<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>
Higgs's argument is stronger because Folsom's primary arguments involved quotes. Quotes can be unreliable, especially if chosen with bias from a selected group of people. Beyond that, quotes from people that lived in the moment are often short-sighted and don't understand long term effects. While Folsom does also source historians, he focuses a lot on Roosevelt's interest spending and believes that the money that went back to the American people actually prolonged suffering. Higgs, however, focuses on the short and long-term effects of the New Deal and uses a lot of data to prove his point. While he does have quotes, he doesn't rely on them to make or break his argument, unlike Folsom. Higgs is also able to understand some of the negatives of the New Deal, unlike Folsom who did not pay any attention to the other side of the issue.
Presidency of Martin Van Bueren was difficult because of economic problems caused by jacksons policies
Explanation:
Martin Van Bueren was the landmark presidency for many reasons. He was the first foreign language speaking president of the USA and he was also the first President to be born after the independence of USA.
He was perhaps, the continuation of USA as a nation but unfortunately his term was defined by continued economic troubles from the time of Andrew Jackson as he faced the brunt of his expansion policies to the west and also suffered through the loss off industrial output which was less focused on during the time.
The Roman Empire had become too large to be ruled by one emperor by the third century (this was one of the causes of the Crisis of the Third Century). It was divided, by Emperor Diocletian, into a tetrarchy. This tetrarchy was then dissolved in favor of an Eastern and Western Roman Empire.
