oh, I think you are so right, KIDSAL, the lack of civility in our government, it just fairly makes me sick why the parties cannot cooperate more.  But our history is full of like troubles.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did not speak for years and years over different views, so it started off that way!

In a hurry this morning, but I'll have to look it up in the book.  It seemed to me when reading that it was the veterans of WWI who were for the war; whereas those who had never been in a war, the older ones particularly, were not.  And I could not fathom that!  But a veteran I know and with whom I discussed this fact concurs that they would!

 

[Babi]

 Since we began on this theme, I will say that I hadn’t really thought of the difference it made,…other than to the young women of the time…all the young men lost in WWI.  These were the young men who would have been moving into leadership had they lived.  Their loss meant the older generation retained power past the time they would have moved aside.  They were still caught up in  vision of the world as they knew it when
they were young men. Those who never saw battle had no understanding of the difference that made.  Baldwin’s naivete’ seems incredible.

 The atmosphere at the time was described by    The American socialite reporter speaking of the attitude of Londoners about the impending war: “The most you could get out of anyone was a short comment such as ‘Things aren’t too bright, are they?’ and you suddenly felt guilty of bad taste for having referred to it.”  There are doubtless many things we are unaware of that the English would find in bad taste, but surely the young people must have talked among themselves about it.  After all, it was bound to affect their lives in a very negative way.  Perhaps it was only bad taste to show concern before outsiders. (What we need here is a native of England who was there at the time and can tell us all about it.
  Then another correspondent wrote that “..life went on just the same as usual.”    Well, of course it has to, doesn’t it?  Paychecks must still be earned, the kids must be tended and the washing done.  And the British are
noted for their cool, calm response to trouble.

[Dana]

I really don't believe it was a clear split between the young opposing appeasement and the old being for it.  As my Hitler book (Ian Kershaw) says, the British and the French felt somewhat guilty at the tremendous reparations which were imposed on the Germans after WW1 and when Hitler started to break the treaty of Versailles, first by rearming, and then going on to take back the Rhineland, followed by Austria, then the Sudetenland, there was a feeling in Britain at least that these things were understandable, even justifiable, and they believed his assertions that he only wanted what was German and wanted peace.  Hitler was a boldfaced liar, he didn't care what he promised, he was always intent on war but the diplomats of Europe found that impossible to believe until Czechoslovakia.

[HaroldArnold]

I probably  more than most Americans have always noted a rather direct  similarity between the initial 18th century U.S. Government under the initial Constitution and the English Government as it existed at that time.  The new U.S. President was created with much same executive powers as the English King.  The principal difference was that the executive was democratized by making the office elective for a limited 4 year term.  Even so an incumbent could be reelected for subsequent terms.  The Presidents power was quite similar to those of a late 18th century King.  The president could even veto a law passed by Congress killing a bill that could only be overridden by a 2/3 super majority vote of the two houses of Congress.

The U.S. Legislative system too resembled the English system.  In the U.S. the House of Representatives were elected to short terms to represent the people (or at any rate the franchised electorate) and the Senate tantamount to the House of Lords was elected by state legislatures to represent the States.  The franchise probably extended to a greater portion of the U.S. population than in England at the time.  

I think the real difference was that the US the written constitution provided a system of checks and balances making it difficult for either executive or legislative abuse of power.  Also the Constitution created an independent Federal Judicial branch with a System of courts that proved further limitations on the powers of both the Executive and the Congress.  

In all, I see the process of governance in late 18th Century U.S. as quite similar to governance in England at that time.  In England through the two major reform laws passed in 1833 and 1867 the government evolved quite differently through the 19th and 20 century.  Of course governance in the U.S. today too has evolved into something quite different from what it was in the beginning.  So today the two governmental systems function quite differently, yet both seem to reflect the democratically elective choice of the respective peoples.

[mrssherlock]

Harold:  Please tell me about the reform laws in Britain in 1833 and 1867.

[HaroldArnold]

Jackie Click the following URL  for a Web site summarizing 19th Century English parliamentary laws extending the franchise to a larger and larger electorate.  
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A545195  
 I did not read the whole article but what I read it looked ok.   Also I don't want to give the appearance that the reform process was a sudden occurrence.  Truly it was slow. but over the centuries it did progress.  The ruling class everywhere is not eager to give up a favored position.  Yet over 200 or more years progress has been made (Even in the United States).  

This does not cover reform in other areas such as the Outlawing of the Slave trade in 1807 and the Abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833.  Did any of you see the movie "Amazing Grace" last year.  This was the story of Wilbur Wilberforce and his long struggle to pass the act outlawing the slave trade.  He was finally successful when the act became law in 1807.  It was one of the factors precipitating the 1812 War.  Slavers to avoid Royal Navy search took to flying the American flag.  This led to Royal Navy stopping many American ships most who were not slavers.  This was not the only reason for the war, but it was one of the causes.  

[marjifay]

Ellen wrote, "It seemed when reading these five chapters that all these young men came from wealth or position in society.  Was I wrong?"

The only one I've read about so far who was not wealthy was Ronald Cartland, whose run for Parliament was financed by the royalties from his sister's books.  But most of these young men didn't sound much like "commoners," did they?

I found a biography of Neville Chamberlain in my library: NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN by Iain MacLeod, 319 pp, (1961), also listed in the book's bibligraphy.  Another in the bibliography is THE LIFE OF NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN by Keith Feiling (1940).

I've requested a book from my library that might be interesting, John F. Kennedy's WHY ENGLAND SLEPT.

Marj 

[marjifay]

Lynne Olson will discuss her latest book, CITIZENS OF LONDON, this weekend on CSpan's Book TV, Saturday at 11 am (ET) and Sunday, 6 AM (ET).

Marj

[mrssherlock]

Harold:  Fascinating article.  The lack of literacy among the workers seems to be universal.  a recent Masterpiece Theater on PBS (Cranford) showed a young lad being secretly educated; when the Lady found out she immediately took steps to counter his opportunities.  Literacy and limited enfranchisement, major obstacles to reform.  The veneration of the upper class inbred over the centuries was so different in America though Washington was offered the title"King".  Interesting that Queen Victoria was not mentioned, she was queen during so much of this time. 

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding Ella's 2nd question:
Isn’t it true that "party loyalty" is necessary to get ahead in our own government, to get the power, to get the chairmanships of the "right" committees?  David Margesson, the chief whip  of the Tory party, a prime example, never doubted the rightness of his party; Would more doubts have made a difference?

Ellas 2ND question leads to another example of a U.S. version of English Governmental organization.  Yes indeed both the U.S Senate and the House of Representatives have their party whips.  The title is copied from the English precedent: as each party in both houses has its whip whose duties is much the same as in London.  He or she is typically a member of some sonority who socializes well.  The Whip’s jobs job just as in the London Parliament in the 1940’s is to bring party members to vote the party line on key issues.   The whip will offer party related rewards for proper compliance or threaten withholding party rewards for noncompliance 

In the U.S we really saw the whips in action during  last month’s debate on the universal health care bill.  The Whips for both parties were working overtime to turn out the party line vote.  This can be a difficult task in situations like the health care legislation where the party line will in some border line constituencies cost individual members their reelection.   

[Ella Gibbons]

Off topic just a bit.  I just finished a delightful book, THE UNCOMMON READER by Alan Bennett, a native U.K.; perhaps some of you know of him?  This is about the Queen Elizabeth and one sentence is pertinent:

"The public must not be allowed to think the world could not be managed.  That way lay chaos.  Or defeat at the polls, which was the same. thing." - said the prime minister.

Couldn't resist it.

Just out of curiousity I looked up all the prime ministers of England - this is interesting:

http://www.answers.com/topic/prime-minister-of-the-united-kingdom

Some of those names are familiar to me, and I'm sure to you!

For example, Harold Macmillan.  His experiences in WWI would make SAVING PRIVATE RYAN almost look sick -  wounded four times, one time in the face, he refused medical treatment and went back to his battalion.  Yet he is described as shy and introverted, a bookworm.  He once said, "I always felt that, on the whole, the world was something alarming, and that people of all ages would be more likely to be troublesome than agreeable." What a hero and yet he opposed appeasement.  "Like other veterans who later entered poliltics, he felt guilt about having survived, as well as 'an oblligation to make some decent use of the life that had been  spared  me' and to do something for our country."  Also like other veterans, he had great contempt for those gentlement of England now abed who had not seen combat." -pg.19

Son of a partner of Macmillan & CO., the famous publishing house, I know you readers are familiar with it, but read the last few paragraphs of its history today - http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Macmillan-Inc-Company-History.html.  Harold MacMmillan  also opposed appeasement.  

A quote from page 39: "But if it was nessary to prepare for war in order to maintain that peace, they (veterans) were ready to do so, unlike many advocates of appeasement.  This fast gulf in experience and understanding (of war) would play a significant role in the parliamentary battle to come."

We should take each of these men and talk about them.  Famous names in England, most of them come from notable political and financial backgrounds, the more modern of them familiar.  

What is one of your favorites?