It is my pleasure to welcome dr. Don doyle, who spent his youth in the San Francisco bay area and graduated from the university of california at davis. During his sophomore year, he took a semester off and travel to europe. There, he developed a lifelong passion for history which took him to Northwestern University where he earned his phd. He spent much of his career at Vanderbilt University in tennessee, where he developed a strong interest in the civil war. In 2004, he became the professor of history at the university of South Carolina. He enjoyed numerous years of overseas teaching and research experiences. He was a fulbright professor of American History three times, in rome, genoa, and rio de janeiro. He taught one year at the university of leeds in england. He has spent a good deal of time traveling in europe and latin america. He has authored seven books in addition to numerous articles, blogs and guest oped pieces. Several of his essays for the New York Times disunion series came out of the research for the cause of all nations. He has written for salon. Com, usa today, and other popular journals. Most of his Early Research and writing involved the social history of 19th century america. He branched out a few years ago with a comparative study of the u. S. And italy and the problems with their south. America, italy, and the southern question. Tonight, he speaks on his book, the cause of all nations, and International History of the American Civil War. It has been named one of the best nonfiction books of the year by circus reviews. Welcome, dr. Doyle. [applause] mr. Doyle thank you very much for that very kind introduction. I am delighted to know this will be going out later to a larger audience through cspan. Trying to Say Something new about the American Civil War is no easy challenge. I remember, when i began, i was on sabbatical in washington, d. C. I went to the Petersen House across from the four theater you go up to the second floor bedroom where he died, and you come out of it and you come down to the gift store. There is a stairway and a tower of translucent plastic that goes up through both floors. It must be 10 feet wide and goes up 40 feet. In that tower, it is filled with books on lincoln and the American Civil War. I am thinking, as im beginning this book, that is a great tribute to the scholarship, the prodigious scholarship over the generations to the man and this war. I think im going to have one more brick on the pile. What on earth am i going to have to say that is new . The American Civil War is at the heart of the American National identity. For a long time, it was regarded as a tragic brothers war, a big mistake that was over issues that should have been resolved, fanatics on both sides, north and south, inflaming the passions of the people, who led them into this disastrous war. In the 1960s, we began to turn more toward the civil war as dealing with real issues and issues that were unresolved, issues having to do with race and the legacy of slavery. This was in the memorable phrase, the unfinished revolution. It became the prelude to the civil rights movement. The war took on this effect. We were talking about the civil war but also ourselves, this long, reluctant reckoning with race and the legacy of slavery. My view takes us out of the national narrative, beyond the battlefield, beyond the political arenas, beyond the bounds of the nation, the north, the south, lincoln, davis, lee, grant, the symmetry we have, to look at it from outside. The nation from a global view, or at least a transatlantic view, to try to understand what the war meant to the world and how that exchanged across the atlantic and affected the way americans understood the war. What can this global perspective tell us that his new about the American Civil War . The first thing i discovered was that our civil war, this war that we think of as an american event fought by american soldiers about issues that were peculiarly american matters a great deal to the rest the world. They reported on it. They discussed it. It was discussed in the parliaments of britain, france, germany, italy. It was an important event. They followed it with great interest. I think the impact of this discovery, of how much it mattered to them, came at the end of the war, when they heard the news of the unions victory, and within days, the news of lincolns death. All over, the european and american world, people came into the streets to hear the news, to buy newspapers, to hear, to learn more. They met and wrote letters and resolutions. Tens of thousands of letters came in. Letters of sympathy and solidarity, to express condolence over lincolns death. I will talk about this later. It was a measure, for me, just how much this war, our war, meant to the rest of the world. Why did it matter so much . This was not as obvious. Of course, there was a huge economic impact. 80 of the worlds supply of cotton came out of the american south. That supply was cut off suddenly, first by the south. They wanted to force europe to recognize the confederacy by imposing an embargo. Then, the union setup a blockade and cut off trade. There was a talk of cutting off cotton not just to england but northern europe, france, belgium, italy, germany. All of the industrial world depended on cotton from the south. The other supplies would be developed during the war. That was yet to come. They were afraid, not just of losing profits, or even losing jobs, but of social unrest, revolutionary fervor working up in britain and northern europe. There was a political fear here as well. What i found is the material interest, the economic concerns were there. What foreigners talked about was the political impact of the world, and what this would mean for the future of world history. For many, this was a contest been involved the future of the republican experiment, and the future of slavery and free labor. When lincoln, at the end of 1862 in his annual address said that america was the last hope of earth, we have used that as a bragging point as part of american exceptionalism. It is not a boast. This was a lament. There were not any republics in europe outside of switzerland and a few small city states. Republicanism, the idea of government by the people, had died. It had been defeated in the revolution of 1848. There was an idea that government by the people just did not work. Now, america was proving that again. Latin america had republics, but they were in turmoil. A lot of military despotism, revolutions right and left. It seems that the republican experiment was unproven. There was an idea that republics, ever since the time of the ancient republics in rome and greece, that they were inherently fragile and weak, that they would always descend into anarchy or despotism. The democracies in particular could not fight wars. They could not sustain the strain of war. We now have a theory, a democratic war theory, that argues the democracies dont make war with each other. Its popular in some circles these days. In the 19 century, the idea was that democracies could not fight wars, they were incapable of it. When america descended into war and lincoln suspended habeas corpus, there was talk in england about to the steel being raised. About the american bastille being raised. There was despotism as well as anarchy that the Great Republic was descending into. Eugene bellaton, one of the french republicans who plays a minor role in the story says that, america is not only america, it is the model school of liberty. If against all possibility, america had perished, with it would fall a great experiment. That idea of democracy being an experiment, not the future, a troubled, imperiled experiment about to fail, was foremost on the minds of europeans. On the other side of this, monarchists and people who believed in government by aristocracy and inherited power were happy to see the Great Republic fail. It encouraged people in europe to keep trying to overthrow the old regime and establish the republican experiment in europe. They were happy to see it fail. Many predicted by the end of the 19th century United States and all the trouble republics would would make their way back to monarchy. They would be restored to monarchy because of this crisis. In my book, i told the story about many of my antecedents in South Carolina who were promoting the idea of monarchy in america in the south. We are tired of this mobocracy they said. Theyve elected Abraham Lincoln. They wanted to be restored to a monarchical order under britain. The south carolinians were telling a british journalist, isnt there some prince that can come over here . Cant we be repatriated . Some of this was propaganda, but they were seriously in rebellion not just against lincoln and the Republican Party but the idea of extreme democracy, as they called it. In louisiana, they wanted to go back to the french empire. Also, to the question why did it matter, there was a geopolitical contest here that had grave consequences for the entire euroamerican world. European powers, the great powers of britain and france, lesser powers like spain and russia, and italy that was emerging, they were not just waiting for republicanism to fail. They were there to help and restore monarchical rule. Even before the guns fired at fort sumter, in march 1861, spain invaded its former colony the Dominican Republic and took it back into the empire. Later, they would pick fights with peru and chile. The most spectacular intervention by european powers came in mexico in the first year of war, as early as october. The great powers, britain, france, and spain, formed an alliance in london and agreed on an allied invasion of mexico and to put pressure on or overthrow the elected republican regime of benito juarez. More on that later. The idea as a developed in the polin in Napoleon Iiis mind, he had crowned himself emperor taking a page from his uncle, he had this idea for restoring the glory that was france under his uncle, and that it would not just be the greatest power in europe, but to establish power over the latin race in the new world. Mexico would become the showcase of monarchical order against the shambles of republicanism and the rest of spanish america. He would install a european prints, maximilian, the archduke of austria, and also restore the church to power. This would not just be to take over mexico. It would create a hegemonic power over all of latin america. The term was coined in this era of a unified race of latin people that included the french, the spanish, portuguese, and even the italians, and that the latin race would be restored to power against the anglosaxontuetonic order. In alliance, with the help of the confederacy, napoleon iii would prevent the insidious influence of the anglosaxons in the u. S. And restore what had been given up to the United States under this mexican empire under maximilian. They saw it as a big clash between major forces, historical forces, monarchy and republicanism, slavery and freedom. A perfect conflict between the forces of good and evil, or of order and chaos, depending on your point of view. European intellectuals, journalists, political reformers, speakers of all kinds, seized the american contest as a way of talking about what was going on in europe and latin america. It became a proxy war for a contest that was global in scope. Listen to Edward Edouard laboulye. A society of 30 millions of men living happily and peacefully under a government of their choice with laws made for themselves, liberty will cast her raise over europe illuminating pharaohs. America, just encumbered of slavery, will be the country of all generous hearts. But, should liberty the eclipsed in the new world, it would become night in europe, and we should see the work in washington of franklin, of hamilton, spit upon and trampled underfoot by the whole school which believes in violence. This was from an essay he wrote before lincolns reelection in 1864. Karl marx, writing for the new york daily tribune, one of the largest newspapers in america and the world, found an audience for his very able pen analyzing the nature of this contest. The first grand war, contemporary in this history, is the american war. The power of the government to be self realized is giving battle to the most meaningless form of slavery in the annals of history. The president of peru said, latin america is about to witness a war of the crowns against the libertyhaves. A lot of people are saying this is a big clash that would have tremendous consequences for them in their political system and their political system. This was an epic battle. It would decide the future. It was a contest that had been going on since the french revolution and the American Revolution over the basic and suppose of human equality upon which rested the ideas of popular sovereignty, that people could be sovereign. People could elect their own government and decide laws, and power would come from the people, and not divine role. Rule. Foreigners were romanticizing it, elevating this war. This became a war of moral consequences. The americans wanted to keep this as small as possible. The union denied that this was over slavery. Lincoln was trying to discredit any idea that he was out to abolish slavery or to transform the south and america. Lincoln had to discredit the idea that there was any reasonable cause for revolution in the south. He did not want foreign sympathy to the south, which was trying to plead that they were being oppressed by a tyrannical force, all of this before lincoln had even taken power. But, that they were suffering from the abolitionist who are going to overthrow their system and create racial holocaust in the south. In his first inaugural address, he said slavery was safe in the states where it exists and that the Republican Party only wants to limit its expansion. I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with this institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no inclination to do so. That last bit is what got a lot of europeans as gratuitous. After 10 years of arguing over this issue of slavery, foreign onlookers had seen this young democracy tearing itself apart. Finally, the Republican Party, the antislavery party, mobilize, and almost overnight, seized national power. You had a president and a party in power that is openly hostile to slavery. And now, its leader says he does not have anything to do about slavery. Slavery is where it exists. Foreigners could not understand this. They could not understand the constitution. They are accustomed to monarchical power. This is about the constitution limiting his power. No inclination . What was that about . Lincoln had his reasons. He did not want foreign powers to come in and intervene or recognize the south, so he was trying to take away any cause, any just cause for resolution revolution. It was not just lincoln. William seward of the new yorker, one of our best secretaries of state william seward, new yorker, one of the best secretaries of state, was disappointed. He instructed his diplomats to avoid any discussion about the morality of slavery. To deny any intention of the union to use this work to append the slavery. He was terrified that foreigners would see that threat of abolition as a threat to business interests, to cotton interests, that the threat of emancipation, that foreigners in france and britain might intervene to stop this demolition of the cotton market. As he instructed his ambassador to france, whether the revolution shall succeed or fail, the condition of slavery shall state the same. This was not just lincoln speaking, this was domestic and Foreign Policy. But they began questioning this. The diplomats overseas began writing back to seward. Seward was very interested in using his diplomats not just as a mouthpiece for him but as of the eyes and ears of washington. They asked right back, what is going on . He was interested in public sentiment. I argue in my book that seward and his diplomats were on the cutting edge of a new Public Diplomacy, the term they did not use at the time. Public diplomacy, soft power, contemporary phrases. That is what they were practicing. A german immigrant, call sewers carl sewers, rose quickly in the Republican Party and wanted to be an ambassador. He wanted to go back to europe. They wanted him to go to spain. He was having fits. He thought it would be very offensive to european governments to send a radical revolutionary over as our ambassador. Lincoln decided, they sent him to spain. It was the most conservative government in europe. You could see the tide turning against the union. They wrote in september a long dispatch back to seward hoping it would get to lincoln. He reported to seward that the governments, the ruling classes of europe wanted america to fail. They want to democracy to fail. But, the public was hopeful. They were assuming that the war would be nothing less than a grand uprising. This is sewers writing to seward. They assume it will be nothing but a grand uprising for nothing but the popular conscience of a grand principle. Why should europeans support the north if its only goal was the privilege of being reassociated with the imperious and troublesome slave states . He said, we must place the war upon a higher moral basis and thereby give us the control of Public Opinion in europe. If you control the public, even in autocratic nations like france or spain, the autocratic governments are even more afraid of public sentiment. They are not going to let it out in an election, they are going to go to the barricades, especially in france. They are very sensitive to that. Sewers is telling seward we must arouse the public in favor of the war not just against slavery but in favor of republican principles. Precisely as sewers