east asia, the far east, and also the western hemisphere. the major powers are very interested in the civil war. you have three major empires that still had a stake in the western hemisphere. with the united states disintegrate in, there was an opportunity for european powers to take advantage. by california and the southwest, which is by no means for seeing the european powers thought the u.s. was going to wind up power and to ocean power. the british short up their claims to parts around the honduras nicaragua coast. powers the passage to the pacific is going to be key. the justice abraham lincoln is being inaugurated. the spanish empire, which had been receding in the new world -- there is no doubt he is taking advantage of the chaos in the united states to move back into the new world. taking power and france. very much committed to reestablishing a french empire, not just in algeria, but in the western hemisphere. admirer of the united states. he has visited the united states when he was a young man. he found americans to be greedy, materialistic, and uncultured. he developed his grand design, the invasion of mexico, which unfolded first with the collaboration of spain and great britain. and extending throughout the first half of 1860's. we are seeing italian unification, a nation unifying. there is quite a bit on european powers mines at this time. >> one angle that is not often talked about but really important in this question is the european communist movement, particularly karl marx and frederick engels. they were fascinated by the american civil war. as part of the european revolutions of 1848 in 1849, the communist leak, there was the organization they wrote the communist manifesto for, played an important role in helping to turn that into a communist or socialist revolution. they had to go into exile. a lot of them went into exile in the united states. only a tiny percentage of them were communists. ,hey include important officers the missouri artillery officer. i think even more substantially they were more interested in seeing how is it? how can we overthrow the despotism of private property? they began to look at the civil war. they were really inspired by it. the context wasn't what was happening at the same time but a series of revolutions that included the u.s. civil war, that would include the paris commune and future revolutions they were hoping for. >> we talk about the 19th relativeeing this -- pieces busting out under the auspices of the british empire. the picture is one that is filled with revolution. thinking a little bit about how worth unfolding in america during this time, played out to europeans and other audiences. make of these sorts of processes and dynamics. what did they think the civil war was all about? >> the civil war comes at a moment when the entire world is debating two important questions. this is a world of empires and monarchies. you have the united states, which is claiming to represent this idea of republican government. is that really the future of the world as the united states claimed. whatecond big question is is the future of labor? does slavery have a place in the modern economy? are we going to shift to a capitalist economy based on wage labor? youainly in the americas have some countries experimenting through contract labor. none of these things have been worked out. i think it's really important to understand the degree to which people are watching and sorting through these issues certainly liberals, the existence of the united states as a reaffirmation that representative government was possible. at the same time european conservatives, aristocrats, they would have been perfectly happy to see the united states split .n two of course, the confederacy was becoming the most powerful and prosperous slave economy in the world. theink these are some of issues people are paying attention to and trying to work out. >> from another perspective, looking at radical opinion in both europe and africa. difficult thing for radical intellectuals to understand as they understood the war to be a war about slavery. certainly that was quite explicit. they were very confused understandably by the statements from lincoln and the government that this was not a war to end slavery, not a war to interfere with slavery. one well-known story is the italian revolutionary was asked to become a general in the union army. he said he would if they could --lare ending slavery name robertsomeone campbell had gone to what is today nigeria with the black abolitionists martin delaney. war.ote about the civil the a lot of african-american press and the international black press, there was a sense of dismay. why is mcclellan promising to return and slave -- return enslaved people to their captors. the third thing, the government of liberia was looking at lincoln's well-known plans to deport free americans from the united states. most people of african descent recognize this as rooted in racism, which it was, but the government of liberia was saying, please do that, send the african americans to liberia because we would like to have them. so that is the different range. >> i think it kind of mirrors both what andre and andrew are getting at. one example of this frustration with the war aims not syncinc up with working-class interests, particularly in england. march 26, 1863, 3000 working-class londoners who are uniting, rallying together in a city that has a lot of workers, has a lot of ties to the south because of money tied up in cotton. they are rallying in, essentially the whole function of the meeting is to say, finally, emancipation proclamation, where has crossed -- word has crossed the atlantic. we heard about workers rallying in the north, despite the fact that they are working contrary to the interest. it is undeniable. it is contrary to what is going on. that is something that we can get into. >> maybe we can build on that. a lot of people outside the united states who are really interested, following the newspapers. the things marx and others are writing. one thing scholars have thought about that we know, a great question, what is going to get other powers involved, to actually do some thing with the war? how is it the different groups of people chose, if they chose, the side they were going to pull for in this. does anyone want to take that thorny question? >> at least when it comes to europe, something i can speak to. money talks. for a lot of these wealthy financiers they wanted to hedge their bets. they're taking a look and seeing how the war is playing out. many folks in london are deeply tied into that cotton connection, as i already mentioned. so they aren't really necessarily excited about the prospect of certainly a unification, maintaining the union, but openly supporting on the part of the british government. it's telling, at the end of the war, all the stories coming out, southerners supporting british members of parliament, other kind of well-heeled folks, supporting the south. it kind of gets into, by similar token, you can talk about the financial connection in france. and so, the confederacy is actually successful in floating a loan in europe, through a french bank. the united states doesn't do that. they sell loans abroad, but never have a loan directly through a bank in europe. it's looked at in a different light, when you realize the daughter of the banker is marrying john slidell, the confederate ambassador. so i have to feel he's doing his daughter and future son-in-law perhaps a future favor. the same day he floats the loan, he buys the exact same amount in union debt. >> playing both sides. >> you have a lot of folks who are playing both sides. i like to point to them as a classic example. there's a lot of hemming and hawing, and of course, we don't have a transatlantic cable. it existed prior to the war, but is out of commission at the time of the war. so best case scenario, looking at three weeks for news to come over. it becomes very problematic, wondering what is going on and how that is impacting prospects, and in turn how governments may consider or not consider recognizing the confederacy, or providing full support to the united states government. >> it is such a great question. the way the question has traditionally been taught, to emphasize the importance of the slavery question. generally we teach that. because the union was anti-slavery, great britain, france, other european powers, were not going to get involved on behalf of the confederacy because their populations were opposed to slavery. but recently, david emphasized, we have been asking, is that really true? did these governments respond to public opinion in that way? was the slavery issue coloring their judgments? first and foremost, we have to say that great britain and france, the two powers most likely that could have made a military impact on the war, simply did not want to back a loser. they were not going to get involved and make a decision to recognize the confederacy or support the confederacy, unless they were convinced the confederacy would win. because if they back the confederacy, and the confederacy loses, they have an enraged united states on their hands with the capability to threaten canada, the caribbean. so that's a debate we are still having, the tension between self interest of nations and the humanitarian question of slavery. >> i can answer the question about the foreign powers at work in the civil war in a slightly different way. one thing many people living in the united states recognized, or thought or believed at least, was that the institutions, traditions and ideas of the united states were incapable of fighting or ending slavery where it already existed. that's in fact a debatable question, but that is certainly how every president had interpreted it up to that point, including president abraham lincoln. there are two populations that are very interesting who drew on foreign powers, although they were not necessarily engaged with governments. the first, enslaved people themselves. not necessarily black abolitionists, but people whose words are preserved for example in the interviews in the 1930's by the works progress administration. they had been fighting against slavery long before 1861, but they certainly continued and expanded their fight after 1861. and one of the ways the, the non-us ways that african descent could think about politics and -- the fear of moses was interpreted through many sources as a african political leader and user of magic who was able to emancipate his people and lead them out of bondage. there were a lot of african-american political traditions by enslaved people, less prominent african-american antislavery activists, who relied on a form of magic called conjure to fight slavery, to inspire people to fight slavery, and more broadly having a concept of history that was not just endless generations of slavery in the united states, but african liberation. the other group, european american, particularly german-american communists, who said what is not important is private property, but what is important is democracy. unlike the conception of the united states, democracy and private property are antithetical, so that's fight for democracy and not worry about constitutional niceties. let's worry about international democracy. those were very rooted in the united states, but not in the political institutions of the united states at the time. >> you guys want to jump in? >> ok. well, what do we gain from studying the international contacts we are talking about? is this basically just adding on to the traditional story, the narrative account that we have of the civil war? is this, are we just broadening the scope, but basically the same processes that are in play that determine the cause and the course and outcome of the war, they are still the same? or, does thinking about it from these different perspectives fundamentally change the narrative we typically have a what the civil war was about? >> i don't think, we might disagree on this one, but it is important, crucial to shift that framework a little bit. if anything, when we talk about internationalizing the war in the past, it has been from that diplomatic angle, and very anglo-american focused, certainly very eurocentric. but it is very important, when you start to drill down into different communities throughout the world, really, and how they are interpreting this war. and they are very knowledgeable about this war. i don't say, ignore the diplomats and just talk about bankers. but if you look at the role of ministers in parts of europe, for instance, talking about the war. sometimes these are americans going over to talk about the war, from various faith backgrounds. and sometimes you look at workers' meetings in the german states, and the fact that they are in the middle of the war actively talking about it, and talking about conceptions of what free labor really means, and how that might be applied in their own personal lives. i think it provides a greater sense of kind of the stakes of this war, and that folks literally all around the world are talking about this. you know, i have been reading accounts from parts of japan, china, australia, talking about the war. it's obviously delayed, the news they are getting, but something they are vitally interested in. because i think they recognize what is at stake, and because of that i think they are deeply engaged. and if we talk about that in a fuller sense, that we are really providing a greater framework for understanding the war more broadly. >> i agree. i think we gain a more realistic, rich understanding of the war looking at these international stories. americans at the time were very well-informed on foreign affairs. if you look at newspapers from the era, the front pages are dominated by foreign news. americans knew what was going on in their village, but not necessarily what was going on in europe, so they consumed news to find out about that. the 1850's was the decade with the highest percentage of foreign-born people in the united states in our history. so many of the soldiers who fought in the war, some of the politicians who debated the war, were born elsewhere. they had their understandings about how the world worked, about politics, other contexts. since we're in gettysburg, i will point out a theory, a man from the german states found himself in charge of the 11th corps, which in civil war history has been maligned, a joke. unlucky enough to be right in the face of stonewall jackson, in chancellorsville, and routed again not far from the campus here on the first day at gettysburg. but he's a very interesting story. he was a german revolutionary in 1848, who joined revolutions because he wanted to create a representative government in germany. maybe not quite a communist, but some others were. he was interested in civil liberties, workers rights, antislavery, which is why he backed lincoln and the union cause. the reason lincoln appointed some of these generals, who were not successful on the battlefield but politically were very important. and a couple others to point out. on july 6, a cuban born union soldier, federico fernandez cabada, was captured in a peach orchard. he survived captivity, and died in the late 1860's, early 1870's when he went to cuba after serving in the civil war to join an insurrection against spain, hoping to bring representative government and freedom to the slaves in cuba. so another interesting global story. there were also foreign-born on the confederate side. the 14th, 15th louisiana regiments, on day two, called the polish brigade. not because they were mostly polish, but because they were recruited by a polish revolutionary who fought for the independence of poland and saw the confederate cause as analogous. so a lot of stories you could get into. >> thank you for bringing them up. they are interesting types. they tell us a lot about the role of german-american radicals in the civil war. we should say, there were german-americans who fought on the confederate side, too. german-american public opinion was broad. but they had particular political backgrounds. he really was a socialist, in the 1840's and afterwards, and made a real political career in the united states, and afterwards is remembered because he was so successful as a republican politician and the socialist parts have dropped out a little, and he isn't as well remembered. he wasn't as radical as the communist league, but he was also anticapitalist. as a republican politician, the socialist part has struck out a little bit and is not as well remembered. he is not as well remembered as the communist league, but he was anti-capitalist. sigel was very anti-capital. he deliberately disobeyed the orders in missouri after fremont was deployed. radicals for prohibiting union units from enslaving, assisting with emancipation, add he refused to do that and was quite -- and he refused to do that and was quite successful in the battlefield in missouri. one of the things that is interesting, and you can see this if you look at the official record of the battle of wilson's creek, he was actually quite successful, and after he takes over, he was not concerned about the configuration of the united states. in terms of the broader, how does this change the united states, one way it is important to further assess is to not give up the model of the u.s. and the world, because that gives up the idea of a discrete u.s. what i'm finding in my research, and a lot of other scholars, not just the u.s., the u.s. is in the world as much as the world is in the u.s. and working on the history of the civil war, i am finding that it changes the way we understand the military history, because many historians have noticed the war, as is often said, the war was won in the west, the mississippi valley, west of the appalachian mountains, and in the east, there was a strategic stalemate and also political stalemate. i think developing the revolutionary strategy against slavery was something that was hampered in the east by their adherence to u.s. institutions, including, i would say, benjamin butler's contraband drop, in which he really meant contraband. he was widely criticized in the radical press, german and american radical press, for calling people contraband, that is, seized property. you have enslaved people fighting inside union units, and union units working very closely with enslaved people that i think they did not do in the east, and i think that helps explain the way the war was fought in the way the union won. prof. thomson: guys, another great example that i like to come back to, looking at this immigrant population, the community is that come into here. one person i like to spend time on his august belmont. he was from outside of frankfurt. he works for the rothschild family, comes to the united states in 1837. he is s