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 since the years after the conflict ended. 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 era, has generated a lot of rich 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 of course look forward to your questions at the end. Im going to start here to my left. Dave thomson 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. ,eft of him is andre fleche who is a professor of history, his first book the American Civil War in the age of nationalist conflict, received the southern history associations james a. 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 engels 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 contextualize the conflict we are here to talk about . Ill 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 or any other publication in europe, andre might be able to speak about others in the western hemisphere. But the political machinations, 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 in some ways mirrored the 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 powers of europe are very 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 1848 in the mexican war, adding 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, probably, the british shored up their claims to parts of what are now the hondurasnicaragua 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. And this was the moment for 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. And he was not 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. In europe, we see italian unification as the war is breaking out. So theres quite a bit on the minds of european powers at this time. One angle not often as 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 hoped to turn that into a communist or 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 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 despotic than slavery. So they viewed it as a successful revolution against a despotic form of private property, and there was a 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 that is now maybe a segue into thinking about how these dynamics and 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 think 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, but you have the United States, which is claiming to represent this idea of republican government, which of course we dont mean the Republican Party, smallr 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 . Certainly in the americas, you have some countries experimenting with contract labor, importing chinese laborers as more or less indentured servants. So none of these things have 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 ending slavery 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 nigeria, founded a newspaper there and wrote about the civil war from lagos. And like a lot of, both the africanamerican press and the International Black press, there was a sense of dismay. Why isnt the union fighting slavery . Why is mcclellan promising to return enslaved people . The third thing, the government of liberia was looking at lincolns wellknown plans to deport free africanamericans 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 africanamericans 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 and, essentially, the whole function of the meeting is to say, finally, emancipation proclamation, word has crossed the atlantic. We heard about workers rallying in the north, 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 something 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, 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 is marryingerlinger 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 hawing, and of course, we dont have a transatlantic cable. It is down. 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. Certainly, 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 nonu. S. Ways that people of african descent could think about history and politics and social change was afrocentrism, and importantly in the United States, the figure of moses, who was interpreted through many sources as an 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 their fight to slavery, and more broadly having a concept of history that was not just endless generations of slavery in the United States, but african liberation. A second group, which i mentioned already, where the european americans, particularly germanamerican communists, who said what is not important is not private property, but what is important is democracy. Unlike the conception of the United States, democracy and private property are antithetical, so lets fight for democracy and not worry about constitutional niceties. Lets worry about international democracy. They were, you could say, foreign powers, but they 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 of 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. They are still of the same old, if you will mold, if you will. 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 civil war has beenthe 11th corps 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 in germany. Maybe not quite a communist, but communistot quite the that 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 cubanborn union soldier, Federico Fernandez 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 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 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, 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 from allowing enslaved people into their lines. 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 halek takes over, he was not concerned about the configuration of the United States. In terms of the broader, how does this change the united the picture of the civil war, i think one way to take internationalized the civil war a further step is to not give up the model of the u. S. And the world, because that preserves the idea of a discrete u. S. What im finding in my research, and a lot of other scholars, not just in the civil war, the world is in the u. S. As much as the u. S. Is in the world. I working on the history of the am 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 River 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 and the way the union won. Guys, another great example that i like to come back to, looking at this immigrant populations, the communities that come in here. One person i like to spend time on his august belmont. He works for the rothschild family, comes to the United States 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 very acrimonious relationship. But belmont goes on and, by 1860, 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 to go back to europe and try to convince folks over there to essentially give money to the United States. It is at that point that he starts to badmouth lincoln and gets ultimately unceremoniously canned. This is an immigrant who comes to the United States and shapes so much of the late antebellum period. 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, one in four Union Soldiers was foreignborn. At least 18 was the son of an american immigrant. You put those together, a shockingly large percentage of the union army was not what we would call sort of blueblooded americans. And if you add to that the nearly 200,000 African Americans 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 refused, until the very waning days of the war, to enlist African Americans 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 right to citizenship in the United States. 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, you would like to think 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. Prof. Zimmerman to continue on that, the german americans were, as andre was saying, were reviled in the confederate press 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 rabidly antislavery, so in the west, in the ways that a confederate might speak of yankees, often they talked about dutchmen in the west, and calledn is what they germans. But they have nothing to do with the netherlands. They complained and called them the damned dutchmen oftentimes. There are stories of people lynching germanamericans in the south. There are stories of confederate soldiers bragging that they were going to scalp germans. They were seen as particularly antislavery. There were a lot of proslavery unionists in the union army. Halleck was one of them. Mcclellan was another. They 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 to command such a large number of troops. They knew had to shoot very well , fighting in their own revolution it preparing for the next. So they were good soldiers, and they were also 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 to support in the francoprussian war. Folks on one side saying the french were the allies in the revolution, lafayette will be rolling over in his grave if we dont come to their aid. 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 of german americans is charles sumner, who spent a lot of time recuperating after the caning in the United States, he goes to europe. Insane amount of german connections after the war could be its own book. Am i remembering correctly that sheridan 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 toward how it is that other ethnicities other than german americans may have factored into this conflict . What sort of National Origins and imperial origin also tended to influence the immigrants that were in the United States . Prof. Fleche it is important to emphasize that many of these immigrant groups really believed in the cause, not only that it divorcedat they were from american society. They believed that their actions in the civil war would not just reform the United States, but the world. A good percentage of irishborn soldiers would have had some type of clinical position on irelands relationship to Great Britain. 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 would be the best way to achieve an independent ireland, because they assumed the United States would be a rival to britain and might support an irish rebellion. So there was actually a brotherhood that was organized in the United States 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 themselves, and it was their ideological position, probably depended on where they lived, you know, how they made a living, but certainly the irish and the germans had political, motivations. Prof. Zimmerman just to add to that, the Irish Republicans also explicitly fought in the war in order to gain combat experience that they would then use against britain, and many did go back to britain and continue to fight. They talked about skirmishing, loose 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 explantion for that is the ideological institutions from which they can me. They tended to be ideological organizations tended to be churchfocused. When italians came to new york, they tended to be radicals, and they depended separate churches, not only because of a separate language, but they did not like proslavery ideology. 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. It should not be exaggerated, but it should not be denied that there were ways to fight for freedom and that freedom was entirely white and based on White Supremacy and antiblack racism. Prof. Fleche many irishmen fought for the confederacy as well. In their case, they were attracted to this idea of a war for independence. If the confederacy had the right to secede from the United States, maybe also ireland would have a right to secede from britain. Prof. Schoen that is great. The extent to which a lot of these external forces, immigration into the United States, 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, in an increasingly interconnected Global Economy . How did a Union Victory change the course of World History, or did it change the course of World History . Prof. Thomson i can start with that and speak from an area of 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 and start to rapidly move up the ladder, if you will, so that by the end of the century, we are the Worlds Largest 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 National Debt 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, but i would argue, the development of the german economy. I think the war itself plays a very Important Role in all of that. Prof. Fleche i would stress two things. First, the destruction of slavery in the United States, and secondly, the preservation of the union. And these have global effects for a number of reasons. First, 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 with cuba and puerto rico, and the empire of brazil. It is hard to measure the direct impact. But the brazilians did study the civil war, and the emperor began , in a war with paraguay, troopes, and they studied the United States colored troops and their experiences when they were formulating their policy. So the ending of slavery in the United States plays a role there. In cuba sas 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 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 wanted to see slavery destroyed in the hemisphere. Quickly, the reunion of the United States had important geopolitical considerations. It might be too much to say that it made the United States 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 not all having good effects. The United States now becomes the imperial 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. It is sometimes said 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, which started long before the civil war and continues until this day, first but it entered a new phase with the civil war, and another phase in early reconstruction, when hopes for land reform were dashed, and then at the end of reconstruction of course, too. One thing scholars have begun 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, of revolution against slavery during the civil war. Helena, arkansas, being my favorite, many of them were early capitals of the blues. If we agree with these scholars, and i do, and think about the way the blues embodied the kind of conjurer knowledge i talked about earlier, if you listen to willie dixon, there is certainly some evidence of that for sure. Then we can see blues, which is arguably, as well as the many offshoots, willie said, blues, rock n roll, and jazz and their international impacts. Thats pretty big, and that comes arguably, i would argue, it is not so cut and dried, but coming out of the black freedom struggle and particularly the question about slavery and postslavery. Prof. Schoen i think at this point, it might be good to turn things over. We touched on some of the broad and interesting ways which Global Trends 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. And we begin with this gentleman. Gary smith, from connecticut. Notwithstanding lincolns stewardship, how close did the trent affair nearly bring us into conflict with Great Britain . Prof. Fleche well, neither side really wanted war. I think we can start there, but it is hard to say. But when 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 pulled two confederate envoys off a mail packet that was flying the british flag, was the which the british saw as an affront to honor. And the british gave seward basically an ultimatum that the United States 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 is the first step to war. The british did send troops to canada. 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 did not want to deal with war with Great Britain at that time, and the british probably did not want war, either. So it is hard to say the moment when the United States came closest to war 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 wasnt just britain and the United States 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. And there was a lot of interesting backhall 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, in sorting out these conflicts. That pertains to the rights 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 administrations willingness to suggest they would bow to the International Law at that point actually served as a bit of a detente that was crucially important in informing how britain formed diplomacy in 1862, during the cotton famine, and the fall of 1862, when that played out. Another of those high point moments when it looked like britain might,, 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, 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 what the real meetings are. Apparently the party in new york was something else. 35,000 bottles of champagne, 25,000 oysters, it was wild. But they had serfdom, during the American Civil War. So from what i read in russian correspondence from 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. So the United States is an interesting window, and a lot of folks place a lot of financial interests in the United States from welltodo russians, so they are very interested, but obviously abolishing serfdom is a big part of this. Prof. Fleche the other interest ideologically that russia had is by siding with established governments, siding with the union, they were siding with the revolution. They didnt want to create a precedent 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 , other places that abolished theyom, prussia earlier, found a way to theoretically abolish unfreedom but keep power over the land, something you saw after the abolition of slavery in america. A complex idea of freedom also at work in the 19th century thats hard for us to in the 20 receipt. Where people legitimately claim they were paying people, yet they were still keeping them bound to the land and forcing labor, as happened in russia and as happened in the United States also. Thank you. Prof. Schoen here on the right. Peter Peter Barkley from peoria, illinois. Britain didnt just stand by and wait for cotton to come back. We look for other sources. One of them was india. And we know in the 1930s, 1940s, gandhi made a statement, spinning his own cotton, because india back tofrom england as material, gandhi saw that as a bad thing. So cotton was part of the indian revolution as well. What other things did other thetries do, to impact loss of the souths tobacco and cotton, and 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 south produced the vast majority of commercial cotton, prior to the war. The war dried up most of their supplies, and it is not coincidental, as i mentioned, that in the midst of the war and immediately afterwards, european powers went looking for other places to get there cotton. There is a book by sven beckert called empire of cotton, that traces the story, and suggests in some ways secondwave european imperialism is a direct byproduct of the American Civil War, which led not only into india, into egypt, parts of africa, which andrew has focused on, into australia, and into other places. So i think that it just shows really the ways in which these things are integrated. Paul, from pennsylvania. I noticed in some of the readings of european popular literature, dickens, they seem to make a comment ridiculing america, saying this is the land of the free and you have outright slavery . How prevalent was that attitude, in europe . Prof. Fleche i would say that it was prevalent among the intelligentsia, certainly the populace,educated, especially on the reforming wing. That was also the opinion of politicallyactive workers. I say politically active, because theres a lot of debate and literature about this, but there are many workers who were not particularly aware of global issues, and had racist sentiments, attended minstrel shows, only worried about their job when the cotton famine hit. But certainly for men and women supportive of workers groups, they would have shared that opinion. From connecticut. I was wondering, to what extent did the emancipation proclamation change the opinion of foreign nations about the civil war and whether they could 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 have discussed as to whether or not antietam itself was responsible for shutting the door for european recognition. But the emancipation proclamation and its issuance played a huge role. Napoleon iii still has these vain hopes maybe he can nudge the british to be supportive of some sort of intervention, but it gets really hard to be on the side, if youre the british, who abolished slavery in 1983. Now that the war will be to end slavery, how do you introduce justify intervention on the part of the south . Prof. Fleche there was some confusion about the emancipation proclamation, because it is not free all slaves in north america. Some saw it as a hypocritical measure, just to win the war. There was no doubt, as the progress of emancipation progresses and it becomes clear slaverys on the way out, it certainly has an impact on european Public Opinion, no doubt about that. At the end of, his book about the civil war, said we never had a massive socialist revolution in the United States because of the intensity of the National Civil war and the national exhaustion. What did germans and other radicals, socialists think about the fact they supported the union, but afterwards, in the decades following more 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. That the south was not capitalist, it was feudal, and therefore ending slavery was making the United States 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 postreconstruction u. S. South and the gilded age north. So instead of seeing the 1880s coming as an outcome of the civil war, it is seen as a counter revolution to the outcome of the civil war. A lot of people miss that revolution because it was so quickly undone by a counterrevolution, to a certain extent undone by a 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 necessarily pursuing radical ends, they may have been pursuing conservative ends. Mainly, the preservation of the union. Great. Over here, on the right. Sandra sandra from british columbia, canada. My question, it is my understanding that about 40,000 of 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 . In the u. S. . 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 a lot of whomans, had escaped slavery in the United States, there was only one free state in the north, and that was canada. Going to one of the socalled free states in the United States, you were still subjected to be hunted down and return it to slavery, and canada with the was the free state to the north. So maybe that has something to do with it. I dont know. Thank you so much for your scholarship on these topics. Foreign policy issues, labor history are really close for me, interests of mine. My question is about the kind of transitional period in the mid19th century. Kind of across all three of you, all four, this is a real transitional moment, the American Civil War and other conflict abroad. Im wondering as we go through our own transitional moment right now, on the international stage, if you see any parallels, any 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] fleche we are in a moment where realpolitik is back. 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, in the Republican Party thinking in the civil war, that the United States 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. One of the interesting things, you could say the 19th century that we are talking about 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 are the moments in which the nationstate is becoming what francis lieber, a german immigrant, said it is the defining political entity informing peoples lives. Until recently, that is kind of what many people assumed, and then we have internationalism, globalization, and the big question we arent really clear about is whether this is the end of that liberal order, that in some ways, i would not say the only way, because obviously world war ii is very important, but in some ways it had its birth in the period that we are looking at, and it had a violent birth. The question, is it dying . If it is not, then what is it doing . And is it going to be violent, or is it going to be not . Thats a question that is not just domestic, but one that plays out internationally. Prof. Zimmerman all the bursts of liberal nationalism, the civil war, german unification, italian unification, came out of a betrayal and defeat of a poor peoples democracy, too. Another thing to remember also, it wasnt just a victory against absolutism but also over workers movements, former enslaved people here, and one of the lessons of the civil war for those movements, there is a saying that when thieves fight, honest people prosper. When these conflict are going on, it is time for people to reactivate, in ways that were not captured by the nationstates. Prof. Schoen that is a great question. Looks like here on the left. John john from charlestown, 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. And of course the civil war in the United States offers an answer to that question. But what was the reaction on the global stage, if any, to reconstruction in the United States as counterrevolution . What reaction did that get . Prof. Zimmerman one thing i would say is european powers widely admired the United States enslavedg formerly labor and using it, subordinating it to produce profitable crops. I wrote about that process in west africa, but it was also widely admired around the world. In some ways, the postemancipation u. S. South that might look backwards in many eyes, it did not look towards to modern and advanced european colonial powers. This is how to establish White Supremacy and advance capitalism, again. I mean, it was a horrible model. When i say model, i do not mean good. But it was very influential in european colonial powers. Prof. Schoen to the left. Kent i just have a quick question. My name is kent, from arizona. Is there a body of research . I have seen examples, but take the trend talking about effective foreign policy. 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 force in the world. You are sending troops to 50,000 canada . Go right ahead. We have a millionman army. That is what this guy was writing about. But what i heard in lincolns correspondence, he was a consummate statesman. The englishded with government, but also with benito juarez, i believe, in mexico, because juarez, he really went out on a limb, but he said lincoln did not only win the civil war, he reestablished the trust between the two countries. Because juarez said, being from arizona we get this drummed into us, but he 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. And i think also, if you talk to i think he talked to england a little bit, in the sense of, talk all you want now but 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, this is my question, 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 was growing. Lincoln subscribed to the one war at a time position. But i think you are right, especially the secretary of state seward used that threat, whether it was realistic or not, to try to temper british eagerness to get involved. As far as juarez, the lincoln government is a very important backer and ally 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 grant after lincolns assassination, but seward and grant were very projuarez and antifrench. [indiscernible] prof. Schoen there is a book called lincoln and the world, and i forget the authors name. The other book i would recommend is the cause of all nations, by don doyle. Also one that deals with this period. I think we have time for one more question, and we have one man standing, so lets let him have it. John john willen 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, this brotherhood, and one of the premises, at least a segment of the irish who came over here to join the union army, did so so they could then come back and free ireland from britain. And in 1866, some of these guys actually invaded canada with the idea they would hold canada hostage for the freedom of ireland. Is that true, or how common was that . Prof. Fleche it is true. [laughter] it did not go very well, but it is true. Prof. Schoen they also took a ship and tried to attack ireland itself. That it not go very well, either. With that note, we will end, or hand it over to our fearless leader, who will tell us what to do next. Thank you so much. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] this is a American History tv on cspan three, where each weekend, we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nations past. American history tv products are available at the new cspan online store. Go to cspan store. Org to see what is new from American History tv and check out the cspan products. Next on the presidency, three former white house speechwriters talk about the process of turning a president s policies and politics into a speech. This session was from the president ial ideas festival hosted by the university of virginias miller center. Kyle we appreciate you coming, and there are a few other panels going at the same time so thank you for picking this one. This is the one on speech writing. We are lucky, my name is kyle and i am a former speechwriter for president obama. We are also really luc
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.