^Repf4nifrom the 
 
 it :■ 
 
 YEAR-BOOK 
 
 t 
 
 OF THE 
 
 GERMAN AMERICAN HISTORICAL 
 SOCIETY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 Vol. XII 
 
 i'' 
 
 A POLITICAL PROPHECY OF THE FORTY- 
 EIGHTERS IN AMERICA 
 
' ^ /><; , ^ ^^.\^ y .- rx ^‘V^- jj/. ..>;/'> ‘V ^ ' *'Vi>!*^^** 
 
 :::v:i«:;;i»|g|f|ji 
 
 ',U." '■- 
 
 -;• ■ ' ^ •■-.•. ’ ‘'S’' ji-.. ::i-‘'y, '•> / •;u‘- 
 
 . , ■^^-' ' ^ ”■ 
 - - " . p."' 'i ' V- - -' --‘^ ; f 
 
 •'. A-’ r.NVf'. :(^■\ 
 
 /' ■-■'X ,,. ■■'^ :/.t •«■-, ■ •.. i.;. •> ,.; 'Y^.'^,^ 
 
 'v * c. 
 
 ‘ ,7. ■ •<> . V- - - ' --‘^ , .“A . f j- ‘-•^,/ i 
 
 ‘ >'■, ’ ■', A •'’^'/i 
 
 ■ ,.■" ~ •fr';‘'r,^’<- 
 
 V A ' A- ' '. -• ' r? ' * , 
 
 " ■ ‘ A, ' - , \-^V'; 
 
 ' s/ ^'■ 
 
 •' A'.' . • " -. ■ 'A- >-V V- A-:i 
 
 K < 
 
 ' 1 ; A'A 
 
 'n' ' -’-i’ 
 
 • 'r 
 
 A’ 7 ,Cv'A-:'A^i 
 -.. >.A;:X':::,:-r :7 .:;’g# 
 
 A X'X777’V A;'A=,?^ 
 
 ’ V. <' ' V v; ' aPH 
 
 7 . 7 '^ • a' ,' ' i ‘ A. ■ ?^VXv.. 
 
 ‘■' ■/■■■A -' . ■ /'■ , -.: 
 
 ■'^ 'V' .V ■ m 
 
 '■7 ■'. .;■■;■ x;-'- 
 • ' .’"--.V ■' 7 
 
 
 ";v' 
 
 i,' ', - ^"'a' r'TA^;/ 7 y<H 
 
 :V'-p 
 
 '' ’X . V>>Av7>,v 
 
 .A < aI ’X 
 
/ 
 
 A POLITICAL PROPHECY OF THE FORTY-EIGHTERS 
 IN AMERICA 
 
 By Julius Goebel, Jr., University op Illinois 
 
 I. 
 
 ^ Political prophecy is a term which occurs not infrequently 
 
 in the historical literature of Germany, where it has a dis¬ 
 tinct meaning. While, in English, the word prophecy still 
 seems to be confined chiefly to the religious sphere where it 
 originated, in Germany it is applied also to the highest inter¬ 
 est of a people, namely its national destiny. 
 
 A political prophecy of this kind, I venture to call The 
 Neiv Rome, by Charles Goepp and Theodor Poesche, pub¬ 
 lished in 1853, of which this paper is to treat. It was thru 
 this book that the American people, as contemporary reviews 
 show, for the first time should become aware of the great in¬ 
 fluence which national prophets may exert, not only upon the 
 intellectual and moral life of a great nation, but also upon its 
 political ideals. 
 
 The question naturally arises here as to what the real na¬ 
 ture of prophecy is, when freed of its biblical connotation. 
 Rudolph Hildebrand, the eminent German philologist, in a 
 paper entitled Prophezeiungen defines it as follows: 
 
 giebt iit afieii meufc^Iid)en SSerljartniffen, bte al§ 
 in Qrbeitenber 33en:)egung finb, einen ^unft ober eine Sinie, too 
 bte eigentlid^e treibenbe ^raft tuol^nt, unb trifft man in gliicflid^er 
 ©tnnbe mit feinem S^enfen unb 3iil)Ien in biefen ^5nnft, fo fann 
 ' man ben nocf) nid^t gegebenen gortgong ber 33en)egung be§ @Qn= 
 
 > sen im borauS fel^en, fomeit nidjt dufeere, unberec^enbare 0tdrun» 
 
 ^ gen il^n ^emmen; man fiel^t bie Cinie entlang, bte noc^ nicf)t ba 
 
 ift unb bocf) in ben 31ert)dltniffen fc^on mit gegeben. biefem 
 ©inne mirb benn and) nod^ tdglid) firofitieseifi im fleinen mie im 
 grofeen Ceben.'' ^ 
 
 It is for this reason that we often speak of poets as proph¬ 
 ets. A glance at the history of Germany will show, moreover, 
 
 * Hildebrand, Tagebuchblatter, p. 218. 
 
 / 7 ^ 
 
 / // 
 
 „ y- 
 
 1 
 
that in times of great national disaster or crises there arise 
 men who, even more than the poets, fulfill the mission of na¬ 
 tional prophets. At such times of national calamity, men like 
 Fichte will step forth and will give solace by looking out be¬ 
 yond the present vicissitudes into the future. Thru four 
 hundred years of German history, and even earlier, we meet 
 with men of the prophet type proclaiming national unity, 
 national regeneration and final w'orld dominion of Germany. 
 In the earliest times these prophecies crystalized about the per¬ 
 son of single heroes, such as Frederick Barbarossa. The Ger¬ 
 man people had felt that with his death the glory of the empire 
 was past, and certain folk legends grew up concerning the 
 mountain Kyffhauser, where he was pictured as sleeping un¬ 
 til the time was ripe for him to return and restore the pristine 
 glory of the empire. These local legends gradually spread 
 until in the beginning of the fifteenth century they had be¬ 
 come national traditions. The Friedrichsage lived until the 
 time of the Franco-Prussian war, and its influence upon 
 German leaders not only of the Middle Ages, but also of mod¬ 
 ern times can easily be discerned. 
 
 Another hero in whom the national hopes and aspirations 
 of the German people became embodied was Arminius. Again 
 and again we find him the subject of German epics and dra¬ 
 mas, the most notable of which was Kleist’s Hermannschlacht. 
 It is with the coming of Goethe and Schiller, and still later 
 of Fichte, that national prophecy assumes its loftiest char¬ 
 acter in Germany. Goethe’s Epimenides and Schiller’s Wil¬ 
 helm Tell are proof how these poets who had striven so long 
 for the intellectual supremacy of their country also realized 
 the full significance of the national political movement. And 
 it was by his inspiring Reden an die Deutsche Nation, that 
 Fichte aroused his people to shake off the shackles of the 
 tyrant Napoleon. 
 
 I have already said that these national prophets promise 
 not only national unity and regeneration, but also the forma¬ 
 tion of a new and more powerful world empire. We find that 
 prophecies of this sort originate during and after the decline 
 of the Holy Roman Empire. They are very significant in that 
 
they show how deeply rooted was the conception of a great and 
 all-embracing world federation. It is known how this phantom 
 of an empire, rivalling that of ancient Rome, held the medie¬ 
 val world with an almost uncanny fascination. To this illu¬ 
 sion was due in no small degree the unhappy fate of Ger¬ 
 many for so many centuries. 
 
 A most remarkable prophecy of a future German world 
 empire differing from the old Holy Roman Empire appears e. 
 g. as early as 1669, in a chapter of the book Der Abenteuerli- 
 cJie SimpUcissimus, by Christoph von Grimmelshausen.^ In 
 this tale, a half-witted fellow who imagines himself to be the 
 God Jupiter, gives expression to some very lofty and noble 
 ideas. He proposes in his capacity of a god to bring into exist¬ 
 ence a German hero who shall go forth and subdue the evil and 
 help the good. England, Sweden, and Denmark, Spain, France, 
 and Portugal will all come under the dominion of this hero 
 (the incarnation perhaps, of Frederick Barbarossa) and 
 through a parliament of the wise men of these countries he 
 will ameliorate the conditions of the poor by abolishing all 
 taxes. Absolute equality and freedom of religion will char¬ 
 acterize his kingdom. Such in brief is the outline of the 
 world empire of the half-witted fool. 
 
 During the eighteenth century which marks the lowest ebb 
 of national patriotism in German political history, we find 
 the idea of a future political empire almost forgotten. In 
 its stead arise the conceptions of German intellectual supre¬ 
 macy and of a cosmopolitanism independent of state. It is 
 very interesting to note that, while this latter conception takes 
 a firm hold upon continental Europe; in England it is of prac¬ 
 tically no infiuence.^ 
 
 Strange as it may seem, it is in France where the idea of 
 cosmopolitanism first originates and takes a strong hold upon 
 the intellectual life. From France the idea spread to Ger- 
 
 ' Grimmelshausen, Der Abenteuerliche Simplicissimus (Neudrucke 
 deutscher Literaturwerke, v. 26), Bk. Ill, c. 4 & 5, p. 209 et sq. 
 
 ^ This is but natural, for in a firmly established state with a pro¬ 
 nounced sense of nationality, such as England, the vague political ideas 
 of cosmopolitanism could find little favor. 
 
many where it was heartily welcomed by that politically dis¬ 
 organized country. The spread of this idea and its influence 
 in Europe is easily explained by the fact that French influ¬ 
 ence and culture were dominant in the intellectual world as 
 well as in political spheres. With the passing of the eigh¬ 
 teenth century the original conception of cosmopolitanism is 
 gradually forgotten, on account of the revolution in France. 
 From this time forth until the time of Napoleon Ill’s coup 
 d’etat in 1852, France comes to be regarded as the leader of 
 republicanism, a republicanism, to be sure, which to a certain 
 extent, is cosmopolitan in character. France becomes now a 
 haven of' refuge for the political exiles not only of Ger¬ 
 many, but also of Italy and Poland. The July revolution in 
 1830 immediately caused the republicans in Germany and 
 Italy to break forth in open rebellion. A similar effect was 
 produced by the Revolution of 1848. 
 
 After the quelling of this latter rebellion in Germany, hun¬ 
 dreds of its leaders and their followers, fllled with republican 
 aspirations and subconscious reminiscences of former prophe¬ 
 cies of a future world dominion, emigrated to France and 
 Switzerland, where they seemed to And for a short time the 
 realization of their hopes of a republic. 
 
 With the rise of Napoleon III it soon became evident to 
 the refugees that their presence in France and even in Switz¬ 
 erland was not desired. In many cases they were summarily 
 ordered to depart.^ The coup d’etat in December, 1851, ab¬ 
 solutely shattered their hopes of a cosmopolitan republic in 
 Europe. Although a great many of the exiles turned to 
 England, yet the majority, and especially the radicals among 
 them, decided to emigrate to the United States, which, in 
 their opinion, was the only remaining republic in the world. 
 Hopes of making Germany a republic were dashed to the 
 ground. It is only in the light of their republican ideas that 
 we can rightly judge the seemingly traitorous propaganda 
 against Germany carried on by the Radicals in this country 
 and as it found expression in The Neiv Rome. To most of 
 
 ^ Rattermann, Article on C. Esselen, contained in this volume. 
 
 4 
 
the forty-eighters the German Nationalstaat ^ meant a dem¬ 
 ocratic state more or less after the pattern of the French 
 republic, and to realize their ideal, they believed themselves 
 justified in using every possible means. 
 
 II. 
 
 We have seen in the above, the many and various influen¬ 
 ces which helped to shape the intellectual development and 
 the political thinking of the German liberals and how these 
 forces culminated in the successive revolutions of 1821, 1830, 
 and 1848, when thousands of patriotic men forced into exile, 
 sacrificed their homes and their future for the sake of their 
 political ideals. Let us now consider the nature of the move¬ 
 ment of the forty-eighters in America, and the men who led it. 
 
 The emigration of the German political refugees to Ameri¬ 
 ca began in the twenties of the nineteenth century, when the 
 persecution of the demagogues which followed the Carlsbad 
 Decrees drove a number of promising and highly intelligent 
 men to this country. The most conspicuous of these men was 
 Karl Follen,^ who later became one of the principal leaders 
 of the Abolitionists. On the whole, however, the exodus of 
 the political refugees in the twenties was insignificant com¬ 
 pared with the emigration which set in after 1830, following 
 the various disturbances and revolutions in Europe of that 
 year. Thousands of German citizens came to the United 
 States during this period. The majority of them hailed 
 from the principalities along the Rhine, such as Nassau and 
 Hessen, and many of them settled in the newly opened lands 
 of Missouri and western Illinois.^ But the great tide of im¬ 
 migration was still to come. 
 
 It was the Revolution of 1848 that brought literally hun¬ 
 dreds of thousands of immigrants to this country, among 
 whom there were men of the highest intellectual and social 
 position. In contrast, however, to the immigrants from France, 
 Italy and Hungary, who were for the most part aristocrats, the 
 
 ^Meinecke, Weltburgertum und Nationalstaat, p. 17. 
 
 ^ Kapp, Aus und liber Araerika, v. I, p. 309. 
 
 8 Ibid. 
 
 5 
 
German settlers were democratic in character as was the entire 
 political movement which had carried them to this country. 
 
 The German is by no means clannish, and whatever recog¬ 
 nition he wins, he may ascribe to individual effort. The forty- 
 eighters had an especially difficult task in winning recogni¬ 
 tion in the United States and their troubles were increased by 
 the fact that many of their countrymen who had settled in 
 America previous to them did not sympathize either with 
 their ideals or their political aspirations. Consequently there 
 arose between the two groups a great bitterness especially in 
 political matters.^ The earlier immigrants immediately dubbed 
 the newcomers ‘‘Greenhorns,” a term which was shortened to 
 ‘ ‘ Greens, ’ ’ while the latter retorted by calling their opponents 
 the “Grays,” as expressive of what they believed to be their 
 musty and antiquated ideas. 
 
 In order to understand fully the feeling of antagonism 
 between these opposing parties, it is necessary to consider 
 briefly the doctrines and ideals of the forty-eighters. The 
 typical forty-eighter was at the same time a radical and an 
 idealist. Unable to carry out his revolutionary propaganda 
 in Europe, upon his arrival in America, he transferred his pro¬ 
 gram bodily to this country. America, from the beginning of 
 the eighteenth century had been glorifled in Germany as the 
 land of freedom, and nothing could equal the disappointment 
 of the refugee upon flnding that this land of the free fostered 
 one of the most abominable of human institutions. The fire 
 of his wrath he now turned from the European despots to the 
 American slave-holder. At the same time he keenly felt the 
 necessity of a national regeneration if the American republic 
 was to be saved from destruction.^ Thousands of exiles who 
 otherwise would have wasted their energies or come to ruin in 
 this country became useful and influential citizens by finding 
 a field for their activities in the abolition movement.^ 
 
 ^ Koerner, Memoirs, v. I, p. 549. 
 
 “ Heinzen, Teutscher Radikalismus in Amerika, Neue Folge, v. 2, 
 p. 638, also Kaufmann, Die Deutschen im Amerikanischen Biirgerkriege, 
 p. 104. 
 
 ® Kapp, Aus nnd iiber Amerika, v. I, p. 312. 
 
 6 
 
No better example of this can be found than Karl Heinzen, 
 the eminent Boston journalist and political thinker. Heinzen 
 had been one of the foremost leaders of the revolutionary 
 movement in Germany. Although exiled he had returned from 
 New York to take part in the uprising in Baden. After the 
 failure of this rebellion he fled again to New York and en¬ 
 tered upon various journalistic ventures, during which he took 
 a prominent part in politics. He finally settled in Boston 
 and edited Ber Pionier, the famous periodical, in which he 
 gave utterance to his political program. It is interesting to 
 note that this program differs but little from the radical pro¬ 
 gram which he had previously advanced as a leader of the 
 revolutionary party in Germany.^ A comparison of these 
 two programs may not be out of place as it will aid us in ob¬ 
 taining a better insight into the real nature of the movement. 
 
 Program of the German 
 Revolutionary Party ^ 
 
 1. Germany to be an in¬ 
 divisible union. 
 
 2. Administration to be by 
 the people themselves through 
 a single chamber of deputies, 
 and a ministry dependent on 
 the majority in the house. 
 
 3. Common and direct 
 franchise to all, with excep¬ 
 tion of prisoners and inmates 
 of insane asylums. 
 
 4. Freedom of speech, 
 press, teaching and assembly. 
 
 5. Abolition of the stand- 
 
 Program of the Radicals 
 IN THE United States ^ 
 
 1. Total abolition of the 
 presidency and of the office 
 of state governor, and of the 
 system of two houses; and the 
 conversion of the federative 
 republic into a republic one 
 and indivisible. 
 
 2. Representatives subject 
 to recall by their constituents 
 at any time.^ 
 
 ^ Friedrich Hassaurek had a still more radical and anarchistic pro¬ 
 gram. 
 
 ^ Heinzen, Teiitscher Radikalismus in Amerika, Neue Folge, v. 2, 
 p. 638. 
 
 ® I have taken this from Koerner, Memoirs, v\ I, p. 566. I have 
 amended certain passages where Koerner’s English was too unidiomatic. 
 
 * Compare this with the present recall which we have in several states. 
 
 7 
 
ing army and the establish¬ 
 ment of a militia system. 
 
 6. Guaranty of jury trial 
 in both civil and criminal 
 cases. 
 
 7. Administrative appoint¬ 
 ments to be confirmed by the 
 chamber of deputies. 
 
 8. Intervention of Ger¬ 
 many in favor of republican 
 governments. The establish¬ 
 ment of a congress of peoples 
 and of a European tribunal in 
 place of the existing diplo¬ 
 matic system.^ 
 
 9. Abolition of feudalism 
 and feudal dues.^ 
 
 10. (Deals with the regu¬ 
 lation of taxes). 
 
 11. Ownership of land to 
 be regulated by the state. 
 
 12. Those incapable of lab¬ 
 oring shall be assisted, and 
 work secured for those who 
 are able to work. 
 
 13. Establishment of a 
 general public school system. 
 
 14. Establishment of a free 
 postal system. 
 
 15. The state shall provide 
 for free places of amusement 
 and recreation for the people. 
 
 16. Emancipation of 
 women. 
 
 3. Abolition of the policy 
 of neutrality. The United 
 States to intervene against 
 intervention as practiced in 
 Europe. Instant abolition of 
 slavery. 
 
 4. All lands to be free and 
 the poor settler to be assisted 
 by the state. 
 
 5. No man to own more 
 land than the state allows. 
 
 6. In all German schools, 
 German teachers to be em¬ 
 ployed. 
 
 7. Establishment of a Ger¬ 
 man university at the expense 
 of the government. 
 
 ^ Compare this with the present peace movement and the Hague 
 Tribunal. 
 
 ^ There were still relics of feudalism in Germany at this time in 
 the form of tithes, “Frondienst,” etc. 
 
 8 
 
8. Abolition of penitentia¬ 
 ries. They shall be trans¬ 
 formed into houses of reform. 
 
 9. The government shall 
 own all railroads. The rail¬ 
 road to the Pacific shall be 
 built at the cost of the state. 
 
 10. No official position to 
 be allowed persons dependent 
 on the Pope. 
 
 In a certain sense, this program of Heinzen’s may be 
 called prophetic,—and, while at that time it may have seemed 
 visionary and even ridiculous,^ nevertheless, many of the 
 reforms proposed have since been carried out or are at 
 present being advocated by such men as W. J. Bryan and 
 Theodore Roosevelt. Heinzen, like many another reformer, 
 was some fifty years in advance of his contemporaries. 
 
 It was inevitable that men like Heinzen who had played 
 so prominent a role in European polities, should exercise a 
 powerful influence upon the political attitude of their coun¬ 
 trymen in America. Yet, in spite of their patriotic activity, 
 they were at first not only underestimated as a group, but 
 their individual efforts were seldom recognized. Adhering 
 too rigidly to their principles and hence despising the com¬ 
 mon American practice of compromise, it was impossible for 
 them to be popular with the practical politicians of their 
 time.^ In addition to this fact they were convinced that the 
 unscrupulousness and corruption of American political life 
 was bound to undermine the very foundations of the re¬ 
 public, and they strove against this with might and main. 
 Up to this time the German immigration had attached itself 
 almost exclusively to the Democratic party,'^ and even as late 
 
 ^ I have omitted certain sections which bore no relation whatever to 
 the American program of the radicals. 
 
 ^ Koerner, Memoirs, v. I, p. 566. 
 
 ® Kapp, Alls und iiber Amerika, v. I, p. 314. 
 
 * Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the United 
 States, V. V, p. 159. 
 
 17. Abolition of the penal 
 system and of capital punish¬ 
 ment. 
 
 18. Absolute freedom of 
 religion. Church property to 
 revert to the state.^ 
 
 9 
 
as 1850 it was considered a sort of heresy not to belong to 
 it. Nevertheless, the Germans occupied an almost despicable 
 position in this party. In fact, they were universally known 
 as ‘‘voting cattle.”^ Nothing but the poorest offices, such as 
 remote consulates, or post-offices, were given them, and in 
 every respect their relation to the political leaders was that 
 of servant to master. Even the German press in this coun¬ 
 try was on the side of the political bosses, and looked up to 
 them with a sort of reverential awe. Imagine the effect of 
 the merciless criticism, the result of the high ethical stand¬ 
 ards, which Heinzen and Esselen in their journals and pub¬ 
 lications directed against these political conditions and their 
 advocates, the unscrupulous and corrupt politicians. Little 
 wonder that the reformers met with tremendous opposition 
 ‘not only among the older generation of their countrymen but 
 also among the American politicians who soon came to feel 
 the force of the new ideals. 
 
 American materialism and German idealism were now 
 brought into direct and sharp conflict. To be sure, in the 
 end, German idealism was to triumph, but the bitterness of 
 feeling on the part of the American politicians found its 
 expression in the notorious Know Nothing movement, one 
 of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of American 
 politics. 
 
 The Know Nothing Party, also known as the Nativist and 
 as the American Party, made its first appearance in the year 
 1854, although it had come into existence some time previous. 
 Its first victory was won in Salem, Massachusetts in January, 
 1854, when a candidate who had not been publicly nominated 
 was elected. Similar occurrences took place in rapid succes¬ 
 sion in other and larger cities. For a long time the origin 
 and creed of this conspiracy against the foreigner were un¬ 
 known,^ and the great parties found themselves confronted by 
 a secret and mysterious . foe which they had to combat. The 
 
 ^ Kapp, Aus und iiber Amerika, v. I, p. 317. 
 
 ^Woodburn, Political Parties and Party Problems in the United 
 States, p. 84 says that their motto was the words attributed to Wash¬ 
 ington: “Put none but Americans on guard tonight.” 
 
 10 
 
one clew to the purpose of their activities was that their poli¬ 
 cy was clearly nativistic, anti-Irish in the North especially in 
 New York, and anti-German in the South and West. Two 
 parts of their program were particularly significant: public 
 offices should be filled by native Americans only, and naturali¬ 
 zation should be allowed only after four yefirs of residence in 
 this country.^ The programs of the German radicals were 
 seized upon with avidity by the Know Nothings, and, as Von 
 Holst expresses it, were used as heavy artillery in their war¬ 
 fare.^ In December, 1854, Senator Adams of Mississippi, 
 brought forward a bill to amend the naturalization laws so that 
 naturalization would be granted only after twenty-one years 
 residence in this country.^ This bill, although it was never 
 passed, indicated that while the movement in the North was 
 directed chiefiy against the Irish and the Catholics, and to a 
 certain extent was inspired by patriotic motives, the nativists 
 in the South saw in the Germans an antislavery element too 
 dangerous to be tolerated. 
 
 The Know Nothing Party was of short duration, for once 
 its secret was out its decline was rapid. Its members in¬ 
 spired fear only as long as they fought invisibly.^ A move¬ 
 ment of this sort in the face of the overwhelming number of 
 immigrants and citizens of foreign descent was doomed to 
 failure. Its champions could not point to a time when this 
 country began to be purely American and ceased to be Eu¬ 
 ropean to a certain extent, or when it had ever been anything 
 but a republic of immigrants.® The national victory of the 
 Know Nothings might easily have meant the fall of this re¬ 
 public. The direction of the movement against the Germans 
 was another evidence, moreover, of the ignorance of its lead- 
 
 ^ Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the United 
 States, vol. V, p. 81. 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. 188. 
 
 ® Congressional Globe, Second Session, Thirty-third Congress, p. 24. 
 
 * Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the United 
 States, V. V, p. 187. 
 
 ^Heinzen, Teutscher Radikalismus in Amerika, Neue Folge, v. 1, 
 p. 55. 
 
 11 
 
ers concerning the historical achievements and the cultural 
 influence of the German element in this country^ 
 
 In order to arrive at a just estimate of the movement 
 against the Germans of 1848, we must remember also that the 
 better classes of Americans had not really learned to know the 
 true character of the German refugees. Their knowledge was 
 confined to the uneducated type of immigrants and even these - 
 
 they did not take the trouble to know thoroughly. Many ^ 
 
 Americans had forgotten the fact that the social and educa¬ 
 tional status of their immigrant forefathers had been no bet¬ 
 ter than that of many poor Germans. That the educated 
 German refugees were not known better to the Americans 
 was however to a large extent their own fault.^ They had no 
 wish to be Americanized, and in their minds their coming to 
 this country was nothing but a short sojourn until events had 
 shaped themselves for their final return to Germany. It was 
 not until the Know Nothing movement had played itself out, 
 and the Republican Party had begun to assume a more im¬ 
 portant role in the politics of this country, that the German 
 radicals found themselves, so to speak, and for the first time 
 began to exert a practical influence in national politics. At 
 the convention of the Republican Party in Philadelphia in 
 1856 the forty-eighters joined the party en masse,^ and the 
 various elements which had, until this time, been passing 
 their time in ceaseless bickerings, were at last united in one 
 common cause. The election in 1860 found practically the 
 whole German population on the side of the Republicans, and 
 in the opinion of the leading forty-eighters it was chiefly € 
 
 through the efforts of the Germans that the election was final¬ 
 ly decided in favor of the Republican cause.^ It is not to be 
 supposed that this transition from German revolutionists in 
 temporary exile to practical American politicians, was an 
 
 ^ The most vicious excrescence of this movement was the so-called 
 “rowdies.” 
 
 ^ Heinzen, Teutscher Radikalismus in Amerika, Neiie Folge, v. 
 
 I, p. 159. 
 
 ^ Kapp, Aus iind iiber Amerika, v. I, p. 318. 
 
 * Kapp, Aus und iiber Amerika, v. I, p. 318. 
 
 12 
 
easy or a rapid one. It was, perhaps, in 1854, that it first 
 began to dawn upon the exiles that they were here to stay 
 and must accordingly adjust themselves to the new condi¬ 
 tions. How much it was to their credit, and what supreme 
 evidence it was of their moral and intellectual power that they 
 were able to win for themselves an independent position, and 
 to understand American life as well as they did! But, dur¬ 
 ing these years, German radicalism had been rife, and in 
 September, 1852, had reached its height at the Congress of 
 Wheeling.^ The New Rome was the written expression of 
 the doctrines propounded at this convention. 
 
 The radical elements among the German immigrants set 
 themselves to the task of organizing an association of the 
 liberally minded element, in order to bring it under one 
 head. With this end in view, they held yearly assemblies in 
 one or the other of the great cities, to which came delegates 
 from all the various radical and progressive organizations.^ 
 At these Congresses there was scarcely any reform or theory 
 which was not propounded, and no burning question which 
 was not very completely discussed.^ To be sure there was 
 much brought forward that was extremely impracticable, but 
 many proposals and resolutions uttered here for the first time, 
 later found a place on the platform of the great political par¬ 
 ties.^ Everyone was allowed to express his ideas freely, and 
 no matter how extreme or how fantastic, they would all re¬ 
 ceive consideration. Men like Heinzen, Goepp, Hassaurek, 
 and Theodor Kaufmann took a prominent part in these con¬ 
 ventions. It was at a meeting in Cleveland, that Heinzen 
 gave utterance to his famous statement that the President of 
 the United States was nothing less than a king in a dress 
 suit.® 
 
 ^ Kapp, Aus und iiber Amerika, v. I, p. 319. Also Kaufmann, Die 
 Deutschen im Amerikanischen Biirgerkriege, p. 110. 
 
 ^ Klauprecht, Deutsche Chronik in cler Geschichte des Ohio-Thales, 
 p. 187. 
 
 ® Mueller, Aus den Erinnerungen eines Achtundvierzigers, p. 204. 
 
 * Ibid, p. 205. 
 
 ® Heinzen, Teutscher Radikalismus in Amerika, Neue Folge, v. I, 
 p. 307 et sq. 
 
 13 
 
At one of these assemblies, held in Philadelphia, we have 
 the first inkling of a plan such as was later outlined at the 
 Wheeling Congress. Professor Gottfried Kinkel, of Ger¬ 
 man revolutionary fame, had been sent to this country by the 
 German revolutionary committee in London, for the purpose 
 of collecting money from the German-Americans to aid in 
 the founding of a republic in Germany. He achieved a cer¬ 
 tain amount of success, which caused the anti-Kinkel,faction 
 in the revolutionary party to send to this country for a sim¬ 
 ilar purpose, a certain exile from Baden, Amand Gogg by 
 name.^ He proposed to revolutionize Germany not so much 
 with the aid of funds collected in this country as by the or¬ 
 ganization of immigrant associations who were to accomplish 
 the desired result by the intellectual emancipation of the 
 masses. In other words he dreamed of an inner rather than 
 an outer revolution.^ But, as funds were desirable in any 
 ease, he founded the German Revolutionary League, in Phil¬ 
 adelphia, immediately upon his arrival in America. The 
 chief purpose of this league was, of course, the intellectual 
 emancipation of which I have already spoken. An equally 
 important consideration was the collection of American gold 
 to aid in the dethronement of European tyrants. At the 
 meeting in Philadelphia, the following resolution was pre¬ 
 sented : 
 
 ‘ ‘ That in the opinion of the present congress, every people 
 upon throwing off the yoke of its tyrants ought to demand 
 admission into the league of states free, that is, into the Amer¬ 
 ican Union; so that these states may become the nucleus of 
 the political organization of the human family and the start¬ 
 ing of the World’s Republic.” ® 
 
 This resolution was enthusiastically supported by a few of 
 the more radical delegates, but the Congress as a whole, al¬ 
 though coinciding with these views, believed that the adop¬ 
 tion of the resolution would be injudicious. In spite of the 
 support which Gogg received from many, the majority of 
 
 ^Der Deutsche Pionier, v. VII, p. 118. 
 
 2 Ibid, V. VIII, p. 91. 
 
 ® Poesche and Goepp, The New Rome, p. 99. 
 
 14 
 
the refugees were opposed to the undertaking, for they clearly 
 saw, that to secure help for Germany from America was im¬ 
 possible.^ In addition to this, it may be added, that Gbgg 
 had a much less pleasing personality than Kinkel, and that he 
 was no such persuasive orator. Financial aid, therefore, did 
 not come to him as easily as it had come to Kinkel. It was to 
 stimulate interest in this project that another meeting was 
 called at Wheeling, Virginia, in September, 1852. 
 
 This assembly met on the sixteenth of the month and was 
 attended by some sixteen delegates, representatives of 1,112 
 revolutionary societies, chiefly of the northern states. The 
 spirit of the Congress of Wheeling may best be illustrated by 
 the following extract from the address of Charles Goepp one 
 of the chief speakers of the meeting: ^ 
 
 “We demand the extension of American freedom. A free¬ 
 dom which can be victorious without the aid of American 
 gold or the sacriflce of American lives. Just as Greece had 
 her Trojan war which transformed her from a state of fisher¬ 
 men to a glorious light of civilization, just as the Crusades 
 roused western Europe from the darkness of the middle ages, 
 so America, thanks to the god of war, will, in all probability, 
 have her Iliad, and her Crusades to win for her a place among 
 nations as the center of humanity. A war to extend our in¬ 
 stitutions is not a war of conquest; for, in as much as the 
 spirit of our government is the principle of self government, 
 or rather of non-government, its expansion does not neces¬ 
 sitate the introduction of violence, but rather the abolition of 
 the latter. It is the purpose of our government to restore the 
 sovereignty of the individual by striking off the shackles 
 against which he has striven in vain. 
 
 “The American continent divides the ocean as Italy the 
 Mediterranean, and just as ancient Rome overlooked the cir¬ 
 cle of lands which skirted that inland sea, so the United 
 States shall overlook the whole of the world. The universal 
 empire of the future belongs to them. An empire not of 
 
 ^ Heinzen, Teutscher Radikalismus in Amerika, Neue Folge, v. I, 
 p. 65. 
 
 ^Der Deutsche Pionier, v. VIII, p. 96. 
 
 15 
 
conquest and of subjugation, not of inheritance, not of in¬ 
 ternational frictions and hatreds, but of fraternity, of equal¬ 
 ity and of freedom. We implore it to fulfill its destiny and 
 out of many worlds create a single one. ’ ’ 
 
 This peaceful and at the same time grandly conceived so¬ 
 lution of the conflict between the old and the new world which 
 Goepp proposed, was at first received with astonishment by 
 the delegates. Astonishment changed to admiration, and en¬ 
 thusiasm ran high. Goepp’s speech was embodied into a pro- 
 nunciamento apprising the American people of the resolu¬ 
 tion of the Wheeling Congress to annex the world, and was 
 translated into many languages.^ Meetings were arranged 
 for in various cities and the title of The People’s League 
 of the Old and the New World was adopted and universal 
 annexation was decided upon as the program of the league.^ 
 At the time of the adoption of this resolution, it was ac¬ 
 cepted more or less humarously by a part of the German pop¬ 
 ulation, particularly the ‘‘Grays,” whereas the Americans 
 regarded it as simply an expression of opinion of several 
 cranks.® With the published appearance of these principles 
 in The New Borne, with its scholarly background, the derision 
 abated, and men began to see that after all, the idea was not 
 as fantastic as it had appeared upon first sight. Nor were 
 these ideas by any means new, as was generally supposed at 
 this time; for they had been given utterance only recently 
 by Giuseppe Mazzini, the Italian patriot, in connection Avith 
 his ideas concerning Young Italy, which crystallized about 
 the conception of a world republic. Mazzini tells us about 
 these ideas in his autobiography as follows: ^ 
 
 “At that time, (about 1830), even the immature concep- 
 
 ^ Der Deutsche Pionier, v. VIII, p. 93, also Mueller, Aus den Er- 
 innerungen eines Achtundvierzigers, p. 207. 
 
 ^ Poesche and Goepp, The New Rome, p. 100. 
 
 ® Kaufmann, Die Deutschen im Amerikanischen Biirgerkriege, p. 105. 
 ^Mazzini, Joseph Mazzini, His Life Writings, and Political Prin¬ 
 ciples, (Ed. Garrison) p. 30 et seq. Mazzini was at this time confined 
 in the prison at Savona, on account of his close connection with the 
 Italian Carbonari. It was here that his first thoughts of Young Italy 
 came to him. 
 
 16 
 
tion (of Young Italy) inspired me with a mighty hope that 
 flashed,before my spirit like a star. I saw regenerated Italy 
 becoming with one bound the missionary of a religion of pro¬ 
 gress and fraternity far greater and vaster than that she 
 gave to humanity in the past. 
 
 “The worship of Rome was a part of my being. The 
 great Unity, the One Life of the world had twice been elabor¬ 
 ated within her walls. Other peoples, their brief mission ful¬ 
 filled, disappeared forever. To none save her had it been 
 given twice to guide and direct the world. There, life was 
 eternal, death unknown. There, the Rome of the Republic, 
 concluded by the Caesars, had arisen to consign the former 
 world to oblivion, and borne her eagles over the known world, 
 carrying with them the idea of right, the source of liberty. 
 In later days she had again arisen,.... and at once constitu¬ 
 ted herself... .the accepted center of a New Unity, elevat¬ 
 ing the law from earth to heaven, and substituting to the 
 idea of right, an idea of duty, a duty common to all men, 
 and, therefore, the source of their equality. Why should 
 not a New Rome, the Rome of the Italian people, portents of 
 whose coming I deemed I saw—arise to create a third and 
 still vaster unity; to link together and harmonize earth and 
 heaven, right and duty; and utter not to individuals but to 
 peoples the great word Association—to make known to free 
 men and equals their mission here below.” 
 
 Many of the European exiles and the German radicals, 
 as, for instance Christian Esselen,^ had come in contact with 
 Mazzini in Switzerland and heard his theories. Karl Hein- 
 zen met him later in London and became intimately ac¬ 
 quainted with him. It is possible that Theodor Poesche, one 
 of the authors of The New Homey may also have been influ¬ 
 enced by him. At any rate, the German reformers, ready to 
 accept a similar program, saw in America a much better cen- 
 
 * Rattermann, Article on C. Esselen. 
 
 17 
 
ter for such an activity than was offered by the Rome of 
 Mazzinid 
 
 III. 
 
 Before proceeding with an analysis of the principles and 
 doctrines contained in The New Rome, a few words concern¬ 
 ing the authors may be in place.^ 
 
 Charles Goepp was born September 4, 1827, at Gnadenfeld 
 in Silesia, where his father taught in the seminary of the 
 Moravians. He received his first schooling at Herrenhut in 
 Saxony to which his parents had moved in 1833. In 1834, 
 however, they emigrated to the United States, remained for a 
 short time in New York, and soon after moved to Bethlehem, 
 Pennsylvania, where, the elder Goepp was for a long time 
 supervisor of the estates of the Moravian church. 
 
 From 1837 on, Charles Goepp attended a private school, 
 and in 1841-2 he entered the theological preparatory school 
 of the Moravians. In pursuance of his father’s wishes, he next 
 matriculated in the Moravian Seminary of Niesky in the Lau- 
 sitz, but in spite of the excellence of the instruction, the iron 
 discipline was irksome, and two years later he returned to 
 Pennsylvania. From this time on, he devoted himself to the 
 study of Law, in Easton, Pennsylvania, and in the year 1848 
 entered actively into national politics, supporting the Free 
 Soil candidates. In 1850, he entered into partnership with 
 Joseph Minor and opened law offices in Philadelphia, but the 
 untimely death of his partner two years later, brought this 
 successful venture to a sudden close. 
 
 Goepp took a very live interest in the activities of the 
 forty-eighters and was one of the leaders of the radicals at 
 the Wheeling Congress. Like the other German reformers 
 he joined the Republican Party, and was a zealous adherent 
 of Fremont in 1856 and of Lincoln in 1860. After the out¬ 
 break of the Civil War, Goepp entered the field as lieutenant 
 of the Easton “Jager,” and was later promoted to Captain 
 ^ It is difficult to say exactly how close were the relations between 
 the German refugees and the great Italian patriot. But the evidence of 
 the influence of Mazzini’s ideals upon these men would lead us to con¬ 
 clude that they were considerable. 
 
 ^ For the facts of Goepp’s life I am indebted to Koerner, Das Deut¬ 
 sche Element, p. 121 et seq. 
 
and adjutant of the Ninth Pennsylvania volunteers. After 
 three months of service he returned to private life and con¬ 
 tinued his law work in partnership with his brother Max. 
 In 1863 he joined Friedrich Kapp in his law offices at New 
 York and practiced there until Kapp returned to Germany 
 in 1869. After the death of his wife, in 1870, Goepp traveled 
 for some time in Europe, and following his return he was 
 elected judge of the Marine Court of New York, a position 
 which he very ably filled. 
 
 Goepp was in every respect an able and influential man, 
 and his knowledge of both German and English placed him in 
 a position to know and understand both peoples as few at that 
 time were able to know them. His efforts in behalf of the 
 forty-eighters were especially commendable. In addition to 
 The New Rome Goepp was the author of a work on parlia¬ 
 mentary practice and the translator of numerous German 
 works. 
 
 Theodor Poesche,^ the co-author of The New Rome, was 
 born in the tovm of Zoeschen in Saxony, March 23, 1826. His 
 father was a teacher and had destined his son for the minis¬ 
 try. Poesehe accordingly attended the Gymnasium and later 
 the University of Halle. Coming under the influence of the 
 distinguished Professor Arnold Ruge, he was interested in 
 the political movements of the time and actually became the 
 leader of the one day revolt in Halle which was nipped in the 
 bud by the arrival of the regular cavalry. Poesehe was forced 
 to flee to South Germany whence he emigrated to England, 
 his presence having been discovered. In England, he joined 
 for a time the colony of revolutionists in London where his 
 friend Ruge was and where he doubtlessly met the celebrated 
 Mazzini. 
 
 In 1852 Poesehe sailed for New York and after several un¬ 
 successful attempts to secure employment, obtained a posi¬ 
 tion as teacher in a Philadelphia school. It was here that he 
 met his future wife, the daughter of the celebrated revolu- 
 
 am indebted to Mr. Paul J. Pelz of Washington, D. C. for these 
 facts of Poesche’s life. Mr. Pelz worked up the biography from Poesche’s 
 papers. On account of its intrinsic value I have appended it to the pres¬ 
 ent article. 
 
 19 
 
tionist Eduard Pelz. He was married in 1854, and four years 
 later moved to St. Louis to become the Head Master of a pri¬ 
 vate school there. 
 
 The outbreak of the Civil War necessitated the dissolution 
 of the school and Poesche returned to Philadelphia. Shortly 
 afterwards he was appointed statistician in the newly or¬ 
 ganized Internal Revenue Bureau, which office he filled with 
 distinction until the Democratic administration of Cleveland 
 brought his activity in this department to a close. So great 
 and distinguished was Poesche’s service in this Bureau, that 
 on the special request of the German ambassador, he was sent 
 by the government to Germany to confer with Prince Bis¬ 
 marck on statistical matters. Later Poesche was appointed 
 statistician on the Census Bureau. Poesche died on Decem¬ 
 ber 27, 1899. His great life work was a study of the Aryans, 
 entitled, Die Arier, which appeared 1878. 
 
 During the years of the revolution and the great immigra¬ 
 tion to America, Goepp followed developments in Europe 
 with great eagerness, especially Heinzen’s agitation in Ger¬ 
 many, and the efforts of the Hungarians to obtain their lib¬ 
 erty. The revolutionary movements in Europe inspired him 
 with the idea of making America the center, so to speak, of 
 new revolutions and not alone an asylum for exiles. There 
 should be a republic of peoples, and America was to be the 
 hub of the universe. He set forth these views in a little pam¬ 
 phlet, E Pluribus TJnum, and later expressed the same doc¬ 
 trines at the Wheeling Congress in 1852, as we have already 
 seen. At the Congress of Philadelphia, he became acquainted 
 with Poesche and with his book Das Neue Bom. This work 
 had been written in 1850, but, unfortunately, the manuscript 
 had fallen into the hands of the German police and could not 
 be published. 
 
 Shortly after the Congress of Philadelphia, Poesche and 
 Goepp decided to combine their books into one, and early in 
 November, 1852, the work was completed. The first draft of 
 the book was written by Poesche in German. It was then 
 translated into English by Goepp. The first part of the book, 
 which deals with the political phases of the question, was 
 
largely the work of Poesche, whereas the second division, on 
 social organization, was chiefly the result of Goepp’s thought. 
 
 The New Borne opens with several pertinent arguments 
 as to just why America should be regarded as the center of a 
 world republic, equalling, and at the same time surpassing 
 the ancient empire of Rome. The fact that the United States 
 is in a position to own the whole continent and has command 
 of two oceans, gives her an immense advantage over any other 
 country. According to our two authors, the first step which 
 the United States must take toward the acquisition of a world 
 dominion are to be the annexation of Cuba and Haiti. These 
 island states, at all times turbulent, were constantly requir¬ 
 ing intervention on the part of the United States, and the 
 unsuccessful revolution in Cuba in 1851, led by Lopez,^ the 
 sole purpose of which was to annex Cuba to the United 
 States, seemed to strengthen the general desire that Cuba 
 should be a part of this country. For all practical purposes 
 the prophecy of the two Germans in regard to this island has 
 been verified. 
 
 The proposal of our authors of annexing Canada does 
 not seem at all strange to us who are familiar with the much 
 quoted statement of Speaker Champ Clark. Even at that 
 time reciprocity parties were at work in Canada. The United 
 States at that time refused reciprocity, and Mr. Mackenzie, 
 the Canadian statesman, explained this refusal by the fact 
 that our government desired annexation.^ 
 
 The easy victory of the United States over Mexico, and 
 the acquisition of California, seemed to point the way to fur¬ 
 ther territorial expansion in Central America. Then, as now, 
 the population of these countries was of a low order of civi¬ 
 lization and extremely illiterate, but in contrast to present 
 conditions the inhabitants were at that time anxious for 
 American government, and even offered the control of the gov¬ 
 ernment to General Winfield Scott, as he himself tells us in a 
 speech made at Sandusky.^ As the two authors express it, a 
 
 ^ Koerner, Memoirs, v. I, p. 568. 
 
 ^ Poesche and Goepp, The New Rome, p. 13, footnote. 
 
 3 Ibid, p. 18. 
 
 21 
 
mere prominciamento would have effected the union which, 
 they predict, it will take another war to accomplish. The 
 annexation of the Isthmus, of Hawaii and the settlement of 
 the valley of the Amazon, complete the program to which the 
 United States were to apply themselves in the opinion of our 
 authors. Two of these projects have recently been carried 
 out, while the third still remains to be accomplished. 
 
 While this external expansion is going on the authors pre- ^ 
 
 diet no less an increase within the United States itself. At 
 that time the immigration was as numerous as it was excellent 
 in quality, and the growth of the native population, was equal- ^ 
 
 ly great. Poesche and Goepp could not foresee, however, the 
 effect of the civil war upon our population; nor could they 
 anticipate the adjustment of affairs in Germany and France, 
 which cut off our immigration from these sources, the cheeks 
 upon the Chinese immigration and, lastly, race-suicide, all of 
 which have since been instrumental in hindering the rapid 
 growth of the nation. 
 
 The New Rome points out,^ that the chief problems of 
 this predicted rapid growth of the United States will be the 
 formation of a national character. This character will be de¬ 
 termined by the character of the immigration to this coun¬ 
 try. The preponderance of the steadier and better educated 
 Germans will in a large measure be decisive; the Romanic in¬ 
 fluence, exerting itself almost exclusively in matters of taste, 
 cannot wield the power of the Teutonic element, and, accord¬ 
 ingly, must remain passive. The Slavonic element is con¬ 
 sidered of lesser importance in the development of our na- 
 tional character. 
 
 In the problem presented by the amalgamation of the var¬ 
 ious races the negro loomed up at that time as the most alarm¬ 
 ing element. It must be remembered, that the negroes -were # 
 
 then still enslaved, but The New Rome predicts their emanci¬ 
 pation in the near future.^ This does, of course, not mean the 
 final solution of the problem, and the authors cannot be said 
 to have found a particularly good one. Neither transporta- 
 
 ^ Poesche and Goepp, The New Rome, p. 56. 
 
 * Ibid, p. 57. 
 
 22 
 
tion, nor extermination are considered by them worthy of con¬ 
 sideration. The crossing of black females with white males 
 is suggested by them as the best solution of the problem, for, 
 by this process, the black females are improved without taint 
 to the white race. The scheme is, of course, entirely imprac¬ 
 ticable, for it does not provide for the black males. Never¬ 
 theless, however absurd or impossible it may seem, to this day 
 no better solution to the question has been proposed, and it 
 still confronts us, though for obvious reasons with far less 
 actual force than in the ante bellum days. 
 
 The authors next raise the question whether the people 
 will be satisfied with simply uniting the various peoples on 
 one continent, and whether the unity of all the races will not 
 ‘‘call for a unity of the state.” ^ “Will not the emigrants,” 
 they ask, “who have found under these institutions the goal 
 of their hopes, which they vainly sought at home, determine to 
 extend the shadow of these institutions so as to enable them to 
 return to the lands of their birth and re-establish their social 
 and industrial connections there without resigning the poli¬ 
 tical advantages once secured? Will not their former com¬ 
 patriots determine to share these privileges, without paying 
 for them the price of expatriation?” In the opinion of the 
 authors political freedom and national wealth go hand in 
 hand. Where there is power in the few the many cannot but 
 suffer. Wealth is the offspring of trade. All that is neces¬ 
 sary is to make political sovereigns of the European serfs, and 
 the result will be that our trade with them will be as active 
 as that among the Americans is. But if the welfare (i. e. the 
 acquisition of wealth) of Americans and Europeans is the 
 standard of right and justice, then it is the right of both or 
 either to demand perfect freedom of mutual trade. Freedom 
 of trade requires free government. “The people will never 
 stop short of a mutual guaranty of republican governments, 
 but republican government is only the insurance of the sov¬ 
 ereignty of the individual, and that is the root and core of the 
 American institutions of 1776 and 1787. The American Un¬ 
 ion must infederate into its political pale all the countries 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. 59. 
 
 23 
 
with which it is brought into social contact. The American 
 Constitution is the political expression of the present phase of 
 human development; it must be coexistent and coextensive 
 with that which it expresses. ’ ’ ^ 
 
 The authors are fully aware that their proposition of 
 having the United States “infederate” the countries with 
 which they trade ‘‘is as yet everywhere received with hor¬ 
 ror or with derision.” Strangely enough they believe that 
 the objection to their Utopian plan proceeds chiefly from what 
 they consider a mistaken idea of nationality, which they call 
 “a remnant of Europeanism which is yet imbedded in the 
 American mind.” Nothing will show better the fallacy of 
 the philosophy of cosmopolitanism and its lack of historical 
 appreciation than the method by which the authors proceed to 
 “eradicate” the conception of nationality. 
 
 Man’s impulse, they argue, is always flght, his afterthought 
 friendship. Hence the beginnings of human intercourse con¬ 
 sisted in flghting. The individual skirmishes continued un¬ 
 til some particularly stalwart rowdy, by the terror of his 
 prowess induced two or three others to combine against him. 
 This was the origin of tribes which, of course, fought among 
 each other as the individuals did. From the chiefs of the 
 tribes arose the kings. The latter soon required a capital, a 
 stronghold for themselves and a gathering place for their 
 immediate followers. Together with cities language devel¬ 
 oped. For “not until men began to build cities, had their 
 contrivances for the exchange of thought attained that degree 
 of uniformity which entitled them to the name of language. ’ ’ - 
 
 Community of language is the well-spring of nationality. 
 “The patriotism of nationality is found to arise in every 
 instance, exactly when a flxed and matured language becomes 
 the medium and the element of a flxed nationality^. In the 
 middle ages we have none of it. The empire of Charlemagne 
 knev/ nothing of France, Germany, Italy, or Spain; the dis¬ 
 tinctions were then only between ‘Christendom and Heathen¬ 
 ess.’ ” 
 
 ^ Poesche and Goepp, The New Rome, p. 62. 
 
 ^ Poesche and Goepp, The New Rome, p. 64 et sq. 
 
 24 
 
‘‘In so far as the growth of nations/’ they continue, “was 
 the growth of an understanding between people of the same 
 tongue to unite for mutual defence and assistance, it was an 
 advance in the motions of humanity. But, just as isolated 
 individuals gradually became aware of each other’s existence, 
 so these fictitious individuals, the nations, were necessarily 
 brought into contact with each other. The result in both cases 
 was the same. They fought until they learned to talk to¬ 
 gether. ’ ’ ^ 
 
 America, however, in the opinion of our authors, occu¬ 
 pies a distinctly different position. Nations, they tell us, are 
 unions based upon community of speech. This the Americans 
 have renounced in favor of a union based on a unity of 
 thought. “Thus,” they assert, “fell nationality and arose 
 the republic. The native Americans partly have been forced 
 to doff the European part of their title; and they have done 
 wisely. It is the duty of the American party to combat all 
 European traditions which are incompatible with American¬ 
 ism; above all, that of nationality. To vindicate individual¬ 
 ism against nationality, is the office of America. That is, at 
 the same time, the whole force and scope of the revolution; 
 — thus, the revolution which arose in and with America, must 
 for ever return to it; and America, which began in revolution, 
 must live in it and end with it. When the dominion of na¬ 
 tionality is crushed, and the sovereignty of the individual is 
 attained, everywhere and everyhow, the missions of revolu¬ 
 tions and of America will both be accomplished.” ^ 
 
 “Our ‘form of government,’ ” they continue, “miscalled 
 from a fallacious use of European terms, is a system of non¬ 
 government, of the absence of all dictation; and the imposi¬ 
 tion of non-government is a contradiction in terms. We do 
 not propose to force the Cubans to expell their Captain- 
 General, but to prevent the Captain-General from forcing the 
 Cubans to retain him. We do not compel the Japanese to 
 trade with us, but the Japanese government to abstain from 
 preventing the intercourse of the Japanese with us, if they 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. 67 et sq. 
 
 “ Ibid, p. 71. 
 
 25 
 
think proper to open it. We go behind nationalities to find 
 the people. This is the head and front of our offending; this 
 is what will give to the American Revolution the empire of 
 the world. ’ ’ ^ 
 
 The arguments here advanced show how little the authors 
 knew about the historical origin of language and its intimate 
 relation with the make-up of national character. Their dream 
 of a new Rome seems to have carried with it the illusion of a 
 uniform language, such as Latin was during the time of the 
 Roman Empire and the early middle ages; but they forget 
 that the despotic attempt of imposing a uniform language, 
 uniform laws and customs upon the various conquered na¬ 
 tionalities was one of the chief causes which brought about 
 the fall of the Roman Empire. “A republic of thought” in 
 which neither nationality nor community of speech, the very 
 essence of nationality, have a place, is a philosophical abstrac¬ 
 tion born from the systems of Hegel and Feuerbach, of 
 which our authors seem to have had a taste. The extreme in¬ 
 dividualism which the authors preach as constituting the his¬ 
 torical mission of America, is certainly a form of non-gov¬ 
 ernment, which, strange to say, is at present again being ad¬ 
 vocated by certain lawless elements or “interests” in our 
 country. 
 
 England, with her immense possessions is presented by 
 Poesche and Goepp as the first power to be annexed under 
 their plan of a world republic. The English at that time 
 had no intention of permanently keeping their colonies. Aus¬ 
 tralia, in particular, appeared as a ready object of annexa¬ 
 tion in view of the fact that its population was at that time 
 preponderatingly American. This period of American su¬ 
 premacy on the island has long since ceased and the proposal 
 of Poesche and Goepp would today be impossible. 
 
 England herself, it is pointed out is diminishing in power 
 and the United States are rapidly superceding her. Two facts, 
 the very serious decrease in the British population, and the 
 bad financial condition of that country, call for reform, and 
 the only effective remedy which our authors see is annexa- 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. 74. 
 
 26 
 
tion. India and Africa are to be included, and they are to 
 be won over through the aid of the American traders and 
 consuls. American influence was strong in these countries as 
 well as in Australia, and as it was before the union of Great 
 Britain with India, Poesche and Goepp saw an opportunity 
 for American intervention which was not unjustiflable.^ 
 
 Next to England, Germany appears to our authors as the 
 most important country for the Americans. The social and 
 political turmoil of that country called for some immediate 
 remedy. The hope of another revolution had already passed, 
 in as much as the leaders and all the prominent agitators had 
 been exiled. The German immigration and the revolutionary 
 leaders in London were all desirous of seeing intervention 
 by the United States, but intervention alone did not satisfy 
 Poesche and Goepp. Annexation was to them the sole pana¬ 
 cea, for only in annexation to the United States did they see a 
 positive guarantee of republicanism. The other Teutonic 
 countries, Holland, Switzerland and Scandinavia are to be an¬ 
 nexed at the same time. 
 
 Russia and the whole of the Slav nationality appear to 
 our authors as the great rivals of the United States in their 
 project. This empire, corrupt, and decayed to the very core, 
 is held together by the Czar, in whom both the religious and 
 the monarchical elements are combined. The United States, 
 by its activities in the Pacific, is already attacking them in 
 the rear, and the process of Germanization thru which Rus¬ 
 sia is passing will prove a great aid toward its final annexa¬ 
 tion; but the greatest struggle of all time will take place be¬ 
 tween these two competing nations, in which the United 
 States is expected to issue victorious. 
 
 Strangely enough, the significance of the control of the 
 Mongolian races is not appreciated by the authors, yet, the 
 present trend of events would indicate that the key to the 
 control of the Pacific rests with these peoples. Conditions 
 in China are pointed out as favorable for a proposal of annex¬ 
 ation and republican government. At present, the Chinese 
 
 ^ Poesche and Goepp, The New Rome, p. 94. 
 
 27 
 
have attained the latter, but the former proposal they would 
 never tolerate. 
 
 The absorption of the Romanic races by the United States 
 of the World is also deemed inevitable. These races have 
 long held the suzerainty of Europe, and France, in 1852, ap¬ 
 peared as the most powerful obstacle in the way of the world 
 republic, with the sole exception of Russia. Time and again 
 Germanic victory has settled the question between Teutonic 
 and Romanic supremacy, and thus it will be in this case; the 
 Anglo-Germanic World Empire will overwhelm the Gallic rule. 
 
 Having finally disposed of the question of annexation, the 
 authors proceed to discuss the social organization of the new 
 state, and trace existing tendencies in their historic develop¬ 
 ment. Poesche and Goepp see in the American tariff system 
 the greatest danger to the expansion of the state not only 
 externally, but -also internally.^ To them it is at once un- 
 American, in denying “vivifying capacity to business,” and 
 at the same time is a restraint upon the freedom of the in¬ 
 dividual and what seemed worst of all to them, a preservative 
 of nationality. As long as distribution remains normally 
 active, the tariff is successful, but no sooner do we have over¬ 
 production, a natural phenomenon under this system, than 
 there follows panic. This, our authors assert, will continue 
 until there is a settlement between capital and labor.^ On 
 the whole, these financial crises have proved to be invigorat¬ 
 ing to business, and have invariably been follow^ed by an im¬ 
 proved system of intercourse which in turn serves to pre¬ 
 vent panics. 
 
 There follow here a series of very remarkable prophecies 
 which have either been fulfilled or are on the point of so be¬ 
 ing. Universal steam navigation, complete telegraph and 
 cable systems which will unite the countries and thus do 
 away with nationality, are predicted. On the heels of such 
 complete intercourse will follow free trade, and after unfet¬ 
 tered commerce, will come universal annexation. Such an 
 event will necessitate better means of communication, and 
 
 ^ Poesche and Goepp, The New Rome, p. 134. 
 
 »Ibid, p. 139. 
 
 28 
 
the conquest of the air seems to offer the best solution to this 
 problem/ How this idea must have been scoffed at in the 
 fifties, we can well imagine, but today we have men like Zeppe¬ 
 lin and Wright who are bringing it to fulfillment. 
 
 Poesche and Goepp, like the rest of the German reformers, 
 had a goodly streak of modern socialism in their intellectual 
 makeup, and they give evidence of it in several doctrines 
 which they propose. They very earnestly advocate the aboli¬ 
 tion of feudal tenure, which they contend is the existing 
 system in this country, and the substitution of pure allodial 
 tenure.^ Patent rights are to be abolished as being un-dem- 
 cratic, as is imprisonment for debt and the whole system of 
 collecting debts. This latter reform was achieved long ago, 
 but the surrender of patent rights by the American would 
 scarcely be seriously considered by the typical American. 
 
 Thruout the entire discussion runs the thought that com¬ 
 mercial intercourse is to be the great equalizer and pathfinder 
 for annexation, and by means of it the World Republic will 
 be made possible. The moral obstacles to the scheme of 
 Poesche and Goepp will give way before improved means of 
 intercourse, and the last political obstacles will be removed 
 when the political preponderance of capital over labor is 
 abrogated and the sovereignty of the individual is consum¬ 
 mated.^ 
 
 IV. 
 
 Sixty years have elapsed since the doctrines of The New 
 Rome were first advanced at the Congress of Wheeling, and 
 •it is only by means of the perspective thus gained that we can 
 come to a true conclusion concerning the real value of the 
 schemes so ingeniously propounded. How little the opinions 
 of contemporaries are to be esteemed in political prophecies, 
 we have already seen from the case of the program of Karl 
 Heinzen, whose proposals were condemned by the politicians 
 of his day as wild and impossible of realization, but whose 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. 141 et sq. 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. 160 et sq. 
 
 ®Ibid, p. 171. 
 
 29 
 
projected reforms are now almost universally being adopted. 
 Thus, in judging the value of The New Rome, we must take 
 into consideration not only the influence which it may have 
 exerted at the time, but also the extent to which its prophe¬ 
 cies have, been verified. 
 
 It is indeed difficult to ascertain the meaning of this work 
 for the Germans of this country. Suffice it that, although the 
 ‘‘Grays’^ saluted it with a considerable amount of scorn, the 
 forty-eighters, impregnated as they were with the same gen¬ 
 eral thoughts of the book, saw mirrored in it the expression of 
 their own political ideals. 
 
 As far as the realization of the prophecies of the two Ger¬ 
 mans is concerned, we find ourselves face to face with what is 
 apparently an interesting paradox. We have on the one hand 
 many of the details of the prophecies of Poesche and Goepp 
 fulfilled, but we find on the other hand that the real underlying 
 principle of the book, and the very principle which gives the 
 work an exceptional value, has been overlooked in this coun¬ 
 try for over half a century. At the same time, however, we 
 notice that it is at present being adopted by the chief re¬ 
 formers of English imperialism, the leaders of the home 
 rule movement in the Great Britain. For it is they who advo¬ 
 cate the principle of an empire which is at the same time a 
 democracy. And it is this concept, and not merely the gen¬ 
 eral imperialistic idea of The New Rome, which distinguishes 
 the program of Poesche and Goepp from the so-called “Anglo- 
 Saxon Imperialism,” which is, in the last analysis, simply an 
 organized system of exploitation of conquered territory. This 
 has been the fundamental policy of the colonial expansion 
 not only of Great Britain, but also of the United States. Let 
 us briefly examine the essential features of this policy. 
 
 The English imperialistic idea, as we know it now, was 
 first expressed by Carlyle, in the year 1843, when he advanced 
 the doctrine that a more civilized and a more powerful nation 
 has the right to oppress a weaker people, and that if the in¬ 
 habitants of a country are unable to secure food and work, it 
 is the duty of the fatherland to obtain such for them, even 
 
 30 
 
by force, in other parts of the earth.^ But, as he points out 
 in Chartism^ such a proceeding must be beneficial not only 
 to the conquerors, but also to the conquered, if it is to be 
 permanent.^ The problem of overpopulation is to be solved 
 by a well regulated immigration. He also dreams of making 
 London the center of his future commonwealth, just as My- 
 cale was the center of the Ionic movement in ancient Greece. 
 
 This doctrine of Carlyle’s was for a long time disregarded, 
 economic questions at that time occupying the British peo¬ 
 ple almost exclusively. Indeed the prosperity of a colony 
 was then considered as a sign of its approaching independ¬ 
 ence, and no effort was made to retain such prosperous col¬ 
 onies.^ During this period Canada was very active in work¬ 
 ing for its independence. With the rise of Lord Beacons- 
 field, however, English colonial politics began to assume an 
 entirely different aspect. An imperial tariff, a military law, 
 and a representative assembly in the capital were parts of the 
 program which he endeavored to carry thru. In spite of the 
 fact that his policy was clearly opposed to colonial freedom, 
 he was greatly honored in the colonies, and for the first time 
 the British imperial policy was placed on a firm basis. See¬ 
 ley, who, in 1883, wrote on the expansion of England, was 
 especially in favor of the assembly of representatives, for, 
 as he said, the history of England is no longer the history of 
 Parliament in Westminster, but is the history of the whole 
 empire, and a system must be established to hold together the 
 loose ends of the vast dominion. The future of England does 
 not depend on India, according to him, but on the union of 
 the English speaking colonies.^ 
 
 The policy of Rhodes, the great imperialist, is too well 
 known to require much discussion; suffice it to say that under 
 his guidance, England reached the height of her imperial 
 development. English influence was extended in South Africa, 
 and the Boer war of 1900, which finally settled the question 
 
 ^ Die Grenzboten, vol. LVIII, p. 16. 
 
 ^Carlyle, Chartism, p. 332. 
 
 ®Die Grenzboten, vol. LVIII, p. 18. 
 
 *Die Grenzboten, vol. LVIII, p. 22. 
 
 31 
 
of British hegemony in this region may be considered the 
 direct consequence of his policies. The English imperial 
 policy, is, as I have said before, in the last analysis, a policy 
 of ruling and exploiting conquered territory. The exponents 
 of this form of imperialism have, of course, surrounded it 
 with a certain mystic and almost religious halo, to serve as a 
 cloak for certain questionable practices under this policy; 
 and the average Englishman, like the Hebrew prophet of 
 old, believes the English race to be the chosen of God to pro¬ 
 pagate the gospel of “freedom, justice and peace” by means 
 of its imperial policy. As one writer expresses it, “There 
 is but one rule, and Cecil Rhodes is its prophet. ’ ’ ^ 
 
 England has always looked with alarm upon the colonial 
 growth of other nations, and the territorial expansion of the 
 United States in 1898 caused the English the gravest con¬ 
 cern. It is not our intention here to enter into a lengthy 
 discussion of the American imperialistic policy, but simply 
 to indicate the present tendencies. After the close of the 
 Spanish-American war, the American nation found itself for 
 the first time facing the problem of whether they should con¬ 
 tinue their former policies or discard them and adopt the 
 principles so successfully carried out by Great Britain. The 
 latter course was chosen, and then arose the new and difficult 
 problem as to what was to be the status of these newly ac¬ 
 quired lands. It scarcely seemed feasible to put these coun¬ 
 tries inhabited by a heterogeneous population of natives and 
 Spaniards on the same political footing as the states or even 
 the territories of the union, and it was inevitable that the 
 United States should finally break away from the principles 
 of political equality which had ruled its policies for over a 
 century. The result was as anticipated. In the first case 
 which came up before the Supreme Court, which was the final 
 arbiter of the question, that of De Lima v. Bidwell,^ it was 
 ruled that upon the cession of Porto Rico to the United 
 States, the island became a part of the United States, and that 
 no duties could be levied until there was legislation to that 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. 198. 
 
 >182 U. S. 1; 1901. 
 
 32 
 
effect. The next case, of Downes v. Bidwell ^ the court held 
 that Congress could impose discriminating duties upon Porto 
 Rico as it was not a part of the United States within the 
 meaning of the revenue clauses of the constitution of the 
 United States. The newly acquired territories were not to 
 be considered as territories in the generally accepted sense, 
 but as conquered territory in the possession of the United 
 States themselves. 
 
 Thus we find that the United States have adopted the 
 Anglo-Saxon imperialistic policy of exploitation and the 
 splendid future of a world republic extending its blessings 
 to all nations, which Poesche and Goepp had dreamed for this 
 country seems more remote and Utopian than ever. As we 
 have already seen, the two forty-eighters had conceived an 
 empire of sovereign states, with a general congress such as 
 actually exists in the United States. But in no wise did their 
 political program even hint at a policy such as the Anglo- 
 Saxon principle of exploitation. The rulings of the Su¬ 
 preme Court seem to have precluded the possibility of our 
 nation ever assuming the role which Poesche and Goepp had 
 hoped it was destined for, lest the people should, after all, 
 realize their error and provide legislation which will turn our 
 future development in the right direction. 
 
 How long it will be before the American people do this, 
 it is difficult to say. Certain reformers in Great Britian, on 
 the other hand, have gradually been formulating, during the 
 last decade, a program in many ways not dissimilar to that of 
 Poesche and Goepp. The keynote of this proposed new 
 policy is the formation of a parliament for the English speak¬ 
 ing peoples of the empire. It is a noteworthy fact that they 
 do not include tlm huge bulk of subjects who are of other 
 nationalities. This policy, already advocated by Gladstone 
 and Seeley in the earliest home rule agitations has again been 
 forcibly expressed in the recent home rule bill introduced into 
 Parliament on April 13, 1912. The English advocates of this 
 program see in it the sole salvation of the empire and the one 
 
 n82 U. S. 284; 1901. 
 
 33 
 
remedy to prevent the gradual disintegration of their vast 
 imperium.^ 
 
 In conclusion we may say that The New Borne is not only 
 a document of the intense political idealism of the forty- 
 eighters, but also the expression of their mistaken philosophy 
 of abstract cosmopolitanism. No project was too grand for 
 their consideration, or too expansive. But we must not for¬ 
 get that this document was written before Bismarck had 
 taught his countrymen the lesson of realism in politics. The 
 German, as Poesche and Goepp themselves point out, was, 
 at that time, essentially universal in his thoughts and feel¬ 
 ings. Suppressed by tyrannical princelings and cast down by 
 the long political disruption of his country, he was obliged 
 to satisfy himself by dreaming of Utopias, grand in concep¬ 
 tion, but, unfortunately, difficult of attainment. Nevertheless, 
 it is well to remember, that Utopias, both social and political, 
 have had a great influence upon the development of human 
 affairs. What today may appear to be an ideal picture, im¬ 
 possible of realization, may tomorrow be an actual fact. The 
 New Rome is such a Utopia, and the last of its kind. It 
 marks a turning point in the history of the forty-eighters 
 who soon afterward broke away from their dreams of a world 
 republic and entered upon a new period of practical activity 
 in this country. For, in spite of the mistaken idealism in 
 which The New Rome was written, and in spite of the mis¬ 
 taken conception of nationality, which we may name as the 
 fundamental fallacy of the work, the lofty principle to which 
 The New Rome gives utterance, namely that of a democratic 
 imperium, will live as an ideal toward which we must unceas¬ 
 ingly strive. To be sure, it is the application of this princi¬ 
 ple to smaller and more restricted spheres which will give 
 
 ^ The New Rome is not only to be considered as a forerunner of 
 present day imperialism, but also in many respects as a prophecy of the 
 peace movement which is at present interesting to many of the leaders 
 in political and intellectual life. The union of the world within one 
 harmonious federation, and the abolition of national distinction according 
 to The New Rome was calculated to do away with international bicker¬ 
 ings, and to abolish war by abolishing its cause. Moreover, the federa¬ 
 tion of the world was not to be effected by blood and iron, but solely by 
 peaceful methods. 
 
 34 
 
this ideal of Poesche and Goepp’s a lasting value. The United 
 States by adopting this principle in its territorial expansion 
 may thereby avoid the error of Great Britain. If present 
 day tendencies are any indication, it would seem that imper¬ 
 ial democracy will succeed the essentially vicious principles 
 of Roman Imperialism, and the hopes of Poesche and Goepp 
 may at some future day to a certain extent still be realized. 
 
 Appendix 
 
 Theodor Poesche von Paul J. Pelz 
 
 ^tl^eobor $oefd)e tvmhe am 23. 9[)?dr3 1826 in 3oefd£)en bet 
 SO^erfeburg, $rot)tn 3 (sacbfen, aB ditefter @obn be§ bortigen 
 ®orffdf)uImeifter§ geboren. ©r befinbte ba§> @t)mnafium 3 U §alD[e 
 unb fbdter bie Hniberfitdt bafelbft. 
 
 mar bom SSater 3 ur 2:^beoIogie beftimmt unb begonn au(b 
 bQ§ 0tubium berfelben, fattelte jehod) bolb 3 ur um. 
 
 ©r lernte bort ^rofeffor 5IrnoIb 9^uge fennen, ber gro^en ©tn= 
 flufe auf feine geiftige ©ntmidfeinng b^tte; ebenfo tnar 51. 
 3SBlicenu§ fetn greunb. 
 
 Unter foldien ©infliiffen mar fein SSunber bafe ber en= 
 tbufiaftifdie junge SO^^ann fid) mit aller (^nergie unb bober 93e= 
 geifterung ber 1848er holitiftben 33emegung al§ febr tdtiger 51uf= 
 miegler unb Seiter anfcblo^. ®r bi^tifibierte unb rebete bei df= 
 fentlid)en SIoIBberfammlungen, birigierte bie 9[)^affen, bie ficb in 
 ber holitiftben 53emegung fammelten, unb ber 23 jdbrige @ntbu= 
 fiaft mar mdbrenb be§ einen ^age§ ber §aEif(ben S^ebolution ge-' 
 miyi(b ber ^aubtfiibrer ber ^emegung. ©urcb ba§ ©rfd^einen 
 ber reguldren ^aDatterie murbe jebocb ber eintdgigen ^iebolution 
 balb bie abgebrodf)en, unb ^oef(be fanb e§ bod^ Oorteilbaft 
 
 am 51benb gu t)erf(bminben. 
 
 (Jr manberte nadb ©iibbeutfd^Ianb unb unterbielt eine ^or- 
 refbonbeng mit feiner gamilie burd) eine 35ermanbte in einer 
 anberen 0tabt, fo bafe fein SSerfted unbefannt blieb. 51B ber 
 53oben in (subbeutfd)Ianb ibm and) gu b^ife murbe, entfd^Iofe er 
 fid) nad) ©nglanb gu geben, unb fanb bort bei 51rnoIb D^uge in 
 Conbon, mobin biefer geflud)tet mar, eine Oorldufige ®eimat. 
 ©nglanb mar bamaB giemlicb boE bon flud)tigen 51cbtunbbiergi- 
 gern unb bie SSereinigten (staaten fdbie^^en beffer geeignet eine 
 
 35 
 
Sufunft 3 U griinben, nad^bem jebe §offnung t)erf(i&tDunben tvax, 
 bafe in ©eutfd^Ianb Balb eine fretere Suft tve^)en tniirbe. 5iu6er= 
 bem inar ^oefd^e in ^reufeen angeflagt unb gu fed)§ 3 ei)n ^Q^iren 
 @efdngni§ „in contumaciam'' berurteilt morben. 
 
 Sirnolb 9iuge blieb in ©nglanb unb mol^nte frdter in 33rig]&= 
 ton. 
 
 ^oefd)e fegelte im ^al^re 1852 nacf) D^em ?)orf, unb t)erfu(f)te 
 bort unb in Lofton eine ©teHung al§> Sel^rer gu erl^alten, mar 
 jebod^ nid^t erfolgreicf). 33effer gelang e§ i^m in ^l^ilabelptiia, 
 mo er 33efc[)dftigung aB Sel^rer in l^dt)eren 0df)ulen fanb. 
 
 (Jr murbe I)ier mit bem beriitimten $omdot)at]^en 2)r. don* 
 ftantin ^aering befannt unb murbe einer ber intimen greunbe 
 ber 55amilie. llnter ben bort fid) lierfammeinben 33efud)eren mar 
 aud) ber junge 51bt)ofat, dl^arle^ ©oef)!), ber (sof)n be§ Befann* 
 ten Setter^ ber ^erren^uter (Semeinben, ®r. (^oepp, in Q3etBIeBem, 
 $ennft)It)ania. 2)ie Beiben jungen Sente murben Balb Befreun* 
 bet, unb al§ fie fanben, bafe fie Beibe in ^etreff ber 3wtoft ber 
 35ereinigten 0taaten gleid^e Slnfid^ten l^atten, fo BefdBIoffen fie, ge* 
 meinfam iBren ^been iiBer bie Sufunft biefe§ Sanbe§ burdB ^uBIi* 
 fation eine§ ^udBe§ 5(u§brud gu geBen unb ba§ S^efultat mar ba§ 
 je^t gdnsIidB bergriffene The New Rome or The United States 
 of the World, New York, G. B. Putnam & Co., 1853. 
 
 (J§ mar and) in ^r. $aering§ ®au§, mo ^oefdBe feine gran 
 3 uerft traf, bie bort mit iBrem Slater, bem 48er Dlebolutiondr 
 unb (^(^lefifdBen SfBgeorbneten be§ Sranffurter Slarlamente^, 
 dbuarb S^elg, ber in 9^em ^orf moBnte, gum SlefudB mar. D^acB 
 einem S^B^^e murben bie jungen Sente einig unb grunbeten in 
 ^BiiobelBBm einen ^au^Bnlt, bon mo fie im ^aBre 1858 nacB 
 0t. Soui§ iiBerfiebelten, moBin ^oefcBe einen Siuf aB SlorfteBer 
 einer beutfdBen ^ribatfcBuIe Unter Slnberen Befanb fidB 
 
 Bier and) (General grang Siegel, ber bamaB aB ^rofeffor fun* 
 girte. StB ber ^lirgerfrieg auSBrad), ging bie ©dBuIe unter, 
 unb SloefdBe fam mieber nadB bem Often unb berfudBte 9^em ?)orf 
 unb ^BiiciBelBBiQ/ fcmb jebocB in SSafBington in bem neu orga* 
 nifierten internal Slebenue Slureau be§ (SdBaBamte§ aB @ta* 
 tiftifer S3ef(Bdftigung, in meld)em Stmte er eBrenbod fidB au^seidB* 
 nete BB bie bemofratifdBe Slbminiftration dlebelanb§ feiner ^d* 
 
 36 
 
tigfeit etn ©nbe madite. ©Reiter T^atte er etne ^teEiing aB 
 (©tatiftifer im ^enfu§ 33ureQU inne. 
 
 ^oefd^e JT^ar etn intimer greunb bon ."^arl <Bd)nvs, toeld^er eine 
 l^ot)e ^Td^tung fiir il^n l^atte unb feine Entente unb Sat)igfeit 311 
 fd^ci^en mufete. S^ternal ^ebenne 33ureau entmidtelte fidf) 
 ^oefd^e qB ftatiftifdijer ©i'i^ert ber 5Xrt, bafe @raf bon ^l^ielmann, 
 ber beutf(X)e 33otfd^Qfter in SSaf^ington, bie SSereinigten (staaten 
 offiaieE erfud^te, il^n nad^ Berlin 311 fenben nm ba mit Sb^^ft 
 mordt liber ftatiftifd^e 2)etQiB, iiber bie ®eutfct)Ianb 5ru§funft 
 miinfd^te, berfbnlid^ 3 U fonferieren, ina^ bann aud^ gefdi)Ql^. 
 ^oefd[)e§ 3 bfommenfunft mit bem grofeen ^analer tnar fiir beibe 
 donferenten fel^r befriebigenb, unb ^oefd^e tiatte bie d()re bon 
 ^Bmorc! ofter§ in feine SSoI^nnng eingelaben 311 merben. dr 
 fungirte andf) bei ber ^Bmardtfeier in SSaftiington, meld^e in ber 
 doncorbia ^irdf)e bafelbft am 6 . ^Eobember 1898 gel^alten nmrbe, 
 qB ^rdfibent. 
 
 groge SebeiBmerf ^oefd^eS mar feine gorfd^ung iiber 
 bo§ dntftel^en unb SSad^Stum be§ grdfeten aEer SO^enfd^enftdmme, 
 bie Slrier unb baffelbe nmrbe unter bem ^itel: ^ie 51rier, 
 ein 33eitrag 3 ur t) i f 10 r i f d^ e n 3i n 11 ^ r 0 b o 1 0 g i e, 
 Sena, Hermann doftenoble, 1878, berdffentlidiit. dine 9iebifion 
 nnb SSeiterfiibrung be§ 3Serfe§ befinbet ficb in feinem 97adf)Ia6. 
 
 $oef(be ftarb nad^ einem mebridbrigen ibiagenleiben in 3Baf^» 
 ington am 27ten ©eaember 1899. 
 
 37 
 


 
 /