Ami's SOA Civil War Diplomacy Papers

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#21
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
How Hubris, Economics, Bad Timing and Slavery Sank King Cotton Diplomacy with England
by Joan Thompson
Senior Division
Individual Paper

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then the success is sure.
-Mark Twain


DISASTROUS OVERCONFIDENCE
The ancient Greeks viewed hubris as a character flaw that, left unrecognized, caused personal destruction. What is true for a person may be true for a people. For the Confederate States of America, excessive faith in cotton, both its economic and cultural aspects, contributed mightily to its entry into, and ultimate loss of, the Civil War. The eleven states that seceded from the Union viewed British support as both a necessity for Southern success and a certainty, given the Confederacy’s status as the largest (by far) supplier of cotton to Britain. Yet, there was a huge surplus of cotton in Britain when the war began. Moreover, cotton culture’s reliance on slavery presented an insurmountable moral barrier. Southern over-confidence and its strong twin beliefs in the plantation culture and the power of cotton, in the face of countervailing moral values and basic economic laws, blinded the Confederacy to the folly of King Cotton diplomacy.


https://www.ohiohistory.org/File Library/Education/National History Day in Ohio/Nationals/Projects/2011/Thompson.pdf
543

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#22
Georgia Southern University
Digital Commons@Georgia Southern
Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College
Summer 2006

Secession Diplomacy: A Study of Thomas Butler King, Commissioner of Georgia to Europe, 1861
by Mary Pinckney Kearns

Georgia Southern University
This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@GeorgiaSouthern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@GeorgiaSouthern. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@georgiasouthern.edu.

ABSTRACT
The objective of this thesis is to determine the function and effectiveness of state diplomats in the Confederate cause abroad by examining the mission of Thomas Butler King to the courts of Europe for the state of Georgia within the context of the international dimensions of the first year of the Civil War. The work will address the various Confederate arguments for recognition through the examination of propaganda documents published by King and their effect on French and British policies. The work will further investigate the direct trade movement of the 1850s and its effects on the southern diplomatic effort.

https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1587&context=etd
587

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#23
Georgia State University
ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University
History Theses Department of History
1-12-2006

Render unto Caesar: Sovereignty, the Obligations of Citizenship, and the Diplomatic History of the American Civil War
by Samuel David Negus

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gsu.edu.

ABSTRACT
In scholarship on the Civil War there is generally a lack of emphasis placed upon the significance of transatlantic diplomacy. However, much of the literature that is devoted to this subject does little to draw the importance of diplomatic and domestic histories together. This thesis uses British Foreign Office papers to discuss the role of Her majesty’s consuls, and the importance of resident persons of British nativity, especially within the Confederacy, during the war. It argues that the struggle between the Union and the new Confederacy affected diplomatic relations not only in the geo-political sense, but directly and personally through the fate of foreign individuals residing within America. Political theory and the semantics of ideology will be cross-examined against British, Confederate and Union government documents and correspondence in order to develop a deeper understanding of the flexibility and malleability of the concept of sovereignty, and its role in Civil War diplomacy.

https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=history_theses
636

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#24
The sequel to post #5...

Kent State University
Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries
New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations Kent State University Press
7-2015

Dissolving Tensions: Rapprochement and Resolution in British- American-Canadian Relations in the Treaty of Washington Era, 1865–1914
by Phillip Myers

Part of the International and Area Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons
This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Kent State University Press at Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@kent.edu.

The British-American rapprochement was both an old and a new paradigm of American foreign relations. It was old because the rapprochement existed prior to 1861, a child of the treaties of the 1840s and 1850s. It was new because negotiations of each treaty between the United States and Britain had consistently been characterized by concessions, goodwill, informal understandings, and deliberate omissions to get the treaties signed and approved by Parliament and Congress. In other words, through all of the British-American treaties since the Jay Treaty of 1794, these themes persisted to benefit British-American understanding. The rapprochement grew before the War of 1812 and remained steadfast during the American Civil War. It remained a leading tenet in British-American relations. It peaked in 1908, and it held fast during World War I and afterwards. It was overall solid enough to keep British-American relations stable in the twentieth century. This paradigm and its nuances produced a new perspective about the issues in American foreign policy that throws new light on British foreign policy as well. It also casts revealing shadows back on antebellum American foreign policy that, in turn, illuminates events taken for granted in explaining the advent of American empire and the Republic’s entry into world affairs from the Mexican War through World War I. Robert L. Beisner argues that “1865–1900 was an era in which one
American diplomatic paradigm supplanted another.” The new paradigm for purposes of this study was the steady progress in resolving British-American tensions through joint high commissions, international arbitrations, and expert testimony in these forums that were absorbed by the rapprochement.


https://digitalcommons.kent.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=new_foreign_relations
670

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#25
Southern Adventist Univeristy
KnowledgeExchange@Southern
Senior Research Projects Southern Scholars
2004

A Nation Divided: The Cherokee Alliance with the Confederate States of America
by Adam Ruf

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Southern Scholars at KnowledgeExchange@Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Research Projects by an authorized administrator of KnowledgeExchange@Southern. For more information, please contact jspears@southern.edu.

There have been many books written about the Civil War-from biographies of famous generals to commentaries on social conditions in the North and South, even fictional books about Civil War heroes. Among the vast stacks of books about the Civil War there is one topic which is severely under-represented. The collection of literature about the involvement ofNative Americans in the Civil War is surprisingly small and insufficient. The books written on the subject tend to discuss the impact Cherokee brigades had fighting for the Confederacy against the Union. Historians rush headlong into gruesome and detailed accounts of the battles and the successes of the Cherokees in the Civil War, often overlooking the incredible story that led to the alliance of the Cherokees with the Confederate States. This paper will examine the three main factors that changed the Cherokee position from neutrality to open alliance with the Confederate
States of America.


https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=senior_research
736

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#26
Charles Francis Adams, Great Britain, and the American Question in 1861
by Ian Delahanty

The world's greatest power of the mid-19th century, Great Britain, watched America with an anxious eye in 1861. Americans at home and abroad were well aware that should the British government side with the Confederacy, there was a very real possibility that the Union could do nothing to prevent the separation of the United States. With this in mind, the State Department serving under the Lincoln administration immediately set out to ensure that Great Britain, should it not see fit to side directly with the Union, remain a non-factor in the conflict. Secretary of State William Seward firmly believed that if the British government could be kept form interfering in America's Civil War, the Union would crush the Confederacy in a mere matter of time.

Thrust into this diplomatic struggle was the newly appointed American minister to Great Britain, Charles Francis Adams. Adams's mission in Great Britain was one of the most vital roles played by any member of the Union government during the Civil War. The year 1861 was a particularly essential period with regard to Anglo-American relations and British non-intervention in the conflict. A series of trans-Atlantic feuds beset the Union and British governments. threatening to not only bring Great Britain closer towards recognizing the Confederacy but also nearly bringing about a third conflict between America and Great Britain. Fortunately for the Union, Adams proved an adept diplomat and did a great deal to preserve relations between the two countries as well as prevent the British government from intervening in America's domestic difficulties.

Full article can be read here - https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=undergrad_rev
808

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#27
Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Master's Theses Graduate School
2015

The Pope and the Presidents: The Italian Unification and the American Civil War
by Robert Attilio Matteucci, Jr.

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact gradetd@lsu.edu.

ABSTRACT
The American Civil War and the Italian Unification occurred simultaneously, and the major parties involved – the American government, the Confederacy, the Italian state, and the still-independent Papal States – interacted with each other on numerous occasions. The
revolutionaries of the Risorgimento served as promising recruits for the Union’s armies, especially Garibaldi himself, although only Italians already in America actually fought. Italy would receive ironclad warships from the wartime United States. Those actions, however, alienated the Papal States from the North, presenting the Confederacy a diplomatic opportunity. The positive position of Catholicism in the South permitted the Confederacy to act and the possibility of diplomatic recognition by Catholic countries in Europe, particularly France, provided the Confederacy with the motivation to reach out to the Vatican. While the Confederacy did not receive recognition, it did receive a letter from Pope Pius IX expressing his sympathies, which the Confederacy at times portrayed as a formal recognition. Armed with the argument that the Pope had recognized its sovereignty, the Confederacy tried to dissuade Catholics from enlisting in the Union military. Any successes, however, were too minor to be effective. During the war, a bitter debate developed in the press about the letter’s meaning, a debate that extended into the postwar period largely as a weapon against Catholicism, especially when coupled with the Pope’s postwar support for former Confederates. The distortion of the letter as a sign of recognition lived on in anti-Catholic rhetoric, sometimes supported even by members of the U.S. government. The argument, however, was later refuted by Catholic prelates and historians.


“The Pope and the Presidents” contributes to a growing scholarship on the internationalization of the Civil War by revealing the complex relationships between all the parties in the Civil War and the Italian Unification. Taking the analysis a step further, it looks at these relationships in ways that many previous historians, ignoring the interactions of multilateral diplomacy, overlooked. It does so bringing together secondary research from scholars who examined the histories separately and using a wealth of newspaper articles and
other documents now accessible though digitalization.


https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2175&context=gradschool_theses
909

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#28
As a direct offshoot of the ACW beginning with the 1871 'Treaty of Washington', (which included the settlement of the 'Alabama Claims'), the 'The Great Rapprochement'...

Kent State University
Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries
New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations Kent State University Press
7-2015

Dissolving Tensions: Rapprochement and Resolution in British-American-Canadian Relations in the Treaty of Washington Era, 1865–1914
by Phillip Myers

This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Kent State University Press at Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@kent.edu.

The British-American rapprochement was both an old and a new paradigm of American foreign relations. It was old because the rapprochement existed prior to 1861, a child of the treaties of the 1840s and 1850s. It was new because negotiations of each treaty between the United States and Britain had consistently been characterized by concessions, goodwill, informal understandings, and deliberate omissions to get the treaties signed and approved by Parliament and Congress. In other words, through all of the British-American treaties since the Jay Treaty of 1794, these themes persisted to benefit British-American understanding. The rapprochement grew before the War of 1812 and remained steadfast during the American Civil War. It remained a leading tenet in British-American relations. It peaked in 1908, and it held fast during World War I and afterwards. It was overall solid enough to keep British-American relations stable in the twentieth century. This paradigm and its nuances produced a new perspective about the issues in American foreign policy that throws new light on British foreign policy as well. It also casts revealing shadows back on antebellum American foreign policy that, in turn, illuminates events taken for granted in explaining the advent of American empire and the Republic’s entry into world affairs from the Mexican War through World War I. Robert L. Beisner argues that “1865–1900 was an era in which one
American diplomatic paradigm supplanted another.”1 The new paradigm for purposes of this study was the steady progress in resolving British-American tensions through joint high commissions, international arbitrations, and expert testimony in these forums that were absorbed by the rapprochement.


https://digitalcommons.kent.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=new_foreign_relations
948

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#29
Fordham Law School
FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History
Faculty Scholarship
2008

Civil War in the U.S. Foreign Relations Law: A Dress Rehearsal for Modern Transformations, The The Use and Misuse of History in U.S. Foreign Relations Law
by Thomas Lee

Fordham University School of Law, thlee@fordham.edu

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu.

...But the American Civil War also had a significant international dimension. The Confederate States of America claimed from the start that secession made them an independent sovereign nation. And to validate and maintain this status, the Confederate States desperately sought official recognition by foreign countries, international trade, and military aid and alliances, especially with Great Britain and France. Conversely, it was a high priority for the United States of America to prevent the Confederacy from achieving these objectives. Accordingly, from the start of the war, Abraham Lincoln ordered a naval blockade to interdict all maritime trade to southern ports despite preexisting treaties of amity and commerce with, and the specter of military action against, neutral foreign countries; and the State Department lobbied the European powers to deny recognition of the Confederate States.

These positions were notable departures from the general trend of U.S. foreign policy since the founding. The United States had traditionally championed neutrality and the free-trade rights of neutrals (even with belligerents), refrained from threatening military action against the European great powers, and encouraged the speedy recognition of organized rebellions in the Western Hemisphere (typically Latin American ex-colonies). Whether these settled patterns inhabited the hinterland or the heartland of what was permissible under the Constitution, it seems at least possible that the same debate about the Civil War's transformative effect vel non on the domestic Constitution might be had about the foreign affairs Constitution-the Constitution as it regulates interactions between the United States and its citizens on the one hand, and foreign states and citizens on the other.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=faculty_scholarship
990

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#30
Fordham Law School
FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History
Faculty Scholarship
2008

Civil War in the U.S. Foreign Relations Law: A Dress Rehearsal for Modern Transformations, The The Use and Misuse of History in U.S. Foreign Relations Law
by Thomas Lee

Fordham University School of Law, thlee@fordham.edu

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu.

...But the American Civil War also had a significant international dimension. The Confederate States of America claimed from the start that secession made them an independent sovereign nation. And to validate and maintain this status, the Confederate States desperately sought official recognition by foreign countries, international trade, and military aid and alliances, especially with Great Britain and France. Conversely, it was a high priority for the United States of America to prevent the Confederacy from achieving these objectives. Accordingly, from the start of the war, Abraham Lincoln ordered a naval blockade to interdict all maritime trade to southern ports despite preexisting treaties of amity and commerce with, and the specter of military action against, neutral foreign countries; and the State Department lobbied the European powers to deny recognition of the Confederate States.

These positions were notable departures from the general trend of U.S. foreign policy since the founding. The United States had traditionally championed neutrality and the free-trade rights of neutrals (even with belligerents), refrained from threatening military action against the European great powers, and encouraged the speedy recognition of organized rebellions in the Western Hemisphere (typically Latin American ex-colonies). Whether these settled patterns inhabited the hinterland or the heartland of what was permissible under the Constitution, it seems at least possible that the same debate about the Civil War's transformative effect vel non on the domestic Constitution might be had about the foreign affairs Constitution-the Constitution as it regulates interactions between the United States and its citizens on the one hand, and foreign states and citizens on the other.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=faculty_scholarship
990

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Practical trumps the ideal sometimes.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#31
Practical trumps the ideal sometimes.
Sir, I believe the term is 'Realpolitik'... :wink:

(from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik; "politics") is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.

Source - 'Realpolitik' by Adam R. C. Humphreys

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#32
Sir, I believe the term is 'Realpolitik'... :wink:

(from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik; "politics") is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.

Source - 'Realpolitik' by Adam R. C. Humphreys

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
The word I was looking for. Just woke up and access to higher vocabulary was still offline.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#34
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln
2011

American Indian Civil War treaties: The instruments formed by the Confederate States of America in Indian Territory
Charles D. Bernholz
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, cbernholz2@unl.edu
Laura Weakly
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, lweakly2@unl.edu
Brian Pytlik Zillig
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, bzillig1@unl.edu
Karin Dalziel
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, kdalziel2@unl.edu

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Abstract
The creation of nine treaties between the Confederate States of America (CSA) and the tribes residing in Indian Territory in 1861 formed a significant historical perspective to the understanding of the relationships between governments and indigenous peoples of the United States. This research note describes a Web page – “So Long as Grass Shall Grow and Water Run: The Treaties Formed By the Confederate States of America and the Tribes in Indian Territory, 1861” – that provides access to paired CSA Statutes at Large page images and their text for each of these instruments.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1245&context=libraryscience
1026

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#35
Dethroning King Cotton: The Failed Diplomacy of the Confederacy
by Anjelica Matcho
Bridgewater Raritan High School
First Place High School
Gilder Lehrman Civil War Essay Contest
January 30, 2015

In response to President Lincoln’s Proclamation of Blockade Against Southern Ports in 1861, the Confederacy influenced its people to withhold their cotton from the rest of the world in an attempt to coerce European powers England and France into breaking the Union’s blockade and taking up arms in support of the Confederacy. Considering only the success of the cotton industry in previous years, the South failed to see the cracks in King Cotton’s armor. Warehouses were filled to the rafters with cotton all over England and France due to overproduction in years preceding the war, endeavors beginning in 1862 in India and Egypt yielded steady cotton harvests, and England would not raise its arms in support of a belligerent whose primary goal was the continuation of slavery. Crippled from the start with little means to furnish supplies for a war against the industrious North, breaking the blockade was crucial in defeating the Union and achieving Confederate independence. Significantly lacking in population, natural resources, and industrial capacity compared to that of the North’s, it was crucial for the Confederacy to compensate with outside help, but blinded by irrational pride, the South implemented cotton diplomacy, a strategy that gained them no allies, wreaked havoc on their own economy for years to come, and greatly diminished their ability to prevail in their fight against the Union.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/27._anjelica_matcho.pdf
1080

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,674
#36
Loyola University Chicago
Loyola eCommons
Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations
1949

The Relationship of William H. Seward to the Trent Affair
by Christopher J. McGarigle

Loyola University Chicago
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact ecommons@luc.edu. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright © 1949 Christopher J. McGarigle

PREFACE
The purpose of this paper, as the title states, is to show the relationship of William H. Seward to the Trent Affair".

In order for the reader to gain a true insight to this problem, he must understand the background of the relations between Great Britain and the United states between 1860 and 1862. The reader must also be familiar with the public and private life of William H. Seward up to this time. To blend these two ideas into the subject, it was necessary for the writer in the introduction to mention the attempts of the Confederacy to secure their recognition as a nation by Great Britain and France; the attempts by the United states to prevent this recognition; and the place and attitude of Great Britain and France towards the Confederacy and United States in 1861.

In the second. chapter the author states the speeches, views, and beliefs of William H. Seward on matters which the author considered led to a feeling of distrust of Seward by Great Britain.

The third chapter consists of advice to Seward from the friends of the United States in London at tre time of the Trent episode. It was the letters of these people which gave Seward insight and advice on the public opinion and attitude of Europe, mainly Great Britain, towards the Trent case. This advice, together with Seward's viewpoints on the seizure helped to bring the affair to a peaceful settlement, and thus eliminated European military interference which might have proved disastrous to the North in the Civil War.

https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1732&context=luc_theses
1126

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top