In some ways, this is not a new thing. People have been writing diplomatic histories of the e the conflict ended. I think a combination of the centennial rethinking of what 19thcentury globalization is. And our current context in which americans are rethinking what it means 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 that situates the u. S. Civil war in a broader context. We are fortunate to have three young and excellent scholars who are going to help guide us through this. We look forward to our questions at the end. I will start here to my left, assistantson is professor of history at sacred heart university. 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. Left of him is andre fleche, a professor of history. 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. The author of alabama and africa, the german empire and the globalization of the new south, and the editor of marx and engels writings on the civil war. He is currently working on a history of the u. S. Civil war as an international workingclass rebellion. This is understanding the first time 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. You guys are aware of the lot of dynamics of the civil war. What about people outside of the United States in 1860 . What are some of the other things that were competing for headlines in Something Like the london times, probably the most widely circulated newspaper at the time. What are some of the things that 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 a random london times, they may be able to speak about some other ones in the western hemisphere. Its the political machinations, the soap operas of europe. They seem to embroil these writings. The u. S. Is competing in this sense of the civil war. Spilled tolot of ink discuss the war, not only on the military front and various political implications as well. It is competing but it is taking up a surprising amount of space when you look at some of these papers. And they emphasized two developments that were really important in the 1860s. First, the rise and development of nationalism in europe, which in some ways 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. At this time, european powers were pushing into south east asia, the far east, and also the western hemisphere. The major powers of europe are very interested in the civil war because they viewed the United States as a competitor in the western hemisphere. When the war broke out, you have three major empires that still had a stake in the western hemisphere. Great britain, the french empire and the spanish empire. With the United States disintegrating, there was an opportunity for european powers to take advantage. As you know, the United States had just come off a big victory in 1848 in the mexican war by adding 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. Up theirsh shored claims to parts around the honduras nicaragua coast. All world powers the passage to the pacific is going to be key. Both for europe and that United States. Just as 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. This was the moment for the french. In the 1850s through a coup detat took power in france. He was very much committed to reestablishing a french empire, not just in algeria, but in the western hemisphere. He was not an admirer of the United States. He has visited the United States when he was a young man. Maybe not surprisingly, from a french perspective, he found americans to be greedy, materialistic, and uncultured. 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 your of the civil war and then extending throughout the first half of 1860s. In europe, we are seeing italian unification as the war is breaking out, a nation unifying. There is quite a bit on european minds 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. For two reasons, 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. It failed and it did not work and they had to go into exile. A lot of them went into exile in the United States. As many of you may know, one in 10 Union Soldiers had been born in a only a tiny percentage of them were communists. They were all members of the communist leak. They 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 . Where other than slavery is private property more important . They began to look at the civil war. They were really inspired by it. For them, the context wasnt what was happening at the same time but a series of revolutions that included 1848, the u. S. Civil war, that would include the Paris Commune and future revolutions they were hoping for. We used to talk about the having relative peace busting out under the auspices of the british empire. The picture is one that is filled with revolution and violence and concern. Maybe that is a segue into thinking a little bit about how it is that worth unfolding in america during this time, played out to europeans and other audiences. What do they 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 debating two important questions. First of all, this is a world of empires and monarchies. You have the United States, which is claiming to represent this idea of republican government. We dont mean the Republican Party. The idea of a Representative Government. Is that really the future of the world as the United States claimed . The second big question is what 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 . Certainly in the americas you have some countries experimenting with contract labor. Laborers asinese indentured servants. 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 for european liberals the , existence of the United States was a reaffirmation that a 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. It would have made their position much stronger in the americas. And of course, the confederacy become the most powerful and prosperous slave economy in the world. I think these are some of the issues people are paying attention to and trying to work out. From another perspective, looking at radical opinion in both europe and africa, one of the difficult thing for radical intellectuals to understand is 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 declare ending slavery in nigeria, someone named Robert Campbell had gone to what is today nigeria with the black abolitionist martin delaney. He wrote about the civil war. Like a lot of 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 to their captors. A third thing is the government of liberia was looking at lincolns wellknown plans, colonization plans to deport free africanamericans from the United States. While most people of african descent recognize this as rooted in racism, the government of liberia was saying please do that and send the africanamericans to liberia because we would like to have them here. Bit,st to add on a little i think it mirrors about what they are getting at, one great withle of this frustration it not syncing up, particularly 26, 1863, is march you have 3000 workingclass londoners who are uniting, rallying together in a city that has a lot of ties to the south because of money tied up in kotten. 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. They are working contrary to their interest what we heard about workers rallying in the north, they are working contrary to their interest. 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 . Is there anybody wants to take up that thorny question . At least when it comes to europe, something i can speak to is 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 never does that. They sell loans abroad, but never have a loan directly sent out through a bank in europe. Its looked at in a different light, when you realize the daughter of erlinger is marrying john slidell, the confederate ambassador. So i have to feel that hes doing his daughter and future soninlaw perhaps a future a little favor. Immediately the same day he , floats the loan, he buys the exact same amount in union debt. At various exchanges throughout the country. Playing both sides. Prof. Thomson 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 at this point. 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 has some of these governments may consider or not consider recognizing the confederacy, or providing full support to the United States government. It is such a great question. You are probably familiar the way the question has traditionally been taught, to emphasize the importance of the slavery question. Generally we teach that. We teach that because the union was antislavery, Great Britain, france, other european powers simply were not going to get involved on behalf of the confederacy because their populations were opposed to slavery. But recently, as david is emphasizing, 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 that most likely 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 the canadas, to threaten the caribbean. They were still having this tension between selfinterest of nations and the humanitarian question of slavery. Maybe i can answer the 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 support they had been fighting against slavery long before 1861, but they certainly continued and expanded their fight after 1861. And one of the ways kind of the the nonu. S. Ways that people of african descent could think about history and politics and social change was afrocentrism, and through particularly, very important in the United States, the figure of moses, who was a biblical figure but interpreted, we know through many textural resources, as an african political leader and user of magic who was able to emancipate his people and lead them out of the land of egypt, the land of bondage. There were a lot of africanamerican political traditions by enslaved people, the less prominent africanamerican antislavery activists, who relied on a form of magic called conjure in order 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 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. Or the traditions of the United States. Lets worry about kind of 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. Prof. Schoen 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, are still the same . Or, does thinking about it from these different perspectives fundamentally change the narrative that we typically have of what the civil war was about . Prof. Fleche i dont think, we we are all going to disagree on this one, maybe. 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 i think it is really 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 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, and china, and australia, talking about the war. Its obviously a little 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 i think if we talk about that in a fuller sense, that we are really providing a greater framework for understanding the war more broadly. Prof. Fleche i agree. I think we gain a more realistic and 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 the way the world works, about politics, shaped in other contexts. Since were in gettysburg, i will just point out a few on the first day. , a man from the german states, found himself in charge of the 11th corps, which in civil war history, the 11th corps 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. Im sure andrew can say more about that. He was a german revolutionary in 1848, who joined revolutions because he wanted to create a Representative Government in germany. Maybe not quite the communist that some others were. But he was interested in civil liberties, workers rights, antislavery, which is why he backed lincoln and the union cause. And the reason lincoln appointed men generals, and siegel, 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, and he was 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. In the 14th, 15th louisiana regiments, that assaulted cults hill on day to wo, 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. Prof. Zimmerman 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, i think we would say anticapitalist today. Sigel was very anticapital. He deliberately disobeyed the orders in missouri after fremont was deployed. Deposed. He promoted halleck, who was infamous among radicals for prohibiting union units from allowing enslaved people into their lines. Siegel 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 debaclesedly siegels he was actually quite successful, and after halek takes over, he was not concerned about the configuration of the United States. Siegel was antislavery and not concerned about the confederation 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. And also to the currents flow through the civil war. In my own research, i am working a lot on the military history of the civil war, and the role of these radicals in the military history, and 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 kind of strategic stalemate and i would say 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 medical press u. S. And german radical press, for calling people contraband, that is, seized property. You have enslaved people in the west from the beginning fighting inside union units, and union units working very closely with enslaved people that i in ways 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. The war was won by the union. Guys, another great example that i like to come back to, looking at this immigrant populations, the communities that come in here. One great example i always love to spend a little time on is august belmont, who is from outside of frankfurt. He works for the rothschild family, comes to the united famous thanking house. Comes to the United States in 1837. He is supposed to be going to cuba to become the rothschild , and heagent there 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 real chair of the dnc to actually take it beyond being just an honorary title, and he has played a huge role in 1860, and even beyond. By the time we get into the war, he ultimately volunteers in volunteers his 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 at different points in europe and ultimately gets unceremoniously canned by the administration. This is an immigrant who comes to the United States and shapes so much of the late antebellum period. And beyond. 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 a numeric value to this by some estimates, one in four Union Soldiers was foreignborn. At least 18 was the son of an american immigrant. You put those statistics together, it does suggest a shockingly large percentage of the union army was what we would not 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 to us 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, 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. I mean certainly for the immigrants, they dearly hoped that it would. You know, 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 and what have you. And of course on the confederate side, they liked 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 maybe just to continue on that, focusing the german americans were, as andre was saying, were reviled in the confederate press and the confederacy, because they were seen and again, it is a a stereotype. There were germanamerican slaveholders. 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 dutchmen is what they called germans. Germans call themselves deut csh. That is german in 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 germanamericans in the south. There are stories of confederate soldiers bragging that they were going to scalp, take scalps from fallen germanamericans, because they were seen as particularly antislavery. What is also true is there were a lot of proslavery unionists in the union army. Henry halleck is 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 general in chief sigel was entirenly officer in the union army that had commanded 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 and the goodness they were not west pointtrained either. 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 in the immediate aftermath of the war, look in the congressional records when it comes to the debate over who to support in the francoprussian war. You have 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 really quite something to see that fairly heated debate, and one of the largest supporters of german americans is charles sumner, who spent a sizable amount 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. Its really quite something. Prof. Schoen 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. Its not that they were divorced from american society. In fact, they believed that their actions in the civil war would not just reform the United States, but the world. To speak to the irish, a good percentage of irishborn soldiers would have had some type of political 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 was the best 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 to that end, after the war, there was actually a fenian 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. But, you know, 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 reform ideas that we have 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, and 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, 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, as a which is 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, you know, 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 simply the ideological institutions from which they came. The political organization, ideological organizations tended to be churchfocused. When italians came to new york, they came as radicals, garibaldis people, and they depended separate churches, not only because of a separate language, but they did not like the proslavery conservative ideological orientation that they perceived in the irishamerican church. And it is important to remember there were a lot of stereotypes and people, then as now, projecting their feelings onto a very 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 absolutely. I should jump in. There were many irishmen who fought for the confederacy as well. In their case, they were attracted to this idea of a war for independence. Right . 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. It strikes me that one of the things that has come up in our conversation is 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 are 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 a couple in which it was also an interconnected, 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 great interest. To me, obviously the financial component and the war itself is component of this 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 in all of this. The u. S. Comes out of the war. American banks start to open their own branches overseas. This is the first time this has ever happened. And so they start to 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, so it is a lot of money. Not 23 trillion today. But a billion dollars is a lot of money. 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. These powers go toe to toe at the end of the century. 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. You know, 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. Now, it is hard to measure the direct impact. But the brazilians did study the civil war. As the civil war is winding down, brazil got into a war with paraguay, and the emperor began elisting black 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. 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 that began in 1868. The spanish empire did not abolish slavery completely until after the insurrection was defeated, but both the rebels in cuba began liberating slaves, and then the Spanish Government started to introduce modest and delayed emancipation policies to try to quell the insurgences. The insurgency. And 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. And then quickly, the reunion of the United States had important geopolitical considerations. I mean, 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 did not all have good effects, right . The United States now becomes the imperial power in the americas, but it certainly transforms the 19th century, and some scholars have suggested, you know, the global balance of power in the 20th century and beyond. Prof. Schoen those pesky fenians, you could argue, 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 certainly this day, 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 as an embodiment of a way of doing politics that is and a way of thinking about the world and society that is rooted not only in the struggle against slavery, but the struggle to thrive and flourish in and after slavery, and looking at many of the places of great revolution against slavery during the civil war, helena, arkansas, being my favorite, many of them were the cradle 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, blues is the roots and the rest are the shoots. You think about 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 have touched on some of the very broad and many interesting ways in 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. When you think about this we are , really interested to see what questions you have, maybe other topics you would like discussed. Best to discuss. We will open the floor now for questions. We will begin over here with this gentleman. Jerry gary gary smith, from connecticut. Notwithstanding seward and 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 should start there. You know, it is hard to say. But when i would say is the british were very aggressive about asserting their rights. Right . If you are not familiar with the trent affair, the United States the United States ship pulled two confederate envoys off a mail packet that was flying the british flag, 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 which would be the first step to war. The british did send troops to canada. All that said, obviously, what this did is it caused lincoln and seward to back down. They released mason and slidell. So, you know, i think certainly, as cooler heads prevailed, and the Lincoln Administration did realized they 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. But it was 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 the role the other european powers had in that. It wasnt just britain and the United States who did not want a conflict at that moment. 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 is the extent to which 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 some of these other 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 the willingness of the Lincoln Administration 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 diplomacy in 1862, during the cotton famine, and the fall of 1862 kind of played out, in 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 try to 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 mention, but in view of both its system of government and its system of labor, it would seem to be very interesting, and that is russia. What did either the russian aristocracy or intellectuals or anybody else else think about it . 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. From the russians. We can look into that, as to what the real meanings are there. Apparently the party in new york , was something else. 35,000 bottles of champagne, 25,000 oysters, it was wild. But they evolved serfdom during the American Civil War. So from what i read in russian correspondence from that time period in st. In 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 huge part of all of this. Prof. Fleche the other ideological interest ideologically that russia had is interest 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 out in russia itself. Prof. Zimmerman one final thing about it is really interesting, looking from a comparative perspective, russia other places that abolished serfdom, prussia earlier, they found a way to theoretically abolish unfreedom but keep power over the land, keep people bound to the land. That was also something you saw in abolition of slavery in the americas, too. It is a complex idea of freedom also at work in the 19th century thats hard for us to in the 20 20th century to see. 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. It looked for other sources. One of those was india. Of course, and we know in the 1930s, 1940s, gandhi made a famous, spinning his own cotton, because cotton coming from india back to england as material, gandhi saw that as a bad thing. Part of revolution. So cotton was part of the indian revolution as well. What other things did other countries do to impact the loss of the souths tobacco and 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 south produced the vast majority of commercial cotton, prior to the war. The war dried up most of their much of their supplies, and it is not coincidental, as i earlier, mentioned that in the midst of the war and immediately afterwards, european powers went looking for other places to get there cotton. Their 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 paul, from pennsylvania. I noticed in some of the readings of european popular literature, like charles dickens, victor hugo, Samuel Johnson they seem to make a , comment ridiculing america, saying this is the land of the free and you have outright and you tolerate slavery. How prevalent was that attitude, in europe . Prof. Fleche i would say that it was prevalent among the intelligentsia, certainly the liberal, educated populace, especially on the reforming wing. I think that that was also the opinion of politicallyactive workers. I say politically active, because theres a lot of debate in the 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 that were supportive of worker groups and reform, 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 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 Mcpherson 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 plays 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 how do you justify the action of intervention on the part of the south . Prof. Fleche early on, 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. But i think there is no doubt that 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. John keegan, 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 and socialists think about the fact they supported the union, but afterwards, in the decades following more and following, 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 that therefore ending slavery was making the United States more perfectly capitalist. That was not a contemporary view. I mean, certainly some southerners imagined that slaveholders were like aristocrats or something, but really it was a radical revolution. A lot of people, not just foreign radicals, not just communists, but also them 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 the most correct analysis of the whole thing is w. E. B. Dubois, when he said a there was a revolution of enslaved black 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 rather than seeing the south, 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. I would say a lot of people miss that revolution because it was so quickly undone by a counterrevolution, or largely undone, to a certain extent undone by a counterrevolution. And keegan is not the only one who missed the real revolution. Prof. Schoen it could also be remembered that 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 is, 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 had to do with worry about the war spilling over or changing something about the north, or do you think there is no knowing why that many 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. Anyone else want to prof. Zimmerman i do not know about these canadians in particular, but for afrocanadians, a lot of whom 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 hunted down under the fugitive slave law and returned to slavery, and canada 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 of you, this is a real transitional moment, the American Civil War and other conflicts going on 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] prof. Fleche we are in a moment where realpolitik is back. You know power politics, the , direction that our relationship with china is heading, this idea that big unions oppose each other naturally or have competing interests. You know, i think there is certainly a component to that, in the Republican Party thinking , and 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 that we could talk about. Prof. Schoen i will not totally punt on it. I think one of the interesting things is that 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 of 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, we have 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. That is one of the things we have explored here. The question is, 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 maybe just one small from a slightly different perspective on that question 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. And that is another thing to remember also, it wasnt just a victory against absolutism but also over workers movements, over formerly enslaved people here, and i think 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 captured by the nationstates. Prof. Schoen that is a great question. Lets start 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 that european powers widely admired the United States for taking formerly enslaved labor and using it, and keeping it racially subordinated to produce profitable crops. I wrote about that process in west africa, but it was also widely admired around the world. It was seen the ways that the postemancipation u. S. South might look backwards in many sensibilities look modern and advanced too many 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 here on the right. 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 but cannot substantiate it. Take the example the trent example, 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 was that in lincolns correspondence, like you say, he was pretty much the consummate statesman. He corresponded with the english government, but also with benito juarez, i believe, in mexico, because whereas i heard this. 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. But i do not think lincoln gets credit for solidifying the border issue with benito juarez. And also 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. And i think 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 that lincoln wanted to tangle with the royal navy, although it is true that the American Navy was growing. You know, lincoln subscribed to the one war at a time position. But i think you are right, that especially secretary of state seward used that threat, whether it was realistic or not, to try to temper british eagerness to get involved. And as far as juarez, the lincoln government is a very important backer and ally of the juarez regime. Which juarez was a liberal reformer in mexico who was fighting the french invasion. The border issue is settled more under johnson and after Grant Johnson and 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. Pomeraro . Something like that. 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. And it talked about this group, this brotherhood, and one of the this group called the fenian 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] prof. Fleche it did not go very well for them, but it is true. Prof. Schoen they also took a ship and tried to attack ireland itself. That it not go very well, did not go over well either. With that note, we will end, or hand it over to our fearless leader, who will tell us what to do next. Prof. Thomson 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] tonight, a discussion of Abraham Lincoln and native americans. The 1950 filma, invasion of southern france. And the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of virginias first general assembly, held at jamestown. Explore our nations past on americanstorythre history tv products are now available at the cspan store. See what is new for American History tv and check out all of the cspan products. Nex next on the presidency, 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. Kyle 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 sarada and john
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.