My name is ruth robinson. It is a pleasure to welcome you for our program. Before i get started, i would like to ask you to silence your cell phones. No photography or filming. Suggest you might want to sit up straight. We have cspan here tonight, they are going to be filming. [laughter] after 50 seconds of fame just might happen tonight, you never know. It is a pleasure for me to a compile quickly. Ely is in the History Department at virginia tech. A native of manchester, england, he holds degrees from Lancaster University and university of North Carolina at chapel hill. Author of shifting grounds, nationalism and the American South, 18481865, which won the British Association for american study book prize. And the Jefferson Davis award for the museum of the confederacy. He has also published articles and journals suggest the journalists of the history and journal of the civil war era. Among his Current Research projects, the South Carolina congressman who achieved notoriety by caning sentence for Charles Sumner before the senate in 1856. In mapping the fourth of the line the civil war era which is a collaborative digital humanities project Computer Science fiction through chicken library virginie in the library. Please welcome me in join me in welcoming paul quigly. [applause] think you so much for that kind welcome. Beis such a privilege to able to speak at an institution like the smithsonian at the forefront of the preservation come of the interpretation of a American History. Thank you so much for having me. Most places i go, there are two but quickly come out, they already have tonight. Number one, imf historian of the civil war. Number two, i am an englishman. [laughter] by themselves, either one of those doesnt occasion that much comments typically but when you put them together, i am so amazed at how much of a reaction i get. Put togetherts provoke a wide range of reactions, including mild amusement, maybe before the month. Often there is an intense interest in the question of how people from other parts of the world are interested in the American Civil War, whether that comes from people who didnt grow up. Surrounded by the battlefield learning about it in school, and so on im certainly not alone, i am not the only person interested in the subject. People around the world especially in europe, but another places to come a fascinated by your civil war. If im civil war reenactors in places like the u. K. Germany, other countries. There is an American Civil War roundtable flying the Confederate Flag and so on. When i taught at the university of edinburgh, there was never any shock that students who wanted to learn about the and its Civil War History thats true of many other Foreign Universities as well what my point is that im not so peculiar, not in that particular way, anyway, theres lots of people around the world fascinated for one reason or another by the American Civil War. This is true today. The main thing i will talk about tonight is the fact that it was also true at the time of the American Civil War in 1860. People all over the world took great interest in what was going on in this country. Also going in the opposite direction americans also will tout to the rest of the world, and connected what was going on with them with the civil war to events in other parts of the world. Both directions, theres in thet in the 1860s International Context of the American Civil War. Of course the civil war by definition is something that happens within the borders of one country. Some people dont call it the American Civil War, there may be some dispute there, but most of us do. It has traditionally been interpreted in precisely that way. Didnt have much relevance in recent years, historians, quite a number have been engaged in an investigating or writing about many different kinds of connections between the civil war and the rest of the world, connections, entanglements, that have crossed National Borders. I should say at the outset at europe and britain are going to come up quite often, im a bit biased, but it is also a reflection that in the mid19th century, europe and particularly Great Britain, were the places that americans were interested in. That had more of an impact from the American Civil War than other places. Even so, what i will refer to on asion had weinberg wider ramifications for the rest of the world as well. The way im going organized tonight lecture is by talking somewhat about tangible interest. One of the big reasons people around the world care about what is going on in the american itil war is because they is strategic interest that state , because of the scale of migration they often had population interest at stake. The concrete ways civil war reverberated around the world, for nations felt an interest in what was going on. To win or lose, sometimes a great deal, depending on the outcome of the civil war, in terms of territory, human life, resources, and other things. So these tangible interests are going to come up quite a lot trade i will spend most of my time talking about a slightly different level of interpretation. On another level, the reason the civil war mattered to the rest of the world was because there was it was embedded in larger history,nts in world and often turned around and influence in elements of World History as well. Thats what you see up on the ineen under wider paths World History. One of the reason people were interested in what was going on tooheir country is, they were experiencing similar kinds of issues in their own countries. Issues relating to democracy orsus oligarchy aristocracy on the other side. Issues relating to the emergence of modern nationalism were also very important. International affairs from international law, geopolitics, and world fire between different nations and parts of the world, connected other peoples experiences to the American Experience in the 1860s. And finally come of the rise and fall of racial slavery in the new world, civil war had a lot to do with the way that story played out. Issues im glad weve got a couple of hours together weve got a lot to talk about. Between these as you will see as i go through, again those tangible interest will keep coming up. This is our agenda. Aim is to give you an incredibly long answer to the question i often get asked as to why i am interested in the American Civil War, by showing you how people around the world in the 19th century were interested in the American Civil War. But before we take a really deep dive back into the 19th century, i want to take you on a prelude, detour to my home town of manchester, england, in the early 20th century. Even though i didnt realize it growing up, manchester has actually got its own tiny piece of Civil War History. In the middle of the city center, a place i probably passed numerous times as a kid. I never realized it until later, but here it is. It is a statue of Abraham Lincoln. Its right there in the city center of manchester. Actually the only Abraham Lincoln statue in the u. K. , theres also one in edinburgh, where lived for six years and taught at the university there. And a third one in london. Its a good reminder of the continued and very concrete relevance to the American Civil War, especially lincoln, to other parts in the world. The manchester and london statue in particular i think can help us figure out the nature of these connections as they began to evolve in the 1860s. The stories of the origins of these two statutes manchester and london are closely intertwined. I will tell you a little bit about that story. It began in 1909 with a very longwinded sounding Organization Called the committee for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of peace among English Speaking people. [laughter] this was founded in 1909. I do not know how they fit all of that in their stationary, but the idea is that the centenary of the end of the war of 1812. In. The war ended, peace was done in 1812 can the fighting finished in 1815. They were looking at i had a few years and they wanted to find a way to celebrate the fact that English Speaking people, most notably the u. K. And u. S. , had managed to live together for 100 years without having the war. This is quite in a compliment 20 century. So there were branches of this organization on both sides of the atlantic, trying to figure out how they would implement that. A group of english people travel to the u. S. And one thing themsaw that impressed greatly was the agosto stashed statue of lincoln, which is in chicago, and linkin park. The best ou that one in london will seem very familiar. This one is a replica of the statue in chicago. Statue, to that a replica of that, will put in london. Decided they would also direct a statue of Queen Victoria right here washington, d. C. Then the third one, probably less expected, was a statue of the historian Francis Parkman in ottawa. Its really a for through exchange between britain, the u. S. , and canada, against the celebrating its 100 years of these very so they figured it out. By 1914 plans were in place. But then, Something Else happened in 1914. The outbreak of the great war, which obviously interfered with her lands. And other things to do. They actually had trouble raising the money to fund these statues. The project stalled for a while. In the meantime, there was another development in the world of Abraham Lincoln statues, and that took place cincinnati. Charles taft the halfbrother of resident William Howard taft, had commissioned a lincoln statue, created by george grey bernard, which was on failed instance and that a, 1917. Here it is, if youve youve seen this i would guess, this famous one in chicago. So this was put up in 1917. Charles taft was pleased, so pleased that he wanted to have a second one made, and exact replica and send it over to london. He was going to pay for the whole thing. It seemed as though this would solve the problem that theyve been having having a good their projects underway. Made an offer, the heat sucked in, it seems like that would be the end of the story. But then firestorm in the media broke out. High levels of leadership on both sides of the atlantic, among people who really didnt like the lake and that was portrayed in this particular statue. As you can see from the quotation from his surviving son one of the biggest critics of this statue. He sees it as monstrous, grotesque, inflammatory. She doesnt like the fact that it was made doesnt want this to be the image of lincoln that is projected overseas in such an important city is london. I do not know what you think, maybe he goes too far in his denunciation of this statue. But if you take a closer look, you can kind of see what is talking about. Wrinkled, even his skin is wrinkled. His hair is scruffy. Hes got these giants of hershands and feet, which a lot of people took exception to. He had digestive ailments, some people called it a summer cake statue. [laughter] the london times leader tom termed it the tramp. Deliberate on the part of the artist who betrayed lincoln to dish and a more authentic way. But people didnt like it, or pick particularly robert litan but other folks as well. So this a big brewha ha an American British press. Is thatome in late 1918 the committee decided they should revert to the original plans of having the same the garden statue, more president ial statue of up in london instead. They persuaded the canadian endowments, once again the problem is solved. Keen ontaft is still this idea of a replica of this statue. My underwear goes as long as it goes somewhere. People ask around and solicit requests for this statue. I think it was the first person who at the first person who asked for it was the mayor of manchester who said, we would like to have this statue of manchester, and sure enough thats where it ended up three to statue was unveiled on september 15, 1919 at flat field couple miles outside of the city center. Wasnt particularly grand but everybody seems fairly pleased, manchester got its scheduling by accident. This is such a london and the garden statue. There a great reminder me from different and images of lincoln and interpretations of the American Civil War that have evolved ever since the 1860s. The scruffy lincoln of the bernard statue was very appropriate, given manchesters hysteric identity as a workingclass city. I have describe it as the Pittsburgh Penguins to the pittsburgh of england to people. It was appropriate that manchester did get lincolns demand, government and the president. It was especially appropriate, given a famous set of correspondence between lincoln and the selfdescribed workingman of manchester which they exchanged in the winter of 1862 to 63. Excerpts from his correspondence were actually added to the to ae when it was moved Central Location that you see in the picture here. Beont expect any of you to able to read the text on the you can what he wants for this exchange. The work is at a mass meeting at the end of 1862. They decided that sense a lesson to Abraham Lincoln to congratulate him on the way that he is prosecuting the union cause in the American Civil War, and to tell him that they saw an identity of interest between their cause, which was a fight for class equality in justice and the u. K. , and his cause, which it was now becoming clear, was the cause of freedom for the slaves in the United States. They wrote to him and said, we think we are fighting for the same thing. We admire what youre doing. Lincoln he can see, for those , youu who want some detail can see in your hand out, for those of you just want a snapshot, ive exerted appear basically the thrust of lincolns comments, which was to workingwas sorry the was struggling because of the civil war. The back story to this is that there is a short cotton shortage caused by the American Civil War and Union Blockade the confederate cause was ofming the economic interest the cotton industry in england, including these workers. O lincoln apologized for that sorry you are having these problems, but reinforced what they said to him, namely we are fighting for the same cause. He talked about their letter that the inherent power of truth the universal triumph of justice, humanity and freedom are quite they were sending message for lincoln, fighting for the same things. These are the universal ideals that activate the union clause in the civil war, just as they activate your movement in the u. K. Again, a good introduction i think to one of the ways not the only way in which the civil war became connected to the rest of the world. The statue is still there. Another is not not that Many American tourist go to manchester, but does just in case, you can see it. It still has its critics by the way. One review on trip advisor. Com awarded only two stars out of five, and grumbled we can have enormous hands and tidy haircut and possibly the artist was having a bad day. It still controversial the way depict lincoln. But you can see it. You can also see the one in london, which was directed into law july 1920 in a much more grand ceremony that highlighted lincolns standing in the world as a key statesman and World History. One moree manchester representative of ideas, especially this idea of universal values of justice, humanity, freedom, being at the heart of the union cause during the civil war. So thats where i begin with it as we start to think about how other people around the world saw the American Civil War. And in reverse, how spent in the civil war artist reached out and connected themselves with other people. It wasnt only in the u. S. That people were having fights over democracy, over and equality, and so on, it was all around the world the 19th and 20th century as well. That made the complex very relevant, what people tended to do was interpret the American Civil War in ways that made sense to them, that reflected their own experiences, and helps them understand what was going on both places. Let me tell you a little bit foreignersay that responded to the American Civil War and political, ideological problems, questions, it raised. The traditional interpretation that the easy way to understand it is to think about conservatives who are of u. S. Democracy, who saw likeminded people among the slaveholders of the south, who talked about social inequality the natural thing, and really seeing an alliance ideologically between themselves and slaveholders in the south who were fighting against union. , you can seeside lots of progressive, liberal support for the union side of the civil war, theres all kinds of discussion about how accurate that is now complete an answer that is among historians, but basically thats a very Broad International opinion about the American Civil War. Really conservatives have always viewed the u. S. With great suspicion. This was the great democratic experiment. This is the opposite of what conservatives around the world so far you see a lot of responses from the civil war broke out similar to the one that came from a british mp in the house of commons in may 1861 , who remarked with some satisfaction, the republican bubble has burst. So the republic, the democratic, political system, which we roll part. Of is not going thats a good thing for conservatives around the world. A little bit later, commenting on the new york city riots of three comedy russian diplomat med register go, reported disdainfully, this is democracy and progress, the democracy the european terrorist rave about. Theres a sustained for american democracy. Lots of conservatives around the world are very happy when they see the United States falling apart apparently, democratic experience experiment might be over. On the other side of course, weve already seen the workingman of manchester, the they thought was lincoln, the union cause, emancipation. Whats really interesting about this side of the equation, it didnt seem so straightforward at the beginning of the war. In 1861, even into 1862, european progressives were often quite confused about what the americans were actually fighting over. Because they didnt understand that, and they didnt see it as freedomof democracy and on one side there was a harassed or perceived and slavery on the other they didnt automatically become enthusiastic about the union war effort. It was only over time particularly after the emancipation proclamation, but this became apparent. We want to be on the union side, because that site is the side of for the timings of the exchange between the manchester workingman and Abraham Lincoln. Only after emancipation in the short union war go ideological allies solidified. One of lincolns great strength i think, was cicely disability to articulate message of the union is the civil war, the cause of human freedom should be embraced and champion by progressives around the world. Case that he was particularly adept at this at the beginning. But over time, as he grew into his role as commanderinchief u. S. President , he became very skilled at presenting the union exactly this way. So those of you looking at the hand of, you will see a couple of great examples about from his address to congress Irvington Institute talking about the last best hope of a happy union cause. The gettysburg address in november 1863, Government People by the people are the people shall not perish. Just our fight its not just our fight, about what happens in the United States. Its also about the cause of freedom and justice around the world as well. Again, this inspiring rhetoric helps sell the Union Message around the world, helps really convince foreign progressives that this was a war they should be interested in for ideological reasons. Actually see similar sentiments and the writings of ordinary people. Even though lincoln is the one who wrote and spoke the words we all remember today, lots of ordinary people coming clean foreign immigrants in about the union cause in some similar terms. As to give you one example of a british man whos fighting in the union army, he wrote to his wife in 1864, reassured her, if i do get hurt, i want you to remember, it will be not only for my country and children, but for liberty all over the world at risk my life, fourth liberty should be crushed here what hope would there be the cause of Human Progress anywhere else . This taps into a very wide ranging attitude from progressives around the world, hopehat this is the last for our ideals, values. That will rise and fall with the union war effort. Of course, the civil war was only one phase in this longterm relationship between foreign progressives all over the world and the United States. Ever since the American Revolution, the u. S. Is loomed large as a model, a beacon of democracy, equality around equality around the world. The American Revolution became a model for other peoples revolutions, ranging from latin america in nearly 19th century, all the way up to ho chi minh in vietnam in the 1940s, who talked a lot about the u. S. Revolution and George Washington in particular, is a kind of role model. Again, these American Civil War fits into this much longer speaking of revolutions, there were some of those in europe in 1848. As to fit into the same, storyline that the civil war both in terms of democracy, because these tended to be democratic revolutions, but also in terms of the concept of nationalism as well. I will move on to the related issue of nationalism now, which was closely related to democracy. Both together were transforming large parts of the globe. I dont want to suggest nationalism caused the American Civil War, because the cause of was a disagreement over the future of slavery in the u. S. Once the conflict was underway, the principal elliptical itective of both sides, involved nationalism. On the unions, they try to all the u. S. Together and preserve the nation, on the confederate side, they are fighting for independence. That independence is intended and only came into being because do findry, but they their political objectives in terms of the competing claims about nationalism. What you see, if you look at the rest of the world in the mid19th century, and especially europe, it is the other countries are undergoing crises, nationalism, and in europe, the map of the continent was being transformed between the 1840s and 1870s. Decades while the conflict over slavery was tearing the United States apart. This is the map of europe in 1848. You can see the points for all of the revolutions going on that year. Now, we are going to fuss forward to 1871. End of an era and europe, and in the United States as well. In 1871, you will notice the map has changed quite significantly. Classroom, i ask students to call out the answers, but i wont do that with you. I will tell you instead. The two really big changes that 1871place between 1848 and are the unification of italy, which previously was just a jumble of different states and principalities. The other big change with the unification of germany, which i also been a collection of. Ifferent states these are the developments in european history of the 19th century. By processesined of National Unification in the usa. We have the luxury of knowing how the civil war turned out. It ended with the reunification of the country. You can see parallels between the u. S. And italy with germany. Peoples are coming together to form one nation. , in other parts of the world as well, similar developments, and in none of them are exactly the same. That is not what im trying to say. The tendencies are comparable. In a part of the world thats we dont think about in relation to the American Civil War, china, rebellion lasting through the 1850s and 1860s as well. This was a religious uprising, essentially. Control ofttle for china. It took 14 years for the ching dynasty to reestablish control over the country. The estimated death war, approximated lee, approximated, is between 20 million and 30 million people. War historians and anyone interested in the civil impressed, not in terms of being enthusiastic, but very impressed by the death toll in the American Civil War. 750,000 is also the latest estimates. Comparing that to china, 20 up to 30 million and you see other of the world are experiencing similar conflicts with even worth this worst worse death tolls. The u. S. , the Union Victory in the civil war fits well with the trends. At the same time, there were lots of smaller independent movements swimming in the opposite direction from these big centralized nations. Nations zed centralizations. In other parts of the world, atside of europe, india sees rebellion against British Authority in 1857. In cuba, after the civil war in 1868, you see the first real attempt and what becomes a on and off again effort to secure independence from spanish imperial control. We dontith think of this as a system like the others. Secure economyto within the British Empire. They dont bring opera and the bigger entity, but what they do manage to do is have greater autonomy within it. There are other examples. Examples of people struggling against the centralization of authority, trying to break off instead of join together and make larger nationstates. Are talking about unifications, or the separatist movements, youre talking about some of the same issues, same questions, how a National Border is drawn and reach on mesh on. Awn redraw redrawn. Similar issues were occupying other people around the globe. There were lots of parallels awn between what was going on there and other parts of the world. We often think of southern incession nests being paresh a, inward looking, and trying to fight against the wider world modern world. , rather than being part of the International Community. From the perspective of southern onists, just like everyone else, that drawing comparisons between themselves. Nd other movements from 1859, some of you may hurt have may have heard of him as he and may have heard of this man. In 1859, he gave a really interesting speech. It was a fourth of july speech in low country South Carolina. Part of what he said thats a rhetoric withsual being oppressed by the u. S. Government, people in washington, the northern states, and that we need to break off, achieve independence for the Southern States. What was especially interesting that today, he drew parallels between what he was claiming about the American South and what people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean were trying to do with their independent movements independence movements. He was talking about the people being so different that they should be separate countries. That isachary exactly the same way he said ireland was taking apart from britain. And various other countries breaking off in unification. Successionists tried to world thatelves in a we often dont think about too much. In terms of how successful they becausethink partly they did not succeed, but partly because of the lack of depth many of their arguments had. We dont take him seriously did a great i think it is interesting that they made the same kind of arguments that these european independence movements been. Usually the same kind of language and ideas. It was talked about of the difference between the nation of a group of people and the states. It is confusing in the american context because he wasnt talking about a state like virginia or North Carolina. He was talking about a state of the national government. He wants to see a Perfect Match up between the nation and a state, if a group of people represent a nation, then they ought to have their own. Overnment with no other nation he was campaigning for thats in italy. That is what he wanted to see around the world, as well. It is exactly the same idea that southern successionists try to advocate for as well. The problem was that they didnt have the strongest arguments. They didnt have the strongest evidence to back up what they were saying. , again, they did make the put themselveso in with the language and ideas of european nationalism in the 19th century. A lot of these nationalist movements were characterized by and otherationalism, forms where these movements rested on the claim of a deeprooted cultural community. They talked about a distinctive ethnic city, language, maybe, literature, which defines a people. Also, often a historical experience as well. Island, an example, an can point to traditional irish language, music, poetry, and so on and so forth, they were able to make the claim that they were unique people that existed for a long. Of time and, therefore, deserved national independence. They do not belong in the British Empire because they had all of these cultural characteristics. When the south tried to fit into this, before the civil war they were already engaged in this kind of activity, they had a little difficulty. They talked about ideas like the yankees and this involved the claim that southerners and northerners and the u. S. Came from two different racial and ethnic and political stocks back in the old world. Dated this back to the english civil war and, pretty much, said that one fight of that civil war had migrated to the Southern States, the roundheadse had migrated to the northern states and became the yankees. When you look at this, i am surprisingly it is not as neat as the southern thinkers would have liked it to been. There wasnt that much substance or what they were saying. Sometimes, the substance is less important than the message. They were able to persuade each other. A lot of times, there was this history to southern identity, this ethnic opponent. Ethnic component. One man from South Carolina talks about a unique style of southern literature. He tried to loot root southern identity in the historical experiences of the south. , the, they made the effort substance was a little lacking. Sometimes, that doesnt matter. Can be glossed over. That is what they were hoping. But, you probably are already thinking about one big problem. Claims, forern yourelity, and maybe thinking about the fact that so much about what made them unique that they shared with northerners, and that was a huge problem, because they had lived in the same country, shared historical experiences, language, religion, all of the rest of it was with northerners. That was a problem for southerners to explain what made them different. Often, theyng, could come back to was slavery. This was the big distinction between the north and south. Without the fundamental characteristic, the southern claims of distinctiveness, nationality didnt really amounts to much at all, if anything. It did make the south a unique civilization, people, but it was really the institution of slavery. This caused problems with the european audience. On the one hand, they are trying to align themselves with the independence movement, italy, hungary, poland. But, most of the leaders of the movements and many of the followers are actually antislavery and see themselves with theore aligned Progressive Side of things than the conservative slaveholding things side of things. He people like the nationalist leaders in this time point, he was firmly set against slavery. Same with many others. They did not see a unity of interests and i lies between what they were doing and what southern slaveholders were doing. Even if they taught some the same language. They dont always move neatly in the same direction. Often there are competing pushes and pulls when people try to form alliances and connections with people around the world. Slavery is a huge problem for the succession lists successionists. This guy was one of those people that was so interested in gaining support from other people that he would have allied. Ith just about anyone im not sure how they managed to do it. It seemed like tasmania would be a difficult place to escape from in the mid19th century. Nonetheless, he did it. He ended up in new york city first, for a while, and then an eastern tennessee outside of knoxville. Editor and newspaper an advocate. Into detail about connections he saw with the two movements. , forwere traditional, example. He actually saw a neat alliance between the two causes. He sent three of his sons to fight for the confederacy. I think that proved his loyalty to the cause. Clearly, for him, southern with then fit well irish example. He is the exception that proves the rule, it is not very often at all, that you get somebody that is political and their values allow them to support the confederate independence in the same way that they support independence movements in other parts of the world. Once the confederacy was formed, a new countrys diplomats were get diplomatic recognition. He made some of the same points, and they said, we are a genuine nation, we deserve independence. They began to emphasize other like, greece, which gained its independence in 1830s, and his been recognized diplomatically by the european italy,es fairly quickly, which was gaining its independence in 1860 and 1861. It was being recognized quickly by the other european powers. The confederate diplomats continued a similar kind of argument saying, we are a real nation, we are unique from the northern states, and we deserve to be recognized as much by the International Community of nations. The stakes were high. If they had been able to get recognition from Great Britain, and other countries as well, they could have benefited from a the veridical, claim of independence would have been that much more difficult for the union to deny if other countries around the world were theyting it, but also, might have been able to follow the example of the colonists during the American Revolution who had secured the alliance with france, which it involved military help. Gain the confederate could first diplomatic recognition, and then some kind of alliance, and ultimately, military help in the American Civil War. These stakes are high. As you can imagine, Union Diplomats said no. Not a real nation. This is an internal rebellion. One unified nation, the United States of america, and that is the way it should remain. That European Countries ought to be careful about recognizing upstart tooons to quickly quickly. It was an easy sentiment to give to the british. If you recognize the confederacy, what message does that send to the irish. Said. S. Secretary of state. Evolutions are epidemical if we start to recognize these that isns too quickly, going to be a disadvantage for you as well. Ultimately, these governments do not recognize the confederacy, and what i want to do next, is the little deeper into that. The diplomatic side of things as we move forward into the next theme that i identified at the beginning of international affairs. I want to get into the subject , where arguments were made, what worked and it didnt. We will also talk about international strategy. Thats from the perspective of various countries around the world. Well get a little into warfare, the laws of war, and all of that well, one of the thaty strong arguments both the confederate diplomats brought to europe, again, at the start of the civil war, they went to get recognition. One of the strongest arguments they brought with them, was an economic argument. Ing cotton diplomacy an idea that southern cotton exports were so important to the rest of the world, and especially the textile industries and Great Britain, france, and a couple of other countries, thats the confederacy would be able to simply say, you need our cotton, you have to recognize us alliances,lly, form and so on and so forth. Many historians have actually criticized these confederate diplomats for the faith they had in king cotton. They criticize the diplomats for being too optimistic, that this was going to work out. Sure enough, at the time, there were lots of people who had exactly the same idea. The idea that the southerners are too taken with this faith in king cotton and it is not going to work out. Ruppel, he was a correspondent from the london time to came over to cover the first part of the American Civil War, everywhere he went, he heard southerners say to him, we know what your country is going to do. You cant possibly avoid taking the side of the confederacy in this war. You need our cotton, need our friendship. He would dismiss it. Crownssumed the british rested on a cottondale. He doesnt think that was the case at all. The image on the other side of the screen, i will give you a moment to let that sink in. It represents a similar aptitude from a pictorial envelope. People produced and sold aselopes to be used envelopes but, had various images, often nationalistic or cartoons like this one on the outside. That would make them more interesting. Let me give you a second to let that sink in. Anyone notice the visa paper hanging out of the gentlemans pocket . Manchesterion to the i will do it. The cartoon gives a similar message to William Howard, and criticizing the southern overconfidence in king cotton. What you see here is, some kind of textile manufacturer for many this manchester that is down toer who is bowing the bale of cotton with a crown on his head. Underfoot is actually the figure of a slave, and africanamerican person, covered in blood. The message is more raw that this textile manufacturer is going to be perfectly happy to triple on the rights of slaves, not give them any consideration, whatsoever, because they need the cotton of the slaveowners so much. The verse goes along a similar thistalking about how textile manufacturer from and is going to bow down and yield more to the then to the throne, because death be his ear to the live chapel. Of people, at the time, and since have seen this and somewhatence unwarranted. , asy opinion, southerners the beginning of the civil war, werent entirely wrong to place so much faith in king cotton. It was a huge economic force. In the decades leading up to the American Civil War between 75 cotton of europes imports came from the u. S. South. It was a hugely important industry, especially in britain and france. It is a really big deal. There has been a tendency to follow his approach and dismiss the overconfidence. In fact, i think it wasnt entirely misplaced. It could have been a strong card and didnt seem to be a strong it turnedwell how out and we know that the card was not as strong as they had hoped and wanted it to be. There were a few reasons for that. Cotton crop in 1860. And the year before as well. The built up a little surplus over the last couple of years. It was less important when the civil war started and the cotton supply it began to dry up. It was a blockade by the union ships. Fatal to the richest exile industry than it would have been. The other thing is that there were all kind of other economic considerations as well. Sure enough, these European Countries where dependent were dependent on cotton, but they became dependent on other taxes well like wheat from the western states. Calculating the economic interest was not always straightforward as it southerners hope. Recognize the confederacy, maybe they would get more cotton, but, they might therefore endanger their supplies of weeds and other valuable trade in both directions with the northern states. There was also lots of Financial Investments in the United States. Particularly in the union and the northern part of the the country country. Some people, conserving the. Nion was sound from the very beginning of the war, the response from britain in particular, from this perspective of shortage of cotton, was beginning to develop cotton from other parts of the world. And if we are not going to get as much from the southern u. S. , maybe we can look to other parts of the world, and this cartoon illustrates precisely that. This man representing britain in the center and he is looking at these two guys fighting in the shop doorway. The union and confederacy. You can tell which is which by s on this guys shirt and the stripes on his pants. Theyre fighting the doorway. The caption is, if you guys like better than business, i shall deal across the street. Indianthe street is the market. Brazil and egypt were a couple other places. India works well because it was part of the British Empire and there were advantages to trading for Great Britain in particular. All of this meant that british textile manufacturers were able to avoid the worst possible effects of the cotton shortage from the u. S. And the civil war. Even though it did hurt, especially when you got into the after. 62, and nonetheless, they were able to weather the storm. One of the really wideranging effects of the American Civil War, on the rest of the world, namely the effects of the International Cotton industry. Because of the American Civil War, these other sources of cotton, came online and, after the civil war, even when the Southern States begin to producing and exporting in large sources, british had other options now. Way cotton ise produced and it was detrimental to the cotton industry in the method of that of the civil war in the United States after the civil war. Into theors played decision on whether to recognize the confederacy or not. For example, britain was exam. See the United States as a potential rival on the world stage. Maybe the United States, wasnt there yet in the 1860s, but it was coming a potential rival for britains dominance on the seas, around the world. From that kind of point, anything that weakened the union could be good for the rest of the world. Then, there was slavery. We looked at slavery as a problem for southern successionists in the civil war. This makes that story of diplomacy in europe pretty complicated, but interesting. It seems it should be straightforward, because we know Union Victory ended up abolishing slavery in the u. S. The 1860s,ws, by majority opinion in britain and to a lesser degree and other parts of europe as well, was antislavery. Britain had abolished slavery in its own empire in 1830. British abolitionists had started to work with the american counterparts after that in the fight against slavery. Uncle toms cabin was a bestseller in the u. K. U. K. Tionists came to the on speaking to hers and were warmly received. It is tempting, maybe natural, to assume that european opinion is antislavery, and therefore, they will side with the union. Earlier, though, in 1861, for an audience were not sure whether or not the war was about slavery. This is because, for Different Reasons, both sides went to Great Lengths to deny that this was a conflict over slavery in 1861. For the confederates, they knew that if they presented this as a war for the preservation of slavery, it would make them less popular than britain to britain. Also not want to present this for and against slavery because, to give us what lincoln was trying to do. He was trying to all the union together, sleep the sleep the slave only stays within the union, the border states havent succeeded and he recognizes that presenting this, even if thats what he wanted to do, which wasnt the case, it would have been detrimental to his ability to achieve his goal of holding the country together. Its ironic after the Different Reasons that representatives of both the north and Southern States denied that this is a war over slavery. Europeans were scratching their heads in 1861, and werent quite sure of what to make of this. Reasons,f these britain and the rest of europe, the rest of the world for that matter, decided that the their approach to the american civil waitas going to be, lets and see what happens. There is no reason to rushing in and recognize that confederacy, and getting involved in the conflict and we dont have to. The british Prime Minister writing to russell and thinking about the approaching conflict. Y warned that they going ed will get auarrel bloody nose. They said it is not a good idea to get involved in this as it wont turn out well to resolve this internal conflict. You will see a couple of other quotations on your handouts as well. The point is they make was it was self interests totally. Wasnt sentimentality, it was interest. What are we getting out of a getting involved in the war thats what are we getting out. F getting involved in this war france, for most of the civil resolved that they would onlyw britains lead and get involved in britain decided to do so. The proclamation of neutrality said that Great Britain is neutral in the complex. The other thing it did was identify the confederacy as a belligerent. This was good news for the confederacy, its a scene this is a stepping stone on way to recognition. Ion for the union, it was bad news, because they wanted the rest of the world to see this as a domestic dispute, something that would be resolved internally. The declaration of neutrality give the signal that this is a conflict between two belligerents. Calling them a belligerent gives stages. E side of from the union perspective, this is a terrible thing. This made Union Leaders angry. All isry of them secretary of state, William Henry stewart. Forceful,ligerent, still kind of angry at this point that he lost the chance to become president. Somebody he referred to as thats a little lawyer from illinois. Springs this out in the of 1861 and part on his diplomatic efforts. He tried to send a signal that he is not taking any nonsense from the European Countries. Even talks about the possibilities that maybe the union and the confederacy could come back together, fight the foreign war against one or more European Countries. He is certainly very clear on britain and any other country and what they think about recognizing the confederacy. He is very clear, if you do thats, we go to war with you as well. Whenever i say that, it seems a little bit farfetched. After all, didnt the Union Struggle enough to defeat the confederacy . They had their hands full already. When you sent these threats, to britain, they were just about credible enough to give these and think,ome pause why would we recognize the confederacy and risk getting into a war with the union . Its not worth it. We will wait and see what happens. This is a great strategy in any conflict if you can just wait on the sidelines until you see who is going to win, and then sighed with them. You will be on the winning side all the time. Whats britain and the other European Union countries did. They said to the confederacy, you need to establish your independence on the battlefield and then we will recognize you. Union efforts to keep written out of the war attracted a little bit of mockery from some of the british press. It is represented here in a cartoon from 1861 from the magazine punch. The cartoon defects Great Britain, the maternal figure in the middle wearing the union jack on her apron in case you werent sure who she was supposed to be. Is calmly telling drinking tea while the petulant child is a representation of america, jonathan, used to represent the u. S. Who is saying, you shant interfere mother, and you ought to be on my side, you shall interfere, and i wont have it. Is that Great Britain is just going to continue drinking its tea and staying calm while this petulant child, the u. S. , tried to send threats and their messages about what it should and should not do. A smallal is, this is potato to us and we wont get involved in the conflict. Again, the catch22 for the confederacy was that they constantly got the message that battlefields and the success there would lead to diplomatic recognition, but, from the confederate perspective, that was diplomatic recognition and will it achieve success. There was a possibility of a military alliance. Imagine how much it would strengthen the political position against the Link Administration if the rest of , theorld said yes confederacys independent. It would be much more difficult for lincoln to resist that. Meanwhile, slavery continues to exert a very complicated and changing influence on this whole process of civil war diplomacy. Gun is my smoke and quotation here. Graduallyncoln moved toward the emancipation policy, which he did throughout 1862, diplomatic issues, world opinion, were much on his mind. 1862, i cantry imagine that any european power would dare to recognize the southern confederacy if it became clear that the confederacy stands for slavery and the union for freedom. Course, this wasnt the only reason. The main reason that he linked that she moved toward emancipation policy, but i think it shows how important the International Context was in his mind as he was deciding how to move forward and when to move forward towards emancipation. During 1862, as all of this is going on, as lincoln and his slavery policy is devolving. Again, the big prize, continues to watch and wait and actually gets close to taking some sort of role in the inrican civil war, probably some kind of organized media efforts. It was very unlikely that britain would have said ok, we are going to go into the civil war on the side of the confederacy, but, it is very british ts britain and france and other European Countries, go to choose sides in the civil war and say, it is time to stop fighting and time to sit down and figure this out. Appear are some of the steps along the way. Great britain inserted these. There is a motion in parliament put forth by william lindsay, one of the great friends of the confederacy and parliament to recognize the confederacy. It doesnt pass, but there is a fair amount of debate on july 18, 1862 whether it should pass or not. They showed it that they were at least thinking about it. Thisonstant shortage, by point, was beginning to bite more than it had been the previous year. More likely that britain would intervene to ring the civil war to an end. People are talking about the need to intervene for humanitarian reasons. Something that will sound familiar to us, in the present time, when we see other civil wars around the world and wonder reasonsthe humanitarian should cause you to intervene. Melted ualties mounted, the countries may be thought maybe we do need to intervene to stop the bloodshed. It seemed in the summer and fall of 1862, everyone waiting to something for something to happen, something decisive, that could make up their minds. It seemed in september of 1862, just maybe lincolns move into maryland may be would be enough to tip the balance and thats what bring a decisive closure to britains decision. Up can see the quotation there. He is talking about lees move into maryland and he said if they would sustain a great feet, they may be at once ready for mediation and the iron should be struck while it is hot. He is at signs that least thinking little harder some kindation, about of intervention and some kind of brunos are doing that as well. That the states dates are scribbled on the timeline and that reflects the took the fact that news a time to traverse the Atlantic Ocean. Have been ahere telegraph cable laid in 1858, but it quickly stopped working and it didnt end up being replaced until after the civil war. This meant they had to wait for the news to travel by ship. The battle of antietam had already happened, and the preliminary emancipation, which lincoln released in the wake of antietam, and had already happened as well. The british, and a sense, were catching up with the news from america. The news of the war, of antietam, of the confederate emancipation proclamation which change the way bridge and about slavery in the civil war. Became fairlyin reasons,t, for various mostly reflecting the position they had staked out at the beginning of the war, lets wait and see, it continued to be the case that there was no signal whatnow is the time when they stood to gain would outweigh the potential losses of getting involved in the American Civil War. Thats never happened, and the so Great Britain stepped back a little bit and never really came as close after that. One more cartoon to illustrate the ongoing aptitudes. And johnis from 1863 as this hulking figure, much bigger, stronger than the two combatants in the American Civil War, and he is saying, look here, if you throw stones at my windows, i much fresh you both. In other words, take your bike over there, i dont want to get involved. If i have to, i guess i will, but i would rather stay out of your small skirmish. That is civil war diplomacy. I always thought of that as one of the roads not taken during the civil war. It could have had a tremendous impact on the outcome of the civil war. That side ofe took recognizing the confederacy, it didnt actually happen. There has been a lot written over the years over civil war diplomacy. It was an area of International History of the American Civil War that is fairly well known and people have written quite a lot about. What is less wellknown, unless often written about, are the wider Strategic Interests that structured European Countries and other countries and the responses to the civil war. Look in how they responded to the American Civil War, it is obvious to any of us how any government response to foreign events, and they have to look at it and say things like, how is this going to affect me is it a potential threat to our country . Flipside, can we profit from this. Is what a number of countries did when the American Civil War broke out. It was to try to figure out how they could capitalize on the instability, crisis of the civil war, and get something out of the situation for themselves. One of the ways that a couple of countries tried to do this was to try to turn back the clock in a sense. And try to regain or establish more of a foothold in the americas. Have beenountries warned away from doing the spec in 1823 from the Monroe Doctrine which had been mostly adhered to since then, and of the u. S. Had declared that European Countries should stay out of the americas in return, the u. S. Would stay out of european affairs. Mostly, this had been a tear two. When the civil war broke out, europeans realized this could change the situation for them and thats maybe the u. S. Was in a weaker position, maybe that would be the u. S. Is less likely to defend the idea of the Monroe Doctrine. Sure enough, that is exactly what happened. Ofe a couple of examples this to share with you. The first involved spain. Back in the 15th and 16th century of course, spain at pine and the european exploration, the settlement of the new world, setting up these fantastically prosperous colonies had been the first big Success Story of the new world colonization. By the time of the american spain place in the world had declined. Possessed a couple of important colonies including puerto rico and cuba. That was a pale shadow of what had been spain in the new world and even in european politics by the 1850s, spain was a minor player compared to britain and france. Sometime thats maybe spanish leaders were getting ready to make a bit of more power, greater status on the world stage, it was involved , they italian unification wanted a convincing military victory and, when the civil war broke out, it presented a golden to try toy to spain get back into the business of acquiring territory in the caribbean, maybe other parts of latin america. What happened was, in may 1861, a few weeks after fort sumter begin the American Civil War, n it won its independence in 1821. It was occupied by haiti from 1822 up to 1844. It shares the same island with haiti. That was not a huge surprise. In 1844, it became independent again and, since then, a struggle to do very much with independence. There were some that thought the illusion to their problems was to rejoin spain and ask spain to reenterings santo domingo. A shady they held process. It came out in favor of reannexation of spain. They went to spain, will you rihanna access we you reannex us. They would normally say no and in 1861,is move, but they recognized that the Lincoln Administration had its hands full with the developing civil , in may 1861, Queen Isabelle the second signed the again and spain was once i in charge of santo domingo. This did not work out from spain. Many of them had wanted to begin with this and didnt want it now. Santo domingo proved to be a drain on the spanish economy rather than whats they had hoped for, which was a new dual on spains crown. Spanish leaders were relieved and more than ready to pull out in 1865. Notice the date. That is significant. For usy important thing is that, the beginning of the exercise, the reannexation of , started the beginning of the civil war. Of the civilding war that provided the final trigger for spains withdrawal from santo domingo. It was a clear example of a foreign country using the civil war to do something it wouldnt normally have done, trying to expand its own interests overseas. Something, somewhat similar, happened with france and mexico. Bit of a mess by the 1860s. Mexican politics were causing deep divisions between conservatives and liberals. The late 1850s, mexico was practically fighting a civil war by itself. Thisf the results of instability, was that, in 1861, the Mexican Government defaulted on its loan which caused britain, france, and spain to join together, send troops to mexico in the winter of 1860 and. 861, to collect the spiteful once they did that, the french stay there and the others left. There, and the others left. Napoleon the third had this grand design where he could reestablish france as a serious world power including a serious world power in the americas. He saw the potential of the stability of mexico and thought of a great opportunity. They allowed it to happen in this particular point in history, and that was that the American Civil War distracted the americans, and made it much less likely that they would be able to resist a french involvement or intervention in mexico. Whats napoleon decided to do, was not the same thing that spain did as the reannexation it wasnt the idea of bringing mexico into the french empire. Instead of that, it was an informal empire situation and he decided to install a friendly ruler in mexico who could take over the country and run the country in accordance with his wishes. The perfect man for the job is pictured up there. Ferdinand maximilian joseph. Most commonly known as maximilian. He is the younger brother of the austrian amparo. Austrian empire. Napoleon decides he is going to try to install maximilian as the emperor of mexico. Whats made this an even more feasible prospect for napoleon, on the one hand, you have the Union Government who is distracted, not going to be able mexico tooops to resist france, but, you also confederacy, which borders mexico, and is more looking for friends around the world actively. Opportunity,es an maybe i can make an alliance with the confederacy, they will or at least look the other way in mexico and lets me do what i want to do. We will all be a will to get what we want. In 1862 andes point 1863, even though his official position that position is that he will get involved with britain if they get involved. Napoleon sense signals to the confederates and france that, maybe, especially if they can help them with mexico, maybe he will be prepared to recognize the confederacy and become an ally of them. It is interesting to read it, because he can string ever really acting on them at all, this is all our of the polio is granted design to reestablish french power around the world. Gets his way and that takes into 18 64 by about that your teeth is about to install maximilian as emperor of mexico. It was never really effective or a can we take over. Forces loyal to bonito, he charged beforehand read firing him proved reluctant, he recognizes authority. So these foreign governments do not recognize maximilian either. With their continued Armed Struggle in mexico between the forces of war as and the French Forces loyal to maximilian. He never is quite able to consolidate power. He still claims all of this through the civil war. Level and the of the American Civil War that it begins to spin out of control for maximilian and mexico. Now the u. S. Was actively supporting war as against maximilian, it did not quite it to the white where they had to send troops to actually help fight against maximilian. There is other kind of support, france withdrew their forces. 1867 maximilian was apprehending apprehended by authorities and executed. I think it is a similar kind of story and that the domingo, the message for us is very clear. It was the outbreak of the civil war that made this possible in the first place. The possibility and probability that the u. S. Would not be as able to implement the Monroe Doctrine. That was the end of the civil war that really had the possibility for napoleon to get what he wanted in mexico. A good strong example i think of how the American Civil War really structured International Relations around the world not only in the diplomatic exchanges and in Foreign Countries but also between all kinds of different powers and in parts of the world. Ok, the American Civil War also century ind the 20th a couple of really important ways. Wasspecific way in which it made more possible by a Union Victory and the civil war. As a mentioned there was the prospect of this with Great Britain, they were worried about this but they did not really have this happen until the union injury that they are mers as a superpower. In the 20th century it begins to rival Great Britain. You can see the roots of that in the civil war but the also big impact that the Union Civil War had in general on the modern 20th it emerges in the century the International Relations in which waste countries and direct in the 20th century it is in its status a forerunner of the world war of the 20th century. You probably also have heard this phrase before, it is one of these things that there is debate about and there is a . To indicate that. I think that you can easily see the roots of the 20th century world war in the American Civil War at 18 six. I want to mention a few ways in which that was the case. Know, the and we all ways in which participants deployed forms of technology and new kinds of ways that they had advanced their efforts to kill each other is what it boils down to. They developed new ways of asilizing society, as well the methods of human slaughter. Just to give you a few examples you have the emergence of ironclad ships, really for the first time in the American Civil War, the development of developed also were in the years after 1865 to transform navies around the that, to transfer transform naval warfare. Of the innovative uses railroad, innovative uses of the telegraph to share information quickly created even uses of the photograph and the hot air balloon to gather intelligence in new kinds of ways. That led to largescale adoption which madens infantry deadly over long distances. All of these new methods of fighting that emerged during the civil war. I think a lot of this culminated which you seeare in parts of the civil war but particularly by the end of the campaign you see this in 1864 and 1865. There were these complicated sidesorks that both learned how to build very quickly, almost as if they got to a place decided to dig and created these really strong impenetrable work around their position. Fantastic that a french term to describe what they were doing in the trench. It is a good reminder actually that even though this is to some degree, it also has its root back in the napoleonic era. They a nice reminder that kind of continued with the into the world wars of the 20th century. All of these different armies are learning different lessons from their predecessors, always striving to develop more deadly weapons. But it was not only about the really big ways in which the american civil in a new kind of worker that would be common in the 20th century was the way in which they mobilize an entire society with the entire economy in the war effort. There is a longterm shift in which the American Civil War is thought between what people call the cabinet war which involved professional armies, leaders what peopleds wanted which was a whole society , the whole economy is involved. The civil war was really a turning point with that. If you think about it because it involved a lot of civilians and , there are alls kinds of important questions about the status of what the civilian should be in the war. The American Civil War to rise to new thinking about this with new regulations particularly in the union. This went on to inspire the geneva convention. There are all kinds of ways, i will not get into the details now, there are all kinds of ways the American Civil War foreshadowed the new mode of war and for how countries interacted with each other. One of thehave biggest imaginable consequences of the civil war. Havend of slavery, you this taking place in a much longer story. 1760 african slavery is alive and well throughout the new world. By the 1880s it has disappeared. Place transition taking in many different types of places but the American Civil War is a key turning point. The civil war emancipation is this, including the northern United States after the revolution. Greatly slave owners feared emancipation and haiti. Propel some ofps the slave owners for secession, they are afraid of a mix of asian, afraid that they are going to repeat what happens in the british caribbean. This really helped move the u. S. Towards civil war. Now that theil war number one slave holding population has disappeared. Slaveholding regimes that survive after this in cuba and brazil, they begin to see the writing on the wall, begin to recognize that they cannot keep this going much longer now that that great example has been brought to its knees. Americant as the emancipation inspired what came before, they turned around and ed these further emancipation. This is an enormous story that the American Civil War has a pivotal role in the rise and fall of racial slavery and the americas. Structured between those three continents and shape all kinds of lies in many different ways. This is just one more of those huge sets of developments in Human History that the civil war was part of. How am i going to begin to tie all of this stuff together. We covered an awful lot. There is so many kinds of interesting connections between the civil war, as i said at the beginning it is very instructive , you can see these connections of hindsight. It was cultivated with these connections. People all around the world will undoubtedly follow what was going on in the United States. Ishink what this reflects the extent in which globalization was already well underway in the 1860s. People live their lives in a world that was equally interconnected across the ocean, across landmasses. The chances are Many Americans would be producing crops on the probablyably also consuming goods from overseas. Remember the war that was in one place could affect the economy thousands of miles away. Countries in this was all interconnected read we cannot forget the bonds that were created i the wave of migration with so many people in the 20th century. It meant whatever happened on one side of an ocean would also have ramifications on the other side as well. There were also sleeping ideas of democracy which many people were struggling with in different ways. There was enough share ground to generate commonalities. I am aware that it is a cliche that the civil war was a turning point in history, everybody says it because it is true. Many ribs of the america we know today and the 18th its these particularly with the nation. You can see this also determined in the civil war, i also think the American Civil War as a turning point in American History as well. Think about the u. S. As a world power. Of europeanion imperialism in africa. Of africannation slavery which was structured in a large part of the world. Many people experience this for so long. Witht to be very careful what i say with my last you words. The americanng civil war was the cause of this. If only history was that simple. Is importanthat it for the world we live in today. The civil war was not just americas civil war it is also a war from the world. [applause] we have time for questions. With your opinion would britain have declared war . Arms to theling of south those are good questions, i will take the second first read it is about complicity with selling shares to the confederacy. Yes i would say that the British Government said they did not know what was going on. Also with military grade ships were being used with the confederacy, if they acknowledge that that would have country gained the declaration of neutrality. They said they did not know what was going on but they had a very good idea what was happening. That is why after the civil war with the alabama claim, the government had to face recognition of that fact. The next question concerned the trent affair which we did not have time to get into. That is a fascinating story about two confederate diplomats in the slidell being arrested on a steamer by u. S. Officials. Really long complicated issue of international law. Great britain was up in arms with Public Opinion with outrage of the fact that the u. S. Sailors and marines had actually gone on for this british vessel and arrested these guys war was indeed very likely. U. S. If i thought they would have gone to war in india and Great Britain have lincoln had not released the diplomat. I would say almost certainly because britain had backed themselves into a corner by demanding that they be released. It would have been very hard to back down, there is a nice story about Prince Albert in his last desk in the late 1860s, he was responsible for toning down the release of the diplomats in such a way that it gave the Lincoln Administration room to kind of backed down gracefully without causing a war. To follow up on that trent affair, i think it was in the 1850s there was territorial dispute over written and the United States, i think in oregon. Which nearly brought them to britainhy is it that did not see an opportunity with all of their forces in canada and have the United States at a disadvantage and to start a war to use the trent affair as an to retakestart a war some of the territory from the north. They just had the war in oregon. , why didthe calculus they not use that as an opportunity . Isi think the simple answer that they did not want that territory. Much as it would have cost them to actually go to war, with the boundary you are absolutely right. There is this extreme tension. And i thinkved britain was happy to move on and to maintain their position in canada. With after the civil war that relation would change, basically the answer is britain did not see the value of taking more territory in north america since they would have to do so by force. You have not spoken about sian support for the union absolutely they were a important player in the 1860s. They tended to be more sympathetic with the union area in large part because of their relation with britain and france, they were also talking about affairs in those countries than world affairs. One thing i should say about russia is that they sent some of their naval vessels to winter in 1863 and the u. S. One of the reasons it did this was to show some kind of support for the union. Is probably the biggest reason is that they decided to do that was because they were afraid of rebellion you have the separatist movements in europe all around at this time. Russia once their warships to be whatable and not frequently happens during the winter. Tried to intervene by way of holding some kind of mediation effort they would have wanted russia to be involved in the war. At the start of the convention old sites that both sides attempted to not have the , you mentioned the confederate constitution spoke of slavery at the start of the war it is mentioned clearly with the issue of slavery as the issue for the confederacy. With these foreign governments had made that determination they would have realized how important the preservation for slavery was for the confederacy. They listened to the confederate diplomat who came and said it is not really about the preservation of slavery. Say britain in particular look out for the ocean as a slave holding power. And since it had been decades since the revolution, the government had been the home of one of the worlds most powerful slaveholding regimes. It was something where they said they are going to look at the u. S. As a antislavery power, it took them a little while to figure that out. Maybe i can repeat your question. You to elaborate about the cold war and the civilian population in particular pittsburgh and atlanta if you care. For those of you who could not, the concept was about cold war which is a phrase people used to explain the wars of the 20th century in which no holes the totalnd there is population is involved. So historians have spent a lot of time discussing whether it is appropriate to talk about the american cold war as a total war. That it ism agreed reasonable to see the civil war as a precursor and that sort of way. But it was not in fact a total war in itself. Competenceause of had contraceptions but mostly because they respected the distinction between soldiers and civilians. There is all kind of examples, but for the most part they did not do so. Conflict between what the constitution originally says and having the same and having the same set up a federal government. With lincoln and the emancipation proclamation, one ,ear and a half into the war does that keep unity . With the high ground to keep the europeans out of the war. A lot of people criticize and ken and the way lincoln and the way he unfolded his policy, it is obviously a very complicated prospect. Lincoln was certainly opposed to slavery, he did not think it was right. He was taught that for a very long time. He also believed in said very clearly in his address that i do not believe the president has the power to interfere with slavery. His decision at the beginning of the war is that even if i wanted to i could not interfere with slavery. That it is only as a war measure that he comes around with the emancipation proclamation when you look at it that is written all over it, it is very clear that this is something as a weapon to be used against the enemy and only applies under the territory and is not apply to slaveholding territories. Point is that the effects of the emancipation proclamation is a shift to the union war effort. Beyond thespirals actual measures contained in the emancipation proclamation to becoming something much broader. I could not do that topic in just a couple of minutes area why lincoln does what he does with race. I mentioned the states earlier, i think all of those things meant that it was kind of a proper emancipation. Map politics your seems to make a strange mess of it. With the empire in europe [inaudible] did the south ever consider an alliance . That would have made sense the one power that they tried spainpproach with is which of course was still a slaveholding power by virtue of cuba and puerto rico. The confederates certainly tried that with spain, it did not work as far as i know they tried the same with the ottoman empire, maybe one more question. Lets go with someone else since u. S. One. How much did europe impact the course of reconstruction . That is an excellent question that i have not looked into much. For me the story of the civil war and the world, i have been so much interested in the diplomacy and nationalism, and so on. I have been mostly focused on the war, but i will say is that reconstruction is especially important in terms of the new bond of Race Relations in the institute. At the moment in American History, a moment in which cancanamericans and white participate in the same political system. Wasfact that reconstruction hollowed by jim crow laws and Race Relations took a turn downwards, it actually reflects the wider process that is underway in World History in scientific racism and a renewed believe among white people in various parts of the world that they are superior because of their genetics and their skin color, you can look at imperialism in africa as one example of that, i think you can definitely connect reconstruction to a broader pattern as a history of Race Relations. That is a great question, i am afraid that is all we have time for. I want to release all of you. Thank you so much for your attention and thank you so much for being a fine audience to have a good night. [applause] you are watching American History tv, all weekend every weekend he spent reading. Like usthe conversation on facebook at season history. Cspan history. This year marks the 100 anniversary of the womens core is by Franklin Delano roosevelt. About american women in the armed forces with her book. This was recorded at the cincinnati va medical center. In 2010, it is a little over it was ou
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.