The war. The discussion was part of a conference by gettysburg colleges civil war institute. Hello, and welcome to the second roundtable this afternoon. Teachian shane, and i civil war and early republic at ohio university. The subject of this panel is sort of asking us to step up and think from what the civil war might have looked like from 5000 feet. Were going to be internationalizing this conflict that we like to selfishly think is americas domestic civil war. We will be thinking about how some broader International Developments shaped the civil war, and hopefully get a sense of whats going on outside, in the rest of the world. In some ways, this is not a new thing. People have been writing diplomatic histories of the civil war really sends the since the years after the conflict andy. But the combination of the sesquicentennial, a new rethinking of 19thcentury globalization, and really the current context in which americans are sort of rethinking what it means to be part of a larger world, in a postcold war richhas generated a lot of scholarship that situates the u. S. Civil war in a broader context. Were fortunate to have three young, excellent scholars who will help guide us through this, and we have course look forward to your questions at the end. Im going to start here to my left. Dave thompson is assistant professor of history at sacred heart university, and is proud to acknowledge he was a High School Scholarship student some time ago. [applause] his research focuses on finance during the American Civil War. His first book, the evolution of Global Financial markets in the civil war era, slated for publication in 2020. To his left, a professor of history, his first book the American Civil War in the age of nationalist conflict, received the southern history associations James Raleigh award in 2013. At the end, andre zimmerman, professor of history at George Washington university and author of alabama in africa, booker t. Washington, the german empire and the globalization of the new south. Also the editor of marx and eng els writings on the civil war in the United States, and is currently working on a history of the civil war as an international workingclass rebellion. Its my understanding this is the first time the institute hosted a panel that looks at the global civil war, so we have a lot of exciting things i think we can share. To start, id like to ask our panelists. We know a lot about the civil war. You guys are aware of a lot of the dynamics of the civil war. What about people outside the United States, in 1860 . What were some of the things competing for headlines in Something Like the london times, probably the most widely circulated newspaper in the world at that time . What are other things happening to help us can text contextualize the conflict we are here to talk about . Start. The short answer is a lot. It obviously depends on particular times during the war itself. But if you put up a random london times for any other publication in europe, andre might be able to speak about others in the western hemisphere. S,t the political machination the soap operas of europe, i like to call them at times, that seem to embroil these writings. The u. S. Is competing in this sense, with the civil war, but there is a lot of ink spilled to discuss the war in its detailed intricacies, not only on the military front, but various political implications as well. So it is competing, but taking up a surprising amount of space when you look at these pages. I would emphasize two developments that were really important in the 1860s. First, the rise and development of nationalism in europe, which theome ways mirrored debates americans were having about the future and nature of nationalism in the United States. Secondly, a reinvigoration of colonialism around the world. At this time, european powers were pushing into southeast asia, the far east, and also the western hemisphere, the major are very europe interested in the civil war, because they view the United States as a competitor in the western hemisphere. When the war broke out, you had three major empires that still had a stake in the western hemisphere. Great britain, the french empire and the spanish empire. And with the United States disintegrating, there was an opportunity there for european powers to take advantage. As you know, the United States had just come off a big win in war, addingmexican california and the southwest, which was by no means foreseen. Many european powers didnt think the u. S. Would win that war and become a twoocean power. That year, not coincidentally, the british shored up their claims to parts of what are now the ponderousnick ponderous hondurasnicarague coast and belize, because they knew that passage would be key for europe and the United States. Just as Abraham Lincoln is being inaugurated, the spanish empire, which had been receding in the new world, reannexed the dominican republic, and theres no doubt they are taking advantage of the chaos in the United States to move back into the new world. Moment fors the the french. Napoleon iii in the 1850s had through a coup detat taken power in france. He was very committed to reestablishing a french empire, not just in algeria, but in the western hemisphere. An admirer of the United States. He had visited the United States as a young man. He found americans to be greedy, materialistic, and uncultured, and he did not want to see them dominating the western hemisphere. So he developed his grand design, the invasion of mexico, which unfolded first with the cooperation of spain and Great Britain, in the first year of the civil war, then expanding throughout the first half of the 1860s. See italiane unification as the war is breaking out. So theres quite a bit on the minds of european powers at this time. One angle not quite as often talked about, but really important in this question, is the european communist movement, in particular karl marx and frederick engels. They were both fascinated by the American Civil War, for two reasons. As part of the european revolutions of 1848, 1849, the communist league, which they wrote the communist manifesto for, played an Important Role and hopes to turn that into a communist, socialist revolution. It failed, and they had to go into exile. A lot of them went into exile in the United States, and as many as you know and as many of you know, one in 10 of Union Soldiers had been born in one of the german states. Only a tiny percentage of them were communists, but they included important officers, one missouri artillery officer, all members of the communist league. Marx and engels were interested in what theyre all comrades were doing in the war. But even more substantially, they were interested in seeing, how is it, it didnt work in 1848. How can we overthrow the despotism of private property, and where other than slavery is private property more despotic, where is private property more despoitic in slavery. So they viewed it as a successful revolution against a despotic form of private aoperty, and there was series of revolutions at the same time, including 1848, the u. S. Civil war, the paris commune, and future evolutions they were hoping for. We often think about, we used to talk about the 19th century as being this era of relative peace under the auspices of the british empire. The picture you painted is one filled with revolution, violence, anxiety, concern. So now thats maybe a segwayp so that is now maybe a segue into thinking about how these processes unfolding in north america at this time played out to european and other audiences. You know, whatd they make of these processes and dynamics . What did they think the civil war was all about . Sure. Yeah. I inc. The civil war comes at a moment when the entire world is debating two important questions. First of all, what is the future of governance . This is the world of empires and monarchies for the most part, states,have the united which is claiming to represent this idea of republican government, which of course we dont mean the Republican Party, republicanism, the idea of Representative Government. And is that really the future of the world, as the United States claimed . And the second big question, what is the future of labor . Does slavery have a place in the modern economy . Are we shifting to a capitalist economy based on wage labor . Youainly in the americas, have some countries experimenting with contract labor, importing chinese laborers as more or less indentured servants. Things havehese been worked out, so its important to understand the degree to which people are watching and sorting through these issues, certainly for european liberals who wanted more Representative Government, the existence of the United States was a reaffirmation that Representative Government was possible. At the same time, european conservatives, aristocrats, they would have been perfectly happy to see the United States split in two, which would make their position much stronger in the americas. And of course, the confederacy was bidding to become the most powerful, prosperous slave economy in the world. So i think these are some of the issues people were paying attention to, trying to work out, at this time. From another perspective, looking at radical opinion in both europe and in africa, one of the difficult things for radical intellectuals to understand was, they understood the war to be a war about slavery. Certainly for the confederacy, that was quite explicit. But they were very confused, understandably, by the statements from lincoln and the Union Government that this was not a war to end slavery or interfere with slavery where it already existed. One wellknown story, the italian revolutionary garibaldi was asked to become a general in the union army, and he said he would if they declared antislavery a war aim, and they said we cant, so garibaldi didnt serve. In lagos, nigeria, someone named robert campbell, a jamaican who had gone to what is today founded a newspaper there and wrote about the civil war from lagos. Both thea lot of, africanAmerican Press and the International Black press, there was a sense of dismay. Why isnt the union fighting slavery . Promising tolellan return enslaved people . The third thing, the government of liberia was looking at lincolns wellknown plans to deport free americans from the United States. Most africanamericans recognize this as rooted in racism, which it was, but the government of liberia was saying, please do that, send the African Americans to liberia because we would like to have them. So that is the different range. I think it kind of mirrors both what andre and andrew are getting at. One example of this frustration syncinc war aims not up with workingclass interests, particularly in england. March 26, 1863, 3000 workingclass londoners who are uniting, rallying together in a city that has a lot of workers, has a lot of ties to the south because of money tied up in cotton. They are rallying in, essentially the whole function of the meeting is to say, finally, emancipation proclamation, where has crossed the atlantic. We heard about workers rallying its undeniable they side more with free labor identity, thats contrary to whats going on the south. It ties into the german states as well. Maybe we can build on that. A lot of people outside the United States who are really interested, following the newspapers. The things marx and others are writing. One thing scholars have thought about that we know, a great question, what is going to get other powers involved, to actually do some thing with the war . To either recognize the confederacy how is it the different groups of people chose, if they chose, the side they were going to pull for in this. Does anyone want to take that thorny question . At least when it comes to europe, something i can speak to. Money talks. For a lot of these wealthy financiers they wanted to hedge their bets. Theyre taking a look and seeing how the war is playing out. Many folks in london are deeply tied into that cotton connection, as i already mentioned. So they arent really necessarily excited about the prospect of certainly a unification, maintaining the union, but openly supporting on the part of the british government. Its telling, at the end of the war, all the stories coming out, southerners supporting british members of parliament, other kind of wellheeled folks, supporting the south. It kind of gets into, by similar token, you can talk about the financial connection in france. Confederacy is actually successful in floating a loan in europe, through a french bank. The United States doesnt do that. They sell loans abroad, but never have a loan directly through a bank in europe. Its looked at in a different light, when you realize the daug hter of the banker is marrying john slidell, the confederate ambassador. So i have to feel hes doing his daughter and future soninlaw perhaps a future favor. The same day he floats the loan, he buys the exact same amount in union debt. Playing both sides. You have a lot of folks who are playing both sides. I pointed that as a classic example. Theres a lot of hemming and h course, we dont have a transatlantic cable. It existed prior to the war, but is out of commission at the time of the war. So best case scenario, looking at three weeks for news to come over. It becomes very problematic, wondering what is going on and how that is impacting prospects, governments may consider or not consider recognizing the confederacy, or providing full support to the United States government. It is such a great question. The way the question has traditionally been taught, to emphasize the importance of the slavery question. Generally we teach that. Because the union was antislavery, Great Britain, france, other european powers, were not going to get involved on behalf of the confederacy because their populations were opposed to slavery. Emphasized, david we have been asking, is that really true . Did these governments respond to Public Opinion in that way . Was the slavery issue coloring their judgments . First and foremost, we have to say that Great Britain and france, the two powers most likely that could have made a military impact on the war, simply did not want to back a loser. They were not going to get involved and make a decision to recognize the confederacy or support the confederacy, unless they were convinced the confederacy would win. Because if they back the confederacy, and the confederacy loses, they have an enraged United States on their hands with the capability to threaten canada, the caribbean. So thats a debate we are still having, the tension between self interest of nations and the humanitarian question of slavery. I can answer the question about the foreign powers at work in the civil war in a slightly different way. One thing many People Living in the United States recognized, or thought or believed at least, institutions, traditions and ideas of the United States were incapable of fighting or ending slavery where it already existed. Thats in fact a debatable question, but that is certainly how every president had interpreted it up to that point, including president Abraham Lincoln. There are two populations that are very interesting who drew on foreign powers, although they were not necessarily engaged with governments. The first, enslaved people themselves. Not necessarily black abolitionists, but people whose words are preserved for example in the interviews in the 1930s by the Works Progress administration. They had been fighting against slavery long before 1861, but they certainly continued and expanded their fight after 1861. No one of the ways the, the u. S. Ways that people of africab descent could think about african descent could think about was via social change. , was interpreted through many sources as a african political leader and user of magic who was able to emancipate his people and lead them out of bondage. There were a lot of africanamerican political traditions by enslaved people, inent africanamerican antislavery activists, who relied on a form of magic called tojure to fight slavery, inspire people to fight slavery, and more broadly having a concept of history that was not just endless generations of slavery in the United States, but african liberation. The other group, european american, particularly germanamerican communists, who said what is not important is private property, but what is important is democracy. Unlike the conception of the United States, democracy and private property are antithetical, so thats fight for democracy and not worry about constitutional niceties. Lets worry about international democracy. Thee were very rooted in United States, but not in the Political Institutions of the United States at the time. You guys want to jump in . Ok. Gain from do we studying the