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.