<span>Great Britain and France, two European powers with a vested interest in following what occurred during the American Civil War. Britain and France each watched, followed, and responded to the events of the Civil War in a manner that best served their own interests. Let's learn more about this fascinating international story.
France and the Civil War
Between these two countries, France played a much smaller role in the American Civil War. France maintained that it was officially neutral during the conflict, yet parts of the country sympathized with the Confederacy, mostly because of the need for Southern cotton. The Union blockade restricted the flow of Southern cotton, forcing some French textile manufacturers to lay off workers, hurting their business severely.
Furthermore, French Emperor Napoleon III had a desire to spread his rule into parts of Mexico, something which the Confederacy would have been able to assist with. Thus, Napoleon III had something to gain from a Confederate victory in the war. Others in France sympathized with the Union, primarily, because of their hatred of slavery in the American South.
The Confederacy did send diplomats to France to encourage assistance in the South's cause. Men such as John Slidell, a leading Confederate diplomat to France, attempted to convince France to recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation as well as to arrange for loans and assistance for the Confederate cause. While France never officially recognized the Confederacy, some French capitalists did assist the South by providing loans and financial assistance.
Britain and the Civil War
While France never truly had an impact in the Civil War, Great Britain played a larger role in the conflict. Like France, Britain remained officially neutral throughout the war, but that did not stop the country from finding ways to make its presence known.
Many in the government of Great Britain, such as Prime Minister Viscount Palmerston, the head of the British government during the Civil War, leaned toward recognizing the Confederacy despite Britain's stated neutrality. Both sides still tried to sway Palmerston and his government. The Union government sent leading ambassador and diplomat Charles Francis Adams Sr. to Britain to persuade the country to maintain its neutrality, while the South sent several different diplomats. The most prominent Confederate diplomat sent to Britain was James Mason, who worked hard to convince the British to recognize the Confederacy. In September 1862, Palmerston and his administration were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy, but the Union victory at Antietam convinced them otherwise. Through the rest of the war, Britain would remain neutral.</span>
Charles Sumner was a politician and senator from the state of Massachusetts. Born in 1811 and passed on in 1874, this senator was best known for his great abilities as an orator, a lawyer, and most importantly, for his firm stand against slavery. In fact, he was a very active member of the anti-slavery movement of Massachusetts and a member of the Radical Republicans. Among his biggest goals were: to abolish slavery, destroy the Confederacy and establish good relations with European nations. He had a dispute with President Ulysses Grant on the topic of Santo Domingo and he was stripped of power in the Senate in 1871. He changed parties several times and ended in the Republican Party. In 1856, Senator Sumner was almost beaten to death by fellows congressman, Democrat Preston Brooks, of South Carolina, because of an anti-slavery speech that he gave two days prior in the Senate floor, and that was entitled: "The Crime Against Kansas".
The correct answer was to "facilitate"
During the nineteenth century, the congress used its powers to focus mainly in facilitating in social dealings between countries, domestic and abroad. Commerce refers to the exchange of goods and commodities between countries or different parts of the country itself, such as states.
I dont really know that answer but you could look it up on google
<span>Earlier portrayals of the development of vernaculars as progressive and egalitarian, parts of nationalist or romanticized narratives of modernization, is giving way to an appreciation of the losses and more complex issues at stake in the gradual move away from Latin. </span>
