Transcripts For CSPAN3 The Civil War International Aspects O

We are going to be internationalizing this conflict, which we think is americas of mastic civil war. We are going to be speaking how does that some of the broader International Developments shaped the civil war and hopefully get a sense of what it is that is going on outside the rest of the world. His is not a new thing people have been writing diplomatic histories of the a sense for years after the conflict ended. Combination of the rethinking of what 19thcentury globalization is. And our current context in which americans are rethinking what it is to be part of a larger world in a postcold war era has generated a lot of rich scholarship in the last decade or so. War situates the u. S. Civil in a broader context. Have threeunate to young excellent scholars who are going to help guide us through this. We look forward to our questions at the end. Proud to acknowledge he is a High School Scholarship student some time ago. His research focuses on finance during the American Civil War and his first book Global Financial markets and civil war era is slated for publication in 2020. The professor of history at castleton university, his first book, the revolution of 1861, the American Civil War in the age of nationalist conflict, published by unc press, received the Southern History Association award in 2013. At the end is andre zimmerman. Andauthor of alabama africa, the german empire and the globalization of the new south, and the editor of marx and engels writings on the civil war. Currently working on a history of a civil history of the civil war as an International Working class. Had my understanding weve the institute has hosted a panel the looks at the global civil war. A lot of exciting things we can share. We know a lot about the civil war. What about people outside of the United States in 1860 . What are some of the things we are competing for headlines in Something Like the london times, probably the most widely secluded newspaper at the time. Things thate of the are happening to help contextualize the conflict that we are here to talk about . The short answer is a lot. It obviously depends on a particular time. If you pull up at random london , they may be able to speak about other ones. Its the political machinations, the soap operas of europe. Seem to embroil these writings. Its competing in this sense of the civil war. Not only on the military front and various political implications as well. And they emphasized two developments that were really important in the 1860s. First the rise of develop it in europe the bellman of nationalism in europe, which near the debates that americans were having about the future and nature of nationalism in the United States. Secondly, a reinvigoration of colonialism around the world. Powers were pushing into south east asia, the far east, and also the western hemisphere. The major powers are very interested in the civil war. You have three major empires that still had a stake in the western hemisphere. With the United States disintegrate in, there was an opportunity for european powers to take advantage. By california and the southwest, which is by no means for seeing the european powers thought the u. S. Was going to wind up power and to ocean power. The british short up their claims to parts around the honduras nicaragua coast. Powers the passage to the pacific is going to be key. The Justice Abraham lincoln is being inaugurated. The spanish empire, which had been receding in the new world there is no doubt he is taking advantage of the chaos in the United States to move back into the new world. Taking power and france. Very much committed to reestablishing a french empire, not just in algeria, but in the western hemisphere. Admirer of the United States. He has visited the United States when he was a young man. He found americans to be greedy, materialistic, and uncultured. He developed his grand design, the invasion of mexico, which unfolded first with the collaboration of spain and Great Britain. And extending throughout the first half of 1860s. We are seeing italian unification, a nation unifying. There is quite a bit on european powers mines at this time. One angle that is not often talked about but really important in this question is the european communist movement, particularly karl marx and frederick engels. They were fascinated by the American Civil War. As part of the european revolutions of 1848 in 1849, the communist leak, there was the organization they wrote the communist manifesto for, played an Important Role in helping to turn that into a communist or socialist revolution. They had to go into exile. A lot of them went into exile in the United States. Only a tiny percentage of them were communists. ,hey include important officers the missouri artillery officer. I think even more substantially they were more interested in seeing how is it . How can we overthrow the despotism of private property . They began to look at the civil war. They were really inspired by it. The context wasnt what was happening at the same time but a series of revolutions that included the u. S. Civil war, that would include the Paris Commune and future revolutions they were hoping for. We talk about the 19th relativeeing this pieces busting out under the auspices of the british empire. The picture is one that is filled with revolution. Thinking a little bit about how worth unfolding in america during this time, played out to europeans and other audiences. Make of these sorts of processes and dynamics. What did they think the civil war was all about . The civil war comes at a moment when the entire world is debating two important questions. This is a world of empires and monarchies. You have the United States, which is claiming to represent this idea of republican government. Is that really the future of the world as the United States claimed. Whatecond big question is is the future of labor . Does slavery have a place in the modern economy . Are we going to shift to a capitalist economy based on wage labor . Youainly in the americas have some countries experimenting through contract labor. None of these things have been worked out. I think its really important to understand the degree to which people are watching and sorting through these issues certainly liberals, the existence of the United States as 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. N two of course, the confederacy was becoming the most powerful and prosperous slave economy in the world. Theink these are some of issues people are paying attention to and trying to work out. From another perspective, looking at radical opinion in both europe and africa. Difficult thing for radical intellectuals to understand as they understood the war to be a war about slavery. Certainly that was quite explicit. They were very confused understandably by the statements from lincoln and the government that this was not a war to end slavery, not a war to interfere with slavery. One wellknown story is the italian revolutionary was asked to become a general in the union army. He said he would if they could lare ending slavery name robertsomeone campbell had gone to what is today nigeria with the black abolitionists martin delaney. War. Ote about the civil the a lot of africanAmerican Press and the International Black press, there was a sense of dismay. Why is mcclellan promising to return and slave return enslaved people to their captors. The third thing, the government of liberia was looking at lincolns wellknown plans to deport free americans from the United States. Most people of african descent 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 with the war aims not syncinc 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 word has crossed the atlantic. We heard about workers rallying in the north, despite the fact that they are working contrary to the interest. It is undeniable. It is contrary to what is going on. That is something that we can get into. 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 . 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. And so, the 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 daughter 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 like to point to them as a classic example. Theres a lot of hemming and hawing, and of 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, and in turn how 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. But recently, david emphasized, 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, was that the 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. And one of the ways the, the nonus ways that african descent could think about politics and the fear of moses 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, less prominent africanamerican antislavery activists, who relied on a form of magic called conjure to fight slavery, to 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. Those were very rooted in the United States, but not in the Political Institutions of the United States at the time. You guys want to jump in . Ok. Well, what do we gain from studying the International Contacts we are talking about . Is this basically just adding on to the traditional story, the narrative account that we have of the civil war . Is this, are we just broadening the scope, but basically the same processes that are in play that determine the cause and the course and outcome of the war, they are still the same . Or, does thinking about it from these different perspectives fundamentally change the narrative we typically have a what the civil war was about . I dont think, we might disagree on this one, but it is important, crucial to shift that framework a little bit. If anything, when we talk about internationalizing the war in the past, it has been from that diplomatic angle, and very angloamerican focused, certainly very eurocentric. But it is very important, when you start to drill down into different communities throughout the world, really, and how they are interpreting this war. And they are very knowledgeable about this war. I dont say, ignore the diplomats and just talk about bankers. But if you look at the role of ministers in parts of europe, for instance, talking about the war. Sometimes these are americans going over to talk about the war, from various faith backgrounds. And sometimes you look at workers meetings in the german states, and the fact that they are in the middle of the war actively talking about it, and talking about conceptions of what free labor really means, and how that might be applied in their own personal lives. I think it provides a greater sense of kind of the stakes of this war, and that folks literally all around the world are talking about this. You know, i have been reading accounts from parts of japan, china, australia, talking about the war. Its obviously delayed, the news they are getting, but something they are vitally interested in. Because i think they recognize what is at stake, and because of that i think they are deeply engaged. And if we talk about that in a fuller sense, that we are really providing a greater framework for understanding the war more broadly. I agree. I think we gain a more realistic, rich understanding of the war looking at these international stories. Americans at the time were very wellinformed on foreign affairs. If you look at newspapers from the era, the front pages are dominated by foreign news. Americans knew what was going on in their village, but not necessarily what was going on in europe, so they consumed news to find out about that. The 1850s was the decade with the highest percentage of foreignborn people in the United States in our history. So many of the soldiers who fought in the war, some of the politicians who debated the war, were born elsewhere. They had their understandings about how the world worked, about politics, other contexts. Since were in gettysburg, i will point out a theory, a man from the german states found himself in charge of the 11th corps, which in International Developments<\/a> shaped the civil war and hopefully get a sense of what it is that is going on outside the rest of the world. His is not a new thing people have been writing diplomatic histories of the a sense for years after the conflict ended. Combination of the rethinking of what 19thcentury globalization is. And our current context in which americans are rethinking what it is to be part of a larger world in a postcold war era has generated a lot of rich scholarship in the last decade or so. War situates the u. S. Civil in a broader context. Have threeunate to young excellent scholars who are going to help guide us through this. We look forward to our questions at the end. Proud to acknowledge he is a High School Scholarship<\/a> student some time ago. His research focuses on finance during the American Civil War<\/a> and his first book Global Financial<\/a> markets and civil war era is slated for publication in 2020. The professor of history at castleton university, his first book, the revolution of 1861, the American Civil War<\/a> in the age of nationalist conflict, published by unc press, received the Southern History Association<\/a> award in 2013. At the end is andre zimmerman. Andauthor of alabama africa, the german empire and the globalization of the new south, and the editor of marx and engels writings on the civil war. Currently working on a history of a civil history of the civil war as an International Working<\/a> class. Had my understanding weve the institute has hosted a panel the looks at the global civil war. A lot of exciting things we can share. We know a lot about the civil war. What about people outside of the United States<\/a> in 1860 . What are some of the things we are competing for headlines in Something Like<\/a> the london times, probably the most widely secluded newspaper at the time. Things thate of the are happening to help contextualize the conflict that we are here to talk about . The short answer is a lot. It obviously depends on a particular time. If you pull up at random london , they may be able to speak about other ones. Its the political machinations, the soap operas of europe. Seem to embroil these writings. Its competing in this sense of the civil war. Not only on the military front and various political implications as well. And they emphasized two developments that were really important in the 1860s. First the rise of develop it in europe the bellman of nationalism in europe, which near the debates that americans were having about the future and nature of nationalism in the United States<\/a>. Secondly, a reinvigoration of colonialism around the world. Powers were pushing into south east asia, the far east, and also the western hemisphere. The major powers are very interested in the civil war. You have three major empires that still had a stake in the western hemisphere. With the United States<\/a> disintegrate in, there was an opportunity for european powers to take advantage. By california and the southwest, which is by no means for seeing the european powers thought the u. S. Was going to wind up power and to ocean power. The british short up their claims to parts around the honduras nicaragua coast. Powers the passage to the pacific is going to be key. The Justice Abraham<\/a> lincoln is being inaugurated. The spanish empire, which had been receding in the new world there is no doubt he is taking advantage of the chaos in the United States<\/a> to move back into the new world. Taking power and france. Very much committed to reestablishing a french empire, not just in algeria, but in the western hemisphere. Admirer of the United States<\/a>. He has visited the United States<\/a> when he was a young man. He found americans to be greedy, materialistic, and uncultured. He developed his grand design, the invasion of mexico, which unfolded first with the collaboration of spain and Great Britain<\/a>. And extending throughout the first half of 1860s. We are seeing italian unification, a nation unifying. There is quite a bit on european powers mines at this time. One angle that is not often talked about but really important in this question is the european communist movement, particularly karl marx and frederick engels. They were fascinated by the American Civil War<\/a>. As part of the european revolutions of 1848 in 1849, the communist leak, there was the organization they wrote the communist manifesto for, played an Important Role<\/a> in helping to turn that into a communist or socialist revolution. They had to go into exile. A lot of them went into exile in the United States<\/a>. Only a tiny percentage of them were communists. ,hey include important officers the missouri artillery officer. I think even more substantially they were more interested in seeing how is it . How can we overthrow the despotism of private property . They began to look at the civil war. They were really inspired by it. The context wasnt what was happening at the same time but a series of revolutions that included the u. S. Civil war, that would include the Paris Commune<\/a> and future revolutions they were hoping for. We talk about the 19th relativeeing this pieces busting out under the auspices of the british empire. The picture is one that is filled with revolution. Thinking a little bit about how worth unfolding in america during this time, played out to europeans and other audiences. Make of these sorts of processes and dynamics. What did they think the civil war was all about . The civil war comes at a moment when the entire world is debating two important questions. This is a world of empires and monarchies. You have the United States<\/a>, which is claiming to represent this idea of republican government. Is that really the future of the world as the United States<\/a> claimed. Whatecond big question is is the future of labor . Does slavery have a place in the modern economy . Are we going to shift to a capitalist economy based on wage labor . Youainly in the americas have some countries experimenting through contract labor. None of these things have been worked out. I think its really important to understand the degree to which people are watching and sorting through these issues certainly liberals, the existence of the United States<\/a> as a reaffirmation that Representative Government<\/a> was possible. At the same time european conservatives, aristocrats, they would have been perfectly happy to see the United States<\/a> split. N two of course, the confederacy was becoming the most powerful and prosperous slave economy in the world. Theink these are some of issues people are paying attention to and trying to work out. From another perspective, looking at radical opinion in both europe and africa. Difficult thing for radical intellectuals to understand as they understood the war to be a war about slavery. Certainly that was quite explicit. They were very confused understandably by the statements from lincoln and the government that this was not a war to end slavery, not a war to interfere with slavery. One wellknown story is the italian revolutionary was asked to become a general in the union army. He said he would if they could lare ending slavery name robertsomeone campbell had gone to what is today nigeria with the black abolitionists martin delaney. War. Ote about the civil the a lot of africanAmerican Press<\/a> and the International Black<\/a> press, there was a sense of dismay. Why is mcclellan promising to return and slave return enslaved people to their captors. The third thing, the government of liberia was looking at lincolns wellknown plans to deport free americans from the United States<\/a>. Most people of african descent recognize this as rooted in racism, which it was, but the government of liberia was saying, please do that, send the African Americans<\/a> 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 with the war aims not syncinc 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 word has crossed the atlantic. We heard about workers rallying in the north, despite the fact that they are working contrary to the interest. It is undeniable. It is contrary to what is going on. That is something that we can get into. Maybe we can build on that. A lot of people outside the United States<\/a> 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 . 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. And so, the confederacy is actually successful in floating a loan in europe, through a french bank. The United States<\/a> 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 daughter 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 like to point to them as a classic example. Theres a lot of hemming and hawing, and of 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, and in turn how governments may consider or not consider recognizing the confederacy, or providing full support to the United States<\/a> 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<\/a>, france, other european powers, were not going to get involved on behalf of the confederacy because their populations were opposed to slavery. But recently, david emphasized, we have been asking, is that really true . Did these governments respond to Public Opinion<\/a> in that way . Was the slavery issue coloring their judgments . First and foremost, we have to say that Great Britain<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> in the United States<\/a> recognized, or thought or believed at least, was that the institutions, traditions and ideas of the United States<\/a> 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<\/a> administration. They had been fighting against slavery long before 1861, but they certainly continued and expanded their fight after 1861. And one of the ways the, the nonus ways that african descent could think about politics and the fear of moses 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, less prominent africanamerican antislavery activists, who relied on a form of magic called conjure to fight slavery, to 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<\/a>, 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<\/a>, democracy and private property are antithetical, so thats fight for democracy and not worry about constitutional niceties. Lets worry about international democracy. Those were very rooted in the United States<\/a>, but not in the Political Institutions<\/a> of the United States<\/a> at the time. You guys want to jump in . Ok. Well, what do we gain from studying the International Contacts<\/a> we are talking about . Is this basically just adding on to the traditional story, the narrative account that we have of the civil war . Is this, are we just broadening the scope, but basically the same processes that are in play that determine the cause and the course and outcome of the war, they are still the same . Or, does thinking about it from these different perspectives fundamentally change the narrative we typically have a what the civil war was about . I dont think, we might disagree on this one, but it is important, crucial to shift that framework a little bit. If anything, when we talk about internationalizing the war in the past, it has been from that diplomatic angle, and very angloamerican focused, certainly very eurocentric. But it is very important, when you start to drill down into different communities throughout the world, really, and how they are interpreting this war. And they are very knowledgeable about this war. I dont say, ignore the diplomats and just talk about bankers. But if you look at the role of ministers in parts of europe, for instance, talking about the war. Sometimes these are americans going over to talk about the war, from various faith backgrounds. And sometimes you look at workers meetings in the german states, and the fact that they are in the middle of the war actively talking about it, and talking about conceptions of what free labor really means, and how that might be applied in their own personal lives. I think it provides a greater sense of kind of the stakes of this war, and that folks literally all around the world are talking about this. You know, i have been reading accounts from parts of japan, china, australia, talking about the war. Its obviously delayed, the news they are getting, but something they are vitally interested in. Because i think they recognize what is at stake, and because of that i think they are deeply engaged. And if we talk about that in a fuller sense, that we are really providing a greater framework for understanding the war more broadly. I agree. I think we gain a more realistic, rich understanding of the war looking at these international stories. Americans at the time were very wellinformed on foreign affairs. If you look at newspapers from the era, the front pages are dominated by foreign news. Americans knew what was going on in their village, but not necessarily what was going on in europe, so they consumed news to find out about that. The 1850s was the decade with the highest percentage of foreignborn people in the United States<\/a> in our history. So many of the soldiers who fought in the war, some of the politicians who debated the war, were born elsewhere. They had their understandings about how the world worked, about politics, other contexts. Since were in gettysburg, i will point out a theory, a man from the german states found himself in charge of the 11th corps, which in Civil War History<\/a> has been maligned, a joke. Unlucky enough to be right in the face of stonewall jackson, in chancellorsville, and routed again not far from the campus here on the first day at gettysburg. But hes a very interesting story. He was a german revolutionary in 1848, who joined revolutions because he wanted to create a Representative Government<\/a> in germany. Maybe not quite a communist, but some others were. He was interested in civil liberties, workers rights, antislavery, which is why he backed lincoln and the union cause. The reason lincoln appointed some of these generals, who were not successful on the battlefield but politically were very important. And a couple others to point out. On july 6, a cuban born union soldier, Federico Fernandez<\/a> cabada, was captured in a peach orchard. He survived captivity, and died in the late 1860s, early 1870s when he went to cuba after serving in the civil war to join an insurrection against spain, hoping to bring Representative Government<\/a> and freedom to the slaves in cuba. So another interesting global story. There were also foreignborn on the confederate side. The 14th, 15th louisiana regiments, on day two, called the polish brigade. Not because they were mostly polish, but because they were recruited by a polish revolutionary who fought for the independence of poland and saw the confederate cause as analogous. So a lot of stories you could get into. Thank you for bringing them up. They are interesting types. They tell us a lot about the role of germanamerican radicals in the civil war. We should say, there were germanamericans who fought on the confederate side, too. Germanamerican Public Opinion<\/a> was broad. But they had particular political backgrounds. He really was a socialist, in the 1840s and afterwards, and made a real political career in the United States<\/a>, and afterwards is remembered because he was so successful as a republican politician and the socialist parts have dropped out a little, and he isnt as well remembered. He wasnt as radical as the communist league, but he was also anticapitalist. As a republican politician, the socialist part has struck out a little bit and is not as well remembered. He is not as well remembered as the communist league, but he was anticapitalist. Sigel was very anticapital. He deliberately disobeyed the orders in missouri after fremont was deployed. Radicals for prohibiting union units from enslaving, assisting with emancipation, add he refused to do that and was quite and he refused to do that and was quite successful in the battlefield in missouri. One of the things that is interesting, and you can see this if you look at the official record of the battle of wilsons creek, he was actually quite successful, and after he takes over, he was not concerned about the configuration of the United States<\/a>. In terms of the broader, how does this change the United States<\/a>, one way it is important to further assess is to not give up the model of the u. S. And the world, because that gives up the idea of a discrete u. S. What im finding in my research, and a lot of other scholars, not just the u. S. , the u. S. Is in the world as much as the world is in the u. S. And working on the history of the civil war, i am finding that it changes the way we understand the military history, because many historians have noticed the war, as is often said, the war was won in the west, the mississippi valley, west of the appalachian mountains, and in the east, there was a strategic stalemate and also political stalemate. I think developing the revolutionary strategy against slavery was something that was hampered in the east by their adherence to u. S. Institutions, including, i would say, benjamin butlers contraband drop, in which he really meant contraband. He was widely criticized in the radical press, german and american radical press, for calling people contraband, that is, seized property. You have enslaved people fighting inside union units, and union units working very closely with enslaved people that i think they did not do in the east, and i think that helps explain the way the war was fought in the way the union won. Prof. Thomson guys, another great example that i like to come back to, looking at this immigrant population, the community is that come into here. One person i like to spend time on his august belmont. He was from outside of frankfurt. He works for the rothschild family, comes to the United States<\/a> in 1837. He is supposed to be going to cuba to become the rothschild banking agent, and he shows up in new york in the middle of the panic of 1837 and says, i am going to stay here, because your partner just went under, and i am now your new representative in new york city. You are welcome. They did not particularly care for that. They had a tumultuous relationship. But he becomes the first chair of the democratic party, and he is the first chair of the dnc to take it beyond an honorary title, and he plays a huge role in 1860, and even beyond. By the time we get into the war, he ultimately volunteers in service to the Lincoln Administration<\/a>, serves as administrator, convinces them to essentially give money to the United States<\/a>. It is at that point that he starts to badmouth lincoln and gets ultimately unceremoniously canned. That is why it is called the belmont stakes. That is your fun fact. It is named after him. [laughter] prof. Schoen by some estimates, just to add an numeric value to this, one in four american soldiers was foreignborn. At least 18 was the son of an american immigrant. You put those together, a shockingly amount was not what we would call blue blooded americans. And if you add to that the nearly 200,000 African Americans<\/a> who fought, it does certainly change. It could suggest a way of rethinking how and why the union won, in part, because the confederacy did not recruit nearly the same number or percentages of immigrants, and certainly refused come on the very waning days of the war, to enlist African Americans<\/a> in the battle. So i think it is right to focus on that. That does raise a question, though, which is does the civil war change americans perspective on ethnicity and immigration . Prof. Fleche that is a great question. Certainly for the immigrants, they dearly hoped that it would. The foreignborn fought, you know, their perspectives were shaped around two goals. One was to assert their americanness, assert their citizenship in the United States<\/a>. Certainly that was a concern of the irish, and the famous irish brigade that, through service to the country, they would gain acceptance as americans. The same could be said for the germanamerican population as well. And, you know, we would like to thank that there certainly was some positive movement in that regard, in favor of the way those populations are viewed, certainly in the press, the union press. Not of course on the confederate side. They like to point out the union army is made of foreign vandals. So i am not sure how far we can go on that. [laughter] prof. Zimmerman to continue on that, the german americans were, as andre was saying, were reviled in the American Press<\/a> and the confederacy, and again, it is a stereotype, that there was a view, and it was not entirely without empirical foundation, that whether they live in the north or the south, they were rapidly antislavery, so in the west come in the ways that a confederate might speak of yankees, often they talked about dutchmen in the west, and dutchmen was a way to say german but they have nothing to do with the netherlands. They complained and called them the damned dutchmen oftentimes. There are stories of people lynching german americans in the confederate south. There are stories of confederate soldiers bragging that they were going to scalp germans. There was a lot of proslavery unionists in the army. Mcclellan was also one of them. They also spoke very negatively about the german americans. They had to admit, i mean, after scott stepped down as commander in chief, sigel was the only one who had commanded such a large body of troops. They knew how to shoot very well because they had been preparing for the next one. They were good soldiers and they were radical soldiers. And the radicalism, that really alienated people like mcclellan and halleck, and a lot of people in the union who did not like the german americans, either. Prof. Thomson one great place to look, if you want to see the perceptions, particularly german americans, look at the congressional records when it comes to the debate over who gave support to the francoprussian war. Folks on one side saying the french were the allies in the revolution, and the others were saying the germans were the ones who helped us win the war, and what would it look like if we were to turn our backs on them. It is interesting to see that fairly heated debate, and one of the largest supporters is charles sumner, who spent a lot of time recuperating after the caning in the United States<\/a>. He goes to europe. An and sane amount of german connections after the war could be its own book. Prof. Zimmerman i remember when Philip Sheridan<\/a> went and wrote interesting things. Prof. Schoen as someone who is married to an irish american, i feel like the irish might be getting the short shrift here. [laughter] prof. Schoen does anyone want to speak of otherness other ethnicities, other than the german americans . What origins tended to influence the immigrants that were in the United States<\/a> . Prof. Fleche it is important to remember that they believed in the cause, not only that it would say to the United States<\/a> but to the world. A good percentage of virusborn soldiers would have had some type of political position to Great Britain<\/a>. The most radical would have been irish republicans, who were hoping to achieve independence from the british empire, and they believed that the union, the irishmen of the union believe that a reunited United States<\/a> would be the best way to achieve an independent ireland, because they assumed the United States<\/a> would be a rival to britain and might support and irish rebellion. So there was actually a brotherhood that was organized in the United States<\/a> that wanted to liberate ireland. They did not have the means to attack ireland, so instead they decided to attack canada. It did not go very well. These are some of the ideological underpinnings of the immigrant experience in the war, and certainly the germans had all kinds of ideas that they at least touched on. Those are probably the two biggest groups, although the biggest immigrant group would have been people from the British Isles<\/a> themselves, and it was their ideological position, depending on where they lived, you know, how they made a living, but certainly the irish and the germans had political, ideological motivations. Prof. Zimmerman just to add to that, the irish also explicitly fought in the war in order to gain combat experience that they would then use against britain, and made it go back to britain and continue to fight. They talked about skirmishing, lose order infantry fighting, but it is something that is also good for streetfighting, for example, too. That is one of the tactical lessons they brought. It should also be acknowledged, though, i mean, my perception is that the common perception of irish immigrants in the civil war is they may have been prounion, they may not have been prounion, and just as there are many proslavery germans, there are many antislavery irish immigrants, but as a whole, irish immigrants were neutral to pro on the slavery question. And i think an excavation for that is completely ideological institutions from which they can that kind of political organization, Ideological Organization<\/a> tended to be churchfocused. When italians came to new york, they tended to be radicals, and they demanded a separate, not as a separate language, but they did not like the proslavery, ideological, and it is important to remember there were a lot of stereotypes and people, then as now, projecting their feelings onto a poor immigrant group. And should not be exaggerated, but it should not be denied that if there were ways to fight for freedom and that freedom was entirely white and based on antiblack racism. Prof. Fleche many irishmen fought for the confederacy as well. Not as many as the union, but in their case, they were attracted to this idea of a war for independence, they head of right to secede from the United States<\/a>, maybe also ireland would have a right to secede from britain. Prof. Schoen that is great. Immigration into the United States<\/a>, david, you mentioned sort of financial flows that are interrupted by the civil war but also contributing to different opportunities for the confederacy. A lot of these external forces are pouring into the civil war in interesting and complicated ways that create these contested loyalties for some. What if we reverse that question and think about what impact does the civil war have on the rest of the world . How did it reshape or did it reshape the global processes in a period in which borders were very porous . How did a Union Victory<\/a> change the course of World History<\/a>, or did it change the course of World History<\/a> . Prof. Thomson i can start with that and speak from an area of great interest. To me, obviously the financial component and the war itself is transformational. The fact that we come out of the war in the United States<\/a> and start to rabidly move up the ladder, if you will, so that by the end of the century, we are the Worlds Largest<\/a> economy. By world war i, we are a creditor nation. There is no denying the fact that the war plays a pivotal role. The u. S. Comes out of the war. American banks start to open their own branches overseas. That is the first time this has ever happened. They try to take on that international market. They are no longer bending the knee, if you will, to london, necessarily. They think they can try to compete with them. The fact that half of the United States<\/a> National Debt<\/a> is held in foreign hands by 1869 is also something. There is an incredible amount of buyin. It is 1 billion, 23 trillion today. It is an important way of understanding that only the development of the United States<\/a>, but i would argue, the development of the german economy. I think the war itself plays a very Important Role<\/a> in all of that. Prof. Fleche i would stress two things. First, the destruction of slavery in the United States<\/a>, and secondly, the preservation of the union. And these have global effects for a number of reasons. First come on the slavery issue, when the confederacy was defeated, the largest and most powerful slaveholding nation in the world, moved to free labor. At that time, there were only two holdouts the spanish empire, empire with cuba and puerto rico, and the empire of brazil. It is hard to measure the impact, but the brazilians did study the civil war, and the emperor began and listing black troops, and they actually studied the United States<\/a> colored troops and their experiences when they were formulating their policy. So it plays some role there, and in cuba as well, the beginning of the end of slavery in cuba comes out of the 10 years war, the insurrection against spain at the beginning of 1868. The spanish empire did not abolish slavery completely until after the insurrection was defeated, but both the rebels and cuba began liberating slaves, and then the Spanish Government<\/a> started to introduce modest and delayed emancipation policies to try to quell the insurgences. The u. S. Grant administration was very important in that process. Diplomatically, they were constantly putting pressure on spain. If you do not want the u. S. To intervene on the side of the cuban rebels, emancipate your slaves. The Grant Administration<\/a> wanted to see slavery destroyed in the hemisphere. Quickly, the reunion of the United States<\/a> had important geopolitical considerations. It might be too much to say that it made the United States<\/a> a superpower, but it certainly cemented its status as a power in the hemisphere. After the civil war, again, not coincidentally, the spanish withdrew from the dominican republic, the french withdrew from mexico, and this is not all have good effects. The United States<\/a> then comes into power in the americas, but it certainly transforms the 19th century, and some scholars have suggested, the global balance of power in the 20th century and beyond. Prof. Schoen you could argue that they create canada as a dominion. Sometimes the civil war created three nationstates on the north american continent. Prof. Zimmerman to look at it from another angle, to think of it from the perspective of the black freedom struggle in the United States<\/a>, which started then and continues until this day, first with a fairly early reconstruction, when hopes for land reform were dashed, and then at the end of reconstruction of course, too. What they that scholars began to talk about is the idea of blues not only as a form of music but also an embodiment of a way of politics, thinking about the world and society that is rooted not only in the struggle against slavery but to flourish in and after slavery and looking at many of the great places, revolutionaries against slavery. Helena, arkansas, being my favorite, early capitals of the blues. If we agree with these scholars, and i do, and think about the way the blues at this college or knowledge, you listen to willie dixon, there is certainly some evidence of that for sure. Then we can see blues, which is arguably, as many of its offshoots, willie said, blues, rock n roll, and jazz and their national impacts. It is obviously not so cut and dry, but that comes out of the black freedom struggle and particularly the question about slavery and proslavery. Prof. Schoen i think at this point, it might be good to turn things over. We touched on some of the brought an interesting ways which Global Trends<\/a> and global individuals have shaped the civil war, how the civil war shaped some of those. This is only the tip of the iceberg. We are really interested to see what questions you have, maybe other topics you would like discussed. We will open the floor now for questions. We begin with this gentleman. Notwithstanding lincolns stewardship, how close did the transit fear nearly bring us into conflict with Great Britain<\/a> . Prof. Fleche well, neither side really wanted war. I think we can start there, but it is hard to say. What i would say is the british were very aggressive about asserting their rights. If you are not familiar with the trent affair, the United States<\/a> pulled two confederate envoys off a mail packet that was flying the british flag, was the british saw as an affront to honor. And the british gave seward basically an ultimatum that the United States<\/a> was going to have to address this and come up with a position in a fairly short amount of time, and if not, that could imply breaking diplomatic relations, which of course leads to war. All that said, obviously, what does this is it caused lincoln and seward to back down. They released mason and slidell. I think certainly, as cooler heads prevailed, and the Lincoln Administration<\/a> did not want to deal with war with Great Britain<\/a> at that time, and the british probably did not want war, either. It is hard to say the moment when the United States<\/a> came closest with britain. Prof. Schoen let me jump in here. I think one of the other important dynamics with the trent affair was the role of the european powers had. It was not just the United States<\/a> who did not want a conflict. The french were not eager to have a conflict at that point. The russians were also trying to play gobetweens. There was a lot of interesting backdoor diplomacy to make sure that that did not escalate. One of the striking things to me, and it is the part of the book im working on now, people were worried about law of nations, International Law<\/a>, in sorting out these conflicts. That pertains to the rise of ships to be searched through the blockade and these things, and it applies to the trent affair. An argument could be made that the peaceful resolution of the trent affair and the lincoln and administration to suggest that they would bow to the International Law<\/a> at that point actually served as a bit of a detente that was crucially important and how britain formed diplomacy in 1862, during the cotton famine, and the fall of 1862, when that played out. I would not the intervene. There is a lot of discussion of intervention. They might try to step in and create terms for peace, which is different than actually throwing the british navy into this conflict, which is what maybe some confederates would have wanted, but never was really in likelihood. Somebody on the side. Dan dan, oak park, illinois. I would like to ask about how the civil war played out in a nation that i have not really heard mentioned, but both in the system of government and its system of labor, it seems to be very interesting, russia. How did the russian aristocracy or intellectuals or anybody else prof. Schoen a pertinent question in this current environment, huh . Prof. Thomson i was thinking as we were talking that russia is one of the nations that we neglected to mention, because if someone were to come to me and say who is our closest ally in the American Civil War<\/a>, i would say russia, without question, from the getgo. They are pledging allegiance at two different points during the war. The u. S. Hosts huge naval flotillas from russia. We can look at the real meetings there. Apparently the party was something else, 20,000 oysters, 30,000 bottles of champagne. It was wild. From what ive read from russian correspondents during that time period in st. Petersburg, they are deeply interested and invested in the war. They also have huge economic problems in russia at the time. The ruble is crumbling. The United States<\/a> is an interesting window, and a lot of folks play a lot of financial interests in the United States<\/a> from a welltodo russia, so they are very interested in this, but obviously abolishing serfdom is a big part of this. Prof. Fleche the other interest that russia had is by siding with established governments, they were siding with the revolution. They did not want to create this president of blessing insurgency against what they saw as a legitimate government, because the russian upper class was worried about, you know, similar revolutions breaking out of russia itself. Prof. Zimmerman it is really interesting, looking from a comparative perspective, russia and pressure, serfdom, one of the ways they worked out a way you could theoretically abolish freedom but keep power over the land, it is a complex idea of freedom that i think is also at work in the 19th century that is harder for us in the 21st century to see, where people legitimately claim they were paying people, yet they were still keeping them down to the land and forcing labor, as happened in russia and as happened in the United States<\/a> also. Dan thank you. Prof. Schoen here on the right. Peter Peter Barkley<\/a> from peoria, illinois. Britain did not stand by and wait for cullman to come back. He looked for other sources. And we know in the 1930s, 1940s, gandhi made a statement, spinning his own cotton, because england made the material, and gandhi saw that as a bad thing. So it had an impact on the indian revolution as well. What other things did other countries due to impact tobacco, cotton, and how what was the effect of that at the end of the war . Prof. Schoen i guess i will take that as the resident socalled cotton expert. It is a great question and a great point. The war dried up much of their supplies, and it is not coincidental i mentioned earlier that in the midst of the war and immediately afterwards, european powers when hunting for other places to get their cotton, in there is a book by sven beckert called empire of cotton, that the imperialism was a direct byproduct of the American Civil War<\/a> which led directly into egypt, india, south africa, into australia and other places, so i think this shows really the ways in which all of these things are integrated. Pennsylvania. I noticed in some of the readings of popular literature, dickens, they seem to make a comment and they use the land of the free. Yet they tolerate slavery. How prevalent with that attitude in europe . Prof. Fleche i would say that it was probably among the intelligence, yes, certainly at the educated populace, especially on the reforming wing, and that was also the opinion of politically active workers. I say politically active, because there is a lot of debate in literature about this, but there were many workers that were not particularly aware of worker issues, attended minstrel shows, only worried about their job when the cotton famine hit. But there were men and women supportive of workers groups. I was just wondering to what extent the emancipation proclamation changed the perspective of foreign nations about the civil war and whether they should join or not. Prof. Schoen it is crucial. It is a great question. I mean, it is very important. There is a lot of debate, and folks like James Pearson<\/a> have discussed as to whether or not antietam itself was responsible for shutting the door, but it plays a huge role, you know, napoleon iii still has these vain hopes that maybe he can nudge the british to be supportive in some kind of intervention, but it is really hard to be on the side of the british, who abolished slavery in 1883, now that the war has been won to end slavery, how do you introduce that into the part of the south . Prof. Fleche there is some confusion about the emancipation proclamation because it did not free all slaves in the United States<\/a>. Some saw it as a hypocritical measure. It becomes clear that slavery is on the way out. It certainly has an impact on the Public Opinion<\/a>, no doubt about that. John keegan at the end of his book about the civil war said we have never had a revolution in the United States<\/a> because of the intensity of the National Civil<\/a> war and the exhaustion. What do germans another radical and other radicals think about after supporting the union, and more power wound up in the hands of the capitalists, in the gilded age . Prof. Schoen andrew, that is your question. [laughter] prof. Zimmerman i think it is a common perception that the civil war was a capitalist revolution. The south was not capitalist, it was feudal, and therefore ending slavery was making the United States<\/a> more perfectly capitalist. That was not a contemporary view. I mean, certainly some southerners imagined slaveholders were, like, aristocrats or something, but really it was a radical revolution. A lot of people are born radicals, not just communists, but also that. Ben wade said this, one of the radical republicans, who said now that we have dealt with slavery, now it is time to deal with other kind of capital, too. I think the most powerful thing is w. E. B. Dubois, when he said a revolution of enslaved workers, he says, they were free for a moment, and then there was a counterrevolution of property, and that gave us the reconstructionist south and the gilded age north. So instead of seeing the 1880s coming as an outcome of the civil war, it was a counter revolution to the civil war. A lot of people miss that because it was so quickly undone by counterrevolution. And keegan is not the only one who missed the real revolution. Prof. Schoen americans had a variety of different motives to fight for, and some were not pursuing radical ends, they may have been pursuing conservative ends. Great. Over here to the right. Sandra sandra from british columbia, canada. It is my understanding that about 40,000 what were to become canadians enlisted in the war and fought. Do you think their motivations may have had to do with worry about the war spilling over or changing something about the north, or do you think there is no knowing about why they would enlist in the civil war . Prof. Fleche well, certainly some canadians were motivated by antislavery. That was a concern. Canada also had important trade ties with upstate new york, the midwest, and there was some cultural overlap. At this time, people moved back and forth across the border, so i think family ties probably played a role. Prof. Zimmerman i do not know about these canadians in particular, but for african canadians, who had escaped slavery, there was one free state in the north, and that was canada. In the United States<\/a>, you were still subjected to be hunted down and return it to slavery, returned to slavery, and canada with the free state, so maybe that has something to do with it. I dont know. Thank you so much for your scholarship on these topics, foreignpolicy issues, labor history, for me, it has an interest of mine. My question is about the transitional period in the mid19th century. This is a real transitional moment, the American Civil War<\/a> and other concepts going on as well. Im wondering if we are going through our own traditional transitional moment right now on the international stage. Do you see any parallels or lessons you can draw from this time period, the mid19th century, to bring it forward to 2019 . [laughter] prof. Schoen i am glad to be moderator at this. [laughter] prof. Zimmerman feel free to chime in, brian. [laughter] prof. Fleche power politics, the direction that our relationship with china is heading, this idea that big unions oppose each other nationally or have competing interests, you know, i think there is certainly a component to that, and the Republican Party<\/a> thinking in the civil war, that the United States<\/a> must remain united to be powerful, and to compete with britain, france, other empires in the hemisphere, so i definitely think there is an aspect there. Prof. Schoen i will not totally punt on it. You could say that the 19th century, that we are talking about and exploring here is a moment in which liberal nationalism, as we start to see it play out in the 20th century, is coming into existence. In some ways what we are talking about, the civil wars, the war with germany, and italian unification, is the way that francis lieber, a german immigrant, said it is the way it is the defining political entity that is forming peoples lives. Recently, that was what many people assumed. We have internationalization and globalization and in the big question that we are not really clear about is whether this is the end of that liberal order, that in some ways i would not say in the only way, because of course world war ii is very important in some ways had its birth in the period that we are looking at, and it had a violent birth. That is one of the things that we have explored here. The question is, is it dying . If it is not that is not just a domestic question. Prof. Zimmerman all the nationalism came out of a betrayal and defeat of a poor peoples democracy, too. That is another thing to remember also, that it was not just a victory against absolutism but over workers, formerly in slave people here, and one lesson for the civil war for those movements is when thieves fight, honest people prosper. It is time for the people to reactivate. Prof. Schoen that is a great question. Looks like here on the left. John john from charles town, west virginia. You talk about kind of the big, broad questions of the 19th century about what is the future of government, what is the future of labor . The civil war in the United States<\/a>, but what was the reaction on the global stage, if any, to reconstruction in the United States<\/a> as counterrevolution . Prof. Zimmerman one thing i would say is european powers wisely look to the United States<\/a>. Ive written about that in west africa, but it was widely admired around the world. They looked to modern and advanced european colonial powers. The way that it might look backward looked really modern and advanced to colonial powers who thought, this is how to set white supremacy. It was a horrible model. When i say model, i do not mean good. It was very influential on european people and their powers. Prof. Schoen to the left. Kent i just have a quick question. My name is kent. Take the trend example, lincoln said, yeah, we will play ball with you right now, because we are fighting a war, but dont forget we have the Largest Naval<\/a> force in the world. You are going to send troops to canada . Go right ahead. We have a million man army. That is what this guy was writing about, but i heard that correspondence, he was the confident statesman. He corresponded with the english government, but also with mexico. I have heard this. He really went out on a limb and the lincoln reestablished trust between the two countries warez said key. Juarez said keep the troops on that side, we will take care of napoleon. I do not think lincoln gets credit for solidifying the border issue with benito juarez. I think he talked to england a little bit. You can talk all you want now, wait until the war is over. We are not your kid anymore. There is a very good book out, i do not know the authors name, about the correspondence of lincoln in foreign affairs. Prof. Fleche i do not think lincoln wanted to tangle with the royal navy, although it is true that the American Navy<\/a> was growing, lincoln subscribed to the one war at a time position. I think you are right that especially secretary of state seward used that threat, whether it was realistic or not, to try to tamper british eagerness to get involved. As far as juarez, the lincoln government is a very important factor of the juarez regime. Juarez was a liberal reformer in mexico who was fighting the french invasion. The border issue is settled more under johnson and after lincolns assassination, but seward and grant were very projuarez and antifrench. [indiscernible] prof. Schoen there is a book called lincoln in the world, and i forget the authors name. The other book i would recommend is the cause of all nations, by don doyle. It is one that deals with this period. We have time for one more question and we had one man standing, so lets let him have it. John john willing from washington, d. C. I recently came across a book, and i knew nothing about the topic previously, it is called when the irish invaded canada. It talked about this group. One of the premise is a segment of the irish came over here to join the union army so they could go back and free ireland from britain. And in 1866, they invaded canada, with the idea that they were going to hold canada hostage for the freedom of ireland. Is that true, or how common was that . Prof. Fleche it is true. It did not go very well, but it is true. Prof. Schoen they also took a ship and tried to attack our let ireland itself. That did not go very well, either. With that no, we will end, or and hand it over to our fearless leader, and he will tell us what to do next. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer this is American History<\/a> tv where we feature hours of programs exploring our presidency,he three former white house speechwriters talk about the process of turning a president s politics and policies into a speech. This was from the president ial ideas festival hosted by the university of virginias miller center. We appreciate you coming, we have some other panels going on at the same time, we will try to make it worth your while. Today we are really lucky, i am a former speechwriter for president obama. We are also really lucky to have sarah and john. For residents click and was supposed to be here but he had a conflict that kept him in ec. In","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801003.us.archive.org\/22\/items\/CSPAN3_20190825_224500_The_Civil_War_International_Aspects_of_the_Civil_War\/CSPAN3_20190825_224500_The_Civil_War_International_Aspects_of_the_Civil_War.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20190825_224500_The_Civil_War_International_Aspects_of_the_Civil_War_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}