8:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span's original series, "first ladies: influence an image." examining the private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady. and their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama. next, historian don doyle discusses his book, and international history of the civil war. it looks at how the civil war was viewed around the world. the new york military affairs symposium hosted this event. it is a little over an hour and 45 minutes. mr. doyle: thank you, bob. good evening. thanks for coming. don't forget to pay your dues.

it is my pleasure to welcome dr. don doyle, who spent his youth in the san francisco bay area and graduated from the university of california at davis. during his sophomore year, he took a semester off and travel to europe. there, he developed a lifelong passion for history which took him to northwestern university where he earned his phd. he spent much of his career at vanderbilt university in tennessee, where he developed a strong interest in the civil war. in 2004, he became the professor of history at the university of south carolina. he enjoyed numerous years of overseas teaching and research experiences. he was a fulbright professor of american history three times, in rome, genoa, and rio de janeiro.

he taught one year at the university of leeds in england. he has spent a good deal of time traveling in europe and latin america. he has authored seven books in addition to numerous articles, blogs and guest op-ed pieces. several of his essays for the new york times "disunion" series came out of the research for the "cause of all nations." he has written for salon.com, usa today, and other popular journals. most of his early research and writing involved the social history of 19th century america. he branched out a few years ago with a comparative study of the u.s. and italy and the problems with their south. america, italy, and the southern question. tonight, he speaks on his book, "the cause of all nations, and international history of the american civil war."

it has been named one of the best nonfiction books of the year by circus reviews. welcome, dr. doyle. [applause] mr. doyle: thank you very much for that very kind introduction. i am delighted to know this will be going out later to a larger audience through c-span. trying to say something new about the american civil war is no easy challenge. i remember, when i began, i was on sabbatical in washington, d.c. i went to the petersen house across from the four theater

you go up to the second floor bedroom where he died, and you come out of it and you come down to the gift store. there is a stairway and a tower of translucent plastic that goes up through both floors. it must be 10 feet wide and goes up 40 feet. in that tower, it is filled with books on lincoln and the american civil war. i am thinking, as i'm beginning this book, that is a great tribute to the scholarship, the prodigious scholarship over the generations to the man and this war. i think i'm going to have one more brick on the pile. what on earth am i going to have to say that is new? the american civil war is at the heart of the american national identity. for a long time, it was regarded as a tragic brothers war, a big

mistake that was over issues that should have been resolved, fanatics on both sides, north and south, inflaming the passions of the people, who led them into this disastrous war. in the 1960's, we began to turn more toward the civil war as dealing with real issues and issues that were unresolved, issues having to do with race and the legacy of slavery. this was in the memorable phrase, "the unfinished revolution." it became the prelude to the civil rights movement. the war took on this effect. we were talking about the civil war but also ourselves, this long, reluctant reckoning with race and the legacy of slavery.

my view takes us out of the national narrative, beyond the battlefield, beyond the political arenas, beyond the bounds of the nation, the north, the south, lincoln, davis, lee, grant, the symmetry we have, to look at it from outside. the nation from a global view, or at least a transatlantic view, to try to understand what the war meant to the world and how that exchanged across the atlantic and affected the way americans understood the war. what can this global perspective tell us that his new about the american civil war? the first thing i discovered was that our civil war, this war that we think of as an american event fought by american soldiers about issues that were peculiarly american matters a

great deal to the rest the world. they reported on it. they discussed it. it was discussed in the parliaments of britain, france, germany, italy. it was an important event. they followed it with great interest. i think the impact of this discovery, of how much it mattered to them, came at the end of the war, when they heard the news of the union's victory, and within days, the news of lincoln's death. all over, the european and american world, people came into the streets to hear the news, to buy newspapers, to hear, to learn more. they met and wrote letters and resolutions. tens of thousands of letters came in. letters of sympathy and solidarity, to express condolence over lincoln's death. i will talk about this later. it was a measure, for me, just how much this war, our war, meant to the rest of the world.

why did it matter so much? this was not as obvious. of course, there was a huge economic impact. 80% of the world's supply of cotton came out of the american south. that supply was cut off suddenly, first by the south. they wanted to force europe to recognize the confederacy by imposing an embargo. then, the union setup a blockade and cut off trade. there was a talk of cutting off cotton not just to england but northern europe, france,

belgium, italy, germany. all of the industrial world depended on cotton from the south. the other supplies would be developed during the war. that was yet to come. they were afraid, not just of losing profits, or even losing jobs, but of social unrest, revolutionary fervor working up in britain and northern europe. there was a political fear here as well. what i found is the material interest, the economic concerns were there. what foreigners talked about was the political impact of the world, and what this would mean for the future of world history. for many, this was a contest been involved the future of the republican experiment, and the future of slavery and free

labor. when lincoln, at the end of 1862 in his annual address said that america was the last hope of earth, we have used that as a bragging point as part of american exceptionalism. it is not a boast. this was a lament. there were not any republics in europe outside of switzerland and a few small city states. republicanism, the idea of government by the people, had died. it had been defeated in the revolution of 1848. there was an idea that government by the people just did not work. now, america was proving that again. latin america had republics, but they were in turmoil. a lot of military despotism, revolutions right and left. it seems that the republican experiment was unproven. there was an idea that

republics, ever since the time of the ancient republics in rome and greece, that they were inherently fragile and weak, that they would always descend into anarchy or despotism. the democracies in particular could not fight wars. they could not sustain the strain of war. we now have a theory, a democratic war theory, that argues the democracies don't make war with each other. it's popular in some circles these days. in the 19 century, the idea was that democracies could not fight wars, they were incapable of it. when america descended into war and lincoln suspended habeas corpus, there was talk in england about to the steel being raised.

-- about the american bastille being raised. there was despotism as well as anarchy that the great republic was descending into. eugene bellaton, one of the french republicans who plays a minor role in the story says that, "america is not only america, it is the model school of liberty. if against all possibility, america had perished, with it would fall a great experiment." that idea of democracy being an experiment, not the future, a troubled, imperiled experiment about to fail, was foremost on the minds of europeans. on the other side of this, monarchists and people who

believed in government by aristocracy and inherited power were happy to see the great republic fail. it encouraged people in europe to keep trying to overthrow the old regime and establish the republican experiment in europe. they were happy to see it fail. many predicted by the end of the 19th century united states and all the trouble republics would would make their way back to monarchy. they would be restored to monarchy because of this crisis. in my book, i told the story about many of my antecedents in south carolina who were promoting the idea of monarchy in america in the south. we are tired of this "mobocracy" they said.

they've elected abraham lincoln. they wanted to be restored to a monarchical order under britain. the south carolinians were telling a british journalist, isn't there some prince that can come over here? can't we be repatriated? some of this was propaganda, but they were seriously in rebellion not just against lincoln and the republican party but the idea of extreme democracy, as they called it. in louisiana, they wanted to go back to the french empire. also, to the question why did it matter, there was a geopolitical contest here that had grave

consequences for the entire euro-american world. european powers, the great powers of britain and france, lesser powers like spain and russia, and italy that was emerging, they were not just waiting for republicanism to fail. they were there to help and restore monarchical rule. even before the guns fired at fort sumter, in march 1861, spain invaded its former colony the dominican republic and took it back into the empire. later, they would pick fights with peru and chile. the most spectacular intervention by european powers came in mexico in the first year of war, as early as october. the great powers, britain, france, and spain, formed an alliance in london and agreed on an allied invasion of mexico and

to put pressure on or overthrow the elected republican regime of benito juarez. more on that later. the idea as a developed in the polin -- in napoleon iii's mind, he had crowned himself emperor taking a page from his uncle, he had this idea for restoring the glory that was france under his uncle, and that it would not just be the greatest power in europe, but to establish power over the latin race in the new world. mexico would become the showcase of monarchical order against the shambles of republicanism and the rest of spanish america.

he would install a european prints, maximilian, the archduke of austria, and also restore the church to power. this would not just be to take over mexico. it would create a hegemonic power over all of latin america. the term was coined in this era of a "unified race" of latin people that included the french, the spanish, portuguese, and even the italians, and that the latin race would be restored to power against the anglo-saxon-tuetonic order. in alliance, with the help of the confederacy, napoleon iii would prevent the insidious influence of the anglo-saxons in the u.s. and restore what had been given up to the united states under this mexican empire under maximilian. they saw it as a big clash between major forces, historical forces, monarchy and republicanism, slavery and freedom. a perfect conflict between the forces of good and evil, or of order and chaos, depending on

your point of view. european intellectuals, journalists, political reformers, speakers of all kinds, seized the american contest as a way of talking about what was going on in europe and latin america. it became a proxy war for a contest that was global in scope. listen to edward -- edouard

laboulye. "a society of 30 millions of men living happily and peacefully under a government of their choice with laws made for themselves, liberty will cast her raise over europe illuminating pharaohs." america, just encumbered of slavery, "will be the country of all generous hearts. but, should liberty the eclipsed in the new world, it would become night in europe, and we should see the work in washington of franklin, of hamilton, spit upon and trampled underfoot by the whole school which believes in violence." this was from an essay he wrote before lincoln's reelection in 1864.

karl marx, writing for the new york daily tribune, one of the largest newspapers in america and the world, found an audience for his very able pen analyzing the nature of this contest. "the first grand war, contemporary in this history, is the american war. the power of the government to be self realized is giving battle to the most meaningless form of slavery in the annals of history."

the president of peru said, "latin america is about to witness a war of the crowns against the liberty-haves." a lot of people are saying this is a big clash that would have tremendous consequences for them in their political system -- and their political system. this was an epic battle. it would decide the future. it was a contest that had been going on since the french revolution and the american revolution over the basic and suppose of human equality upon which rested the ideas of popular sovereignty, that people could be sovereign. people could elect their own

government and decide laws, and power would come from the people, and not divine role. -- rule. foreigners were romanticizing it, elevating this war. this became a war of moral consequences. the americans wanted to keep this as small as possible. the union denied that this was over slavery. lincoln was trying to discredit any idea that he was out to abolish slavery or to transform the south and america. lincoln had to discredit the idea that there was any reasonable cause for revolution in the south. he did not want foreign sympathy

to the south, which was trying to plead that they were being oppressed by a tyrannical force, all of this before lincoln had even taken power. but, that they were suffering from the abolitionist who are going to overthrow their system and create racial holocaust in the south. in his first inaugural address, he said slavery was safe in the states where it exists and that the republican party only wants to limit its expansion. "i have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with this institution of slavery in the states where it exists. i believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no

inclination to do so." that last bit is what got a lot of europeans as gratuitous. after 10 years of arguing over this issue of slavery, foreign onlookers had seen this young democracy tearing itself apart. finally, the republican party, the anti-slavery party, mobilize, and almost overnight, seized national power. you had a president and a party in power that is openly hostile to slavery. and now, its leader says he does not have anything to do about slavery. slavery is where it exists. foreigners could not understand this. they could not understand the

constitution. they are accustomed to monarchical power. this is about the constitution limiting his power. no inclination? what was that about? lincoln had his reasons. he did not want foreign powers to come in and intervene or recognize the south, so he was trying to take away any cause, any just cause for resolution -- revolution. it was not just lincoln. william seward of the new yorker, one of our best

secretaries of state -- william seward, new yorker, one of the best secretaries of state, was disappointed. he instructed his diplomats to avoid any discussion about the morality of slavery. to deny any intention of the union to use this work to append the slavery. he was terrified that foreigners would see that threat of abolition as a threat to business interests, to cotton interests, that the threat of emancipation, that foreigners in france and britain might intervene to stop this demolition of the cotton market. as he instructed his ambassador to france, "whether the

revolution shall succeed or fail, the condition of slavery shall state the same." this was not just lincoln speaking, this was domestic and foreign policy. but they began questioning this. the diplomats overseas began writing back to seward. seward was very interested in using his diplomats not just as a mouthpiece for him but as of the eyes and ears of washington. they asked right back, what is going on? he was interested in public sentiment. i argue in my book that seward and his diplomats were on the cutting edge of a new public diplomacy, the term they did not use at the time. public diplomacy, soft power, contemporary phrases. that is what they were practicing. a german immigrant, call sewers -- carl sewers, rose quickly in the republican party and wanted to be an ambassador. he wanted to go back to europe. they wanted him to go to spain. he was having fits. he thought it would be very

offensive to european governments to send a radical revolutionary over as our ambassador. lincoln decided, they sent him to spain. it was the most conservative government in europe. you could see the tide turning against the union. they wrote in september a long dispatch back to seward hoping it would get to lincoln. he reported to seward that the governments, the ruling classes of europe wanted america to fail. they want to democracy to fail. but, the public was hopeful. they were assuming that the war would be nothing less than a

grand uprising. this is sewers writing to seward. "they assume it will be nothing but a grand uprising for nothing but the popular conscience of a grand principle." "why should europeans support the north if its only goal was the privilege of being re-associated with the imperious and troublesome slave states?" he said, "we must place the war upon a higher moral basis and thereby give us the control of public opinion in europe. if you control the public, even in autocratic nations like france or spain, the autocratic

governments are even more afraid of public sentiment. they are not going to let it out in an election, they are going to go to the barricades, especially in france. they are very sensitive to that. sewers is telling seward we must arouse the public in favor of the war not just against slavery but in favor of republican principles. precisely as sewers was writing to seward, seward had already authorized another diplomatic mission. he had sent a man by the name of henry sanford, a career diplomat from connecticut who had been posted in various places over europe over the war and was now

in brussels but secretly unofficially the head of the secret service operations, propaganda, managing the press, when everyone to call it, he sent him to this remote island in the mediterranean. i open my book with the story. to issue an invitation to one of the most famous people in the atlantic world at the time, the italian national bureau -- national hero giuseppe garibaldi. i'm sure a lot of people in new york are familiar with him. he's got a statue in washington square.

he is very famous among italians. he was an iconic figure, one of the first modern global heroes. everybody knew who giuseppe garibaldi was and what he looked like. women adored giuseppe garibaldi. his passion was popular. they would wear blouses and military jackets and the garibaldi cookie became popular in london. there were songs about garibaldi. he was famous in print. he was admired greatly. he had gone to south america in exile and fought for the republic of the rio grande in

the south of brazil for an independence movement, a secession movement, a republican movement against the empire of brazil and the slave-based empire of brazil. he returned it italy, fought for the roman republic gallantly defending rome against the french and made a stunning speech in st. peter's square, telling the italians, "i promise you nothing but hard marches and sleepless nights. who loves italy, follow me." this inspired the winston churchill blood sweat and tears speech.

he goes into exile trying to find a home in tunisia. he cannot stand the weather in london and comes to america. in 1850, he takes up residence in new york, leader in staten island. -- later in staten island. some of you may have been to his house. school groups still go to it. giuseppe garibaldi is now

depressed about his wife's death and the failure of italy's revolution. he spent some time kind of regrouping. he applied for citizenship and referred to america as his second country. he never completed the naturalization process. details, details, it was in his heart his second country. the rumors that went out into the international press were sensational. the headlines were, "garibaldi's

coming." it turns out, as i found out later, the rumors were coming from his men. they were planting letters in america saying, "i'd like to come and help if i am not needed in italy." part of this is him trying to put pressure on the king of italy, victor emmanuel, to continue the risorgimento. after his new york exile, he went back and led the thousand, a motley crew of about 1000 volunteers, students, soldiers, professors, merchants with musty muskets -- with rusty muskets. about 25,000 marched across italy, across the street, often to naples -- up into naples, to king victor emmanuel in 1860.

italy was reuniting as america was falling apart. as they went across southern italy, giuseppe garibaldi was raising his sword for a united italy. now he was raising his sword for a united america. he had conditions. one of them was that he wanted absolute, full command of all armed forces. [laughter] mr. doyle: a pilot in a store must have full command of his crew. "i would be useless as a subordinate," he said. he wanted the powers to declare

the war against slavery. "if the war is not for universal emancipation, this would be another intestinal war, just another civil war over territory and sovereignty of no real interest to the world." now, they could do nothing more than just give in the usual, "the constitution does not give the president the power to end slavery." he is just puzzled by this. "the president of your country can do something to end slavery?" -- can't do something

to end slavery?" he is incredulous. in my first chapter, we see that the union would have to find an answer to this. "what are you fighting for?" later in the book, i have another chapter: "garibaldi's answer." what does it matter what giuseppe garibaldi or karl marx were all these politicians and reformers are saying about the american war? one year later, in september of

1862, britain and france, lord palmerston, the prime minister, along with earl russell, the secretary of state and foreign affairs, and others in the british cabinet had agreed with napoleon that they would, with other countries, perhaps austria, possibly spain, to go together as a group and to offer to mediate in the american war, to bring it to an end, to renew the flow of cotton as it came to the gathering season that september and october. the rules of international law at that time, going back to the famous law of nations, suggested that if third parties, one or more third-party nations, who were harmed by the effects of an ongoing war offered to mediate, if one party accepted and the other party did not, that would justify the foreign powers from recognizing or aiding that cooperative party. this is exactly what russell and paul merson had in mind. it is great.

they were not in london. russell was down with queen victoria. the house of windsor, as they called it later, was german in origin. she was visiting her relatives. they are all there and saying, we are going to move. we're going to offer mediation. the north will refuse and we will go in and end this. the queen is behind us, russell assured paul merson. the die was cast, it was all set. things were motion. then, in southern italy, giuseppe garibaldi-- this was not a plot. the u.s. government was not involved in this. he is secretly on the funding of the state department, so this is not hard to imagine this was somehow orchestrated, -- he had returned to italy and they were chanting, "to march on rome." roman was the united e of italy. -- united capital of italy. giuseppe garibaldi wanted to go on with the risorgimento. he was leaving this mass of people coming up. on a mountain called "flower

mountain," giuseppe garibaldi confronted a regiment of italia and soldiers sent by the king to stop the movement. he was afraid of this movement and did not want giuseppe garibaldi shutting off this war and pitting france against italy. giuseppe garibaldi was shouting, "viva italia!" a shot was fired. it ricocheted off a rock. two bullets hit him, one in the fire, when in the ankle. he was taken from a stretcher to a prison. they thought he would be tried for treason, convicted, and executed. thousands began gathering around this prison in italy. the doctors are coming from all

over europe, because the wound in his ankle but not heal. -- would not heal. this is a huge event. the cartoons are depicting garibaldi, who was anti-church, anti-clerical, as christ on the cross. bandages were collected with blood as relics by the people waiting outside the prison in these weeklong vigils. this goes on for days. meanwhile, and of scare american consule in vienna who had helped linking get elected was given a

post. in a grab for glory, he writes for garibaldi in prison and says that he wanted him to come to america. since his great work for italy had been blocked, he was welcome. "the battle is one that not only interests are self, but the whole civilized world." there are that he hoped to be

able to, "satisfy my desire to serve the great american republic of which i am a citizen and which today fights for universal liberty." garibaldi had made up his mind in september that lincoln and the union were fighting for universal liberty. lincoln, at exactly this time, is signing the emancipation proclamation. it would not be known in europe until october 6. meanwhile, there are a few demonstrations -- are huge demonstrations. giuseppe garibaldi goes the press in vienna, probably for some money, with public correspondence. it caused a sensation. the wires like wildfire -- the reports went across the wires like wildfire. seward was none too pleased when he read this report in the new york times that this lowly consul in vienna was making diplomacy on his own time. from his hospital bed, in late september, before he knew about

lincoln's emancipation proclamation, garibaldi wrote a public letter to the english nations published in the times on october 3, dated september 28. they don't know about the emancipation proclamation until october 6. "called the great american republic, she is struggling today for the abolition of slavery, so generously while you come the british, who had led the antislavery movement for the world,, take her by her side." a letter to the english nation just flipped through the international press and really excited tremendous enthusiasm, not among everyone, but among

liberals in europe an america. it was garibaldi in a full throated endorsement of the union cause as universal liberty, this before lincoln had made his proclamation note the world. -- known to the world. at the same time, huge rights were breaking out in different parts of europe against any efforts to execute garibaldi or try him. in london, in hyde park, 150,000 people gathered for garibaldi, many of them to give speeches and show their support and solidarity for garibaldi. groups of irish tufts, hired by someone, they came in in support of the pope with stilettos flying.

there was a melee in hyde park on two sundays before and after garibaldi's letter. for palmerson and others in europe, there was a new awareness of the dangers of aligning themselves with this illberal slave -- iliberal slave confederacy. napoleon wanted nothing to do with any kind of republican intervention. the british said, earl russell to charles francis adams, the u.s. ambassador, i am betting your glad it garibaldi is causing this trouble, because we have nothing else to think about.

the diplomats in france said that "until this ruckus plays out, there is no chance of any recognition in europe." garibaldi helped save the day, to at least force europe to pause in its plans for intervention. now, it was not just these great, illustrious leaders and celebrities like garibaldi or the intellectuals like karl marx corp. announcing on the -- who were announcing on the american war. i also looked at the foreign-born soldiers in the war.

everyone knows the basic facts, but the foreign-born immigrant soldiers re: neglected subject -- are a neglected subject, one that is shrouded in embarrassment about how many foreign soldiers fought for the union. it is an interesting example of a history, where when you think you have read everything, one kind of dark corner of civil war history. i want to show you some slides for the recruitment of foreign soldiers. garibaldi did not come to america, but tens of thousands of european soldiers and some latin americans too came over justified the war -- just to

fight the war. they had come over since 1848. long lines formed all over europe and parts of latin america. soldiers like garibaldi. one legation in germany had to put a sign up. this presents a legal problem. you cannot recruit overseas during a war. that is a violation of the host nations neutrality. it all had to be done quietly. one in four union soldiers were born in a foreign country. one in four. the records are incomplete. no one cares where they were

born, but we know this from a massive statistical study done at the end of the war. the papers for this are in the new york public library. it's a wonderful collection, compiled and analyzed by benjamin gould from boston. he showed that another 18% of union soldiers and sailors were the children of immigrants. together, 43% of the union army were immigrants and sons of immigrants. at to that another 10% or more of african-american soldiers and southern white soldiers who came into the union army as the south was invaded. the union could never have won

this war without the immigrant soldiers. they supplied a replenishing stream during the war to help relieve the political strain as well as the economic strain of the draft and of this war of attrition. the political strain is evident in the new york city draft riots. remember, when the union had imposed a draft, there was a cost. there was this question of, can democracies fight wars? can you force people to fight

wars? the source of recruitment was important. let me turn to a few of the slides. let me go back just a little bit. i have some other artwork. this is a german artist. the germans were experts at lithographs. this really captures the idea. this was made by morris traubel of philadelphia. this is an indigenous-looking liberty carrying the flag on the eagle. beneath him is a never world -- a netherworld of enslaved people and a cotton bale king. it's a metaphorical image of what the world meant, this from scottish artists for sheet music, depicting a

european-style lady liberty with her cap from the french revolution, way back to ancient rome, a symbol of emancipation. and, another german artist, depicting this allegory of lincoln and the union on one side and the rebels on the other with justice glaring at jefferson davis. i'm just suggesting, this artwork was produced in america by foreign immigrants filtering this war through this 19th century view of good and evil and expressing this is something more than just a war between two territories within the united states, two different systems of society, two different visions of the future.

another one from punch magazine. these cartoons were very clever. in a world where not everyone could read, often, these illustrations had much greater impact than written word. the garibaldi guard is one of my favorites. this is one of my favorites. they have reenactors. are there any among us? they have very colorful uniforms. they were organized during the time these rumors were spread about garibaldi coming to america. it was a hungarian exile who raised the garibaldi guard. it included italians, germans, french, all kinds of different

people. they had young women, also the daughters of the regiment who would come along and provide food and splendid uniforms with--i will show some more of them. look at the multilingual appeal. "patriots of all nations, fight for your adopted country." this is patriotism that is being transferred. their marching caring little green sprigs. the flag says "god and people." it is said to be the same flag that garibaldi defended in rome. i tried to find one with michael bloomberg, but couldn't.

look at those uniforms. [laughter] mr. doyle: who wouldn't want to join? any of you read german? i had german friends help translate these. "citizens, your country is in danger." germans were the largest foreign-born group. there are one of the least familiar to us. many of them came with military experience. there was universal conscription in prussia and other german states. they rose rapidly and brought a locked experience -- a lot of experience. spinola. an italian-american in new york.

he appealed to these foreign-born immigrants with this idea that this is not just america's cause, this is our cause too. these are the symbols of what in europe they would call, "red republicanism." the red cap of liberty, here. the french revolution, ancient rome, all of the symbols that were familiar to americans.

schools and churches on the right as volunteers were going off to defend their country. and there's liberty again. so in these images, in this appeal to foreign born soldiers, they were telling soldiers that, you know, bounties and other inducements were advertised but also iconography that the battle you and your parents were fighting we are now fighting here. this is the vanguard between monarchy and republicanism between slavery and freedom. listen to some of the -- the immigrants. i should mention that the confederates and many of the critics of the union, said the

union will fight its own war. mercenaries, is a term that's always derogatory. means that soldiers were fighting not for a cause not for anything ideological or patriotism, they're fighting for bounties, maybe for adventure but they're not committed. the other implication is they're not really good soldiers. hay won't stand under fire. that tease criticism that they made of some of the immigrant soldiers. people shouting orders and they didn't understand them and they retreated instead of charges. i think it's misunderstanding. but in the army they said there aren't as many foreign born

soldiers as they claim. they were claiming that all of the pirates were foreign born and that the yankees wouldn't find the war. there was the argument that this was an immigrants war. the other thing they said it was an embarrassment on the union side in an effort to down play the union soldiers. one of the pro voasts said they're double and triple county because they sign up for the bounty and sign up for another county and sign up again. so they're being counted three

or four times. but that wasn't true. there was a lot of bouting jumping but it wasn't so much the immigrant soldiers. these were young men, the immigrant population was young, more male. they had a large proportion of the military population males between 18 and 44. but immigrants made up only about 15% of the population that time, more in the north. but they -- they constitute about 25% of the -- of the union

army and even when we break it down and control it for the population, the military population, they still were above quota. listen to some of their letters that they wrote home. a lot of these have gone ignored for generations now but a german seller by the name of walter kampenofer and his army translated a lot of the german letters and they're wonderful. gaust worstman 25 years old full of patriotic spirit wrote to his family from the battlefields of virginia in the first summer of war even if i should die for free come in the press ration of the union of this by adopted homeland that you should not be too concerned for many brave sons of the fatherland have died in the field of honor and more besides me will fall. much the same as it is in germany, the free and

industrious people of the north are fighting against lazy and hauter guys of the south. a little simplistic but he's explaining what he's fighting for to his parents. this is one of my favorites from a young irishman by the name of peter welsh. peter welsh went to boston with his wife and i think, he just got married. i think he had a young child. he went out, into a big fight with the family and went out and got really drunk.

and to try to redeem his soiled honor, he signed up as a volunteer for the massachusett'' 28 volunteers. and a year later wrote this letter to his father-in-law. he had a lot of explaining to do his father-in-law is back in ireland. it's written in very primitive english, a lot of misspellings but the ideas are unmistakable. it should seem very strange that i should voluntarily join in the bloody strife of the battlefield. here thousands of the sons and daughters of ireland have come to seek a refuge from tyranny and persecution at home.

america is ireland's refuge, ireland's last hope. when we are fighting for america, we are fighting in the interest of ireland striking a double blow, cutting with a two-edged sword. i don't know how his father responded to this. welsh reenlisted in january of 1864 and he died from wounds later that year. now, whatever their motives and they were very -- there's no question, they weren't all idealistic. the union soldier gave them an advantage of what became a war of attrition. who could last the longest. the union had great man power advantage, 4-1. but the confederacy had the advantage of a lot of separatist

movements which is you don't have to win, you just have to not lose, just hold out, believe the enemy and wait for political consequences, inner democracy especially. the political consequences of a prolonged war to wear the enemy down. during the 1850's leading up to the war, american immigration was at its all-time high. we reached, i think up to 13%. it's a little bit below that now. but this was the all-time high in american history just before the american civil war. it was the largest migration in human history, this one between about 1815 and 1920 or so. over a half million immigrants arrived every year on average in the 1850's. and then the war came. and in 1861 it went below 92,000 and it stayed there the next year. now what this meant was that their supply not only of soldiers, potential sole yers but of labor too was suddenly drying up. now, one of the ways of which the union opened up this flow of immigrants is known but little known. and that was the passage of the homestead act. now the way i learned about homestead act, you know, it was american farmers out on the planes building sod houses an going out to nebraska and places to settle the west. but it was also open to immigrants and it invited them to come and to establish a homestead and to get free land. now, this was passed. it was a hallmark of the republican platform that they had been promising ever since they were organized as a party and it emphasize this is idea of

a nation of independent producers and of the government bestowing benefits on people. it was a socialist program. republicans in the 19th century. there's no telling what they did. grant for colleges, homestead act. william start saw this not as domestic policy. you don't want to give power out the west and to the north but as foreign policy as well. and he issued circa 19 which he instructed the -- all of the diplomats and councils all over your and latin america to distribute publicity that america is open for business. you come here and you'll get

free land. all you have to do is pay. you see what they're doing. they're advertising not just free land in the west but they're recruiting at a time when that was officially illegal not as soldiers per se but indirectly. john big low in france immediately printed cira 19 and had it published and it has a sensational effect. big long lines out in front of the ligation. the problem was that the government could not pay passage for these immigrants. but there were ways to work about that. they were being offered for union soldiers and of course, these bounties could be collected by -- bounties could be collected by anyone who was a soldier. it was a thriving business now and agents, runners they called them going over to europe and posting bills saying that there are great opportunities in america.

and they'll pay your passage. once they got on ship then they could be recruited into the army and all kinds of inducements and so on and a portion of the bounty. and so this traffic in this human traffic in recruits began to take place, unusually of course, they're not a union employees. they're not government officials but it was a way of circumventing the neutrality loss. immigration went up over 200,000, a quarter of a million in 1863. and in 1984 continued. and exploded again after the war. the confederate agents complained that these union recruiters were grooming these helpless, ignorant immigrants into war using alcohol, wars, deceit. and they sent squads of agents to ireland posting bills reproduction letters of the pope who was decrying the massacres in america and denouncing this

unholy war and trying to align the pope against these fanatical puritans in the north. let me finish up because i'm getting to the end here. at the end of the war, again, all of this publicity and this public diplomacy and an effort to massage public opinion, none of the diplomats knew what effect it had. historians said that's public opinion. no, newspapers are trying to produce or to manipulate, to manage public opinion but you don't really what people think. in france there were open elections. you don't have a loft free expression outside of britain. when the end of the war came and when the news of lincoln's death came, there was an explosion of interest and public manifestation.

and much of this came in resolutions, condolence letters. and in france, they raised money far metal for mrs. lynn on. it was called the tuso prescriptions about 2 cents. and then a group called the committee of the french democracy led by victor hugo, a number of others that i mentioned in my book organized this subscription, took it in and dragged it out as a kind of protest against the regime. and then they got money. they had to strike the metal

outside of france and switzerland. >> then the library of congress when i was there doing my research i asked for i. i held it in my hand. great experience. that's my picture of it. and it's in the same little box that helen presented it to john big low the ambassador when he told them in this little box is the heart of france, tell mrs. lincoln. >> the idea of the encryption on this says that lincoln, an honest man abolished slavery, established theion on, saved the republic without unveiling the constitute. that caught my eye, that's a metaphorical expression that comes from the french revolution. and it just means that you didn't, she walks with liberty during all this war. but it was at this same time that there was idea for a more

permanent monument and some suggested it should be raised by the french but in new york city. to lincoln, to america, to the shared ideas of liberty, it was unclear but in labulays living room with a young artist to his face. in the summer of 1865. france we had processed society. but 10 years ooh later or after napoleon the third is reported. lava lay is one of the organizers of it. in the 1870's one could see that chew of liberty. liberty and lining the world rising over the streets of paris. 10 years in addition in 1886 it was finally -- it's the kind of store that was opened here in the new york harbor and during

that time it was a monument to immigrants. give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to live free. >> all those are wonderful sentiments. i think it has lost the original meaning of liberty and lightning the world with the lamp of liberty illuminating not just the atlantic war but all seven continents of the world. >> this is the world's greatest monument to war that was fought not just for america but for cause of all nations. [applause] >> thank you very, very much. the draft rye yachts by the irish had to cover in the foreign media and how did opposing sides used it or tried

to use it or deal with it, excuse it or whatever. >> that was a great deal of interest in that. remember this was right after the battle of gettysburg. i think a lot of historians believe gettysburg that's the decisive battling that turns back the tide. it wasn't. there was still a great deal interest in the war and in the possibilities of the war. sooner or later, the union would now wear down. there was drama and caught the attention of all lot of foreigners. and so yeah, this was snag it

hoped to those who sided with the confederacy for sure. >> thank you. >> harold wrote a book about lincoln and the stress and how he affected the media. i'm just curious how much of them were there? >> they traveled to the south for months and writes letters from america to the times and he -- by the time a famous war correspondent who has reported on the crimean war. so he's very well known, very trusted.

and he tells the unvarnished truth. what he described to the european world really made a mark. and it was that the south is not just engaged in a temporary uprising. this is -- this is a real war for independents and they're not going to give up easily. and second the union is not prepared to put it down. he reported the battle of bull run. we saw this reckless retreat. also that left an impression on europeans that the south was not goings to be defeated easily and that this -- you can't force a dissident territory, people back into a nation especially a democratic society. so he gave a lot of encouragement to the -- to that point of view. >> ok. i'm most skeptical about the

idea of europeans particularly english supporter of the confederacy. i mean, they had to realize that an independent confederacy would mean eventually they're going to be an industrialized confederacy using slave labor which would mean -- which would compete directly with their industrial capacity with a workforce that -- that provided no market whatsoever. >> i don't see any concerns about the future of the south as an industrial power. i think the british qualms had to do a lot more with the whole idea of helping to perpetuate a slave society. there was very strong anti-slavery but in britain -- but i don't think that the industrial competition of the

south was a major factor in their thinking. >> one thing that's confusing for me is the perception of the europeans that this was a battle for democracy or a republican form of democracy monarchy and correct me if i'm wrong. my understanding is that the south of the confederacy or the would be confederate state was set up as a democratic republic. which they put in something protective. and slavery wouldn't be the difference between the two because the north had slaves and america was very much a slave holding republic when you look at the south and the states that had it. i don't know if there was anymore, you know, universal suffrage in the north and in the south. i think the north had legislation and a congress, some form of democracy.

so how did the idea arise that this was really a struggle against monarchy rather than a struggle against the north america having too democratic republics rather than one. and one would perhaps is slaves and the other one not as many slaves. >> logically you're right. the constitution, it's essentially downloaded version of the old constitution. the amendments were some of them compromised democracy. they had a one-year term, six-term presidency. there was no repudiation of republican principles or democratic practices, you're right. guarantees that slavery was the

main difference that slavery had been there before. what it did was to give them safety. >> the ebbs of logic and the empirical event of the south as a monarchist ally, this was part of the public diplomacy that the south was itself claiming that it was rebelling in part against the extreme fanatical authoritarianism and refusing this mob rule. and many europeans say we are an anglo-saxon. to the french they would say we are anglo or mans we come from louisiana, koreas and from south carolina and so there was a different spin on that.

but still we are aristocratic. they were the best people in the south to govern. but you're right they had it in the ever piled republican party. these rumors that the south wanted to go monarchists. they wanted him to hear it. that was part of their effort to kind of align themselves with them. your fight is our fight. we also are opposed to this extreme democracy that is the threatening. revolutionary upheaval from time to time. a lot of times we have to be the coach from the field. >> there's a fall-out affect that soldiers fighting in subsequent war like the greek war of independence. but also the latin american

wars. i wonder if there's a and you know, getting involved. in like the -- something like that. >> you see veterans from the america civil war fighting, many unions of veterans came over the border to mexico and fight with juarez who was executed in 1876. most were found in 1870 fighting again to overthrow tyranny. soldiers of fortune. that tradition, i think there is

a lot of that in the 19th centuries who see their call not just as national but transnational. >> you mentioned russia at the beginning but i didn't hear that developed at all. could you comment about the -- the russian siding with the union and why that would have been an issue for them? was she a librarian? regarding the north and west. i did hear anything about that. that certainly had a very direct affect on the union and very -- if your boom. i didn't hear anything about the northwest community. the british were concerned about

canada. there's at the end of the beau k i tri about retreat. they're kind of like vultures, france, brand coming in to surround it. and at the end it can set it up. france withdraws from mexico. spain withdraws from santo domingo. >> alexander ii was inspired to feed them because of abraham lincoln's election and he saw this as the wave of the future. and the russians also were still feeling lingering grudges against the british and the french from the crimean war. they felt with it anyway with the united states. during the war, the polls rise against russians.

and the polls i should have given them more credit because they hoped to upset these plans for intervention and to stymied the great powers, what looked like another possibility for the continental war. they send their fleets over to new york stand and to -- and the new york's coverage's time is perfect. >> there are rps for them to come here. but it was used by the united states as a show of solidarity with the united states from their friends, the russians. >> two items. first of all the agreement between britain, spain, and secondly, find it sort of ironic that the only republican europe at that time was switzerland, yes, history shows that consequently switzerland was the last country to allow suffrage for women. they didn't get women the vote until 1971.

switzerland was not always the same progressive. for example, but it was a hate -- it was a republic established in 1948. and bottom. and it was a reforming for a lot of republicans in europe. and the only republic of any type.

i deal with another tiny one from san marino. and there are other germans' stake san marino. she wrote a letter, congratulations to abraham

lincoln and awarded him citizenship. i did a story like to for the now story. and that renewed a letter to the president. wonderful story. that takes us back to 13,000. >> my next question? >> i forgot. >> oh, no, the british and the spanish i would hope. and i could march back to mexico city and later in april the spanish and then the british hold out. and the leverage went on, both poetic loss on the fifth of may.

where they were nobly defeated by the republican forces of juarez. and with that the invasion of mexico was postponed for year, and the french had they gotten into it in 1862 instead of 1963 that would have changed. >> why didn't england and spain pull out? >> well, because they realized that the french was on this lunatic mission of installing european drinks and imposing a european government, which was directing dead. that's what they also did a regime change and so on. >> actually the british knew full well.

they were there so they had to curve his enthusiasm for this. disastrous project it has turned out. and some things the british wanted napoleon with the support. >> did they only support the south because they were anti-republican or was there anyone in europe who actually believed slavery was morally correct? >> that's a good question. officially no nation recognized the south. several declared neutrality and awarded what they called belligerent status. no, there's not war. the -- the -- but by support, some of the in britain and france wanted the south to win because you it would mean that an independent south would train cot month without any tariff's taxing on their imports and so the cost of it would go down. their profits would increase and

so there was an economic interest in that. but on the other side of that was the cost. slavery. it was humanitarian, rumors in europe but they were very concerned that they could not afford it politically. france and especially if the liberal public did not want any part to of helping to give birth to this nation. it's not just that they add slavery but the building was to perpetuate safety forever. >> that's what his constitution said. >> very compelling. the union army was the most powerful around the entire world. >> yes.

a million man in armies. they put together in this "short navy." he took all the diplomats from washington. and took them on tour. i want you to see what we're doing. you're saying this nation at war and this capital. 4-5 and we are in at war. >> and i think he -- i think that took a lesson from that. but yes, they saw a huge one. the most important thing is they expanded the army. and to use that army and that navy to expand to take -- first of all, to entice mexico. >> wow, ok. >> first time i'd like to congratulate you because it didn't seem like you piled on to

all of those books. you have had a french endemic. the question is do you perceive the monroe doctrine would have been enforced and would have prevented the dominican republic re-expansion? and also this allowed the investigation of born there. you're not to be downs. >> they wouldn't dare it. but so the debacle in america you see the ploys. >> i think in our own perspective we say wanted an appeal. the lay tin around countries were state,. back to and actually landed at

tampico and cry to take dare. and in brained france using tax to get try to gain a foot hold in the american in the pacific northwest. i mean, it was -- no more i assume. they didn't have the military power to back it up in 1860. but those europeans proved out pretty quickly.

>> all that my compliments on a great deal of education and a great deal of follow. -- one of the things you shouldn't do is stopping british stems on the high seas with the union navy. maybe you want to talk about that a little bit. >> this is the trent affair you're talking about? in november of 1861, the two confederate envoys john slidell

and james mason were coming but bringing them and they took these two men and secretaries off the ship. and that was at front of a violation of british neutrality. they claimed. -- it was a long legal argument but written very nearly, came to work. >> in november, december of 1862 were beating. they were looking for an excuse. and the press wanted details. -- without knowing the affair was about to blow up. are you sure there's not another new yorker, john hughes, arches bishop here in new york? catholic vision and a transportation --

>> and what do they have to do with democracy which or that i can share here. played a very crucial war in diffusing that incident. it gave us a game plan. but also the other factor there was prince albert. i want to meet his death bed. soften the demand that the

british made on the lincoln administration. it's another example of how close we came to world war i in 1861. >> how do you account for the fact that they needed a blockade? statistically they were getting everything from there. and two grams of yellow diamond, how did that happen? >> first of all, it's one thing to declare a campaign and another thing to enforce it.

they didn't have much of a navy. so it's hard to enforce. the other thing was the deputy had avenues into the confederacy. and one of them was in mat mo rose, mexico. and so they could land in matamoros and bring things into the confederacy. yes? \[indiscernible] >> yeah. yes, they knew and they did everything they could to stop it. you couldn't really be enforced effectively until they built a more powerful navy.

there's one additional question here that he had his hand up forever and no one saw him. could we just get one more? >> was there a litigation in europe in 1830? >> yes. now, russia has announced the emancipation of the serfs. and so the only european country that allowed it was spain. and then the empire of brazil and of course, it was an independent country. so the americans house cuba and puerto rico and we're the only place where slavery was legal, african-american slavery. it's telling that they would end slavery after the american civil war. and it's the confederacy failed. >> dr. doyle, thank you. >> good question. thanks very much. [applause]

>> ok. we're going to -- >> the civil war airs here every saturday every 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern time. to watch more of our civil war programming visit our website, c-pan.org/history. you're watching american television tv all weekend every weekend on c-span 3. baby-like, does not require science -- silence. why should my husband's job or yours prevent us from being ourselves? i do not believe that being first lady should prevent me from expresses my ideas. [applause] >> betty ford spoke other mind was pro-choice and was a supporter of the equal rights