Video
U.S. Grant History Chat, Episode 4: Ann Tucker
Transcript
- Okay, hello everybody. This is Nick Sacco, Park Ranger at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site, in St. Louis Missouri. And this is episode four of the US Grant History Chat. And it's my pleasure today to be speaking with Anne Tucker. Ann is a Professor of History at the University of North Georgia. And she has a book coming out through the University of Virginia Press. It's called "Newest Board of Nations European Nationalist Movements and the Making of the Confederacy." So kind of placing political thought within the Confederacy within the international context. So some really interesting stuff to sort of jump into. So thanks for being with us today Ann.
- Thanks for having me.
- Absolutely, so to kinda kick it off here, in reading the introduction to your book and the book is coming up in June, right? Later.
- That's right.
- So it'll be coming out very soon. And in the introduction, you mentioned that the 19th century, we're seeing some pretty dramatic political changes really throughout the world. Some of these minors keys and empires that had existed there are challenges to these rules, we're kind of seeing a spirit of democracy taking place in South America and Europe and other parts of the world. And we're seeing kind of these there's the rise of nationalist movements and this belief in people being able to self-determination and having the right to choose their own leaders. And so you highlight Giuseppe Garibaldi who is a revolutionary who participates in revolutions all over the world. And you mentioned that as the Civil War is kind of brewing and getting ready to break out in 1861 you have both supporters of the Union and supporters of the Confederacy who are very familiar with Giuseppe Garibaldi and they're sort of claiming his legacy for a justification of their own movement. So if you could maybe tell us just a little bit about who this guy was, who Giuseppe Garibaldi was and how could both Unionists and Confederates find justification for their causes through this one person?
- Absolutely, well, like you say, the 19th century was this age of nationalists revolutions, where, like you say these ideas of national self-determination, democracy were spreading throughout the Atlantic world and just suddenly Garibaldi really came to be a symbol of all of these ideas. So Garibaldi of course, was one of the key figures of the Italian Risorgimento or unification of Italy. He was Italian himself. He was a military general who helped lead the military campaigns of Italian unification but he had also previously fought for national independence in South America, even before he went to fight in his home country at Italy. And his career really propelled him to international celebrity, even in his own lifetime. He was the hero of two worlds. Really internationally associated with these ideas, again, of national independence, national virtue, etc. And so, because he was the symbol really of the same values that 19th century Americans valued of course, the United States was a nation based on a nationalist revolt against tyranny and favor of democracy and self-determination. So Garibaldi was this international symbol of the values that 19th century Americans held dear. And so that's what really allowed both northerners and southerners and the lead up to the Civil War and during the Civil War itself even to use Garibaldi as really a symbol of what they were trying to claim they were fighting for in the Civil War. And so when we look at the Confederates white Southerners were drawing comparisons between the Confederacy and Garibaldi's Italy as a way to try to attach Garibaldis acclaim and legitimacy to the Confederacy. So they're claiming the Confederacy is the same as Italy. It represents the same values of self-determination and democracy. And therefore, because we are like Garibaldi's Italy we are legitimate as well. Of course, the problem with that was they weren't the same. They weren't fighting for the same cause, they were fighting for the defense of slavery, for their ability to control a government to protect slavery and Garibaldi recognized this difference as well. So during the Civil War, Garibaldi comes out in favor of the North and in favor of abolition which causes problems for Confederate comparisons as I discuss in my book. So far as the North goes though this was obviously a easier path to draw that connection between Garibaldi, his nationalism, his abolitionism and the values of the United States. And that connection was clear enough that the United States actually issued an invitation to Garibaldi to come fight for the United States and the Civil War. Now, this didn't happen largely because of logistical issues with Garibaldi demanding the right to be commander in chief, which was constitutionally impossible. He also declared however he wanted the ability to free the slaves before he would come fight for the North. So the Civil War in many ways, I argue as this war over competing interpretations of these 19th century ideas of nationalism. And again, both North and South thought, if they could connect themselves to Garibaldi, that would help them prove that they had the best, most legitimate value of nationalism. Obviously this worked better for the North than for the South, however.
- Sure, sure and it's very interesting with Garibaldi cause if it's 1863 and the US government embraces the emancipation as a warring, perhaps they're catching up to Garibaldi but he was maybe a little too far ahead in 1861 by using that as sort of a term for him to, in order to join the US army and Lincoln administration is not quite there in 1861. So that's very interesting. Now, there's something else that was brought up in your introduction that you discuss is that you have white southerners who support the Confederacy, and some of them, not all of them but some of them are justifying their movement based on the concept of self-determination and the examples of other countries, such as Italy that are trying to have their own independence movements as well. But you do highlight that a lot of Europe in the end end up sort of rejecting the Confederacy. And so of course, the institution of slavery being one of the issues behind them. Maybe you can tells just a little bit as to why perhaps these nations of Europe in many cases are rejecting the Confederate succession movement.
- Sure, absolutely. Again, basically what I'm arguing is that the 19th century Atlantic world was this place on time of debate about the meaning of nationhood and legitimate expressions of nationhood. And the Confederates I look at are really making the case that they're part of this, they're part of this age of nationalist revolts and they deserve independence because they either fall in the footsteps of nations like Italy or they a more conservative strain of thoughts as they purify the nationalism seen in places in Europe that conservative slaveholding Confederates claimed was excessively liberal. So this is the argument that Confederates are making in their popular discourse, trying to justify to themselves and the rest of the world, why they're legitimate, why the Confederacy should be recognized as an independent nation. This really doesn't work outside the Confederacy however. I talk about in my book, there are a few Europeans and northerners who accept at least the idea that the Confederacy is following in the footsteps of nations abroad and fighting for national self-determination, fighting for the right of self government, etc. And certainly when we look at Europeans there are conservatives who would be quite happy to see the American Republic fail. And particularly when we look at European reaction to the Civil War before the Emancipation Proclamation as you were talking about a minute ago, a lot of Europeans really aren't quite clear on what this is all about why this Republic is tearing itself apart. And so if the South is claiming self-determination, why not? And as you noted, the Emancipation Proclamation does become a key turning point then where Europeans start going, oh this is a war about slavery. Now we understand, and this is critical to Europeans rejection of the Confederacy then because the Confederates are claiming a slave holding nation still fits within a 19th century ideas of nationalism. Most of the rest of the Atlantic world has moved to the point where it does not, they've embraced ideas of abolitionism or at least antislavery that recognize you can't have slavery and self-government, you can't have slavery and natural rights. And so the North is embracing this anti-slavery, Great Britain of course, had already moved to being a world's leader in abolition. And so once the United States is clear that they're fighting to end slavery, it becomes clear that Confederacy is fighting to defend slavery and Europeans realize those Confederate claims, they're fighting for these ideals of nationalism and self-determination, they don't hold water. They're actually fighting for slavery which we have rejected as part of this set of ideas of nationalism, basically. So now when we look at Confederate official diplomacy really the main reason why Great Britain and France don't recognize the Confederacy is they didn't want to, they were busy with other affairs, they didn't wanna get involved in the war. But when we do look at public opinion that helped lead that response, We do see that while some Europeans are fine with the Confederacy and even accept its claims most Europeans really reject Confederates claims that their interpretation is a legitimate interpretation of 19th century nationalism.
- That's really fascinating. And I love how you clarified with the Emancipation Proclamation. It better helps Europeans better understand what the fighting is all about. It's not simply a fight over territory, but it's over larger ideals of slavery, freedom, democracy and natural rights in America. So Emancipation Proclamation has these international implications what's going on in United States as well. So I love that, that's really great. And then just to wrap up our conversation here, I'm fascinated as well with the concept of Southern Unionists as well. Ulysses S. Grant probably would identify as a southerner but he did live in Missouri for a period of time. And you know, here in Missouri we're right in the heart of things, you have people who are on all sides of the political spectrum but you had many Unionists here in Missouri. And so you're looking at it more broadly, but Southern Unionists are also sort of utilizing the language of democracy and self-determination to justify the importance of maintaining the union. So if you could speak for a minute about Southern Unionist and how they use the same sort of rhetoric to justify keeping the country together, I'd love to hear about that too.
- Absolutely, yeah. When I wrote this book, I knew that I wanted to look at Southern Unionists and it really was one of my favorite findings in the book in part because it helps drive home that the international perspectives that southerners are using to understand and make cases for their nationhood, it really was wide spread. It's Confederates, it's Unionist it's Democrats, it's Wigs. That's really the whole political spectrum but the Unionists are also fun because of course they're taking this international perspective that Confederates had used to try and justify the Confederacy and they're turning it completely on its head. So what the Southern Unionists are arguing, for one thing they're arguing much like much of the North, including Lincoln did, that the United States is the last best hope of democracy and republicanism for the world. So when these Southern Unionists look at European nationalist movements, for example they realistically see a lot of failure. Italy was in many ways, the exception. So Garibaldi's Italy succeeded in gaining national independence and unity but the revolutions of 1848, for example failed. And so the Unionists are looking at that and saying democracy is on the retreat, republicanism is failing, monarchy and empire are reasserting their power. The United States is really the key republic internationally and if we fail, if we fall apart that's going to prove monarchists argument that republicanism can't work, that it's not a viable form of government. And so the Unionists are arguing that the United States has to be preserved not just for its own sake, but for the sake of all of these aspiring nations and Europe. For the sake of Hungary, for the sake of Poland, for the sake of Ireland. So they're using these international comparisons to argue that the US must be preserved. But they're also using these international comparisons and trustingly to make a case for national unity as a value period. So they're looking at Europe and pulling examples of nations that they claim have been created through unity like Italy which had just succeeded in national unification. And they're claiming unification is what has made Italy strong. It's what has allowed Italy to emerge from, you know, decades and centuries of oppression into the light of democracy again. And they're looking at Germany which had yet to begin its fully unification movement. They're looking at Poland which had been partitioned decades earlier and they're saying Germany, Poland, these are examples of divided nations. They show us that divided nations are weak and that divided nations can't protect people's rights basically. So for Southern Unionists, unity is how you get national strength and how you get protection for your rights. That's what they learned from an international context.
- Sure, absolutely. In your comments said one more thing that popped in my mind and that would be the Gettysburg address, famous speech. I'm sure you talk about it in your book, but there's a lot of discussion in the Gettysburg address about the entire world and the significance of this moment of Civil War in America and how it shaped future political developments in the world as well.
- Yeah, yeah, you know, I always say that, you know, I grew up in the South, you know, I was certainly very into Civil War history. I've memorized the Gettysburg address for fun as a child. But you know, we always hear the story of the Civil War as this brother versus brother war just kind of the ultimate domestic dispute, but things like the Gettysburg address really do show us that people at the time in the United States and the Confederacy really did conceive of this war as having much broader international implications. Again, not just Confederates, not just Southern Unionist but northerners like Lincoln also saw this as really part of this larger struggle about the meaning and expression of nationhood. What does democracy look like? Can it work? Who gets to participate in the democracy? Who has rights within a democracy? And so, yeah, I love the way that this really shows us that it was a domestic war but one with enormous international importance far beyond the borders of the United States.
- Wow, fascinating stuff. This is the sort of history I love studying. So it's been great having you on today. So Anne Tucker, your book is coming out very soon here, "Newest Board of Nations European Nationalists Movements and the Making of the Confederacy" through the University of Virginia Press. And yeah, we look forward to seeing, hopefully you have future talks and presentations about your book. So we'll definitely make sure to follow your scholarship moving forward as well. Thanks Ann.
- Well, thank you.
- All right, have a great day, thank you.
- Thanks.
Description
Ranger Nick interviews Ann Tucker, Professor of History at the University of North Georgia and author of the new book "Newest Born of Nations: European Nationalist Movements and the Creation of the Confederacy" through the University of Virginia Press. Dr. Tucker discussed the influence of political movements throughout the world and how political thinkers in the American South used those movements to justify Confederate secession.
Duration
18 minutes, 3 seconds
Copyright and Usage Info