Welcome to the seminar! This discussion board will be the primary means for us to share papers and comment on the readings we have completed.

I was thinking about our class project and have an idea, although I'm not sure if it is a good or feasible idea. I was thinking it would be fun to put together an exhibit (museum) on our two case studies in nationalism (may require us to get more specific??). I'm not exactly sure where we could display such an exhibit, but a few possibilities might be the Furman Library or a local museum. Any thoughts?

I would like to open the discussion of Doyle's book with a question about ice cream. He discusses the various racial and cultural characteristics of the people of southern Italy near the end of chapter 4 (around page 70). Did the variety of cultures and races of the Neapolitan people serve as the inspiration for the name of the combination of chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla ice cream? I could be wrong, but it seems to fit.

One question that came to mind as I was reading - Is it better to build a nation on the past (centered around the ideas of race, culture, ethnicity) or on the future (on ideas)? Both Italy (built upon the past) and America (built upon the future) experienced tensions and sectional crises...so neither course is without flaw, but which is better, or, which has proved more successful? I guess I pose this question more statistically-speaking than ideologically and thus do not have an answer.

The Doyle book was concise, I like those. One thing I noticed about Doyle was his conception of entirely different nationalisms in the US and Italy seemed as if he had a conception of the US path as winning and the Italian path as losing. That is, his discussion seemed to focus more on the long-term performance of the system, with unnecessary long-term evaluation. I did see his summary discussion as well-informed and interesting however.

I found it interesting how Doyle compared the American national identity with the Italian national identity. It seemed with America that an important theme in the Southern separatist movement was upholding many of the ideals of the American Revolution, in other words holding to what the South perceived to be their national identity. However in Italy, a major theme of unification was to "make Italians" and to make being Italian a nationality. In America, the nationality already existed, but in Italy, much of the tension revolved around meshing different languages and cultures into an Italian nationality. This is interesting to me after our conversations last week about community, state, and nation...Italian unification seems to have made a nation out of distinct communities, and furthermore to make identification with this nation important to "Italians."

Maria: That's a really good observation - I didn't make that connection.
Anna: An interesting question... My first instinct would be to say that a nation built on the future would probably be more successful. I think a nation focused on achieving common goals and sharing ideologies would be more cohesive than a nation centered on the past, since different interpretations of the past can lead to dissension. However, this is most certainly oversimplifying the matter, and I'm sure there are many other factors to consider.
I found it interesting to read about how differences in race and ethnicity played such a large role in the two nationalist movements. In the American South, ethnicity was not an issue between Caucasians, but rather race, and the notion of white supremacy provided much of the reason for the North-South tension. In Italy, however, the different ethnicities of the Southern people caused them to be regarded by the North as a separate race; this emerged as a form of rhetoric against them, as they were thought of not as Italians, not even Europeans, but as Africans, and as such, were regarded as a lesser people according to the mindset of the time.

Edited by author 09-19-2006 11:44 PM
 I enjoyed Doyle’s discussion of America’s civic nationalism, rooted in Lockean theories of natural law, and Old World nationalism based on shared ethnicity and romanticized narratives of past glory until I came across his ill supported contention that “the Northeast generally became the leading force in shaping American national identity at nearly every front.” (50) Although, in a later chapter he concedes that many of America’s antebellum Presidents were southerners, Doyle never withdraws his original assertion that the people of the American South played a less significant role in shaping American nationalism than their Northern brethren.
  A brief examination of the formative years of the American experiment reveals that many of the influential actors in the development of the American nation were southerners. The two men credited with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, John Rutledge and Thomas Jefferson, were both Southerners and Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers facilitated the ratification of the Constitution. Many of the early Supreme Court Justices were from the South including John Marshall, John Rutledge, James Iredell and Roger Taney. In 1803, President Jefferson expanded the American frontier by making the extra-constitutional purchase of the Louisiana territory. When Great Britain threatened American shores in 1812 John Calhoun and Henry Clay inspired the defense of America and Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at New Orleans left a lasting impression on both the American people and the European powers. In 1846 when war broke out with Mexico, Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott led the successful campaign south of the boarder and increased the dominion of the burgeoning nation. Although the Southern states did not provide the impetus for America’s intellectual and educational development, Southerners shaped America’s national identity politically and militarily during the antebellum era.

Edited by author 09-20-2006 07:57 AM
In response to Anna's question, I think I'd have to agree with Victoria. I feel that Doyle weakens the argument that nationalism is built upon the past when he uses Ronald Grigor Suny as a reference on page 14, claiming, "Nations are congealed histories...made up of stories that people tell about their past and thereby determine who they are." I think the transition of (American, at least) everyday lives and rituals are telling of how nationalism is centered upon future hopes and ideals using as examples the elaborate celebration of the 4th of July, the regular recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in American schools, the teachings of virtuous presidents (i.e. Washington's chopping of the cherry tree and not lying to his father), and having cities dispersed throughout the country with names such as Union and Independence.
Other interesting points that I thought Doyle brought up were the comparisons of the goods and evils of nationalism, the underlying idea that the North is oftentimes referred to as the region seeking nationhood, whereas the South is the "other" land that usually seems to have the opposing views and ideas (although it isn't true!). All in all, I think Doyle's book is especially useful because of his time spent in Italy, where he could directly learn how the Italians' everyday lives relate to their heritage and nationalism and use these observations to absorb and share a wealth of information. His speakings of Italy, however, made me a little anxious because I feel as though I'm still a little hazy when it comes to the Risorgimento--I look forward to learning more about it!

I found Doyle's book to be a great entry into looking more deeply at the concept of nationalism and its historical legacy. I tend to be one of those people who thinks that nationalism can be dangerous, so it was interesting to entertain Doyle's contention that nationalists have often been idealists, believing that the nation could "unite and inspire people who may not belong to a community bound by blood" (p. 15). I also found Doyle's point about the need to construct the "other" as a means of defining the "self" to be especially poignant (e.g., p. 75). This seems to be very important in maintaining nationalism in contemporary times (e.g., the tendency for politicians to use "us" versus "them" language).

  Then and Now: [i]Domesticating Foreign Struggles[/i] in Today’s America
                                                  As historians learn, written histories not only reflect upon the historical issues the author wishes to discuss, but they can also give insight into the period and situation in which they were written. The author’s personal background often shows in the text. While Paola Gemme’s upbringing inspired her to write about American perceptions of the Risorgimento in [i]Domesticating Foreign Struggles[/i], her work can also be viewed as a discourse on current events.
 Born and raised in Italy, Gemme did not relocate to America until she reached adulthood (1). This may account for her critical stance toward America in [i]Domesticating Foreign Struggles[/i]. Some of the main themes of her book were America’s assertion of superiority over foreign nations, the attempt to use the political situation in Europe to further American economic growth, and American use of discourse about the Risorgimento in order to disenfranchise targeted groups in America.
 Gemme argues that mid-nineteenth century American commentaries about the Italian Risorgimento actually had more to do with America than with Italy. Similarly, although Gemme’s book addresses antebellum America in relation to the Italian unification struggles, it also discusses issues relevant to today’s world. One of Gemme’s main themes is American imperialism and intervention in foreign affairs, specifically as pertains to the Risorgimento. One faction argued, according to Gemme, that it was America’s duty to support the Italian movement, since the movement had been inspired by America (2). The policy of intervention, although a subject of debate today, remains in use, employing some of the same rhetoric that America is morally obligated to further the cause of democracy in foreign countries, or in Gemme’s terms, engage in “political philanthropy.” The notion of America as a “light” to “unenlightened” peoples still prevails today in popular discourse as a way of justifying intervention.
 One of the foremost underlying motives for supporting Italy, states Gemme, was the prospect of opening up trade between America and the Mediterranean, which would be extremely profitable (3). America is often criticized in modern times for allowing economic factors to be a primary objective in conducting foreign policy, especially in regard to relations with the Middle Eastern countries and how this affects access to and control of petroleum. Gemme asserts that many Americans believed that the Risorgimento was doomed to failure because Italians were not ready for a republic; due to the “civic deficiencies” of the Italians, they were incapable of self-rule (4). Many Americans today hold a similar belief, that some non-Western nations are not capable of forming a lasting democratic government due to the vast cultural, social and religious differences.
 Differences of religion and race were viewed in Gemme’s book as factors which revealed American exclusivity. Both black Americans and Irish Catholic immigrants were compared with Italians, in ways both positive and negative, but pro-slavery and anti-Catholic writers used these arguments to advance the belief that neither group was fit for admittance into the American citizenry (5). The execution of this rhetoric into public policy caused countless problems for minority groups who attempted to gain citizenship, not least of which included, ironically enough, Italian immigrants. Although the American system has grown much more tolerant of, and in ways come to embrace cultural, religious and ethnic differences, the question of who may become a citizen still resonates in the American mind today, as the non-English speaking Hispanic population increases, often by means of illegal immigration.
 [i]Domesticating Foreign Struggles[/i], while examining issues pertinent to mid-nineteenth century America, also implicitly compares the antebellum modes of thought with those of today, and finds many similarities between the two. Discourse about American imperialism, foreign nations’ capacity for self-rule, and the question of who can be an American still play a large role in American thought today. Was this an intentional plan on Gemme’s part to encourage the reader to think historically about current events, or were the similarities unconsciously manifested in her writings? Only Gemme herself could accurately answer such a question.

     Notes
1. Paola Gemme, Domesticating Foreign Struggles (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2005), 161.
2. Ibid., 71.
3. Ibid., 60.
4. Ibid., 52-53.
5. Ibid., 155.

I apologize for the strangeness of some of the formatting; I tried to indicate italics and footnotes the best I could. If anyone knows a better way of doing this, please let me know so I can make the necessary corrections. Thank you.

     Paola Gemme writes her book, Domesticating Foreign Struggles, with the desire to broaden not only an American historical reader’s perspective on their country, more specifically its formation, but their entire means of study as well. She feels that her purpose is to better the American look inward, and the understanding of national identity, by actually looking without. Through her numerous documentations of American commentaries on the Italian revolution compared with native Italian texts on the revolution, Gemme is determined that the complex ‘transnational and comparative American study” that she provides is how one can best understand the construction of who an American citizen really was. America defined itself as it defined its differentiation from groups outside itself while simultaneously seeking homogeneity within itself. All of the texts, contrasting narratives whether native or foreign, convincingly prove the constructedness possible, and that indeed took place, in America’s formation of national identity.
     Gemme highlights the struggle for unity in national identity in America. While the nation had decided that its existence as a state was based on ideals rather than on ethnicity, oftentimes disagreement on those ideals was found. The commentary on Italy’s struggle for nationalism served as a metaphor and a symbol for the issues Americans were struggling with within their own country. The decisions to be made regarding slavery, immigration, imperialism, and American self-sufficiency were all inadvertently discussed through the medium of the Italian revolution. One’s rally for Italian justice and equality was often equated with the American abolition movement. But, a disbelief in Italian capability for successful revolution could either be a rallying cry for American aid as the ‘big brother’ of republican freedom or a condemnation of Italian Catholic immigrants and their capacity for democratic citizenship in the United States. At the conclusion of Gemme’s book, it seems every American citizen could choose a differing stance or opinion of the Italian Risorgimento that they could argue and interpret to promote their own American-ideology agenda.
     I found these books to be well paired together. Dan Doyle’s succinct introduction to American nationalism versus Italian nationalism in Nations Divided provided us with definitions of what exactly nationalism is in each of those countries. His novel helped very much with the historical background behind the formation of each and the sectional conflicts endured by each. Gemme’s book I found to be quite a natural sequel as it expanded with more specifics. Her detail and documentation showed the complexity of these two countries and gave a glimpse of what the complicated formation of national identity might actually look like. Though for me these books served different purposes, Doyle’s an introduction to a nationalist way of thought and Gemme’s a detailed expansion on America’s struggle for unity and national identity, both prove to me that nationalism and national identity are constructed ideas. Doyle states that many scholars have “the current understanding of nationalism and national identity as something constructed and invented rather than natural, primordial, and continuous” (Doyle, 13). Doyle shows us that with a nation’s formation, a decision is made whether to base its reason for existence on shared ideals or on shared ethnicity, and then its citizens rally around its future or its heritage in accordance. And Gemme shows us, as with America, that once the basis of the nation is successfully constructed and formed, the shared characteristics that will bond that society together are constructed as well. In both instances, whether concerning what the nationalism for that state will be or what the nation’s specific shared qualities are, the ideas that are eventually agreed upon, and in some instances will be forced upon, are constructed by members of the society. Though some leaders would proclaim “these truths to be self-evident”, in truth, the nation and what it is formed upon is formed, created, and constructed by man.

Edited by author 09-26-2006 11:27 AM
     In Domesticating Foreign Struggles, Paola Gemme argues that nineteenth-century American discourse on the Italian Risorgimento served to define American national identity through the construction of a “nationalist mythology.”[1] This nationalist mythology, so Gemme argues, served important functions related to nineteenth-century American national identity formation; namely, it defined what was unique and distinct about America relative to other nations, and it created “internal homogeneity” by delineating who was an American and who was not.[2] Gemme’s functionalist interpretation of nationalist discourse provides a powerful framework that can and should be applied to other historical and contemporary cases.
     Gemme is quite successful at demonstrating the constructed nature of national identity. For example, although American nationalist discourse asserted a historical connection to Rome as a model for American Republicanism prior to the mid-nineteenth century, the United States became the “initiator of a republican tradition” in antebellum nationalist discourse.[3] The contrast between these discourses demonstrates that definitions of national identity are always subject to revision and consequently must continuously be reconstructed to suit defined political ends. Similarly, although she does not make this point explicitly, Gemme’s analysis suggests that there was (and is) no one definition of national identity, since individuals and groups with disparate agendas all sought to define what it means to be American. White and Black Abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates, for example, all sought to define the conditions required to be an American in alternative ways.[4] If the conditions for belonging to a nation are open to interpretation and reinterpretation, as Gemme suggests, then there is nothing essential in a national identity.
     Gemme’s discussion of the feminization and infantilization of Italian liberals is also effective. By comparing Italian patriots to women and children—groups who were excluded from “full republican citizenship”—American writers intended to demonstrate their unfitness for republicanism, a form of government reserved only for Americans.[5] It is interesting that while the antebellum discourse described by Gemme upholds a masculinist interpretation of Americans as a whole, other research has shown that intra-national groups have utilized gendered rhetoric to assert their supremacy within the nation. Specifically, Nina Silber’s analysis of Northern rhetoric about the South in postbellum America demonstrates how Northern commentators continually classified the South in feminine terms, a rhetorical device that asserted the North’s innate superiority.[6] This again serves as a reminder that national identity formation is constructed externally, through discourses about America’s place within the international context, and internally, through discourses that strive to assert a particular image of the authentic American.
     Gemme’s focus on the rhetorical foundations of national identity construction contrasts with arguments that contend that national identity is constructed through institutions. In Nations Divided, Don Doyle maintains that American national identity was largely shaped by institutions such as public schools and public holidays.[7] While national identity is likely constructed in multiple ways, it is interesting that Gemme and Doyle focus on distinct sources. This may reflect different perspectives on the degree to which national identity is subject to change. If national identity is primarily constructed through discourse, then it is inherently susceptible to change. On the other hand, if national identity is defined through long-standing institutions, then it is rather static in nature. It seems that a rhetorical conception of national identity will be hard pressed to explain periods when the national identity is static, while an institutional explanation will find it difficult to explain periods when the national identity changes significantly.
     While Gemme’s thesis is generally well-argued and convincing, that she makes no distinction between the types of texts being analyzed is troubling. Gemme evaluates a variety of “narratives,” as she refers to them, including magazine and newspaper articles, travel accounts, historical books, novels, paintings, drawings, personal correspondence and journals.[8] While this heterogeneous approach suits Gemme’s purposes, a discussion of the differences between the types of narratives and their differing abilities to impact national identity formation in nineteenth-century America is sorely needed. How many Americans had access to and typically read the Democratic Review or any of the books and magazines discussed throughout the work? How many Americans saw the paintings and drawings that Gemme suggests participated in constructing a new American identity? If few people read or viewed these narratives, then their effect on constructing a particular national identity may be questionable. Moreover, while personal correspondence and journals may shed light on an author’s public writings, as Gemme argues is the case with Margaret Fuller, that the public did not have access to them makes it difficult to believe that they would have successfully interpreted them as being in the jeremiad tradition.[9] If Gemme were solely interested in arguing that these narratives are evidence for a specific definition of antebellum national identity, then there would be no need for such a discussion. Since she argues that these narratives were part of attempts to reconstruct the national identity, however, implies that the degree to which a particular narrative was circulated is an important question, which is unfortunately left unanswered.

Notes
1 Paola Gemme, Domesticating Foreign Struggles: The Italian Risorgimento and Antebellum American Identity (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 2005), 54.

2 Ibid., 3.

3 Ibid., 24-25.

4 Ibid., chapter 4, especially 107-108, 118-120.

5 Ibid., 44-45.

6 Nina Silber, The Romance of Reunion: Northerners and Southerners, 1865-1900 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 6.
  
7 Don H. Doyle, Nations Divided: America, Italy, and the Southern Question (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 2002), 49, 42-43.
  
8 See Gemme, Foreign Struggles, 13-14 for a brief discussion of the heterogeneous nature of selected texts.
  
9 Ibid., 90-91.

 Don Doyle’s Nations Divided and Paolo Gemme’s Domesticating Foreign Struggles show quite different perspectives on the relative similarity of the nationalisms in Italy and the United States.
 First, Doyle sees a stark contrast between the two countries in the antebellum period. He would suggest that the demographic differences present between the United States and Italy ultimately create a dichotomy between the two nations, that the degree of demographic difference becomes so great that nationalism must found itself on fundamentally different support systems. Gemme ranges in the opposite direction, finding in American commentary on international events nationalism defined primarily through comparison, not a dichotomous pair of ideologies as in Doyle’s portrayal. Furthermore, Gemme perceives in his analysis a sharing between the two that seem to be oriented towards the same goal. They seem to be in a competition for which entity can become most “liberal.” In results and in some future-oriented set of goals, both nations seem to want the same type of ideas: economic prosperity and a measure of equality (at least among those whom the leaders of society consider equal). This forward-looking perspective seems to be Gemme’s focus.
In contrast, Doyle’s focus seems to be on the past of each nation, continually reminding the reader of the shared, albeit disunited past of the Italians and the replacement of a traditional shared past that American nationalists make by way of common ideals. It seems that in their comparison and contrast Gemme and Doyle focus on different aspects of the formation of nationalism. That is, Gemme seems to look to a progressive future in his intensive discussion of “republican debates:” he does not ponder the meaning of Gian Galeazzo Visconti’s influence upon the Italian homeland or any other such interesting historical question. His sources and questions ponder an optimistic future for these governments and peoples.
 Thus one can then draw a contrast between Gemme’s future-based analysis and Doyle’s past-based analysis of nationalism. Doyle would like to suggest that these two nationalisms are completely different primarily because of his perspective that looks to sources referencing the past from this era of each region’s history. His characterization of these nationalisms involves questions such as the past golden ages of Italy during the Pax Romana or the Renaissance, as well as the genius of the American Founding Fathers. In this analysis and comparison he finds a great deal of difference among motivations and perception. Thus from Doyle’s beginning in the past memory of the period he derives a comparison of nationalism based in the differences between the United States and Italy.
 It seems then that when one examines these two studies one sees that the differences each author arrives at results from his selection of sources. Thus, both authors seem “right” in their respective theses, but each author has a different focus, such that these two works that seem to contradict each other should in reality show the different aspects of nationalism and the complexity of this topic even in a given time period such as the mid-1800’s.

Domesticating Foreign Struggles Review Essay
 Paola Gemme’s Domesticating Foreign Struggles helps the reader grasp a better understanding of the roots of nationalism of mid-nineteenth century Italy and America. While carrying the reader through the history and sequence of events during the Italian Risorgimento, Gemme illustrates the mentalities of both the Americans and Italians by incorporating examples such as artwork, maps, travel narratives, and other literary sources. In an attempt to unravel the possible origins of American nationalism, Gemme argues that America involved itself with the Risorgimento and Italian revolutions in order to advance their national identity to a level of exceptionalism and universalism. The argument that America spurred the “Italian Resurgence” could be true, but many also believe that retaliation against foreign control and romanticism of the Renaissance past caused the movement.
 Throughout the book, Gemme gives ample evidence that many Italians held America to the status of a powerful and successful paragon. In the chapter “Of American Mentors and Foreign Pupils,” Gemme accredits several references, ranging from historian Joel Tyler Headley’s admiration for the “free eagle” (19) to the artwork of Gino Daelli and Hiram Powers. She also uses such sources to show that many American artists and writers studied the promiscuity of Italian revolutionaries and sought to portray Italians as grotesque, irrational, effeminate, and inept to self-govern—oftentimes using vagrant children as subjects, such as Martin Johnson Heade’s painting (48). Overall, these assigned characteristics of the Italians render them as beings in need of guardians and teachers, namely the Americans. In the following chapter, Gemme explains that the Americans had economic and political motives behind supporting Italian liberalization—to gain foreign respect, obtain self-confidence, and display their superior maritime skills in front of Austria and France. It would have been interesting if Gemme gave examples of Italian and American successes and losses, and described different viewpoints that rival European powers held of them. Nonetheless, Gemme proves that the American assistance to Italy was a philanthropic cause, while they gained transnational trading connections and nationalistic ostentation. Margaret Fuller, a critic of American principles, serves as an interesting reference in the third chapter. Fuller wrote admiringly of Garibaldi’s army and the vivacity of Italy’s spirit of democracy in order to encourage regeneration within her own homeland and prevent Americans from overlooking their own weaknesses while in the midst of inflated sentiments of national superiority. Gemme concludes the book with two chapters, “Republican Debates,” discussing religious and racial controversies between the two countries and using contrasting viewpoints from Fuller, American southerners, physician Josiah C. Nott, and Egyptologist George R. Gliddon.
     For the amount of topics studied—propagandistic interpretations, political support, the jeremiad theory, and racial and religious controversies—Gemme created a concise work that overall shows how the Risorgimento paved a way for Americans to strongly embed sentiments of national superiority. The fact that America may look transnationally for this mindset rings true as we see modern-day examples, such as our interactions with Latin America with immigration acts and job provisions. The last sentence of the book is empowering, as Gemme coalesces her vast historical research of the topic and in perspective, claims, “As long as Americanists remain monolingual, largely disdainful of scholarship on the United States produced outside of American academia, and ignorant of cultures other than their own, an internationalized American studies will remain a vision only” (162).

Could I please catch a ride with someone to Leopard Forest? Please contact me with the time/place you want to meet if you can help me out.
Thanks!

Austrian Encyclopedia Entries on Italy

From the Austrian Ministry of Culture's Culture Information System:
From http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.i/i967741.htm


"In 1797 Austria obtained important Italian-speaking territories with Venetia and Dalmatia, and after the Congress of Vienna the highly developed Lombard-Venetian kingdom. In the course of rising nationalism irreconcilable differences arose, and Austria became the main enemy for the Risorgimento (Italian unification movement in the 19th century). The wars of the 19th century (1848/49, 1859, 1866) caused Austria to lose its territories on the Apennine Peninsula, but parts of Tirol (Trentino), Istria and Dalmatia, that were inhabited by Italians remained within the union of the Austria-Hungarian Monarchy until 1918. Another matter of conflict was Austro-Hungary's function as protective power of the Vatican, although from 1882 on the Triple Alliance established a political pact and many Italians found jobs in Austria (railway and road construction).


Lombardo-venezianisches Königreich

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------

Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom:
 By the Vienna Congress Act of June 9, 1815 the territory in northern Italy, which was reconquered by Austria in 1813/14, was organised as the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom governed by a viceroy. It comprised 47,500 km2 and in 1857 had a population of 5,173,000. The western part was the former Duchy of Milan, which came into the possession of Karl VI in 1714 as former Spanish estate and remained Austrian territory until 1797, and Mantua, which was handed over to the Habsburgs in 1708 after the extinction of the Gonzaga-Nevers line and which was united with the Duchy of Milan in 1745. The eastern part consisted of the former republic of Venice, which was incorporated into the Austrian monarchy in 1797, but was given to the Italian king in 1805. The official language was Italian, the laws of the Italian Kingdom of Napoleonic times continued to be effective. However, the Austrian administration had to struggle with social and political structures, which were different from those of the rest of the monarchy, and with the national movement (Risorgimento). On February 25, 1848 martial law was imposed; on March 17, 1848 a popular revolt broke out in Milan and Venice, in which the Kingdom of Sardinia interfered. In the summer of 1848 the Austrian troops under Radetzky were able to capture Milan, gain another victory at Novara in 1849 and capture Venice by August of 1848. The state of siege continued until 1854. In 1851 the kingdom was divided into 2 crownlands; after Austria had been defeated, it had to cede Lombardy to the Kingdom of Sardinia in the Peace of Villafranca at Verona in 1859, and Venetia to the Italian Kingdom in 1866.

I think we are meant to post something about our preferences for the group project - so I just wanted to put in my vote for doing a project that explains or presents to others in some way the differing ideas of national identity. Trying to show what does it mean to be southern, what does it mean to be Italian? Maybe this could be done in a presentation setting or in a debate setting, although my preference is for setting up a display somewhere. We could even use our little display/exhibit to prove that even these can be 'constructed' just as narratives are, just as national identity can be. And hopefully this can incorporate food in some way to satisfy the desires that I think a lot of us had to do so.

Edited by author 10-02-2006 09:48 AM
I'm with Anna on this one too...Personally, however, I'm not a huge fan of staging a debate, just because I had to debate in my last history class and just didn't gain a lot from it. But if people want to do it, I'll do the outside research for sure. I like the idea of asking the library to use the display cases, and maybe present our work in the tri-fold boards, an approach that tons of museums still use. If we decide upon anything that we deem CLP-worthy, I can work on getting it approved--I'm on the CLP staff, so hopefully that could work in our favor...?

I am partial to a display as well, but could imagine a CLP event that encapsulates both the display and either a live debate (or other living history performance) or a multi-media presentation. I am particularly interested in working on a display that would show the different symbols (e.g., flags, songs, etc.) used to demonstrate nationalism in our two cases.

After pondering for some time, I think I came up with a way we can incorporate several different ideas into one project. We could have a CLP event (assuming it would be approved for CLP status) in which we serve a dinner comprised of several different courses mixing both traditionally Southern and Italian foods. While the audience is consuming their meal, we could present the various ways in which nationalist ideas of the Confederacy and of the Risorgimento were manifested, displaying symbols, works of art, playing music clips, reading excerpts from works of literature and poetry, etc. We could incorporate the exhibit idea into this, using some of the items we collect in our presentation, then later setting up a display case for the public to view in the library or something.

McCardell’s The Idea of a Southern Nation provides a detailed and comprehensive account of the evolution of Southern aggravation and unrest to the powerful desire to become a separate nation. The book offers a step-by-step explanation of how American Southerners developed their own sense of nationalism that was completely separate and opposed to the Northern states in the same nation. McCardell argues that grievances over tariffs and political bullying were, alone, not enough to inspire a strong spark of rebellion amongst the Southern people. They needed to emphasize an aspect of life in the South that set them apart from the states in the northern region of the union. Both “Nullifiers,” and Southern politicians in favor of secession chose to make slavery the dividing issue between North and South. Throughout his book, McCardell demonstrates the ways in which the Secessionists propagated the institution of slavery as an asset and freedom that the North was sure to confiscate and thus initiate the Union’s slide down the slippery slope toward tyranny.
    Although the issue of slavery did not begin as the central grievance that justified the South’s attempt at secession, McCardell provides an outline of how it became the foundation for southern nationalism. He makes the point that, “slavery was the only issue that could unite the South, and yet it was the weakest position—morally and politically—possible (64).” In portraying the Secessionists as propagandists who utilized literature, science, and politics, religion and education to convince the population of the evils of the non-slaveholding North, McCardell points out that Secessionists had to convince the entirety of the white Southern population that the institution of slavery directly benefited them. Also, they had to stress the point that once the right to slavery had been taken away, other rights would soon disappear.
    The Secessionists faced the task of convincing both themselves and the Southern populace that the South could succeed and prosper without the North. Southerners had to look past the North’s prospering economy, strong political influence, commercial dominance, and literary achievements, and instead look to protect their advantage: slavery. In portraying the North as power-hungry bullies who had turned their back on the ideas that make up the United States Constitution, Secessionists did not seek to establish a sense of nationalism that separated them from the Union, but rather one that separated the tyrannical Northerners from the Union. Southerners utilized pseudoscience, commerce, religion, politics, and literature to convince the population that the right to hold slaves would be just the first of many freedoms that the North would strip from the South.
    McCardell concludes his book with a point that I think is reflected in Doyle’s book, Nations Divided. Doyle saw the attempted Southern Secession as a point in America’s history that served as proof of the strength of the nation. He argues that the fact that the United States remained united after this conflict, has served and can serve as a source of inspiration for other nations struggling with their own nationalist identity. McCardell draws his detailed chronology of the evolution of Southern Nationalism to a close with the statement that, “Southerners had forced Americans to think about their nature and purpose as a nation and hastened the emergence of a modern, integrated, and more genuinely United States (338).” Although his book emphasizes the propaganda that surrounded the sense of Southern Nationalism fabricated by Secessionists, McCardell does not view the South’s attempt at nationhood as a weak point in our nation’s history, but rather a solidification of the rights and ideals specified in the Constitution.

If Paola Gemme is vague regarding the historical significance of her sources in Domesticating Foreign Struggles, then John McCardell is extensive with evidence that his sources are pertinent to a discussion of Southern nationalism in 19th century America. In his book The Idea of a Southern Nation, McCardell provides lengthy accounts to show the interconnectedness of developing components of American nationalism. After reading Gemme’s critique of American perceptions of Italian unification, one must question the impact of her sources on American and Italian citizens living in the 1800s. Yet after reading McCardell’s work, where he goes to great lengths to prove the historical significance and impact of his evidence on the daily thought of Americans, it is hard to question if his conclusions are logical. Indeed one cannot doubt the historical significance of McCardell’s sources as he explains how the actions of influential people, periodicals, religious denominations, and political movements interact to develop concepts of Southern sectionalism and Southern nationalism during the Antebellum era, and ultimately American nationalism following the Civil War.
 McCardell concludes that the actions of the South leading to its secession from the Union in 1861 “had forced Americans to think about their…purpose as a nation” and furthermore that secession itself worked to “[hasten] the emergence of a modern, integrated, and more genuinely United States.” (1) Arguing that Southern secession was a critical component in developing a modernized American national identity, McCardell asserts that in the first half of the 19th century, the United States “lack[ed] cultural components” that had “traditionally defined” nations in the past. (2) Don H. Doyle used some of the same institutions described by McCardell in Doyle’s discussion of developing nationalism in America and in Italy in Nations Divided, including religion and education. McCardell goes deeper into the American South to look at these institutions and other factors such as the interaction of print media, changing political tides, the development of a proslavery argument from a patriarchal defense to a racist one, and economic tensions involving tariff controversies, agriculturists, and industrialists. While it seems logical that the evolution of Southern nationalism was a product of these interactions, and furthermore that the Southern nationalism that evolved forced the evolution of the critical cultural components necessary for an American national identity, it is incomplete to assume that the American South bore most of the weight of developing an American nationality. Is McCardell implying that a civil war was necessary for a “genuinely United States,” (3) and furthermore, is he asserting that the Southern contributions outweighed Northern ones in defining a modern American nation? Undoubtedly the North had an equal contribution to America’s national identity, even if one considers only their reactions to the contributions of Southern sectionalism and Southern nationalism.
 In his book McCardell provides detailed biographical sketches that could provide for interesting comparisons between individuals when looking at the Italian Risorgimento. For instance, Robert Barnwell Rhett is described by McCardell as a self-educated, “aggressive, impulsive young man” who one of the earliest proponents of immediate secession and who “spoke out unequivocally in favor of a Southern nation.” (4) This is strikingly similar to the description of Giuseppe Mazzini in the 1878 edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica where the fiery nationalist is described as being “willing to use conspiracy, if not assassination, in order to achieve his ends.” (5) Perhaps James H. Hammond, who “found a purpose” in the Nullification struggle and favored a moderate position of “resistance within the Union,” (6) could be compared to Camillo Cavour, who was “the statesman” of Italian independence with a good sense of tact and an ability to unite people around pragmatic ideas of Italian unification. (7) Though these comparisons could be drawn between many individuals in McCardell’s book, and they are certainly tainted by the bias of sources towards leaders such as Mazzini and Cavour, comparison of individual contributions across nationalistic movements has potential to provide greater understanding of civil strife and national unity, and ultimately a greater understanding of the influence of popular leaders on nationalism.

  1 -John McCardell, The Idea of a Southern Nation: Southern Nationalists and Southern Nationalism, 1830-1860. (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1979), 338.
  2 -Ibid., 20.
  3 -Ibid., 338.
  4 -Ibid., 61-63.
  5 -J.A.S., Italy, Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1878, 487.
  6 -McCardell, 60-63.
  7 -Encyclopedia Brittanica, 487.

 I think it would also be neat to do a living history or debate, although I would prefer not to be an acting character in either of those. I am definitely willing to do research for the living history, help with costumes and scripts and organization, but I would rather not be one of the actors. As far as the display goes, I would like to be involved with creating panels comparing American national identity with Italian national identity, and hopefully displaying in some way conclusions about nationalism that we come to throughout the term. And I would love to cook as I hope food works its way into our plans!

Nice, Victoria! I like.

At my request, tomorrow's seminar will begin with a short presentation by Dr. O'Neill, who is the department's specialist in public history and exhibit design. This should last no longer than thirty minutes.

 In The Idea of a Southern Nation, John McCardell presents a thought provoking and comprehensive analysis of Southern Nationalists and Southern Nationalism in the years prior to the Civil War. Frequently citing William Freehling’s Prelude to Civil War, McCardell opines that the Nullification Crisis served as the impetus for Southern feelings of incompatibility with the rest of the union, which eventually led to Civil War. [1] In the 30 years prior to the civil war, Southern Nationalism was distinguished from American Nationalism as the intellectuals and politicians of the South realized their inexorable ties to the peculiar institution. Intellectuals Thomas Dew and Josiah Nott developed theories justifying the perpetuation of slavery as the famous authors William Gilmore Simms and John Pendleton Kennedy romanticized the institution and the uniquely Southern way of life. Southern separatism was further legitimized by the economic theories of J.B.D. Debow and the agricultural theories of Edmund Ruffin. In the Deep South, the eventual drive to secession was lead by demagogues William Lowndes Yancey in Alabama and Robert Barnwell Rhett in South Carolina.
 McCardell’s treatment of Southern Nationalism is both interesting and problematic because it is based on the correspondence, speeches and writings of a few elite Southern Nationalists who he asserts shaped the sentiments of the Southern population. The writings of Simms, Debow, and Ruffin were widely published, but literacy in the South was low in the 19th Century. Yancey and Rhett were, by all accounts, highly persuasive stump speakers but their speeches were rarely heard outside of the Deep South. Although McCardell’s account of Southern Nationalism is thorough and well researched, it begs the question of how much actual influence the elite Southern Nationalists had on the populace, especially those living outside of the deep south, and what role did the nationalists play in the actual process of secession and the executing of the war?
 Although many of the South’s great orators, scientists, intellectuals and politicians subscribed to separatist ideologies in the thirty years leading up to secession, it is nearly impossible to gauge what effect the doctrine of Southern nationalism had during the events of 1861 through 1865. In the introduction of the book, McCardell concedes that the majority of Southerners favored a peaceful solution and “hoped their rights could be maintained within the existing union.” [2] McCardell, however never differentiates between Southerners in the deep, middle, and border south and does not deal with the various social classes present in the antebellum South. Furthermore, few of the figures McCardell mentions in the book were influential outside of the Deep South states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. After South Carolina seceded, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana soon followed, but with only bare majorities of their respective electorates supporting secession. Virginia and Arkansas both held conventions that rejected secession in the spring of 1861. While in North Carolina and Tennessee secession proposals were rejected in popular referendums. It was not until after the bombardment of Ft. Sumter and Lincoln’s call for 75,000 Yankee volunteers who would have to march through their lands that the middle South joined the cause. [3]
 Another problem with placing too much credence on the role played by antebellum Southern Nationalists is their virtual disappearance at the commencement of armed hostilities. J.G. Randall assessed the role of Southern Nationalists during the war by saying, “their place in the drama was in the first act, in the starting of the trouble,” and McCardell reveals at the end of his book that Rhett, Ruffin, Hammond and Sims were not included in the Confederate government. [4] McCardell provides us with a clear and comprehensive picture of Southern Nationalist thought that affected politics, religion and economics during the mid 19th century. Southern Nationalists, however, must be viewed in light of the fact that they contributed little to the government and the war they helped create.



1. John McCardell, The Idea of a Southern Nation: Southern Nationalists and Southern Nationalism, 1830-1860. (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1979), 48-49

2. Ibid., 9

3. William W. Freehling, The South vs. The South: How anti Confederate Southerners shaped the course of the Civil War. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 40-42

4. J. G. Randall, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. June 1940, “The Blundering Generation” p.13; McCardell, Idea of a Southern Nation. 337

Museum Websites

Museo Nazionale del Risorgimento Italiano -- Torino
(National Museum of the Italian Risorgimento)
http://www.regione.piemonte.it/cultura/risorgimento/iindex.htm
(In English or Italian)

Mazzini Institute and Mazzini Home -- Genoa
http://web.tiscali.it/mazzinihouse/museo_del_risorgimento.htm
(In Italian)

Instituto per la Storia del Risorgimento Italiano -- Rome
http://www.risorgimento.it/risorgimento/default.htm
(In Italian)

Museo del Risorgimento -- Milan
http://www.museodelrisorgimento.mi.it/
(In Italian)

Museo del Risorgimento -- Palermo, Sicily
Description on the city's website: http://www.comune.palermo.it/musei/risorgimento/index.html
(In Italian)

As much as I appreciate the various apologies made by Anderson in his Preface to the Second Edition, this book certainly proves the difficulty in trying to define and explain something so abstract as the emergence of nationalism. Anderson recognizes that difficulty numerous times, and tries to aid the reader by offering the suggestion to look at and classify the term as an ideology, not a political stance. (1) A nation is "an imagined political community"...distinguished "by the style in which they are imagined". (2) Comments such as these and many others are examples of the helpful suggestion and statement made by Anderson in understanding nationalism, but upon completion of the book, in general, I felt that even though Anderson recognizes the complexity of his task at hand, I felt that this collection of ideas and chapters was somewhat discombobulated, lacking in direction, and sometimes unclearly worded.
I'm not sure if Anderson's most intriguing and poignant question, "What makes the shrunken imaginings of recent history generate such colossal sacrifices?" is even answered. Maybe this is a topic for discussion.
But there are other topics and discussions in the book that I still found to be interesting. I guess I will begin our discussion with a note on the first chapter, where I felt that Anderson made an interesting point (furthering his view of nationalism as a communal ideology) that nationalism is better understood by viewing it as a cultural system, and by referring it to other cultural systems like religion rather than political ideas. These systems preceded nationalism and shaped nationalism.
Anderson shows us that at some point, the importance of religious culture decreased, and other factors that were comforts to those persons in a community decreased along with it, such as the loss of presence of a unifying text-language, the monarchy, and comfort with the ideas of time. Anderson believes that the members of these communities would become desperate for other means of fraternity, and thus made themselves available to new ideologies, forms of community, or ways of looking at and forming their world and would then shape their nationalisms.


1. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 1991, p. 5.
2. Ibid, p.6.

I was thinking about what I would like to do for our group project, and I think that I would most like to research the influence that music had over both Italy and the American South during this time. I think that we would be able to incorpoate music fairly easily into a display, and it would definitely add interest.

For our exhibit, I would love to work with the culinary worlds of the southeastern United States and Italy. Is the culinary world/food/cuisine/the idea of sharing a meal important in shaping national identity? Was it then, is it now? What is identified as most uniquely southern and italian? How often is food the answer to what might be the region's strongest distiguishing characteristic? If it is the answer, what does that mean? These are all questions that I would love to look into, as well as what foods specifically apply to each, what their history is, why they were important then or are now. This is just a little glimpse I hope at what I might find and be able to incorporate into the group project/exhibit.

Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism provides a highly theoretical examination of Old World/ European nationalism. In Gellner’s view, the emergence of nationalism as a phenomenon was inexorably linked to the emergence of industrial society. As industrialism emerged, it was followed by a monolithic, often government affiliated education system, which fostered literacy among the masses and facilitated the dissemination of literature used to perpetuate nationalistic ideology. Nationalism is thus, the imposition of a high unitary culture on the general population, under the guise of a pure folk culture, using the symbolism of the pristine and vigorous peasantry. After the illusionary culture had been established using the education system, literature, and folk art; the government sought to form an entropy of the population by enlisting the education system to produce loyal and worthy followers of the contrived nationalism.
 Although Gellner’s treatment of nationalism was quite interesting, its European view does little to help us understand the path to Confederate nationhood. The most interesting parallel that I could find in his work was his brief assessment of the effects of nationalism on the Islamic world. (1) I do not claim to be an Islamic scholar but, prima facie, there are many commonalities between the cleavages in the Muslim World and in antebellum American. Gellner asserts that the Muslim world, though of common ancestry, was split between and high and a low culture. The two cultures often went by the same name, were never fully distinguished, and both shared a passionate identification with a paramount event in the past that they now portrayed in different manners. The lower group valued the land and traditional folk and social groupings while the high group, “set for the more fastidious, scholarly, individualist and literate urban schoolmen.” (2) If I had not been reading so carefully, I might have mistaken Gellner’s classifications of Islamic society for a characterization of antebellum America. Even in the midst of secession both the Rebels and the Unionists claimed to be continuing the spirit of 1776 and fortifying the Constitution. And the country was clearly split between the agrarian South and the Industrialist North. The Confederacy, akin to many of Gellner’s examples, pursued nationalistic goals as its traditional society was exposed to the onset of industrialism.

1. p. 76-82
2. p. 80

For the project, I would like to examine the role gender played in the nationalist movements of Italy and the American South. I want to look at the roles played by both genders, but especially focusing on women, as well as how this played into nationalist discourse. I would use the portrayals of women and gender relations in artwork and literature as part of this study.

I agree, John, that it was difficult to relate some of Gellner's ideas to the issue of Confederate nationhood. At the end of chapter six Gellner states that, "nationalisms are simply those tribalisms...which through luck, effort or circumstance succeed in becoming an effective force under modern circumstances...Tribalism never prospers, for when it does, everyone will respect it as a true nationalism, and no one will dare call it tribalism (87)." Here Gellner makes me wonder if he would see the Confederacy as a "tribalism" that prospered in the South, but could not stand up to the "high culture" of the North, so it never reached the heights of true nationalism.

Anderson's book examined the rise of nationalism in the form of, what he termed, imagined communities. He questioned how these "imagined communities" formed, using examples from around the world. One recurring theme throughout the book was the importance of using the vernacular language to create a "print capitalism" in a society. Newspapers were the most obvious example of this, but Anderson also mentioned the role of the fiction novel in creating a sense of shared community among readers. This brings to mind the arguments made by McCardell and Gemme that journal articles and pamphlets, among other kinds of publications, helped to spread nationalist ideas among the masses. Anderson also discusses how symbols affect nationalism in his chapter "Census, Map, Museum". Censuses defined the different "peoples" of a region in a very clear-cut manner, which assigned a particular identity to everyone. Maps outlined the boundaries of a region, both geographic and political. Museums, supplemented with artifacts through archaeological excavations, and often located on or near the site of ancient monuments, served to point people to a shared history and culture, even though that may have been in the distant past. The latter can be seen particularly well in the case of Italy; the monuments of Rome provided silent testimony to the "glory days" of old, and the masterpieces of the Renaissance also served as a rallying point for nationalism.

Edited by author 10-11-2006 12:43 AM
    Ernest Gellner contends in Nations and Nationalism that the "secret of nationalism" lies in the way that high culture became popular culture with the onset of the industrial age, and then that this culture was sustained by the "polity" that it now infiltrated (18). Arguing that the emergence of industrial society prompted the emergence of nationalism, Gellner discusses how the requirements of industrialism catalyzed a general education of all groups in society. In the pre-industrial agrarian societies, there existed a high class of educated leaders who looked after the intellectual interests of many locally-centered groups. However it became a necessity in the Industrial Age for there to be a sort of baseline education whereby all members of a polity had enough of an education to live a successful industrial life. At the same time and perhaps even as a product of this generalized education, industrial societies saw a shift towards more mobile populations who were no longer bound by local group loyalties. Gellner claims that it was this spreading of education (high culture) and simaltaneous mobilization of people among tiers of society that resulted in a culture of the state, distinct from the culture of previously horizontally stratified groups. Gellner sees nationalism not as the only and the inevitable byproduct of a state culture, but as one of the results that has shown many instances of success and also failed to prove fruitful for some states.
    Though I have not read the Benedict Anderson book, just going on Anna's posting I would say that Gellner and Anderson would disagree on how culture plays into nationalism. Gellner seems to be saying that defining nationalism only on a cultural basis is too broad, but still that nationalism is more than just an ideological invention. Yet it seems that Anderson is contending that nationalism is just the cultural system that Gellner tries to separate it from. Gellner recognizes the role of culture in shaping nationalism, but tries to avoid getting tied up in the origins and "why's" of culture and instead looks to what culture does for nationalism, namely that what was the high culture in pre-industrial societies expanded to be the culture of the industrial age. Needless to say, it will be interesting to compare these two tommorrow in discussion.
   Finally, I though Gellner had an argument that was well presented for the most part, if not a little dense. However I would have liked more concrete examples of his arguments instead of the hypothetical situations that only served to muddle the point for me.

According to Anderson, the idea of the nation emerged at the same time as societies were questioning the hierarchical organization of society “around and under high centres” as the natural condition (p. 36). The “nation” was a viable alternative because despite actual inequalities, the nation is “always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship,” i.e., we are all Americans, even if I am Bill Gates and you are Joe Smoe (p. 7). The notion of “horizontal comradeship” goes a long way in explaining why this new form of organization was and continues to be appealing to millions of people who are willing to die to protect the nation. In a nation, every person has equal status (even if only in theory) as a member of the nation, despite their plot in life. I think he really hit the nail on the head with this point.

It was interesting that Anderson, á la Doyle, sees the American case as exceptional in the sense that it served as a model available for copying by other would-be nationalists around the world. I actually think that this bridges the gap between Doyle and Gemme’s arguments about American exceptionalism on the one hand, and Americans’ belief in American exceptionalism on the other. It is not that America provides an example of getting it right; it is that the new conception of nation as carried out in America served as a “visible model.” As Anderson notes, “the ‘nation’ proved an invention on which it was impossible to secure a patent” (p. 67).

Edited by author 10-11-2006 10:23 AM
As far as project ideas go, I'm still juggling between two (and suggestions are more than welcome)...
(1) aspects of tourism in each respective country and how these can be linked to national identity (Southern battlefields, B&B's, and plantations - oftentimes still using blacks for maintenance duties - versus Italian "romantic" tourism (i.e. vineyards, gondalas, glass-blowing excursions to various islands, you get the picture...). Someone passed along Michael O'Brien's "Rethinking the South" to me as a reference, which supposedly has a chapter on this topic and includes both countries. If anyone has read this, let me know what you think! I'm still yet to check it out of the library.
(2) Kind of along the same lines of Victoria, but I found the portrayals/roles of children in respect to each country's nationalism very interesting and a little random, tracing back to Gemme's references for Italy. Perhaps as far as the South goes, I could use more artwork and fictional character examples, such as Huck Finn.

Alright, now Mr. Anderson is in line.

Edited by author 10-11-2006 11:22 AM
Although Anderson's Imagined Communities seemed fairly dense in its material and frustrated me somewhat - reason being that he derived that there was no exact "definition" of nationalism and never really explained how this ideology of nationalism created such a comradeship and motivated people to die for their nations - I found it an interesting read. I feel as though he nicely wraps up his view of the phenomenon of "imagined communities, when he makes reference to Gellner: (1) "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist." It is interesting to see how he gives ample evidence of what creates these communities, such as cultural roots and the involvement of (2) "unselfconscious coherence" - I thought his contrasting examples (3) of older communities' sacredness versus Pedro Fermín de Vargas's account were extremely relevant. He touches upon the powerful influence of print-capitalism upon these "imagined communities," using examples such as Martin Luther's posting of the 95 Theses and the Thai government's control of foreign missionaries reaching out to minority tribes. More examples, such as the uniformity of education, maps, museums, newspapers, and imperialism (Several of these examples can be interlaced with those of Gemme's.), even connect the communities. One example that Anderson uses in particular, the effects of imperialism, hit home for me. Having read Jose Martí's "Nuestra América," (there was a reference to this concept in the book), I noticed the phenomenon in which "sub-communities" can be created out of a nation's actual boundaries. Due to his frustration with Spanish rule in Cuba, the works and actions of Martí created a great deal of hostility between himself and Profirio Diaz, thus booting him out of his own country and being sent to New York - where he wrote "Nuestra América." I find it interesting that even though the targeted Latino community members did not know all of the other members in actuality, they shared an intimate fratnerity. This essay motivated them to join together to resist foreign imperialism and celebrate their mestizo heritage.

1. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 1991, p. 6.
2. p. 16.
3. p. 13.

Anderson's Imagined Communities seemed similar to our other readings in nationalisms in Doyle and Gemme, perhaps because Anderson's work here is so comprehensive, that Anderson's conception of a created nationalism remains the standard through today as to the generation of the movements that we have termed nationalisms. Anderson's style in the book did seem a little obtuse at times, having to reach for the dictionary more often than usual. And his lack of translation of some French passages also frustrated me quite a bit. His standard chronological analysis beginning with the Western hemisphere does seem straightforward and plausible. Anderson's observations about the spread of nationalism through education I found quite interesting. Such as his example of the English national education taught to its colonies involving the Commonwealth and the Glorious Revolution.(1) Another of his comments I found interesting was his showing of the ultimate conservatism of many of the nationalist movements. These persons were not encouraging revolutions like Haiti or France, but independence movements, maybe simply to obtain their own control of their newly-created nation, such as occurred in Hungary. (2) Anderson's account of these worldwide movements is interesting and informative, but, as others have said, is too complex to encapsulate firmly in a single movement or set of ideas. Thus his analysis, as all others, falls short of any full analysis.


1. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 118.

2. Ibid., p. 104.

Edited by author 10-18-2006 01:43 AM
Biographical Study of William L. Yancey, Albert G. Brown, Daniele Manin, & Charles Albert

 Known for his crossover from Unionism to secession and his fireball personality, many consider William Lowndes Yancey a memorable and key figure of the pre-Civil War era. Ralph B. Draughon’s work, William Lowndes Yancey: from Unionist to secessionist, 1814-1852, the primary source studied, focuses a great deal on Yancey’s childhood. Yancey, born by the Ogeechee River in Warren County, Georgia, was the son of Caroline Bird, an ironmaster’s daughter from Pennsylvania, and Benjamin Cudworth Yancey, a lawyer from the South Carolina upcountry. Although reared by a humble upbringing, one thing that was not ignoble about Yancey was his ardent patriotism. With his grandfathers and uncle being active participants in the Revolutionary War, Yancey felt a natural desire to preserve family tradition and unity throughout America.
 After his father’s death from yellow fever in 1817, however, Yancey’s life took a turn for the worse. A few years after her husband’s death, Bird married the Mount Zion Academy headmaster, Nathan Sidney Smith Beman. Due to his Presbyterian practices and America’s second Great Awakening, Beman moved the family to Troy, New York. It was here where Bird and Beman began to consistently fight, and where Yancey endured spells of discomfort, unhappiness, and adjustment. In addition, an aura of religious evangelicalism abounded the Beman household. At age sixteen, Yancey escaped this environment and attended Williams College. Still, the scars of his parents’ constant spats and Beman’s radically evangelical ways followed Yancey throughout his life.
Yancey withdrew from Williams College in 1833, followed his father’s footsteps, and moved to Greenville, South Carolina to study law. He got admitted to the bar and became editor of Greenville’s Mountaineer, a Unionist newspaper of South Carolina upcountry. In order to compensate for the fact that he grew up and received an education in the North, Yancey fully devoted himself to the Southern cause. After consuming much time with his editorship and South Carolina nullification issues, however, Yancey decided to adopt a slower-paced lifestyle, which constituted of marriage to a Greenville local, Sarah Earle. Earle exposed him to elitist Southern traditions, such as derbies and slaveholding. In the midst of an economic boom in the Alabama black belt, the Yancey’s and their slaves migrated south. Gradually, Yancey began campaigning and writing for other Southern newspapers including Argus, Alabama Planter, and the Southern Crisis. Being quite fond of his new economic status, Yancey grew increasingly wary of any potential threats to his wealth, such as protective tariffs and abolitionists. When abolitionists came to mind, Yancey naturally conjured images of Beman—“a hypocrite who preached against slavery after selling slaves himself…who abused and rejected his wife, denied her access to her own children, and refused to take any part of the blame for domestic difficulties.” The irony in the change of lifestyle and its linkage to Yancey’s changes of political and economic viewpoints will be further explored.
 Later involving himself with issues such as free-soil territory admittance and opposition to the Compromise of 1850, Yancey became partial to the right of secession. His new opinion, in coincidence with John Calhoun, was that Southern unity would coerce the North to heed to the inalienable Southern minority rights. Indeed, Yancey underwent a transitory period as he broke from ardent nationalism support to that of sectionalism. At this stage, he shares several similarities to Albert Gallatin Brown - Mississippi U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, and Governor (Democrat) from 1844-1848. Although both shared lineages of South Carolinians and ideals of patriotism, Brown differed at the fact that he was a non-slaveholder. Yet, like Yancey, he advocated secession and defended Southern states’ rights. He even organized a Southern military company, Brown’s Rifles, and served as a Confederate captain throughout the Civil War. Although he was more military active than Yancey, Brown ultimately helped negotiate a peace treaty with the North after their loss at Vicksburg on July 4, 1863.
 Daniele Manin, Italian patriot and statesman during the Risorgimento, felt resentment towards the Austrians. In 1847, he presented a nationalist-toned petition to a crowd of Venetians, later leading to a brief arrest, but also to his presidency of the Venetian republic and the evacuation of the Austrians. However, disputes were bound to rise out of the republic’s birth, namely among the Venetian, Lombardy, and Piedmont regions. These obstacles can be correlated to those of the American North and South, and on this matter, Yancey shares, “If we cannot live in peace in the Union with the Northern States, it is preferable to go out of it—and when we are beyond the reach of their legislation we may, perhaps, be able to live at peace with them out of the Union.” Similar to this standpoint, Manin eventually held a stance against republicanism.
 Charles Albert, King of Sardinia from 1831-1849, rejuvenated Northern Italy while under Austrian rule by establishing an Italian army and a number of political reforms, as well as abolishing internal tariffs. Albert, like Manin, wanted to incorporate other, overlapping regions (Lombardy, Milan, the Piedmont) into his kingdom, but encountered obstacles along the way. In 1831, he signed a military alliance with Austria, but his foreign policies and sentiments gradually turned anti-Austrian. In the years of 1848-1849 he led Italy’s first war of independence against Austria, suffering defeats at the Battles of Custozza and Novara. Immediately afterwards, he was exiled and abdicated the throne to his son, Victor Emmanuel II, whom he felt possessed the greater ability to negotiate and soothe relations with Austria. However, both he and Yancey were proactive in their ways, whether it is breaking from Austrian or Northern rule. In his later years when he began to favor direct action, Yancey resembles Albert when he claimed at a conference, “The issue, then, is before us. Congress has boldly tendered it—submission or secession.” All in all, these four men underwent transitory processes and explored different political viewpoints, eventually established where they stood, and acted fervently upon their views.

1.) Draughon, Ralph B., Jr. William Lowndes Yancey: from Unionist to secessionist, 1814-
1852. Thesis (Ph.D.). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1968.
Microfilm. p. 98.
2.) Ibid, 268
3.) Sansing, David G. “Albert Gallatin Brown, Fourteenth Governor of Mississippi: 1844-1848.” Mississippi History Now, Mississippi Department of Archives and History. Dec. 2003. 15 Oct. 2006. http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/featur...11_albert_brown.htm
4.) Cunsolo, Ronald S. “Daniele Manin (1804-1857).” Ohio University. 24 Oct. 2004. 15 Oct. 2006.
 http://www.ohiou.edu/~chastain/ip/manin.htm.
5.) Yancey, William. Eufaula Spirit of the South. June 3, 1851.
6.) Yancey, William. Montgomery Advertiser and State Gazette. October 9, 1850.




Bibliography att. on rough copy. Sorry my footnotes look out of control. The cutting and pasting doesn't work so well with this at times...

Elpis Melena’s compilation of Garibaldi’s Memoirs provides a very detailed look at the life of Garibaldi, and offers insight into the philosophy that backed his efforts in the Risorgimento. The first volume of the book consists of Garibaldi’s autobiography until 1848. Garibaldi gives a first-hand account of his youth and his time spent in the Americas as a merchant marine captain. Here we see many indications of his deep-seated pride for his homeland. He deeply resented the oppression that the Austrians inflicted upon the Italians, and he foresaw a day when Italy would, “ris[e] triumphantly on the corpses of these birds of prey who are gnawing on her (1)!” The book then provides an account of his return to Europe during the revolutions of 1848. He failed to defend Rome against foreign rule, but “this iron soul, whom fate could indeed bend but not break, decided instead of laying down his arms before the proud victor, to take to the mountains…(2).” He served as an inspiration to the Italian people, and “to anyone who wished to follow him, he confessed frankly that he could promise nothing but hunger, thirst, danger, and combat (3).”
Interestingly, Melena does not devote as much time to the description of Garibaldi’s successes in the Risorgimento. The reader receives a detailed synopsis of Garibaldi’s early career, and a very brief nod to, “how he added victory upon victory and heroic deed upon heroic deed in the Italian war of liberation (4).” After examining the life and philosophy of Garibaldi, and comparing it to other figures in both Italy and the American South, it is evident that the enthusiasm and fervor that these figures held for the freedom of their nations contributed to their ability to win the support of the general population.
In exploring the information surrounding Edmund Ruffin and reading short biographical sketches, I found some parallels between him and Garibaldi. As a secessionist, soldier, and scientist, Ruffin seems to have the same fervor for the secession of the American South that Garibaldi had for the Risorgimento. He felt so strongly in favor of secession, that upon Robert E. Lee’s surrender to the Union in 1865, Ruffin committed suicide. Just before his death he wrote in his diary, “And now with my latest writing and utterance, and with what will be near my latest breath, I here repeat…my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule…and the perfidious malignant and vile Yankee race(5).” He would have rather been dead than live in a Union that included the Northern states, and this same stubborn enthusiasm can be found in Garibaldi’s claims that, “Rome became dear to [him] above all else, and [he] honored it with the total fire of [his] soul…(6)”
 I was able to find many sources about Ruffin in our library, including his writings on agricultural science. For example, the James B. Duke Library has in its possession Ruffin’s Essay on Calcareous Manures. I also learned from Wikipedia, that Ruffin is known for firing the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter as well as the last shot (his suicide).
 Unfortunately, I could not find any information on Wiley L. Harris, but I did find some information about Mississippi politician and lawyer, Wiley Pope Harris. Our library did not actually own any full text sources on Harris, so I was able to gather very little information on him. According to the online Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, Harris served as a Mississippi representative at Congress from 1853-55. He left Congress to practice law in Mississippi, and later became a member of the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States. According to my searches on WorldCat, one of the most prevalent resources regarding Harris is his “Address to the graduating class in the Department of Law, University of Mississippi, June 23rd, 1869.” Although I did not have access to the text of his speech, I would suppose that Harris laments the South’s failure to amend the crimes that the North committed against the United States Constitution.
 There is still much debate surrounding the role that Verdi’s operas played in the Italian Risorgimento. The Italian born composer’s overwhelming popularity would have definitely assisted in swaying the political views of the Italian people. Verdi is known to have been sympathetic to Mazzini’s cause, but some argue that his political affiliations were “opportunistic(7).” Perhaps he adhered to the ideas of the Risorgimento in order to popularize his music. Nonetheless, his work appealed to the masses, an achievement that invites admiration as well as criticism. He came to be known as the “Risorgimento Composer,” because the slogan “Viva VERDI,” is thought to be an acronym supporting the reign of Vittorio Emanuele Re D’Italia. Both Garibaldi and Verdi helped to contribute to the success of the Risorgimento in that they were able to influence the opinion and inspire action within the Italian people.

Footnotes
1.Melena, Elpis. Garibaldi’s Memoirs. Sarasota: International Institute of Garibaldian Studies, 1981.
2.ibid.
3.ibid.
4.ibid.
5.Ruffin, Edmund. The Diary of Edmund Ruffin. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972.
6.ibid.
7.Smart, Mary Ann. “Liberty On (and Off) the Barricades: Verdi’s Risorgimento Fantasies.” Oxford: Berg, 2001.

                             Biographical Essay

 Prior to the momentous events of 1861, Jefferson Davis had a distinguished career as a United States soldier, congressman, senator, and cabinet officer. Davis, however, is most vividly remembered and ostensibly vilified for the four years he spent as President of the Southern Confederacy. Born on the Kentucky frontier in 1808 to backwoods planters ambitious to take full advantage of all the raw land had to offer; Davis received a rudimentary education while his father, constantly striving to improve his family’s condition, was clearing land, planting crops and acquiring slaves.[1] The 400 acre farm in Wilkinson County, Mississippi, where Davis spent his formative years was more comparable in nature to Sutpen’s Hundred than Arlington House. Although Davis later credited his years at West Point with fortifying his character, he spent more of his tenure there imbibing than drilling and his disciplinary record was more akin to that of Edgar Allen Poe than Robert E. Lee.[2]
 Upon the declaration of War with Mexico in the Spring of 1846, Davis resigned from Congress and led a Mississippi regiment to Mexico with high aspirations of attaining glory on the battlefield and thereby increasing his eminence at home. After displaying valiant leadership in the U.S. victory at Vera Cruz, Davis received a hero’s welcome when he returned to Mississippi and was appointed to the U.S. Senate. Although his career in the Senate was characterized by staunch defenses of the South’s peculiar institution and eloquent advocacy of Southern unity, he claimed that his convictions arose from, “patriotism, and a high resolve to preserve if possible, our constitutional union.”[3] In 1853, just seven years prior to secession, Davis became Secretary of war in the Pierce administration. Ironically, while heading the War Department, Davis facilitated technological innovations in the Army’s weaponry that would eventually hasten the annihilation of the Confederate Army. [4] When Congress convened in the fall of 1860 the dissolution of the union was well nigh inevitable. Yet Jefferson Davis took a moderate stance saying that though “no human power can save the union,” he was willing “to make any sacrifice to avert the impending struggle.”[5]
 Jefferson Davis served as President of the Confederate States of America for the entire duration of the ill-fated republic. Although his power to wage war effectively was hampered by the subversive actions of state’s rights advocates and his diplomatic emissaries to Europe were unsuccessful, Davis poured himself into his job as Commander in Chief of the Confederacy, constantly riding among the troops and proclaiming that “With the Confederacy he would live or die.” [6]. The heart of the Confederacy beat a final time when Davis was captured by Union Cavalry on May 10, 1865, almost a month after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox.
 Similar in political temperament to Jefferson Davis was North Carolina Governor John W. Ellis. Ellis was born in 1820 and served as a state representative and Superior Court Judge prior to being elected Governor in 1858. Although Ellis led North Carolina into the arms of the Confederacy, much like Davis, he did not advocate secession until after the election of Abraham Lincoln. He would have likely shared Davis’s sentiment in 1858 that secession was not a viable option unless a man became president who chose “not to administer the Government according to the Constitution, but to pervert it to our destruction.” [7] In fact, the main issue of Ellis’s re-election campaign in 1860 was not a contingency plan in preparation for Lincoln’s election but a discussion over the prudent way to tax slave property. Shortly after he helped prepare North Carolina for the impending crisis, Ellis suffered an untimely death in 1861. [8]
 Ferdinand II ascended the Bourbon throne of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies in 1830. Shortly after his succession, Ferdinand announced grandiose plans to reform bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption, alleviate misery among the peasants, and stimulate economic growth in the Kingdom. The path towards enlightened despotism, however, turned out to be a dead end. In reality Ferdinand II sought only to pacify his subjects and maintain the status quo. At the height of political unrest in Sicily and on the mainland in January 1848, Ferdinand was forced to acquiesce and granted his subjects a Constitution. In an effort to tame the Sicilians, Ferdinand bombarded many Sicilian cities in May of 1849 and in the process earned the nickname “King Bomba.” After regaining control of Sicily and quelling the liberal threat, Ferdinand resorted to tactics of intimidation and espionage to perpetuate his rule. [9] Victor Emmanuel II was officially crowned the King of unified Italy in February 1861 although Rome was not annexed until 1870. It is fair to say that Victor Emmanuel was the beneficiary of circumstances beyond his control and that much of his power came as a result of the skillful diplomacy of Cavour. In death, however, Victor Emmanuel II was venerated by being laid to rest in the Pantheon and his is the enduring legacy of the Risorgimento.[10]
 The thread of continuity that runs between the stories of Davis, Ellis, Ferdinand II, and Victor Emmanuel II is that they all fought to preserve their way of life. Davis and Ellis finally supported secession because they feared that the Republican administration would threaten the backbone of Southern society. Without slaves, life in the South would be fundamentally different and would require great sacrifice. When Ferdinand’s power and way of life were threatened, he proposed liberal changes and then bombarded his people to maintain the status quo. Victor Emmanuel and Cavour also were able to preserve their power by diplomatically alienating their enemies and conforming to the liberal tide that was sweeping Italy. In America, The South seceded not to preserve Constitutional principles, but to preserve the hierarchical society and their way of life.

1. William J. Cooper, Jr., Jefferson Davis, American (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000)12-13
2. Cooper, 33-40
3. Cooper, 192
4. Cooper, 254-255
5. Cooper, 322-323
6. Cooper, 508
7. Cooper, 302

8. Donald C. Butts, The North Carolina Historical Review. Volume 58, January 1981. “The ‘Irrepressible Conflict’: Slave Taxation and North Carolina’s Gubernatorial Election of 1860” 44-66; James Z. Rabun, The American Historical Review, April 1966, “Review: The Papers of John Willis Ellis” 1066-1067; Richard E. Yates, The Journal of Southern History. Feb. 1966, “Review: The Papers of John Willis Ellis.” 102-103

9. Raymond Cummings. “Ferdinand II 1810-1859.” Ohio University. 27 March 1999. 17 October 2006. http://www.ohiou.edu/`Chastain/dh/ferd.htm.

10. Giudo Verucci, the Journal of Modern History. June 1974, “Review: Victor Emanuel, Cavour, and the Risorgimento.”


Notes on sources:

Although the biography of Davis was a stout 658 pages it was an enjoyable read. I searched for Gov. John Ellis on J-STOR but all I could find were book reviews. I then searched America: History and Life and found the article on the N.C. gubernatorial election and made copies of the bound copy in the library. I searched J-STOR for articles featuring Ferdinand II and Victor Emanuel II. All I could find was a book review for Victor Emanuel so I had to resort to googling Ferdinand II. I found an interesting article on him in an Ohio University online encyclopedia. I also consulted wikipedia to see if there were any links to pertinent information but my search was futile.

Edited by author 10-18-2006 08:37 AM
In “Francis Joseph and the Italians”, William Jenks examines the events beginning the Italian unification from the viewpoint of the Austrian empire. While the book was highly informative, it gave very little background on Francis Joseph’s life before he became emperor; in fact, it seemed to focus almost as much on other Austrian and Italian political leaders as on Francis Joseph himself. Francis Joseph became emperor of Austria in August 1848, when his father Ferdinand I was forced to abdicate. He had minimal knowledge about Italy, gathered from his study of the language beginning when he was twelve, and his tour of the Italian kingdoms at the age of fifteen.(1) His reign commenced at a crucial time for the empire, as Italy began struggling against the confinements of Austria’s reign. From 1848-1860, Francis Joseph attempted to maintain control of his Italian holdings with a firm yet reasonable hand. He was willing to compromise when needed, but would mete punishment to those whom he believed were deserving of it. He granted amnesty to many foreigners who were involved in the Piedmont rebellion, but refused to show mercy to the worst offenders, believing they deserved to face the consequences for their actions. (2) He often made harsh demands of the Italian kingdoms when he felt threatened, but would usually rescind these when he was pacified, and would release prisoners, grant amnesty to minor offenders, and return sequestered property. He relied heavily on his personal advisors, particularly Schwarzenberg, but was capable of decision-making on his own. Francis Joseph was a conservative Catholic; he supported the pope, and even forgave some of the papacy’s outstanding financial obligations.(3) He survived an attempted assassination by a Magyar named Janos Libenyi in 1853; a cathedral was built in Vienna in commemoration of his deliverance. (4) He believed in honor and duty, justice and mercy, and attempted to adhere to these standards with his political practices.
Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso was a radical free thinker who grew up in an aristocratic Lombard family. She married Prince Emilio di Begiojoso at the tender age of sixteen against her parents’ wishes; the marriage was doomed to failure after only four years, and ended in separation. (5) For the rest of her years, Cristina engaged herself in traveling, writing, and educating herself. She was a feminist, and believed in education for women and members of the lower classes. A staunch opponent of the Austrian occupation, she spread Risorgimento ideas throughout Italy, and met with Italian insurrectionists in France, actively fighting Francis Joseph’s hold of Italy.(6) She did suffer for her efforts, however: her assets were frozen several times by the Austrians while she was abroad, forcing her to earn a living herself. While in Paris, Cristina set up a salon where some of the prominent intellectuals of the day gathered.(7) In addition to keeping private journals, she also contributed to European and American magazines. Beriah Magoffin was raised in Harrodsburg, Kentucky. He earned a degree at Centre College in Danville in 1835, and studied law at Transylvania College in Lexington, finishing in 1838. He began his own law practice in Harrodsburg, and moved up the government ranks gradually. He was appointed as police judge in 1840, was elected to the state Senate in 1850 for the Democratic Party, and was elected as Governor of Kentucky in 1859. He believed slavery was a positive good. (8) As Francis Joseph wanted to preserve the unity of his empire, Magoffin wanted the Union preserved for as long as possible. He refused both Lincoln’s and Davis’ call for troops in 1861, and declared Kentucky as a neutral state. Unlike Francis Joseph, however, Magoffin did not have the power or the supporters to maintain his position. He eventually lost the support of either side, was threatened with assassination, and was forced to resign in 1862.
Catherine Ann Devereaux Edmondston was one of six daughters raised on a plantation in Halifax County, North Carolina. She married Patrick Edmondston in 1846, and moved with him to Charleston for two years. They moved back to Halifax County in 1848 because of Catherine’s poor health. Patrick enlisted in the Confederate Army when the Civil War began, and Catherine aided the army with donations of food and clothing.(9) She, like Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso, also kept a journal, in which she recorded her personal interactions with friends, relatives and neighbors, but also commented on the political state of affairs. Catherine and her husband suffered great financial losses because of the war, including the loss of land, but eventually Catherine was able to reclaim some of what had formerly belonged to her family. (10) Catherine and her husband could be compared to an upper class Italian family in the Risorgimento: their possessions were confiscated because of their involvement with the rebellion. If Catherine had been aware of it, she would likely have supported the Italian cause and denounced the reign of Francis Joseph.

1. Jenks, William A. “Francis Joseph and the Italians, 1849-1859" Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1978. p 14.
2. Ibid., p. 24.
3. Ibid., p. 104.
4. Ibid., p. 47.
5. Amoia, Alba and Bettina L. Knapp, Ed. "Great Women Travel Writers: From 1750 to the Present". New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2005. p. 66.
6. Ibid., p. 67.
7. Ibid., p. 68.
8. Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T., editors. "Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social and Military History" Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2000. p. 1239.
9. Powell, William S. "Dictionary of North Carolina Biography: Vol 2, D-G" Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1986. [online] p. 137
10. Ibid., p. 138.

Sources
Surprisingly, I found quite a bit for Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso (I used the most common spelling I found for her name). The book that was most useful was a collection of biographies about women travel writers, but I also found a full-length book that was solely about Cristina’s life. In addition, she appeared in several articles on JSTOR. I found that changing the spelling of her name helped immensely in finding sources.
Beriah Magoffin was a bit more difficult to find sources for, but I found a substantial bit of information on Biography Resource Center, as well as an entry in an American Civil War Encyclopedia. He, too, appeared as a secondary character in a couple JSTOR articles.
Catherine Ann Devereaux Edmondston was the most difficult to locate. Although the library has a copy of her journal, finding other sources was a challenge. She appeared in the Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, which was published online. A search of JSTOR provided no relevant articles.

 A South Carolina native, Louis T. Wigfall was a “well of fire” who “Epitomized… [the] southern beliefs in white supremacy, slavery, the low tariff, and states’ rights.”(1) Wigfall was born in 1817 to a wealthy family in Edgefield, SC, one with genealogies saturated in aristocracy.(2) By the time he graduated from South Carolina College, Wigfall had a reputation as a fiery orator with the ability to “sway rural southerners.”(3) According to biographer Alvi L. King, Wigfall had a high sense of honor and a personality that was blunt and caustic, one that eventually led to bankruptcy that “was social and political as well as financial.”(4) Leaving Edgefield because of debt and restlessness for secession that had no place in South Carolina in 1846, Wigfall moved to Texas in early fall of that year.(5) Wigfall was involved in some politics before leaving Edgefield, but in Texas he found fresh opportunity to dominate a fledgling political system.
 When Wigfall arrived in Texas, the state was just beginning to experience rising sectionalism and ever the Southern sectionalist, Wigfall developed a following that fell sway to his fiery orations on the need for a separate confederation of southern states.(6) Wigfall became the leader of the Democratic “state’s rights” party in Texas although King asserts that the political disorganization of Texas during the 1850s is the only reason Wigfall was able to acquire and maintain the political positions he did as a state representative, a Senator to the United States Congress, and then as a Senator to the Confederacy.(7) Elected to the United States Senate for the 1859-1861 session, Wigfall developed a reputation as a senator with the most consistent attendance but also the most “acerbic taunts.”(8) This reputation would follow Wigfall into his days as a Confederate Senator as he wrote secession manifestos and lead the sectionalists. Wigfall and Confederate President Jefferson Davis had what began as a good relationship, with each advising and benefiting from the appointments and public support of the other.(9) However, due to what King describes as conflicting beliefs on military tactics and leadership and disagreements over organization of the Confederacy, both Davis and Wigfall allowed distrust and dislike to “hurt the cause to which they were [both] devoted.”(10)
Indicative of Wigfall’s stubborn refusal to accept defeat, he was present for the last meeting of the Confederate Senate, vetoing and introducing bills even as Lee’s army was surrendering. Wigfall hid for fear of imprisonment after the war until he escaped to England in 1866 with his family.(11) Lifelong financial struggles followed him to England, forcing Wigfall to eventually return to the United States where he died in Texas in 1874. King argues in his biography of Wigfall that the fire-eater demonstrates characteristics of psychological paranoia that help explain Wigfall’s heightened fire-eating behaviors over other radical sectionalists such as Yancey and Rhett. Moreover, he asserts that Louis T. Wigfall “contributed greatly to the demoralization of the people and the armies of the Confederacy” so much so that nothing “could sustain the South’s will to fight.”(12)
 Isham G. Harris was governor of Tennessee from 1857-1862, and after the war served as a Senator to the United States.(13) Harris, like Wigfall, was a lawyer who became involved in state politics as a member of the “state’s rights” Democratic Party.(14) When Tennessee voted against secession, Harris chose to take “an officially neutral stance” that Tennessee would not support any Union efforts to coerce the Confederate states.(15) Meanwhile, Harris worked to convert Unionists to Confederates by leading Tennessee in a neutral position that was both against secession and against subjugation by the Union.(16) Harris eventually pushed through legislation to ally Tennessee with the Confederacy, and was then actively involved (like Wigfall) in the military activities in his state. Harris fled, along with Wigfall, after the Confederacy surrendered, but unlike his fiery counterpart Harris accepted his amnesty and returned to a successful law career and long term in the United States Senate.(17) Perhaps his post-war success can be attributed to Harris’ calmer, more democratic way of achieving secession than Wigfall’s violent, radical orations and confrontations.
 Vincenzo Gioberti was a Catholic priest who is most known for his influential writings that sought to reconcile liberalism with Catholic doctrine.(18) One of his most important works, Del primate morale e civile degli italiani, published in 1843, was “a major influence on moderate liberal thinking in the Risorgimento.”(19) A highly influential moderate, Gioberti saw civilization as a result of religion, thus that religion should provide structure for civilization.(20) Gioberti’s work, though threatening to religious and political conservatives, opened the way for the Catholic Church to be potentially involved in Italian Unification.
 Pope Pius IX was elected pope in 1846 as a liberal pope “not opposed to progress,” but demonstrated a shift towards conservatism during his papacy.(21) Called the “architect of the modern Catholic papacy,” Pius IX held his papacy for the longest of any pope since St. Peter. Pius IX saw the Papal States attacked by proponents of liberalism and thus began rejecting the Risorgimento as the movement to unify Italy turned towards conquering the Papal States. As evidence of this, he called the First Vatican Council that officially rejected rationalism, “science, nationalism, socialism, and liberalism” in order to protect the Catholic Church as a temporal and spiritual power.(22) However, with the Risorgimento and the loss of the Papal States, Pius IX saw in his papacy the reduction of church powers to only spiritual ones.(23)
 The most unifying theme among these four very different individuals is the passion each demonstrates for their cause. Each individual made impacts that still reverberate today: Southern sectionalism still exists in many parts of the South and is studied to ascertain the South’s contribution to American national identity; Gioberti’s work is studied due to it’s complexity, while he is revered as one of the crucial Catholic moderates; Pius IX’s papacy is viewed as defining the modern papacy for the Catholic Church. Whether one agrees with the views of these individuals or not, one cannot deny that their contributions were significant in understanding the Confederacy in the South and attitudes surrounding the Risorgimento in Italy.
 For my sources, I began by using Wikipedia for each individual to get a basic understanding and to decide where to look for more information. J-STOR and Academic Search Premier proved helpful in finding relevant articles on Gioberti and Pius IX, while the Furman library had some basic information on Harris. However most of my sources came from electronic databases.


1 -Alvy L. King, Louis T. Wigfall: Southern Fire-eater. (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1970). Pp. 3
2 -Ibid, pp. 6-9.
3 -Ibid, pp. 19.
4 -Ibid, pp. 20.
5 -Ibid, pp. 20, 49.
6 -Ibid, pp. 48.
7 -Ibid, pp. 51-52.
8 -Ibid, pp. 79.
9 -Ibid, pp. 128.
10 -Ibid, pp. 141, 184-185.
11 -Ibid, pp. 217-223.
12 -Ibid, pp. 240.
13 -David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, “Harris, Isham Green: Governor of Tennessee.” Encyclopedia of the American Civil War. (Santa Barbara, CA: Heidler & Heidler, 2000). pp. 935-936.
14 -J. Reuben Sheeler, Secession and The Unionist Revolt. The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Apr., 1944), JSTOR. pp. 177.
15 -Heidler & Heidler, pp. 935.
16 -Sheeler, Secession and The Unionist Revolt, pp. 181.
17 -Heidler & Heidler, pp. 935-936.
18 -Bruce Haddock, Political Union without Social Revolution: Vincenzo Gioberti’s Primato. The Historical Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3. (Sep., 1998), pp. 705-723. JSTOR.
19 -Ibid, pp. 705.
20 -Ibid, pp. 708.
21 - Frank J. Coppa, Pio Nono and the Jews: From “Reform” to “Reaction,” 1846-1878. Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 89, No. 4. (Oct., 2003), pp. 671-695. Academic Search Premier.
22 -Bob Swacker and Brian Deimling, A Nineteenth-Century Church for the New Millennium: The Legacy of Pius IX and John Paul II. Massachussets Review, Vol. 41, No. 1. (2000), pp. 121-132. Academic Search Premier.
23 -Coppa, Pio Nono and the Jews, pp.671-695.

In the biography of Camillo Cavour I have seen further example of two of the main ideas that have occupied much of our discussion in recent weeks. The idea that nationalism and national political power are constructed identities was seen in the work of Doyle, Gemme, McCardell, and Anderson, and now is seen in Harry Hearder’s presentation of the politically creative and powerful Cavour. Also of interest is the international background and perspective Cavour maintains in his political career, as advocated by Gemme, that certainly helped to make his construction successful.
 Like the notorious Otto von Bismarck yet to come, Cavour entered the Italian political scene as an initiator, a manipulator, and a creator. Hearder aptly states, “A study of Cavour must be the study not so much of a man who held power, as of one who created a position of power which had not existed when his career began…Not only did he hold power: he himself created it” (1). As Cavour constructed his role as a leader in the would-be nation (and as Prime Minister once a nation), so did Cavour serve a major role in the construction of Italy as a nation, as one of the big three influential individuals, alongside Mazzini and Garibaldi, who influenced the formation of Italy and its subsequent nationalism. Hearder extensively researched many biographers of Cavour, those of first and of third-hand experience, and in his last chapter recognizes many of their biased viewpoints, but seems to have often found that Cavour was held by many as ‘the architect of Italy’ (2). Cavour’s life is a visible symbol of the truth that nationalism and national power are of a constructed existence. Not only did Cavour successfully construct his position and path to power, but while doing so largely constructed Italy’s path to be a more unified power as well.
Cavour the man and the biography also prove one of our prior discussion points concerning the importance of an international outlook. Gemme first stressed an international perspective’s positive contribution to completely understanding one’s true identity and Cavour was able to better understand Italy’s potential and possible unified identity, as well as the best steps to get there, because of his international background. With his Piedmontese landowning father, French Huguenot mother, and extensive travel and exposure as a child, Cavour certainly saw and learned more of the world than an unprivileged, stationary young man. As he grew into his public role, Cavour would compare differing policies of various nations and then implement what strategy would serve future Italy best because he could look at the country from this somewhat more objective international view. Cavour was aided in successfully implementing his plans, whether for specific political actions like railway construction or for exerting power and persuasion on the people in fellow city-states with annexation votes, because of his international exposure, background, and insight.
While Hearder recognizes Cavour’s cunning manipulation and personal-power plays as well as his political mistakes, he desires for the reader to ultimately recognize the “single, consistent conviction in progress” that Cavour held, which, along with his intellectual strength made his goals of social and economic strength, industrialization, and a constitutional monarchy possible (3).
Cavour’s policy of juste-milieu and a ‘pragmatic’ approach to nationalism served Italy well in territorial unification, but perhaps the tougher task, creating cultural identity, was yet to come (4). The task to create and maintain a unified Italian cultural identity was a task with less easily calculated and quantifiable means. As Hearder recognizes, the unification of Italy would never have been possible without the work of Cavour alongside Garibaldi and Mazzini. While Cavour had the specific steps and programs to implement, Mazzini and Garibaldi had the romantic influence necessary to encourage the Italian population to accept such steps and programs. Hearder succinctly summarizes the statement by saying, “Mazzini’s importance was as an educator of Italian nationalism, an inspired propagandist who convinced thousands of educated young Italians that the notion of ‘Italy’ could be turned into a political nation-state. Mazzini’s achievement in intellectual terms was thus an immense one, and without it Cavour’s career would never have culminated in the creation of the Kingdom of Italy” (5). Perhaps if Cavour had allowed Mazzini and Garibaldi to play a larger role in Italy’s unification and early nationalism, the task of a culturally unified identity would not have proved so difficult.
In researching various other biographical subjects of the Italian and Confederate nationalist theme, I discovered one character, Niccolo Tommaseo, to be an adequate example of this fusion of romance and sensibility. Although a talented writer and poet, Tommaseo held a deep lifelong interest in the translation of the works of others throughout his life. One of his most notable studies was that of Dante, the creator of the modern Italian dialect. Tommaseo used his talent and experience in linguistics to produce practical works on the Italian language such as Dizionario dei sinonimi (Dictionary of Synonyms) and Dizionario della lingua italiana (Dictionary of the Italian Language). Through these lexicographic works, as well as his more personal poetic pieces, Tommaseo proved his linguistic, poetic and perhaps political philosophy that one should reject any single element's importance and rather "asserts that it is their unity in a composition which must define the creative experience" (6). Perhaps Tommaseo's attacking of Austrian rule of Italy is synonymous with his poetic idea that collective unity, rather than singular dominance, is a preferred ideal for existence.
I examined another biographical subject, South Carolina congressman Lawrence Keitt, and found Keitt to be one of his state's most outspoken advocates of secession as well as much more of a radical political personality than the calculated Cavour, as evidenced by his participation in the Preston Brooks assault on Senator Charles Sumner. As he unabashedly stated, slavery was "the great central point from which we are now proceeding" (7). Although Keitt, like Cavour, was involved early in the movement to unify his new 'nation', his lack of proper judgment in political decision-making, unlike Cavour, made Keitt's desire to be one of the new government's power brokers impossible and only a role in the military available. His rash behavior would cost him his life along with that of many of his men.
Perhaps a more reasonable southern sectionalist is found in the Kentucky statesman and once Vice President John Breckinridge. Breckinridge's platform like Keitt also focused on the issue of slavery, but his goal was the more realistic protection of the rights of slaveholders rather than the reintroduction of the slave-trade (8). Like Cavour and perhaps unlike Keitt, the purpose behind Breckinridge's power was for the welfare of his people, not solely private gain. Even though this was a limited audience of Caucasian citizens, Breckinridge cared for many southerners deeply, as it was for them that he fought and commanded as general in the Confederate War (9).
Regarding the research process, even after requesting assistance from the reference desk, I found research for relevant articles, essays, or journals concerning my three assigned subjects difficult to come by. The article search engine with the broadest base, Academic Search Premier, was only helpful in locating one article, on John Breckinridge, and even the more specific databases, such as America: History & Life, MLA Bibliography and Literature Resource Center, were unsuccessful at finding articles for Keitt or Tommaseo. Scanning the reference book shelves proved to be more successful in providing me with brief essays discussing the lives and accomplishments of these two remaining subjects. Perhaps searching from the texts tangibly in front of you, at least for a brief report, is more practical for a researcher of our purposes.




1. Hearder, Harry. Cavour. London: Longman, 1994, p. vii.
2. Ibid, p. viii.
3. Ibid, p. 37
4. Ibid, p. 44.
5. Ibid, p. 15.
6. Bondanella, Peter, ed. Dictionary of Italian Literature. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979, p. 517.
7. Edgar, Walter B. Encyclopedia of the Confederacy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993, p. 877.
8. Donald, David Herbert. "1860 The Road Not Taken". Smithsonian, Oct 2004, Vol. 35 Issue 7, p. 54.
9. Wikipedia. References Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., Civil War High
Commands, Stanford University Press, 2001.

  Nationalism and national identity do not exist outside the nationalist leaders who champion the cause of the nation. In every nationalist campaign, these leaders – whether holding political office or operating along the cultural front of the movement – attempt to define the scope of the movement and garner popular support for their ideas and policies. John A. Quitman, William Porcher Miles, Francisco Crispi, and Alessandro Manzoni are four such examples of nationalist leaders in the antebellum American South and during Italian unification respectively. Though they served different functions within their specific campaigns, all four attempted to define national identity in their own way and sought to gain public vindication for their ideals. Collectively, they illustrate the importance that nationalists have defining national identity.
  One of the American South’s most ardent nationalists, John Anthony Quitman, was actually a Yankee by birth. Having grown up in Rhinebeck, New York, the son of a Lutheran Minister who had only recently immigrated to the United States from a German duchy, Quitman’s emergence as an “Old South Crusader” was hardly foreseeable.[1] Yet, his move to Natchez, Mississippi after studying law, his marriage to Eliza Turner, a member of one of Natchez’s foremost nabob families, and his purchase of the large estate known as Monmouth solidified his identity as a member of the plantation gentry. Having worked so hard to achieve a gentile lifestyle and become accepted as an elite himself, Quitman “set out methodically to achieve political rank.” [2]
  Quitman was an extremely ambitious person who strove to play a leading role in defining the South’s relation to the North, and the federal government’s relation to the states. Over the course of his lifetime, Quitman served in any number of public offices on the local, state, and national levels, the most prominent among which were Governor of Mississippi, Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Major General of the U.S. Army. Although Quitman’s party allegiance changed during his career, he was persistent in his unwavering advocacy for states’ rights. Identifying strongly with Calhoun, Quitman supported nullification and did not shrink from considering secession when federal legislation, such as the Wilmot Proviso threatened to infringe on what he saw as southern rights.[3] That he was a strong advocate and defender of slavery goes without question; Quitman was a plantation owner and a member of the Southern planting elite and “acceptance of the aristocratic way of life necessitated acceptance of slavery.”[4] These positions, though they paved the way for Mississippi to become the second state to secede from the union in 1961, cost Quitman a number of elected and appointed offices, as Mississippians were cautious to support someone who was “identified with disunion and radical political change at a time when…the future appeared bright.”[5]
  Having prepared Mississippians for secession through his public persona, Quitman’s premature death in 1858 prevented him from living through what he had so often predicted in the face of political naysayers. Quitman had time and time again described the North’s increasing control over federal institutions and their desire to limit and abolish slavery and condemn southerners to “second-class citizenship.”[6] Although labeled an extremist during much of his career, Quitman played an “instrumental role in Mississippi secessionism” and he would have reveled in being a member of the nation and state he had done so much to shape.[7]
  Unlike Quitman, the South Carolina fire-eater William Porcher Miles did live to see the Confederate States of America (C.S.A.) come to fruition and end in defeat. Miles was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1857 – 1860, serving a short time with Quitman. After secession, Miles became a member of the Confederate Congress and is best known for his Chairmanship of the Congressional Committee on Flag and Seal, and his role in designing and advocating for the adoption of the Confederate Battle Flag as the national flag of the C.S.A.[8] Although the Battle Flag, known popularly as the “Rebel Flag,” is arguably the most lasting and well-known symbol of the South, it was never officially adopted by the C.S.A. Miles’ intention in arguing for a replacement of the official Stars and Bars Flag stemmed from his belief that the C.S.A. should not emulate the very government against which they were fighting. Instead, southerners needed to understand that “the only way to be true to the spirit of the past was to break those ‘many ties hard to sunder’ and to forget those ‘many memories difficult to erase’.”[9]
  A Sicilian by birth, Francesco Crispi spent his early life fighting for Italian unification and his later years promoting Italian nationalism. Having participated in the Sicilian uprising against Ferdinand II in 1848, Crispi was exiled to Piedmont and later to London after the rebellion was quashed. In 1859, however, Crispi returned to Sicily and was instrumental in convincing Giuseppe Garibaldi to assist in the successful revolution of 1960.[10] After unification, Crispi served in a number of government positions and even served as the Italian Premier from 1887 – 1891 and from 1893 – 1896. Although he began as an ardent supporter of republicanism, Crispi ultimately became a monarchist, claiming in 1864, “The monarchy unites us; the republic would divide us.”[11] Above all else, Crispi desired the preservation of the young Italian nation and was willing to use a heavy handed approach to further the nationalist cause. During his second term in office, for example, his government persecuted members and suspected members of the Fasci Siciliani, a popular democratic and socialist movement.[12]
  Like Crispi, Alessandro Manzoni supported unification and played a large role in its ultimate success. Manzoni’s role in shaping Italian national identity, however, was cultural rather than political. Written and rewritten over the course of twenty years, Manzoni’s famous novel, I Promessi Sposi (The Bethrothed), is considered a national treasure, comparable to the operas of Giuseppe Verdi in terms of their popularity in Italian culture.[13] Perhaps most interesting, Manzoni wrote the novel using the Florentine dialect, rather than his native Milanese. The dialect would later become the national language. After unification, Manzoni served as the president of a commission to examine the question of the Italian language and wrote two essays on the topic.[14]
  The four nationalists described above were all leaders of a nationalist cause. In each case, the combination of personal ambition and the desire to participate in a larger cause was important in leading them to their particular role in the larger nationalist movement. Though their roles were unique and ranged from advocacy and policy making to developing cultural symbols, each sought to leave his legacy on the shape and form of the national identity. Moreover, each played a decisive role in forming national identity and establishing the legacy of the nations they worked to see realized. Most people do not know the names of these men, but they are well aware of the outcome of their work.

On my sources:
On the three shorter biographical subjects, I began with a quick search on google and Wikipedia. Each had an entrance in Wikipedia, but there was not much detail in the entries. I also searched World Cat, which gave me a lot of primary documents, most of which were not available in the Furman library. I ended up searching the Furman library and found a number of secondary and some primary sources. Most of the sources I used were not biographies of the subjects, but were topical books that covered the subjects in some detail. For my main biographical subject, John A. Quitman, I relied primarily on May’s biography, but also utilized McCardell’s work.
 It was interesting to see the limitations of history while searching for this material. Though each of the individuals discussed played important roles in their movements, there is not an abundance of information about them. In the case of the Italian nationalists, the language barrier also came up as many books had not been translated into English. Trying to piece together the importance and relevance of these nationalists was not as easy as I thought it would be.

Notes:
1 Robert E. May, John A. Quitman: Old South Crusader (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1985), 2-4.

2 Ibid., 29.
  
3 Ibid., 224.
  
4 Ibid., 22.
  
5 Ibid., 94. Quitman not only lost political campaigns at the state and national level, he failed to receive the Democratic Vice Presidential nomination despite being considered the leading candidate in 1856. See Ibid., 320. Regarding Southern reaction to advocates of nullification, including Quitman, see also John McCardell, The Idea of a Southern Nation: Southern Nationalists and Southern Nationalism, 1830 – 1860 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979), 43.
  
6 May, Quitman, 351.
 
7 Ibid.
  
8 Robert E. Bonner, Color and Blood: Flag Passions of the Confederate South (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 102.

9 Ibid., 42-43. See also David G. Sansing, “A Brief History of the Confederate Flags,” Mississippi History Now, available http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature2/histconflag.html, accessed 10/17/2006.
  
10 Lucy Riall, Sicily and the Unification of Italy: Liberal Policy and Local Power 1859-1866 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 67-68.
  
11 “Francesco Crispi,” Wikipedia, available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Crispi, accessed 10/17/2006.
  
12 Ibid., Riall, Sicily, 81.

13 Bernard Wall, Alessandro Manzoni (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), 50.
  
14 Sandra Berman, “Introduction,” in On the Historical Novel, edited by Sandra Bermann (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), 47.

I didn't include any notes on my sources so I'll give a little blurb...My book-length source was only available on Microfilm (I definitely freaked out, ran to the research help desk while having my doubts, and most likely looked like a fool.), so I spent a couple of hours in front of the screen, skimming as I went along to find what I thought was important, and printed about 280 pages from the machine to take home and read. For the same figure, I found only one book (2 volumes though), and several JSTOR articles.

For the others, I wikipedia'ed them to get general overviews, JSTOR'ed and had some luck, and went to the "Historical Abstracts" database and found a decent amount on my Italian subjects, but most of the sources were in Italian (surprise, surprise). I searched the NYT datacase, the Avalong Project database (a Yale production), and the Library of Congress website--which were all great search engines--but just didn't provide me with ample information. I got a little desperate, so I googled them as well. I found several essays from Ohio University, which I thought were legitimate, so I used those as sources as well. For Albert Brown (Mississippi governor), I went to the Mississippi Historical Society website, and only found information on a "K-12" website (definitely feeling pretty childish right now), but I only used that in the same context of which I used Wikipedia.

 Denis Mack Smith’s Mazzini shows a very positive portrait of Mazzini. He shows the praise that Mazzini reaped throughout his life even while he struggled with Italian national unity (1). Mazzini spent much of his life after his first planned uprising in 1831 in Switzerland and England, plotting innumerable uprisings (2). His primary activities for much of his life were writing and fundraising, both in support of Italian national unity. He recognized that Italy was not ready for the completely egalitarian republic he envisioned, but he felt that his role as the prodding radical would eventually result in the nation-state he saw as inevitable (3). The lack of monetary support from Italy itself continually frustrated him, for he had to turn to English, American, and other sources to fund his constant conspiracies and uprisings (4).
 The high moments of his life came in 1848-49 and 1860, when national unification seemed most likely. In 1849 he became a triumvir of the newly-formed Roman Republic, and Smith speaks glowingly of Mazzini’s role in the government (his only political position in his entire life) and his ability to institute a new republic over an older autocratic papal regime (5). In 1860 he was able to participate in and influence other men to such actions as the annexation of southern Italy and continue the pressure on the official regime to acquire Venetia after 1861. Mazzini was a famous person all over Europe, one whom most that met him called remarkable, one of the great personalities of their age, and many other positive adjectives. Those who had not met him encouraged propaganda against him in Italian and other newspapers.
 Robert Barnwell Rhett spent much of his life fighting for the same type of goal, an independent Southern nation, but he was much more greatly marginalized and cast off after his goal of Southern independence became reality. His life was full of political struggles for himself and for his primary goal of Southern nationalism. Rhett’s activities for secession in the period before the Civil War included many speeches and “rhetorical devices” as well as such grassroots organizations as “Southern Rights Associations” throughout the South (6). The overriding theme of his life was a radical Southern nationalism in many different dimensions, even in his large criticisms of the Davis administration of the Confederacy (7). In terms of sources, it is interesting to note that the primary biography of Rhett until recently was White’s 1931 biography in which she communicates with Rhett’s daughters during her research (8). A simple WorldCat query only shows 2 full biographies of Rhett: the White biography and a work by William C. Davis in 2001. Thus, while most would say his impact was large, his memory has been quite small.
 Joseph Brown of Georgia seems to have a typical Southern background, a “humble origin, meagre [sic] education, and limited political experience” that somehow was able to win the governorship of Georgia in 1857 (9). He managed Georgia until 1865 when the turmoil of Reconstruction began. One of the biggest non-Civil War controversies of his tenure was the question of the Western & Atlantic railroad, whose function as a public enterprise was much debated due to its unprofitability but its value as an avenue for patronage (10). After the war he actually supported Andrew Johnson and his policies during Reconstruction, reassuring him that the two new senators from Georgia in 1866, Alexander Stephens and Herschel V. Johnson would “both support [Johnson’s] policy zealously” (11). After the drama of the end of the war he held several public posts, such as a US senator during the 1880s. In terms of sources, there is very little material from the last 25 years available anywhere. Both the resources immediately available and those I could find in general were at the latest from the 1970s. His resources were more prevalent than Rhett’s, perhaps because of his greater political function as a controller of Georgia for many years.
 Napoleon III was the nephew of Napoleon I (12). He was born during the height of Napoleon I’s empire, but grew up almost entirely abroad in various locations in Italy and other countries. He achieved political power after 1848 and remained there until the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. Marks of his reign included the installation of Maximillian of Hapsburg as king of Mexico for a short while and the large amount of intervention in Italy (13). He eventually tried to establish the Rhine as the frontier of France, which led to the Franco-Prussian war and his ouster. He spent his life after 1870 in exile, mostly in England (14). “Death came from an operation in a house in Kent…” (15). Sources on Napoleon III are large and numerous. I counted no fewer than 20 books on the shelves that dealt with Napoleon and his reign during this period; however, I was unable to find much material written beyond the 1970s.


1. Denis Mack Smith, Mazzini (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 24,44-45, 53, 192-195, et al.
2. ibid., 20.
3. ibid., 33-34, 41.
4. ibid., 46-47.
5. ibid., 67-69.
6. Eric H. Walther, The Fire-Eaters (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992), pp.139-140.
7. Laura A. White, Robert Barnwell Rhett: Father of Secession (American Historical Association, 1931), chs. 10-11.
8. ibid., p. vii.
9. Joseph H. Parks, Joseph E. Brown of Georgia (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977), p. 40.
10. ibid., 37-38, 53-59.
11. ibid., 349.
12. W. H. C. Smith, Napoleon III (London: Wayland Publishers, 1972), p. 11.
13. ibid., 175.
14. ibid., 263.
15. ibid.

     I thoroughly enjoyed reading Gone with the Wind and found the book to be more insightful and thought provoking than the movie. Some of the most interesting parts of the book in my opinion were Ashley Wilkes’ mid war commentary and Scarlett’s evolution from a daughter of the planter aristocracy to an avid capitalist paying “minute attention to dollars and cents.” In one of Ashley’s letters to Melanie he provides a perceptive look at the lost cause and the South’s reasons for fighting the war. Ashley’s views on the causation of the war are quite similar to the Blundering Generation theory and he seems to blame nationalistic Southern demagogues for dragging the South into an unwinnable war. Ashley writes:

 “We have been betrayed, betrayed by our arrogant Southern selves, believing that one of us could lick a dozen Yankees, believing in that King Cotton could rule the world. Betrayed, too, by words and catch phrases, prejudices and hatreds coming from the mouths of those highly placed, those men whom we respected and revered—‘King Cotton, Slavery, States’ Rigths, Damn Yankees.’ ”(p. 209)

Ashley also provides an intuitive look at the lost cause theory saying that even if the South won the war, the Cotton Kingdom would contaminate the people of the south and the old quiet ways would disappear forever. He went on to say that he feared that whatever the outcome of the war, the people of the south would “become like the Yankees, at whose money making activities, acquisitiveness and commercialism we now sneer.” (p. 210) Ironically Ashley’s words foreshadowed what Scarlett O’Hara, outwardly the flower of Southern womanhood, would become after the war.

 It is prophetic that Scarlett returned to Atlanta after the war carrying a carpetbag filled with all her belongings. (p. 543) Shortly after her marriage to Frank Kennedy, now a merchant and storeowner, Scarlett borrowed money from Rhett Butler and bought a sawmill. Furthermore, in order to make money, Scarlett forced Mr. Kennedy to behave in the manner of a scalawag and compel their old friends to repay their debts at the store. By operating the saw mill as a cut throat capitalist, Scarlett’s actions were akin to that of a carpet bagger and the rhetoric of a prewar nullification pamphlet describing evil Yankees could have easily been applied to her conduct. In the McCardell book, one nullifier described Yankees as “low minded,” paying “minute attention to dollars and cents, and … the groveling maxim of senseless ignorance and shop keeping vulgarity.” (p. 48) This series of events begs the question; was Scarlett a carpetbagger trying to profit from the downfall of a civilization or was she a part of the first generation of new south boosters trying to revitalize the region and stimulate a return to prosperity.

Our study of such abstract concepts as the nationalistic theory, ideology, or historiography of the American Confederate nation and the Italian Unification now takes a turn with Giuseppe di Lampedusa’s novel The Leopard and Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind. Both novels, though fiction, give us concrete, historically based, presentations of life in the secessionist south of the United States and the former Sicilian city-state of Italy. Both authors aim to show us the characteristics and character of their region’s plebiscite, which in actuality is more of an aristocratic everyman. Through these plebiscites and the occurrences of their lives we are given tangible examples of regional identity and the struggle of each region against its larger nation’s unified, developing identity. As a southerner I feel I can say, Mitchell’s depiction is for many not only the primary creator for a visual image of the antebellum South but her characters give specific examples of the thoughts and actions of the sectional identity at that time. Lampedusa’s novel in Italy could very well serve the same purpose. Though one novel makes for a very limited perspective, The Leopard was certainly an aid for me as an outsider to come to grasp and construct a tangible identity for what a Sicilian, royalist and liberal, might have been.
Though The Leopard gives a significant percentage of its body to detailed description and other superfluous narrations, Lampedusa does present us with tangible examples, and a few direct statements, of the attitudes of late nineteenth century Sicilian-Italians. A lackadaisical temperament typifies much of the Sicilian aristocracy and royalist faction as seen through the “leopard” Prince Don Fabrizio Salina, and an energetic, optimistic, ambitious character is possessed by the region’s and nation’s liberal revolutionaries, as seen in his nephew Tancredi or the mayor, Don Calogero. Don Fabrizio, as well as the other royalist, sentimentalist Sicilian aristocracy of the day are summarized at one point by the priest, Father Pirrone as he explains, “The nobles…live in a world of their own, or joys and troubles of their own; they have a very strong collective memory…they seem vitally connected with their fortunes, memories, and hopes” (226). Their lives are in the past, as their livelihood is built upon it. Don Fabrizio feels this attitude is justified, as well as any Sicilian insubordination to unification, as seen when he comments on the region’s character and past. He states, “This violence of landscape, this cruelty of climate, this continual tension in everything…all those rulers who landed by main force from every direction, who were at once obeyed, soon detested, and always misunderstood…all these things have formed our character, which is thus conditioned by events outside our control as well as by a terrifying insularity of mind” (208). He says this has constructed the Sicilians so that, “Their vanity is stronger than their misery; every invasion by outsiders…upsets their illusion of achieved perfection, risks disturbing their satisfied waiting for nothing…they consider they have an imperial past” (212). Conveniently for him, much of what he says is the Sicilian identity seems to be in agreement with his own.
Once Fabrizio foresees the coming storm of revolution he is hopeful and states, “All will be the same though all will be changed” (46). He thought the collective past would be enough to save Sicily from a revolutionarily different future. But, he himself disproves this notion and was an example as “He has said that the Salinas would always remain the Salinas. He had been wrong. The last Salina was himself. That fellow Garibaldi, that bearded Vulcan, had won after all” (286). Later, Fabrizio is given his chance to comment on the revolution to which he acquiesced, and here Di Lampedusa uses this instance to summarize the North and South conflict that is to come. Fabrizio states, “One of them asked me what those Italian volunteers were really coming to do in Sicily. ‘They are coming to teach us good manners…but they won’t succeed, because we think we are gods’” (212).
Comparing the two novels helps us to find similarities and better understand the character of revolutionaries as a whole, whether they be seceding American southerners or unifying Italians. Both possessing radical goals and ideologies, men such as these share similar characteristics that make it possible for their desire to become more than a daydream. Through the characters of Tancredi, Don Calogero, Garibaldi, Gerald O’ Hara, Charles Hamilton, Frank Kennedy, and more, we see the self-will necessary to produce and preserve such revolutionary ideas and causes as theirs. To scheme, connive, and fight as necessary, we see that one had to possess a good degree of energy, strength, optimism, and ambition. The languid, depressed, introspective character of Don Fabrizio never made for a revolutionary, and his lifestyle of financial ease and entitlement, as many American northerners also experienced, did not breed him any differently. The self-made men of Southern secession and Italian unification had the characteristics, drive, and realization of possible gains to propel them to “self-make” their revolutionary Confederate and Italian nations respectively.
Through the individuals provided by Mitchell and di Lampedusa we may more tangibly construct our understanding of who some of the ‘everymen’ of these nations and period were. But, though these novels can present a more graspable form through which to understand the men, sentiments and events of the time, they are but one interpretation of those men, sentiments and events, biased clearly from one side’s perspective, not to mention the bias or agenda of the author on his/her own. As a Sicilian prince himself, writing after the aftermath and destruction of World War II, it is understandable that di Lampedusa’s heritage and personal agenda come into play in this novel. There is personal and relevant attachment to his depiction of what it is to be Sicilian and there is logical sense for him to hold importance and struggle to preserve that identity. Once this is acknowledged, it does not make the novel discounted. Like in American history, whether through identifying the specific, shared characteristics of a region or their shared past, identifying and strengthening one’s sectional identity can serve to reestablish and strengthen one’s national identity, sentimentality, and strength as well.

Giuseppe di Lampedusa’s The Leopard, named after the emblem of Don Fabrizio Corbera’s family’s coat of arms and his nickname, thoroughly illustrates Italy’s state over a ten-year span, during the Risorgimento. The Leopard opens with Garibaldi’s forces dispersing throughout Sicily, for the sake of Italy’s unification. The majority of characters studied are unionists, the most dominant example being Tancredi Falconeri—the nephew of Prince Don Fabrizio Corbera, a fervent supporter of Garibaldi, and an “unconventional youth.” Tancredi wants to focus on the “aims of the current political movement in Italy—to bring new blood into old families and to level out classes.” Another in favor, Russo, tells Don Fabrizio, “But I must say that my heart is with them, those bold lads. Your Excellency knows we can’t stand any more: searches, questions, nagging about every little thing, a police spy at every street corner; an honest man can’t even look after his own affairs. Afterward, though, we’ll have liberty, security, lighter taxes, ease, and trade. Everything will be better.” Tancredi once again furthers his argument by claiming, “Unless we ourselves take a hand now, they’ll foist a republic on us. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.” Despite the evident pros of unification, Don Fabrizio responds to his nephew: “You’re mad, my boy, to go with those people! They’re all in the mafia, all troublemakers.”
 Here lies an example of the different mindset of protagonist Don Fabrizio Corbera, Prince of Salina. Unlike Tancredi, the representative of plebian influence, Don Fabrizio is wary of Italian unification because of the possible diminishment of aristocratic power and the old regime. Giuseppe di Lampedusa uses his character as a means to understand both sides of the spectrum during the Risorgimento. The reader is able to follow Don Fabrizio’s stream of consciousness up until his deathbed when he raises existentialist-like questions, now that the old regime may lose much of its power. Nonetheless, Don Fabrizio can easily be associated with Gone with the Wind’s Scarlett O’Hara. Life-changing occurrences crop in and out of their lives, yet both characters strive not to involve themselves in these episodes. For example, Scarlett constantly refers to the Civil War as “silly” and tries to avoid the topic in conversation, whereas Don Fabrizio tries to isolate himself from the unification process because he is personally opposed to it. Both Scarlett and Don Fabrizio have their own opinions on such matters, yet they remain politically inactive throughout the respective novels.
 The imagery in The Leopard serves as another important feature, as it corresponds with ongoing political changes in the novel. Giuseppe di Lampedusa discloses a vast number of visual images of Sicily while at the brink of the Risorgimento, such as bells chiming Verdi tunes, fireworks, gypsy songs, the symbolism of Bendicó, street-side signs campaigning “Viva Garibaldi,” and “activity of the insects,” which reminded Don Fabrizio of the plebiscites. Like Margaret Mitchell’s work in Gone with the Wind, the seemingly trivial descriptions and details that Giuseppe di Lampedusa shares prove to be quite insightful when studying everyday life in Sicily during the late nineteenth century. Whether the reader relates to the more revolutionary or conservative side throughout The Leopard, the descriptive narrative instantly improves the reader’s understanding of the Italian Risorgimento, thus cultivating greater enthusiasm towards this period in history.

1.)Lampedusa, Giuseppe di. The Leopard. New York: Random House, Inc. Pantheon Books, 1960. p. 76.
2.)p. 118.
3.) p. 47.
4.) p. 40.
5.) Ibid.
6.)p. 77.
7.) p. 125.

 Lampedusa’s The Leopard seems to show the perceived inadequacies of Italy’s national unification as reported by the common histories of the Risorgimento and the time after that period. The general consensus of a hindsight-based popular opinion of national unification is that it either failed or at the least did not accomplish its task on the same scale as in other European nation-states like Germany. (1) Thus what one sees in this tale are the inadequacies of Italian unification in the extremes of the new nation-state in Sicily. What then does this extremely difficult and rather unsuccessful attempt say about nationalism and national unification, especially as compared to Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind?
 First, The Leopard evokes a certain cynicism towards nationalism and the genesis of a nation, especially if compared with Gone with the Wind. The national myth of uniformity in culture, language, race, etc. seems obviously implausible, as the exhaustive references in The Leopard show. (2) In comparison to the tension and hyper-nationalism commonly listed among the causes of the World Wars, Lampedusa offers a fully Modernist literary critique of the rationality, of such a tidy view of national history, particularly in Italy. Mitchell, in contrast, shows the height of the national myth, ironically expressed seventy years after the myth collapses.
In Lampedusa’s critique of Italian national unification one finds a great nostalgia, that nothing ever improved or can improve in a setting like Sicily, and a new regime only makes the reality more apparent and more tyrannical for persons in Sicily. Particularly in Father Pirrone’s visit to his hometown, Lampedusa shows the pointless nature of the outsiders’ efforts to effect change in a peculiar area of the state now known as “Italy.” Thus, ironically enough, one then finds the same situation in the South as portrayed in Gone with the Wind. Reconstruction involves an outside force trying to enforce a new way of living on a resistant populace, as the Risorgimento results in the same situation in Sicily and other areas of Italy.
Another facet of Lampedusa’s account to notice is the identification of place and person in his work. In the defective Italian nationalism of this period it seems that any appeal to “Italy” is met with disapproval or a lack of meaning. This reality becomes especially poignant in Don Fabrizio’s discussion with Don Ciccio on their small hunting expedition, as the Prince decides to press Don Ciccio on his actual political opinion as to the plebiscite. Don Ciccio reveals that he actually voted “No,” not in favor of national unification, and Don Calogero had changed his vote and others to appear as if the town were actually unanimously for national unification. Don Fabrizio realizes then that something died that day, a good faith, that maybe their opinion did matter; however, the actions of the town leaders effectively killed this “new-borne babe.” (3) There is no identification among most of the persons in the tale that identified themselves patriotically as Italians. Some see themselves as such for their own personal gain, but none contain the vital, pure substance one sees in such a person as Giuseppe Mazzini. Similarly, all the true Southerners in Gone with the Wind become damaged and ineffective in the brave new world of Reconstruction and constant change. Very few of the successful persons in 1860 can retain their positions in 1866 and beyond simply due to the loss of their world.
Thus one sees in these two novels some interesting facts of nationalism and national identity, that both can be seen as a rejection of common values of the meaning of nationalism and national unification.

(1) Some references might include Doyle, Nations Divided (pp. 39, 54, et al), Encyclopaedia Brittanica’s version of Italian history in the period <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9106448>;, or Wikipedia’s version of the story <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_It...n_the_World_Wars>;.
(2) Simply Don Fabrizio’s note of the changes in Signorina Angelica after her tenure in Florence should illustrate this point: Guiseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, The Leopard (New York: Random House, 1960), Everyman’s Library Edition, p. 58).
(3) The Leopard, pp. 82-83

Giuseppe di Lampedusa’s “The Leopard” is, like Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone With the Wind”, a reflection on the passing of an era. Both authors gaze back into the previous generation when the last halcyon days of their forebears were swept away by revolution and a new government which would change the old ways forever. For both di Lampedusa and Mitchell, personal experience was a significant influence which shaped their writing. Their respective novels have many similarities in subject, themes and characters; however, they differ in their portrayals of nationalism.
 The main characters of both novels are very striking personalities. Scarlett O’Hara and Prince Fabrizio share several qualities in common: they both come from the upper caste of society, both watch as sudden change is wreaked upon their lifestyle. They want to cling to the old life, but are willing to make concessions to the new regime in order to achieve that end. Scarlett was willing to become a Scalawag and associate with people she could not stand in order to ensure she would not suffer poverty; Prince Fabrizio put up no resistance against Garibaldi’s forces, and even allowed his nephew to wed the daughter of one of the newly rich merchants.
 In both stories, the rising middle class is a threat to the old system. In “Gone With the Wind”, this is manifested during Reconstruction, with the invasion of the Carpetbaggers, Scalawags, and free blacks, who accumulate wealth unscrupulously, often at the cost of the defeated Confederates. To Prince Fabrizio in “The Leopard” the threat comes in the form of people like Don Calogero Sedara, a merchant who swiftly becomes as rich as the Prince himself, but has no upbringing.
 A contempt of the lower classes plays into both books as well. In “The Leopard”, this is seen mostly through the treatment of the peasants. Don Sedara’s wife, born a peasant, is seen as “a kind of animal....a beautiful mare, voluptuous and uncouth” (1). She is accused as being unable to even feel affection for her daughter. Her father was bestowed with the insulting nickname of “Peppe ‘Mmerda” and shot for “getting uppish”(2). Prince Fabrizio is also disdainful of Sedara himself, looking down upon his lack of manners and fashion sense. Father Pirrone makes a statement regarding this outlook in his conversation with Don Pietrino: “...not only the ‘nobles’ are to be blamed for despising others, since that is quite a general vice.” (3) He goes on to say that each group or profession despises the ones beneath it, until the laborers, who despise themselves. This contempt is also evident in “Gone With the Wind”, with the treatment of “free issue” blacks and “white trash” by the elite members of society. They were seen as shiftless, lazy, corrupt and dangerous, and it was intolerable when some of them rose to positions of wealth and power.
 Nationalism is embraced by many of the characters in “Gone With the Wind”. The nation caused nationalism in this case, as Secession and the Civil War caused more sentiment for the Confederacy than ever there was beforehand; these strong nationalist feelings only grew more intense after the defeat of the Confederacy. Suddenly, women who did not have a clue about politics were spending their afternoons fundraising for the Glorious Cause, donating their family heirlooms, and nursing the wounded. During Reconstruction, they rejected involvement in the new government, preferring genteel poverty. They fought back against their conquerors by retreating even more into the social circles which existed before the war, excluding all outsiders. In this way, nationalism was used positively. The defeated Georgians of Mitchell’s novel believed in their “exceptionalism”, in the words of Gemme’s argument, and therefore clung to nationalism with increasing fervor.
 In “The Leopard”, conversely, feelings of nationalism are very weak among many of the characters. The “imagined community” was ineffectual, as “Italians” of different social classes and geographic regions could not relate with one another. The visit of the Piedmontese Chevalley to Donnafugata is evidence of this, as he believes the stories he has heard of brigands and murderers. In his mind, “a friendship between a Sicilian and a Lombard...seemed almost miraculous” (4). If Don Ciccio had any nationalist sentiment, it was shattered after the corruption of the plebiscite, when he realized his vote among unknown others were changed from “no” to “yes”. Even old Don Pietrino, the herbalist in Father Pirrone’s village, was disillusioned with the new government for forcing him to pay taxes from the revenue he created by working with his own bare hands and the “holy herbs God made” (5). The only members of society who seemed to embrace nationalism were the young men, such as Tancredi, who participated in Garibaldi’s campaign. Even he later wrote off his involvement as insignificant once he had a position in the royal army of the King of Sardinia. For Prince Fabrizio, nationalism only meant a weakening of his position and a crumbling of the world he knew.
 “Gone With the Wind” and “The Leopard” both portray pictures of changing societies, and the effects that had on the people. The main characters are similar in several aspects; for both, the threat of the rising middle class and contempt for lower classes are held in common. On the views of nationalism, however, they differ. In Mitchell’s novel, nationalism binds the people together during and after the Civil War; in “The Leopard”, nationalist feeling is weak and ineffectual between peoples who differ from one another in so many regards. Both novels were an interesting and entertaining glimpse into a world on the brink of change, through the eyes of unique characters.
 
1. Di Lampedusa, Giuseppe. “The Leopard”. New York: Time Incorporated, 1960. pp 117-118.
2. Ibid., 118.
3. Ibid., 200.
4. Ibid., 172.
5. Ibid., 195.

   1. A juggler who eats or pretends to eat fire.

      1672 1762 1827
 _1100_ _1200_ _1300_ _1400_ _1500_ _1600_ _1700_ _1800_ _1900_ _2000_ _2100_
1672 EVELYN Diary 8 Oct., Richardson the famous Fire-eater..before us devour'd brimston on glowing coales, chewing and swallowing them. 1762 GOLDSM. Cit. W. lxxxv, Stage-players, fire-eaters..and wire-walkers..ought not entirely to be despised. 1827 G. HIGGINS Celtic Druids 221 Like the celebrated fire-eater in London.

    2. One fond of fighting, a duellist; one who seeks occasion to quarrel or fight.

        1864
1840
1827
1804
 _1100_ _1200_ _1300_ _1400_ _1500_ _1600_ _1700_ _1800_ _1900_ _2000_ _2100_
1804 Morning Herald in Spirit Pub. Jrnls. (1805) VIII. 249 The Sieur W-d-m, fire-eater in ordinary to the troop. 1827 BARRINGTON Personal Sk. II. 8 About the year 1777, the ‘Fire-eaters’ were in great repute. 1840 THACKERAY Paris Sk.-bk. (1869) 25 He killed a celebrated French fire-eater. 1864 Spectator No. 187. 627 Sober-minded men..not fire-eaters wishing to fight for pure fighting's sake.

    b. (U.S.) Before the Civil War: A violent Southern partisan.

        1879
1863
 _1100_ _1200_ _1300_ _1400_ _1500_ _1600_ _1700_ _1800_ _1900_ _2000_ _2100_
1863 HAWTHORNE Our Old Home (1883) I. 55 The newcomer proved to be..as he pleasantly acknowledged, a Southern Fire-Eater. 1879 TOURGEE Fool's Err. vii. 30 An original Secesh, a regular fire-eater.

    3. Trade slang. A quick worker.

        1889
1841
 _1100_ _1200_ _1300_ _1400_ _1500_ _1600_ _1700_ _1800_ _1900_ _2000_ _2100_
1841 SAVAGE Dict. Printing, Fire-eater, Compositors who are expeditious workmen are styled Fire Eaters. 1889 BARRÈRE & LELAND Dict. Slang, Fire-eater, (Tailors), one who does a great amount of work in a very short time.

    So {sm}fire-{smm}eating vbl. n. and ppl. a.

        1890
1882
1863
1848
1819
 _1100_ _1200_ _1300_ _1400_ _1500_ _1600_ _1700_ _1800_ _1900_ _2000_ _2100_
1819 Metropolis II. 207, I would as soon sit down in company with my butcher as with these fire-eating fellows. 1848 THACKERAY Van. Fair xvii, A fire-eating and jealous warrior. 1863 HAWTHORNE Our Old Home (1883) I. 55 My fire-eating friend has had ample opportunities to banquet on his favorite diet. 1882 W. HASLAM Yet not I (1883) 8 He did not like that fire-eating kind of preaching. 1890 Spectator 4 Jan., The absence of fire-eating among the leading statesmen of Europe.

Edited by author 11-14-2006 11:43 AM
       Just as the victors of war experience feelings of euphoria and increased confidence, those on the losing side must find a means to cope with the psychological, economic, and political trauma that follows defeat. In the case of the American Civil War, the Lost Cause was the white South’s coping mechanism for dealing with their defeat and all that it entailed. Although historians have often interpreted the Lost Cause as a movement that was “purely backward-looking or romantic,” Gaines M. Foster offers an alternative interpretation in Ghosts of the Confederatcy.[1] According to Foster, rather than being understood as a movement that aimed to revitalize the sectionalism that dominated the South before and during the war, the Lost Cause provided opportunities for Southerners to cope with a period of extreme social change. Because of its function as a coping mechanism, the Lost Cause was transformed (i.e., reconstructed) in different periods of the postbellum South as its adherents strove to deal with distinct challenges. For example, just as the Ladies Memorial Association (LMA) and other similar organizations focused on the grieving process through their memorialization of the dead in the immediate aftermath of the war, the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) celebrated the private soldier as a model of present behavior in the 1890s, as Southern Americans came to grips with the new challenges of industrialization and commercialism.[2] That the Lost Cause was not a monolithic movement suggests the constructed nature of Southern national identity in much the same way as Paola Gemme demonstrated the constructed nature of American national identity in the antebellum period.[3]
       Foster contends that the Lost Cause should be viewed as an important cultural movement, a movement that provided white Southerners with a strong sense of social identity and unity. The Lost Cause, Foster explains, is a sort of origin myth or a “civil religion” that described “the origins of the southern people.”[4] This interpretation of the Lost Cause is consistent with Benedict Anderson’s interpretation of nationalism as a cultural system, rather than an ideology.[5] Viewing the Lost Cause in terms of culture/religion helps explain why the movement was so powerful in the postbellum period. Much like a religion, it provided its subscribers with a description of who they were and where they came from, it offered a way to interpret (rationalize) their defeat, and it offered a portrait of a future time when the South would rise again.
       Foster’s chapter on ceremonial bereavement demonstrated the extreme sense of loss and grief that white Southerners experienced after their defeat. In order to deal with this psychological trauma, a number of autonomous organizations across the south began building cemeteries and monuments to honor veterans lost in the war and holding somber Memorial Day activities. Foster’s discussion of the symbolic nature of these events is particularly astute and suggests that Southerners were attempting to hold on to the best aspects of the past while simultaneously moving on.[6] Perhaps Sicilians engaged in a similar process in 1860, as they were forced to accept rule from yet another set of “foreigners.” This may explain the theme of death evident throughout The Leopard. Di Lampedusa may have been providing Sicilians with an opportunity to grieve the past and move on, a kind of memorial in the form of a novel.[7]
       One of the most convincing aspects of Foster’s argument is his ability to explain the timing of changes to the Lost Cause, the Lost Cause’s support for reconciliation, and the decline of the Lost Cause after 1913. Advocates of the traditional interpretation of the Lost Cause have difficulty explaining the emergence and popularity of reconciliation. If the Lost Cause is really such a backward looking movement, how could its participants promote reconciliation with the Yankees? Foster’s thesis provides a sound argument for why this occurred: the Lost Cause was remolded by its new working class leaders in the 1880s and 1890s who focused less on the “whys” of the war, and more on common battlefield experience and camaraderie making reconciliation much easier.[8] Moreover, since the Lost Cause’s primary function was to help white southerners cope with a period of great social change, Foster’s argument also explains why the Lost Cause declined significantly after 1913 – southerners had habituated to industrialization and reconciliation.[9] Yet, Foster’s thesis is less successful at explaining the emergence of the New South and its alliance with the Lost Cause. Foster admits that most southerners were skeptical of both Old and New South proponents, and given the challenges of the Farmers’ Alliance and organized labor, it is difficult to reconcile how Lost Cause adherents could simultaneously support industrialization and be weary of the dangers thereof.[10]

Notes:
1. Gaines M. Foster, Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat, the Lost Cause, and the Emergence of the New South 1865-1913 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 6.
  
2. On the memorialization of the dead, see Ibid., 37-39. On the celebration of the private soldier, see Ibid., 124-125.
  
3. Paola Gemme, Domesticating Foreign Struggles: The Italian Risorgimento and Antebellum American Identity (Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press, 2005).
 
4. Foster, Ghosts, 8.
  
5. Benedict Anderson, Immagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verson, 1991), 5.
  
6. Foster, Ghosts, 36-46, see especially 45.
  
7. Giuseppe di Lampedusa, The Leopard, translated by Archibald Colquhoun (New York: Pantheon, 1960).
 
8. Foster, Ghosts, 93-95.
  
9. Ibid., 198.
  
10. Ibid., 86.

               Southern Nationalism and the Lost Cause

 Although an outspoken and influential minority of antebellum Southerners held strong sentiments of southern nationalism prior to the War Between the States, the culture of Southern nationalism that pervaded the former Confederate states after the surrender at Appomattox was far more widespread and substantially affected a greater portion of the population. Noted historian David M. Potter has characterized this “deeply felt southern nationalism” as arising from “the shared sacrifices, the shared efforts, and the shared defeat” of the war and flourishing in the “cult of the Lost Cause.”[1] In Ghosts of the Confederacy, Gains M. Foster further investigates the collective memory of the Confederacy in postwar Southern society by examining the men, women, and organizations that perpetuated the tradition of the Lost Cause in their memorials, celebrations, writings, and reunions. Extensively researched yet sometimes repetitive, Foster’s analysis of the Lost Cause and the burgeoning New South movement adeptly tracks the defense of Southern honor and definition of Confederate tradition from the Virginia Coalition to the United Confederate Veterans and Daughters of the Confederacy.
 One major facet of postwar remembrance chronicled by Foster was the erection of Confederate monuments and the celebrations held in conjunction with their unveiling. The unveiling of the equestrian statue memorializing Robert E. Lee was a monumental event in the veneration of Confederate heroism and was indicative of the intertwinement of the Celebration of the Lost Cause and the New South movement. Though the project was initiated and financed in large part by Jubal Early and the Virginia Coalition, the committee decided to locate the statue on the outskirts of Richmond’s suburbs at the behest of progressive local boosters. In a ceremony attended by well over 100,000 people, unreconstructed Confederate General Jubal Early introduced the keynote speaker, Archer Anderson, treasurer of Tredegar Iron Works and advocate of the new South. After a rousing speech where Anderson pronounced that Lee embodied, “the perfect union of Christian virtues and old Roman manhood,” General Joseph E. Johnston unveiled the majestic statue amidst the sounds of cannon fire and rebel yells.[2] Nearly two decades later on June 3, 1907, reverent southerners again journeyed to Richmond’s Monument Avenue to witness the unveiling of the Jefferson Davis memorial. Financed by the United Confederate Veterans and Unitized Daughters of the Confederacy, the inception and celebration of the Davis Monument was telling of the shift that had occurred in the ranks of the arbiters of the Confederate tradition. According to some estimates, as many as 200,000 people attended the unveiling of the grand monument honoring the “vicarious sufferer of all Southerners.” [3] Nationalistic celebrations at the unveiling of monuments honoring renowned heroes is not, however, a distinctly Southern occurrence. In Italy, Victor Emmanuel II was deified by his burial in the Pantheon and the subsequent construction of an ostentatious monument in his honor.[4] Built on the Capiotiline Hill and recalling the “glories and greatness of ancient Rome,” the Vittoriano monument took nearly twenty six years to complete and was described by the New York Times as “the most colossal structure of its kind in the world.” According to the Times, nearly one million people attended the celebration of Italian nationalism at the unveiling of the monument.[5] Although the Vittoriano monument was a prime example of “the effort by a state to impose the national ideal from on high” in contrast to the construction of the Confederate monuments which was driven by popular sentiment and private donations, it is interesting to note the role of monuments in the nationalistic movements during the postwar period in both countries. [6]
 Another similarity between the perpetuation of Confederate traditions in the post war South and the attempt to establish national unity in Italy was the use of the education systems to instill nationalistic ideals in the minds of the young. As Foster points out, the historical committee of the UCV and many other local entities were committed to ensuring that schools assigned only books that justified the South in the act of secession and viewed the war from a Southern perspective.[7] When professional historian Franklin L. Riley was lobbying a school to adopt his history textbook, he argued that the competition devoted “nearly 27 pages to the heroes who saved the union…and only about 7 pages… to only one Southern hero of the War-General Robert E. Lee.” He went on to inquire, “What will the little children think about the South after studying this book?”[8] Likewise, in the years following the Risorgimento Italian public schools were widely regarded as “the only suitable means of planting the sentiment of italianita by force in the hearts in which it is absent.” [9] The national government mandated that all classes be taught in Italian as opposed to regional dialects and encouraged teachers to assign essays on topics such as, “Why do I love Italy.” In practice, the nationalistic Italian indoctrination programs may not have had the desired effect on the Southern peasantry, but they provided another means to achieve a semblance of national unity. [10]
 Foster makes his strongest argument regarding the ascendancy and influence of the UCV in the dissemination of confederate tradition in his portrayal of the annual meetings of the UCV. The annual meetings were the central ritual of the Confederate celebration and fostered feelings of southern nationalism by renewing southern sentiments in the older generation and introducing Confederate honor to those too young to have remembered the war.[11] One veteran endorsed the reunions because they intensified southern loyalties by preserving in the South “that respectful devotion to its splendid womanhood that the Southern manhood inherited from their chivalric ancestors.”[12] Furthermore, the parades held during the annual meetings provided the best occasion for the former Confederates to outwardly exhibit their interminable Southern patriotism. The parades allowed certain southern men, characterized by the New York Times as the “large, but diminishing, class of professional veterans, who derive political and social advantage from keeping alive as long as possible the memories of the civil war,” to once again adorn themselves in gray and ride on horseback leading their men in front of multitudes of adoring supporters.[13] Indeed, as Foster suggests, the parades fostered unity in Southern society by reinforcing the deference to Confederate leadership that was inaugurated during the war. To borrow from W.J. Cash, the parades of the Confederate reunions served as a reminder to the former confederate privates and common whites of “not only a great body of memories in common with the master class, but a deep affection for these captains, a profound trust in them, a pride which was inextricably intertwined with the commoners pride in themselves.” [14]
 Although Foster briefly mentions the relationship between the Confederate Celebration and the post reconstruction ascendancy of the Bourbon Democrats, his analysis of the Lost Cause would have benefited from a more in depth treatment of the southern political situation in the years following reconstruction. In his conclusion, Foster attempts to build a wall of separation between the Bourbon Democrats, who exploited the Confederate celebration, and the more responsible members of the UCV who “subtly influenced the development of the New South.” [15] In fact, many of the former Confederate officers who held offices in the UCV were also Democratic politicians elected to public office largely because of their wartime reputation. John B. Gordon, whose presidency legitimized the UCV, was also one of Georgia’s leading Conservative Democrats. He helped the Democratic Party gain control of the state by promoting the glorification of the Confederate heroes yet also endorsing progress and commercial enterprise. In the forty-fifth Congress, which served from 1877-1879, 77 of the 107 Representatives from the former Confederate States had served in the Confederate Army. [16] The same underlying cultural ideals of Confederate nationalism that caused more than 100,000 people to attend an annual meeting of the UCV also influenced southerners to vote for Democratic war heroes such as Wade Hampton and Francis T. Nicholls.


1. David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), p. 469.
2. Gaines M. Foster, Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat the Lost Cause, and the Emergence of the New South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987) p. 98-103 (101).
3. Ibid., p. 158-(159)
4. Don H. Doyle, Nations Divided: America, Italy, and the Southern Question (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2002) p. 62-63
5. New York Times, 05 June 1911, p. 4; “Italy’s Tribute to Victor Emmanuel.”
6. Doyle, Nations Divided, p. 63.
7. Foster, Ghosts, p. 116-117.
8. Foster, Ghosts, p. 185.
9. Doyle, Nations Divided, p. 53.
10. Doyle, Nations Divided, p. 54-56.
11. Foster, Ghosts, p. 133.
12. Foster, Ghosts, p. 135.
13. New York Times, 07 June 1901, p. 8, “Cherishing Southern Memories.”
14. W.J. Cash, The Mind of the South (New York: Vintage Books, 1991) p. 111.
15. Foster, Ghosts, p. (194)-195
16. Dewey W. Grantham, The Life & Death of the Solid South: A Political History (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1988) p. 4-5.

   In Gaines M. Foster’s work Ghosts of the Confederacy, the author asserts that because Southerners remembered the Confederate era in ways that “trivialized” reasons for secession, the South “unquestionably” did not “achieve[] the goal of creating a true nationalism” (197; 4). With extensive discussion of the South’s celebration of the war, specifically through movements that memorialized the Southern cause and the Southern sense of honor, Foster shows how in the years following the Civil War the South experienced the rise and fall of what he terms the “Confederate celebration” that ultimately contributed to the development of a “New South” (195). This New South was defined by industrialism and commercialism, which ironically seem to be opposite the deeply imbedded interest Southerners had in an agricultural society that formed the platform that had prompted secession in 1861. If, as Foster argues, the Confederate celebration from Reconstruction through the election of the first Southern president Woodrow Wilson in 1912 was motivated by the desire for recognition and honor from the North, then few Southerners seemed bothered that their celebration and quest for respect led them down a path opposite the agricultural society they had fought so hard for in the war.
   Perhaps this is Foster’s point, that what the South chose to remember and celebrate from the Civil War were superficial remnants of the deeper issues that had originally motivated secession. In Foster’s words, “Although it served to justify the cause…the Confederate celebration did not so much sacralize the memory of the war as it sanitized and trivialized it.” (196). Thus the “ghosts” of the confederacy, the memory of those who had fought both politically and militarily for the existence of the Confederacy, were used “by various people for differing purposes” and, in Foster’s opinion, never used to adequately “define [Southern] identity” (198).
 John McCardell would disagree with Foster’s idea of a wavering Southern identity and a failed construction of Southern Nationalism during the Civil War. In his work The Idea of a Southern Nation, McCardell argues that Southern nationalism developed from sectionalism in the years leading up to the Civil War, aided by institutions such as religion, print media, and economic tensions. Thus for McCardell, the secession of the South was a critical component in the development of American nationalism, as the war and then reunification (though forced) worked to solidify certain cultural components that necessary for nationalism to exist.
   Foster contends, however, that there was no complete Southern nationalism established during the Civil War so that in the years following the war, in typical defensive mentality, the South still needed to redefine what it meant to be Southern and American. This began as a sort of obsession with remembering the dead, manifest through memorials and solemn remembrance days, that provided very much of a psychological outlet for grieving, defeated Southerners. Soon the obsession with death became more a celebration of the Southern cause, and though these causes were trivialized in remembrance, they still gave Southerners something to remember and celebrate in their quest for justification from the North. Thus while McCardell saw the formative years of Southern nationalism in the years prior to the war, Foster contends that more critical formations happened through the development of the Confederate Tradition during the second half of the 19th century.
   Both McCardell and Foster would have to agree that critical to the Southern campaign for an identity was respect from the North. Foster argues extensively that it was justification from the North that motivated so much of the South’s fervor in celebrating the Confederacy, as “Southerners gloried in northern homage” that “symbolically acknowledged the Confederates as legitimate contributors to the nation’s history” (156). For Foster, the important moment in American nationalism was the Spanish-American War, which brought Southern and Northern soldiers together for the same cause and fostered a great deal of “sectional reconciliation” (145). Later such gestures as the North honoring southern veterans with graves in national cemeteries and returning captured battle flags demonstrated the final stages of reunification necessary for a southern sense of honor to be vindicated (156). Certainly American nationalism continued to develop into the 20th century, but regardless on their disagreement over Southern nationalism in the Civil War both McCardell and Foster see this resulting American nationalism as a product of sectionalism and reunification of the North and the South.
  This idea of seeking the recognition of the North ties in with Dr. Siegel’s lecture on ethnicity and the need of a group to be recognized by outsiders. Though ultimately in the development of an American identity and nationalism southerners and northerners would find themselves united under the same title, Foster highlighted the southern need for recognition from the North. This recognition meant to southerners that the North respected them as a contributing and important section of American society, thus proving that indeed their cause was not lost.

No matter what one considers to be the roots of nationalism, whether its language, religion, political views, or race, there is no question that once developed, a sense of nationalism can be very powerful amongst the people who hold it. In his book The Idea of a Southern Nation, John McCardell provides a detailed outline of the establishment of Confederate nationalism prior to secession. While there exists debate as to the strength and validity of the Secessionists’ nationalistic arguments, they were able to develop them convincingly enough to warrant a break from the culturally and commercially superior Northern states. Gaines M. Foster offers a follow-up to McCardell’s exploration of Southern nationalism leading up to secession with his book, Ghosts of the Confederacy. He meticulously examines the transitions that the legacy of the Confederacy underwent in the post-war South. Although the Southern States’ chances of abolishing their union with the Northern sates had disappeared, all of the ideals and arguments that backed up the act of Secession still existed. After their failed secession, how did the South assimilate back into the Union without abandoning the national identity that supporters of the Confederate cause had worked so diligently to establish?
In order to ease their shame or loss, Foster argues, the South had to insist that their cause was just and, “southerners had acted legally and honorably in seceding from the Union." (1) However, organizations, such as the Virginia Coalition, that attempted to revitalize the causes of the Confederacy did not achieve success. The South began to recognize that it was part of the Union, and the majority of Southerners ceased to attempt to dissociate themselves from the rest of the nation. While aspects of the Confederacy were still celebrated by way of memorial statues and celebrations, “the irreconcilables remained isolated and unimportant to the development of the New South." (2) The fervent Confederate nationalism that had been established before the war did not completely disappear merely because the South failed to permanently cut ties with the North through combat. Southerners still venerated Confederate soldiers as heroes, and residents of the South continued to honor the legacy of Robert E. Lee. However, groups such as the United Confederate Veterans were better received than the Virginians, because while they still upheld the legacy of the Confederacy, they did not attempt to stir up conflict with the rest of the Union.
Foster outlines the Confederacy’s transition from attempts to revitalize the idea of a separate state to the “New South” of the twentieth century. In this “New South” southerners cling to the idea of the Confederacy “for no coherent ideology or tradition,” but, “defiance.” (3) Foster does not portray the result of this transition completely favorably. Perhaps he thinks that Confederate ideals became too watered down in the South’s attempt to hold onto their past while still existing in a harmonious union with the rest of the nation. He points out that, “rather than looking at the war as a tragic failure…Americans…chose to view it as a glorious time to be celebrated.” (4) Perhaps our entire nation was robbed of the chance to learn from the Civil War because, “the Confederate celebration did not so much sacralize the memory of the war as it sanitized and trivialized it.” (5)

1. Foster, Gaines M. Ghosts of the Confederacy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 117.
2. Foster 75.
3. Foster 198.
4. Foster 196.
5. ibid.

5YYmLk

x1xevi

iPesIy