the cowboys settled down and ride out of town and find myself forced to act in the day. he called on the people he trusted most, his two brothers. and then of course he was never going to miss an occasion like this. it was a terrible tragedy that this happened and i think if things had happened differently in one or two instances, if virgil had been approached by a couple town leaders offering vigilantes, if wyatt and tom mcclory hadn't had that conjure tomes, if the cowboys joaquin through the okay corral think really need to leave town, but not wanting to leave too fast because they didn't want all the onlookers to see the groups have backed down and made them leave. any number of things and it

prevented this. if i'd been the it indicates something similar would've happened sometime soon. >> you can watch this and other programs on line up with tv. >> next on booktv, train to come hour-long program whereby casos to interview authors. this week, amanda foreman's latest book, "a world on fire": britain's crucial war in the american civil war. the author reveals many citizens on both sides of the civil war for a host of personal and political reasons. she talks about the lesser-known influence in the work dissension with pulitzer prize-winning historian, eric foner. >> i'm very happy to be speaking today with amanda foreman, the author of the new book, "a world on fire" britain's crucial role in the american civil war, which has gained a great deal of

attention come a fascinating book about a nice conversation about britain, the american civil war and writing about civil war history. so hello, amanda. >> guest: hello, eric. >> host: i will begin by asking if someone said there's about 50,000 books on the american civil war out there. when and why did you come to a conclusion you have something new to save the? how did you get into the book and get interested in why did you write it? >> guest: well, my first book was about 18th century touches and because of that often the very first question i get when i'm get when i'm on tour is surely you're a tourist in the civil war. how did you and appear? the answer is that although a founding lesh, i'm actually american. my father was blacklisted during the mccarthy. so he moved to london where he remarried and had a second

family and the youngest product of that. but a few years on, the industry died in england and my father moved back to l.a. it was from l.a. that i went to boarding school in england and that's where i sound english. so the reason why that is important is for my undergraduate in new york. and having had a privileged school education, i was really on the outside of many of the fundamental concerns that were exercising compasses across the united states in the late 1980s. and actually there is a sin and is foreign comeau was almost close to college for half the semester. it is a general city protesting a number of things, mostly to do with the lack of diversity. they wanted a more diverse curriculum among faculty and

students. and these are concerns that it never crossed my mind before. and the more i thought about it the more i tried to find out what was really going on. seem to be there to protest going on. the first protest and whether or not i was grounded in reality or practicality within the realm was one answer. but the second protest was really a protest site in the past and every argument always ended up back in history. it is essentially the slavery debate of civil war and reconstruction going back and forth on its head in 1989. so to be gainfully employed and become doctors and lawyers and whatever else they didn't come i actually never move from that spot. i went to oxford to study that question. it had a very profound effect on me. some of my operators and when i

started on attitudes in the 18th century, was charles gray, the politician who had opposed the motion to abolish the slave trade. i came across this mistress. he was so fascinating to be kind sidetracked. so what that time there reputation was made. but he actually always wanted to go back. >> host: said he would back her early coronation antislavery historian. >> guest: that's right. but i also knew after such a long break i wasn't going to pick up subtle visitation. and also i found a new topic while i was searching the touches. the demonstrators had given me permission to look at all the archives of all the duke of devonshire. so the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, at the eighth

when he was a young man had gone out to america and joined the civil war. the reason he had gone out with actually to escape his ministries. and he couldn't afford her anymore. so rather than suspecting all scummy ranch in new york thinking she would find him. two weeks into staying at the fifth avenue hotel in discovering the likes of american service with skittles. so he then ran to washington d.c. thinking you'd never found there. in a week later skittles turned out. so there is one place he was absolutely certain she wouldn't get to know the south because of his 1862. so he had a friend got in a canoe and paddled across the potomac and lo and behold she did not follow him. and when then he was deduced by something even more powerful than skittles among southern charm. he became so enamored he touched

himself with robert e. lee and other vicarious people known for christmas day. is that when he to london in the spring of 1863, he was an unofficial spokesman for the southern corner. and yet his brother, lord frederick who shared decisions of the liberal party which was little in terms of attitude, modern life is pro-north. and so he had imprisoned a microcosm of america. >> host: one of the interesting things in your book to which i was unaware it was the number reddish people who fight and the american civil war in those five, sometimes the same person found on both sides. generally not a case. but why did britons enlist in the american civil war? >> guest: it is one of those

that run a candidate. certainly most interesting you have those that can genuinely read by ideology. we have instances of young and who joined the board because they want to help for the sleeves. none of them actually wanted to maintain the union. but they did -- there were those who saw slavery as the issue. and more interestingly and perhaps counterintuitively their young man who joined the southern cause and had a great amount of difficulty to get there. it had to run the federal blockade and then they offered the most eccentric or interesting cared yours. >> host: the know, i was living in london a couple months this spring and i think you've done this, too. i went on one of these walking tours of civil war london in particularly 201 in. and i was surprisingly sedate

us. a great deal. and surprised at how many prominent british people sympathize with the confederacy. members of parliament. of course you talk about this in your book. church leaders, scholars, people invested in federal cotton bonds. but why was there something sympathy for the confederacy in britain is giving us of course he say that britain had already abolish slavery whose before. anti-slavery was basically no part of this culture any significant way. why did so many prominent british people sympathize in one way or another with the confederacy? >> guest: there's no single easy answer, but you can certainly piece together. first off the beginning of the war i think the north was knocking on an open door. in general, most countries are not that thrilled with the sword of other countries breaking up and it's contagious.

but it made a fundamental mistake. the secretary of state made a fundamental mistake by pursuing this idea that if he could at least leave the sector is not the actuality of a foreign war with a common enemy and is the greater common enemy that britain. >> host: he started first mistake. the first proposal was a nonstarter. so we started talking in a bellicose manner about britain. >> guest: that's right. all it did was with the british unconvinced than his previous statements about canada, british north america join in the constellation of the united states were actually true enough in the bloviating to the public. and so he turned britain which had been considering allying itself with the north into an armed mutual release early ignored public opinion. that's the first thing for the second thing is ambiguity in new york is the kind of journalist.

it doesn't really work. so what the republic understood was the north was fighting for an empire and territory about independence or freedom. the likes of the the sun is the slavery question the beginning, the sort of local self determination at the greek war of independence against the ottoman empire and things like that. >> guest: garibaldi's campaign is now an international hero. so it didn't take that much to press that point and say look at the numbers. and of course it's true until the emancipation proclamation. and one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. in britain the most magic words were fighting for freedom. but they have this power over the british and they just blinded themselves to what was the truth. >> host: i wondered whether

british theaters here -- you alluded to this a minute ago by steve the american niche break up and actually encourage what would call today separatist movements within. obviously the irish question was a perennial issue there. the demand for home rule in ireland or maybe irish independence. the scots, welsh, breton assault has groups which are not always totally happy being part of the united kingdom. so was very countervailing fear the break of the american union may somehow inspire efforts to maybe have greater dependence click >> certainly the irish and wine website trial, get training. so there was that issue. >> host: of course presumably so desperate was hostile that would actually encourage irish american support for the union. >> guest: nothing is ever that

simple. the politically astute prime minister's didn't want a divided america. although may be perennially citing itself might have been useful. >> host: it could have happened. >> guest: they thought america had a tradition to starry person in that when britain was busy doing something in your eye. it couldn't be trusted. if you have two americans were three americans come you could never be sure. >> host: as you say, anti-british sentiment is a pretty common feature. >> host: as you say, anti-british sentiment is a pretty common feature. >> host: as you say, anti-british sentiment is a pretty common feature pulling a lion's tail or her once and you're a pretty common feature pulling the lion's tail around for once and you're running for office in great writ was a pretty good way to get some votes come especially with the irish came over here.

stewart plays an interesting ruling of the period of the same port was of state. puc's seward as someone who is a luster and a little out of its elements can and making obvious that crazy schemes? or is there a method to his madness? is he trying to be so bellicose language that the british are nervous? he said we better not do anything or this crazy seward. looking back the hole for your work, do you see seward is really a successful diplomat or secretary of state in terms of dealing with britain or was he really out of control, a loose cannon? >> guest: i think it goes. i think he was a brilliant and. he loved his own brilliance. i think he genuinely believed was the smartest being in the room. >> host: utah at the beginning he should be the president.

he was an active link and got the nomination said of him in 1860. >> guest: that's right. i think although he rather brilliantly prevented war against britain, he's also the man who was the most responsible for that were almost breaking out. so you know, he was a great so you know, he was a great so you know, he was a great so you know, he was a great interesting roles in the center may be semi-counterintuitively prince albert on is that i basically, take steps in the trent affair to avoid that seems to be a growing possibility of military confrontation, right? you don't think of prince albert is a key player. >> guest: now, if he hasn't created such friction between great britain -- is not also note the trent affair was. ruthie what happened with the

vessel? >> guest: the trent affair had two passengers on board who were particularly controversial because they were too confederates. john seidel commended france and james mary mason who has a great write. and the oil markets had one of those two to be captured and prevented from going to europe. it was captain charles folks who himself had a career in the u.s. navy. nevertheless he took off these two ambassadors. >> host: is international waters, right click is too yes committee equivalent of an iranian fighter jets intercepted a u.s. passenger plane, bringing it down and driving off to dissidents to iran. you just can't do that kind of thing. they demanded the release of these two and oscars.

in your head as america was not quite that. the congress voted to give a medal of honor. they said there were thousands of troops and our 30,000 troops less than a week away from landing in canada to invade maine, when seward persuaded the cabinet that these two terrible men had to be great. >> host: they had written a letter sent over demanding a very bellicose that are almost threatening war and albert told the tom baker was sent. just so that's good because the phone secretary was russell who himself was a great man, but riddled with social anxieties. he was a terrible communicator in many ways. the last thing he's written for so bellicose that it didn't allow the case to save face. he realized russell at once

again. so as he was dying dying from collar to the working and the rest of the cabinet agreed this is much more posting. >> host: he gave lincoln the option of saying wilkes acted without authorization do with the government of the united states is not responsible has just alone tucked in. that was an interesting incident were there were many in the book. let's talk about slavery in the war. at one point you say slavery was the insurmountable stumbling lock to britain actually taking the side of the confederacy. of course britain did not take the size of the confederacy. it declared neutrality rate the beginning. some americans celebrate and was tilting towards the confederacy as you know. the one of the things i find interesting and you go back before the civil war, southerners have been very hostile to britain after britain

abolished slavery in the 1830s, like all texas battle of the 1840s, the chunk decal and operates in was conspiring to get texas when it was an independent republic to abolish slavery on its own. burton was getting the spanish to abolish slavery in cuba in southern proslavery people are quite similar to what they felt was written medaling with slavery in the new world. it was not at all clear the southerners really would see britain as a likely ally. on the other hand you know britain depended on southern cotton for textiles. we'll get to that in a minute. do you seem to think he was a big mistake is seward and lincoln not to emphasize slavery right at the beginning. at the beginning of the war they said this is a word our union. we are not fighting to abolish slavery. i get the impression you feel that really made possible for the union to really get the support in britain at the beginning that it might have.

>> guest: it would've taken that much to provide a letter that he was out of the u.s. and could have shown more john russell and private saying we can only talk about the war in terms of the union. but as you and i know this is a war about slavery. >> host: eventually they do say that it takes a while. just go to two years amount to very long time in the war. >> host: on the other hand, lincoln sent quite anti-slavery consuls to england. one of the leading abolitionists of illinois was sent and lincoln who is a very shrewd guy saw that sending a number lushness to the council, not ambassador would actually help to appeal to a british public opinion. so there is a sort of strange

crosscurrents going on with some people talking about slavery as i'm not talking about slavery. one of the very interesting thing is to so so british sympathizers of the confederacy kept seeing an outcome of second-degree wins will abolish slavery. no one was willing to defend slavery. even the people very pro-confederate didn't say we are defending. in fact, britain will pressure them to abolish slavery. >> guest: yes, that was the prevalent opinion. in fact, the leading printer support of the south, a man named james poco masterminded the commercial campaign, propaganda campaign was fired by the confederate secretary of state because of his anti-slavery sentiments. >> host: which he publicly said that we know the confederacy can abolish slavery. do you mention very briefly towards the end of the book a

plan or proposal is carried to london from jefferson davis in early 1865. wright was the end of the war that in exchange for british recognition the confederacy was promised to abolish slavery. was that a very specific plan? >> guest: it's a fascinating mission after the men who carried it. he himself had been a slave holder in the confederate congress. so the fact he had agreed to undertake this mission with a long way to persuading confederate members of congress that they had to go along with the plan. but when the british confederates and especially the confederate abbasid or received the plan and heard about duncan cannot committee was appalled. in fact he almost refused to listen to the message.

>> host: he wouldn't see the secretary about it. he did everything he could to sabotage the message until the very last second and tell the prime minister who could see it coming a mile away. they said no, it's not about slavery. just shut them out. >> host: it's a very interesting moment. one other slavery question or incident that's quite interesting in your book is in 1862, well before the emancipation proclamation the u.s. didn't sign a treaty with britain to suppress the african slave trade. the lincoln administration agreed. and this is sort of taken as a straw in the wind that emancipation was coming. the previous administrations come even though the slave trade was illegal in britain the united states, that had really been enforced by previous american administrations.

lincoln executed a slave trader going for the first time that it happened. and then he signed this treaty with the british, which was do you see that as an effort to get their support for the union cause? >> guest: i did partly. i do believe this seward had done it because he believed in it. >> host: stewart of seward of course is anti-slavery. >> guest: so i don't think it was calculated for washington. the efforts were really given recognition they deserve. but it is actually one of my favorite ahmanson the book because of the elaborate schemes and subterfuge that have to be gone through in order to get this bill passed in congress. >> host: right, right. that is very interesting. what are the things that struck me as odd and interesting was that it allowed british warships

toward american vessels off the coast of africa if they suspected they were carrying slaves. go back 50 years now is one of the causes of the war of 1812. kurdish is something sapping american ships afforded afforded them an be commute if it's a question of suppressing the slave trade. one of the reason that some that might this treaty. just don't start is why america refused to join the alliance put together to stop the slave trade for the last 20 years. and the slave trade was now being continued almost early by the united states. >> host: one of the things in our conversation was revealed to those watching as this because it gigantic kaleidoscope of care nurse and people at every level of society from the korean and prince albert to the british government come americans are made to soldiers' people in

those societies. the interesting troops that's an amazing piece of research. i commend you for keeping track and putting them. one of the groups that pops up in here, little-known to most readers will be these british correspondents are journalists who were reporting the war. the first question is today we have the internet. everything is instantaneous. something happens. within 10 minutes everyone seems to know. how long did it take news from the civil war in america to get to great britain? >> guest: in general to two weeks. >> host: suicide detainees at all. >> guest: now come it wasn't. an emergency numbers could get a message in about 10.5 days. >> host: by a very passionate. >> guest: to canada -- >> host: there was no idea to cable yet. there is a cable to nova scotia

seat could get a ship there quickly. so these are ports on some things are that took a couple of weeks together. >> guest: admitted to writing rather tricky because everything is two weeks later and how much you jump around and how much is actually true. >> host: can you tell us about william howard russell, frank is the telly. interesting are his. >> guest: i have to say about the generalist. >> host: sensitive in america, the british press daily has been guilty as the venal procedures. it goes back a long way. >> guest: takes one to know one. he had become famous for reporting on the war and it was russell who brought florence

nightingale to the attention of the world in a very poor state payout. so when he had been sent to the london times to report on the civil war, he arrived in 1861 is a very, very famous journalists. with his reputation intact. part of the reputation was for telling the truth and be neutral. so this is exactly what he did. he reported on the war in his report on the battle of bull run and the rather unfortunate defeat of the federal army was so unvarnished that infuriated northern regions because it's not used to that kind of reporting. he hounded us as a country. the tragedy as an anon there were no pro-northern reporters from europe and break reporting on the war. they really pro-southern reporters.

there were two in particular. francis charley and frances frank. one reported for the london times and the other for the london news. she became so enamored and he became so increasingly balanced to win the south fell in 1865, times reader with surprise. that's not how they thought the war was going at all. >> host: i think you say some of the british press have virtually sort of apologized for their coverage, especially after lincoln's assessed nation, some of them published anything we were unfair to lincoln. they completely misunderstood lincoln. the times punch some of these journals that are very pro-southern. >> host: i've never seen that since come in the open apology. it just goes to show actually had often reporting the good guy

and the bad guys. and once the south had managed to see them all high grass, there is nothing that anyone could say that even john stuart mill tried to point out the south took away the freedom of others. the north just couldn't get a look in. everything you did was always given us finance. and it's fascinating when you compare today. >> host: i wonder how much modern reporting today slanted or not. some of it still seems to be obvious to you. what about the index. there is this british newspaper published in britain with pro-southern backing or maybe even financing. we sort of spread the confederate message in london. >> guest: is absolutely fascinating. maybe started up as a southern

german called henry huxley from mobile, alabama. a young man had a career in the diplomatic corps already, so he spoke seven languages. he was able to understand the european mentality. i promise you it ain't he was the massachusetts really be studied. he was a genius actually. he did several things. with regard to the index he started this magazine to be a general newsmagazine with a subtle southern slant. we have his instructions on how to proceed and they are masterpieces because he said set above all always avoid any bombast that is not there to inculcate for you than educate. you're allowed to be amusing. but where you can, you must subtly draw things towards the southern port of you. >> host: so this is propaganda

basically. >> guest: it was meant to be like the british spectator or even see the atlantic. so if you are well educated and belonged to a recall that chaudhry club, you would read the index are not really serious be pulled to the other side. >> host: i want to go back and ask you about cotton. there is a narrative unconfined in previous literature, which talks about the heroism of cotton workers, lancashire, the so-called cotton famine 1862 was cut supplies no longer available from the south, the mills closed down in many people were thrown on to work for the time being. but nonetheless according to the previous literature and away, the working class remain loyal the union. is that a story you found to be correct? or is the truth more complicated?

a lot of this book is in london. but what goes on in manchester and cotton manufacturing districts vis-à-vis the civil war? >> guest: since the original stories came out, revisionism and their pro-southern and of course you always know that the totality of the argument. so the point is they didn't. the 500,000 cotton workers and clearly something happened in the majority felt something. so why did they? i think is a classic working-class understanding of earning the fruits of your labor and that is a fundamental difference. so i think there was a genuine class consciousness which moved them, even though people understood the argument about wage slavery and people had come back from america.

nonetheless it is fundamentally different from slavery. the second reason is the most expansive and best organized charitable campaign in british history to that point was organized by others to provide help to the cotton workers, including journalists who were involved in helping children, wives, families out of work by stirring up educational programs, alternative work programs. and it really went a very long way to assuaging the dire consequences of unemployment. >> host: as you well know, karl marx was in london at this time writing dispatchers now and then for the new york tribune commenting on the american civil

war. did you find any of marx's rating of particular interest in any of these questions? >> guest: i did because first of all he wanted to make slavery point. he also criticized the north, which he did from time to time. he definitely felt during the trent affair that this is really a result of the secretary of state's poor leadership. but sometimes he would be way off base because he wasn't always in touch because of the elite opinion was seen in london. >> host: what about abraham lincoln? he plays a subordinate role this book. seward is it much more prominent figure from the american illustration. did lincoln affect the foreign policy? had plenty of other things to worry about obviously. what is your assessment of lincoln and his take on diplomatic affairs? or did he really say look, this

is stuart spellman i'm leaving it to him. >> guest: i really think that is the case. there was a couple times but he did interfere. the first time was when he was quoted by the senator from massachusetts to turn on william seward's most ellicott was dispatches. that was because sumner had told him to. there is a myth that lincoln said we must only have one war at a time. he said i've personally never found an account of it. >> host: very many quotations floating around which probably never originated with lincoln. >> guest: he might've said it might have thought it and certainly practical than i would have thought of at the time if anyone would've asked my opinion, but i don't think he said that. at least not to seward. >> host: i haven't seen it specifically quoted at the time.

but lincoln had a cabinet which he allowed a great deal of leeway. he left the financial issues to secretary chase and as you say basically that foreign relations to seward. he kept military affairs under his direct control of the slavery issue under his direct control and would support men's started making policy about slavery, lincoln would slap them down. you talk about general fremont issuing early in the war. lincoln said i'm making policy about slavery. not every general in the field. i'm interested to go to all of the area. you are not a professional academic in the sense that she don't teach at the university. this is not a criticism in any way. you have a phd from oxford

chemists are obviously a scholar this book is what you may call popular history. and i don't say that in anything but praise. it's extremely well-written. it is heavily footnoted in his time on a scholarship, but it is history that told stories along way. too often many academics don't many academics to write a window appear forget much of -- it's narrative-based i guess. as a writer, when you think about that, when you're writing this book, of course you are your first biography, which is a slightly different thing because you have the life laid out for you. what it begins and when it ends. in terms of the narrative of this book, do you think of yourselves as writing something different from kind of academic history, or is that really not a distinction that makes any sense to you?

>> guest: well, i know exactly what they're saying. although i have a research fellow at queen mary college at university of london, have five small children had to make that decision. was i going to be more of a hands-on mother and have as many children as i wanted or be a full-time academic teacher. what was going to limit the other for me. so i made that sacrifice and it's something i live with. in terms of academic writing, there are two kinds of writing definitely pier one for trade, one for the mass market. and then one for universities. and i said i feel they not only work in parallel, but feed off each other. i really want to do something specific. i guess because i trained as a biographer in oxford and

memphis-based supervisor one of foxes. so i was a tradition of historical writing that i cannot have. i wanted to read a history of the realm. >> host: history of the round, meaning you look at it from all sorts of different perspectives at the same time? >> guest: yes, that's right. it's inclusive of both. and also across this country's. it is a kind of writing. you have to have a specific moment when you can capture the 360-degree angle. and it's also very heavily psychological. but i really believe in these circumstances the psychology of the people concerns. why is that the lord john russell thinks about supporting

the south because he simply suddenly become immune to the slavery argument. is it because quite is a man and saw himself as an angel of mercy and was hijacked by a humanitarian award in spirit you can only know these things if you have made a very solid study of advanced entire background, starting from childhood. but certainly nancy? >> host: in a way it latest novelistic not in the sense of inventing things. the novelist has the ability to do come but in terms of focusing on character and the development of characters and is filled with interesting characters of every kind. you do have a wonderful way of figuring out what makes these people tick. i guess not even the downside, but what makes the difference is larger social forces do not come

into play the way they might in a more academically oriented book. so there's room for every kind of history. as reading icon i can kept thinking because there's plenty of books on the civil war, which really are not scholarly at all and are just a fantasy. but these are the footnotes, the research that you are familiar with the literature, et cetera appeared so the scholarly apparatus air, but the mode of writing seems to be more character-based than other kinds of history out there. >> guest: i took the camera and moved it down to street level. and i did it consciously because there are many books out there. >> host: there is no one way to read history obviously. >> guest: i thought mindless attitude. and i thought coming from an entertainment family.

>> host: of course sometimes one might feel in a sense there so many days and also one of the points you make is a lot of misunderstanding. it's not like everyone is rationally assessing the situation as it develops. a lot of people are confused to know what's going on. a lot of people as you say are either they were misinterpreted events or prejudice in one way. there is one way you can see them throughout this. >> guest: there's 197 characters. 188 as a reader. that allows the reader to make a judgment of the characters are about simultaneously making misjudgments. i think it's a rather pleasing place to be when you know what so-and-so was thinking of someone else is making the vision to act.

>> guest: that is one of the very appealing things about the boat. the civil war makes it easier for you in the sense that everybody who reads this book will know how the civil war and day. you don't have to tell them not at the beginning. when they say people saying the confederacy is going to income and they know they are making a mistake, but that is what history is flawless. but did you worry about it being very long? did your publisher, it's obviously very successful, the teacher publisher is a better cut this down. it's too long, too many people, too many quotations. >> guest: all of the above. absolutely. ..

>> guest: your first book was made into a movie; right? >> guest: yeah. >> host: okay. i get the impression from reading articles about you and the press that you weren't 100% happy with the end result of that or maybe just that a film and book, you did you feel to

see it on the screen? >> guest: it was an accolade, and in this weird way, they're not real until your book is turned into film, and then you must be a good writer because your book was turned into a movie, otherwise, clearly, you're a failure. what pained me about the film that had great merit to it is i felt it was fundamentally sexist, and maybe that's the harsh thing to say, but i thought a man had wrote the script, directed the film, and neither of them could imagine a world or universe in which a woman was interesting for herself, not because she was attractive to a man or because of how she made the man or went on to achieve later because a woman could be an agent of change. >> host: which is clear in your book. >> guest: yeah.

>> host: that she was, but didn't translate to the screen. >> guest: no, she's simply a vessel to the men around her. i found that absolutely infearuating. >> host: i think you said somewhere, you sold the rights, and you learned what that means, you can't control it anymore. >> guest: that's right. i sold the rights. >> host: they can do anything they want. i hope i don't offend anybody out there, but i'm not a fan of history films. there's a few good ones, but the most ones i know take such liberties with the truth, and then, of course, when students come into class, this is what they know about history, what they saw on film, you know? you have to disabuse them frequently of misconceptions they got from hollywood movies. >> guest: i know. it's awful. it's just -- yes. again is why with "world on fire," i wanted to make it as entertaining as possible so it

would give people that sensation they can get from a film. >> host: will they make a film from this? probably more characters. >> guest: no, but it's going to be a tv mini series, six parts, to allow space for the story to breathe. >> host: bbc? >> guest: bbc and hbo together are developing it. of course, it takes in green lights for this to end up on the screen, but the train has certainly left the station as it were. >> host: that's interesting. although, i'm also not a fan of history on tv, but there are exceptions, so -- >> guest: well, you know, exactly. you know, sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. >> host: that's the exact attitude you have to have when you do that, but on the other hand, it brings awareness of a neglected piece of history to our people if it is a series. >> guest: i hope so, and there

are questions relevant to today. questions, for example, what's the ethics of embargo? the south tried to enforce constitutions by the embargo. >> host: the north sort of embargoes itself, at least with cotton. >> guest: it did, and neither really worked on their own, and we can think of many times in the last 50 years, opec, oil prices, this was embargo used as a tool. >> host: america embargo on cuba has been going on for 50 years. >> guest: it doesn't really work. when should a country interfere with the affairs of another country? >> host: right. >> guest: we have the questions right now, and it was the question really on the minds of the british then, and sometimes there is no right answer. >> host: no, of course. there's no answer that's true for every situation. let me just -- sense we're getting towards the end of our

conversation, let me go back to the defill, your previous life. ask you what role, if any, do you think race, racism played in the british attitudes one way or the other? i mean, do people talk about it surg during the civil war, was is overlaid with racist assumptions about black people? how were they portrayed in the british press? you know, did race come in as a factor? racial attitudes in the debates over the american civil war? >> guest: they began to be raised in quite a significant way by henry hotsy in mid-1883, and there was the ethics society that listened half over the question of race and what it meant, and one side led by him who joins the party gave it an american cast of what race meant, and the other side

didn't, and so britain was sort of waking up to the racial debates. before then, we have interesting accounts by men like frederick douglass who noted when he went to london and was a guest, that afterwards, as you know, in england, americans who would, you know, refused to shake his hand in america asked him for introduction to the duchess. >> host: right, right. douglass and others as you say found racism not as pervasive in britain as in the united states, including the northern united states. >> guest: that's right. >> host: black abolitionist woman -- >> guest: exactly, trained to become a doctor and practiced medicine in italy, she left the north feeling very persecuted and wrote about that once she reached england and became friends of feminists and others,

and said that, you know, she felt it be a yolk around her new york in new york being kicked off trams and that thing, but not in england. >> host: right, right. on the other hand, you would not say there wasn't any racism in europe. >> guest: exactly. thadz be silly. it existed. >> host: this is a different story in a way. i think at the same time as the american civil war, maybe more of a coincidence, events are taking place in jamaica, which are reenforcing a kind of racist view that right after the american civil war ended, they had a morant bay rebellion in jamaica, a conflict between former slaves and white planters there, and many in britain see this as a sign that blacks are inherently violence and savage, and that leads to a greater repression in british policy towards the west indies. racial ideas flow around, but

it's interesting in your book, they don't seem to play a major role in the way people are thinking about the american civil war. the british government is not saying, oh, well, these blacks are out of control, and nothing like that? >> guest: no, no, and, in fact, it's the government level that some of the greatest amount of correspondence between washington and the british embassy and london is over the plight of black british seamen impressed into the british navy or other black british subjects caught up in the war in a terrible way. >> host: they played the role of abolition during the american revolution quite a few thousands of slaves ran away to british lines and left with the british and ended up in canada and then the war of 1812 happened, so britain proved receptive to a black presence in a way that was quite unusual compared to the

northern or southern united states. there was a great deal of hostility towards free blacks in the united states, the reason of the battle of reconstruction when the war is volatile, and nobody knows the status of these former slaves. >> guest: yes. >> host: let me ask you, perhaps it's unfair after someone just published an 800-page book, but have you thought about another book or taking a break, which would be fair enough. >> guest: i am thinking. i would like to do a concise history of the global aspects of the civil war, just 100,000 words. >> host: not just britain, but the global picture, wow, great. >> guest: just to bring it into focus, and it would be much more of a -- as it were, just and academic book. >> host: uh-huh. i mean, this would be cutting edge because this notion now of what they call globalizing american history or

internationalizing american history is being done, it's now what many people are trying to do. of course, it's easier said than done. you have to know a lot of history of many, many country, have language skills, which many historians don't have, we are pretty monolingual here, but still, the american-civil war would be an interesting summit to tackle. >> guest: thank you very much. >> host: when i read your book, you can do the same for france. >> guest: oh, yes. >> host: and russia, and, of course, russia abolishes serfdom in 1861, and people watched the united states because it was such a piece of history. >> guest: exactly. look at how they imitated the use of railways as a tool of war. >> host: right. >> guest: really profound effects. >> host: yeah, and you could

end up with a grant's tour of the world. >> guest: oh, yes. >> host: this is later, after he leaves the presidency, 1877, embarks on a tour taking him to europe and the middle east and to asia, eventually, and everywhere, he is hailed as a hero. in other words, grant means something to people all over the world because of the american civil war. obviously, before the war, no one heard of him, but so therefore you got a great subject ahead of you. we're not worrying about amanda's next book. we're talking about her current recent book, a world on fire, britain's crucial role in the american civil war. just a pleasure talking to you here, and congratulations on the book, and, you know, good luck with it, and thank you for writing it. >> guest: oh, thank you for having me. >> that was "after words"

booktv's signature program in which authors the latest non-fiction books are interviewed by policymakers, legislate tores, and others familiar with their material. it airs 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. sunday, and 12 a.m. on monday. you can watch it online at booktv.org and click op after words in the book tv's series and topics list on the right hand side of the page. >> the book is subtitled the man, the myth, the american story because i think and hope i adequately show that the myth of johnny appleseed gets reinvented generation by generation. in the late 1800s and early 1900s, he was a symbol of american innocence, a time before civil war ravaged the land, before native americans were driven to dismal reservations, and we swept away what the eden had been.

before laying siege to hard cider, johnny is a spokesman for the helpful properties, not the inebriating ones of the america's favorite fruit. the disney studio turned him into a sermon on brotherly love. advertisements in the 1950s and 60s praised his financial shrewdness. oddly enough, his finances were in a complete mess. they were tracing around the countryside sewing seeds. in fact, the phrase, johnny appleseed of pot still gets you 10,000 hits on google. [laughter] amazing enough. so this constant reinvention continues in our time and distinction modern interest going back and going local and preserving and conserving this wonderful creation we've been handed.

two centuries before, there was a simplicity movement. john chapman created a lifestyle that was simplicity itself. a level of consumption to drive the national economy back to a barter system of widely practiced. snuff, the occasional tool, a rare meal, or night under a roof, the books, that was all the earth's resources he seems to have needed, and the books he recycled. johnny didn't live lightly in the land. he barely touched it even though he walked it constantly. it is a gift to be simple it is the gift to be free and where you ought to be. when we find ourselves in the place just right, it will be in the valley of love and delight. could there be a better 42-word summary of john chapman's life? long before all a handful of people realized what a fragile creation this is, chapman and appleseed were there too coddling nature like a n