“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests” Lord Palmerston British Prime Minister 1859-1865
Fact is as much as Britain and France needed cotton, they needed the union's grain even more as the United States had by then become the worlds largest grain exporter
in 1860 the two largest and most modern militaries of the world were those of Great Britain and France. By 1862 the two largest and most modern militaries of the world were those of the United States and Confederate States of America. Serious British and French losses in a North American war would have punctured the myth of European invincibility upon which 19th century empire building depended.
The real decisive factor is often overlooked. The US Ambassador to the Czar convinced him to threaten to go to war with England and France if they recognized the Confederacy.
That's more accurate than the video. England needed food imports a lot more than cotton. The issue of slavery was raised by the North to keep the Civil War from becoming WW1. Towards the end of the Civil War Russia sent it's fleet to the US anticipating a world war with England and France.
What isn't told was Lincoln had gotten Russia to send their naval fleets to anchor in major northern ports on the east coast as well as San Francisco, as a guard against English and French intervention. Russia did this because of English and French intervention in the Crimea war. The fleet stayed over the winter of 62-63, and left in the spring with Lincolns emancipation proclaimtion
Excellent, thanks for sharing those important details. Our presenters touched on world-wide factors & implications of the Civil War, they left Russia out of the equation entirely.
The war was not about slavery, at least not for two years. In his 1st inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln stated, ““… I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. (in other words, it’s NOT about slavery) Then he makes this threat …, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties (tariffs) and imposts but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no use of force against or among the people anywhere..." (in other words it’s about collecting his revenue). In his 1st inaugural address Lincoln also stated his support for the fugitive slave laws and his support for the Corwin amendment, which would have prevented the Federal government from interfering with slavery. One of the main reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep the European powers out of the war. The "Union" military was segregated and remained segregated for 83 years after the war, until 1948. There was no righteous cause! Slavery ended as a result of the war, but wasn't the reason for the war.
It's often overlooked that Lincoln turned away multiple peace delegations from the South prior to the Northern invasion. If President Lincoln had not wanted a war with the South there would have been no War.
The South left the Union to protect slavery. The North fought to save the union. The slavery was still legal but free states would substantially out number slave states. So the South left
Intervention could have easily caused a world war; British colonies, especially Ireland, would have seized the moment to start it's own way of independence, the Franco-Prussian war might have started then, while the Ottoman Empire grew richer because of its own cotton market.
The Trent Affair was Britain just being pissy. 40 years earlier, Britain had no problem capturing American ships and forcing the sailors into service on British ships.
and USA has no problem in have double standards by the a lot those so called US sailors ex RN sailors that jump ship also we were stopping the Patrice by 1811 the USA has used this to hide the real reason for 1812 war and that was a land grab of Canada which they failed to do
The British government got India Crown Colony and the British government started to incease the cotton production in India in 1858 3 years before Civil War.
You’re absolutely right…after the British government took control of India in 1858, they significantly increased cotton production there…This became especially critical during the American Civil War (1861-1865), when the Union blockade and Confederate embargo disrupted American cotton exports…By 1862, India supplied about 90% of Britain’s raw cotton imports, up from 31% in 1860, helping to mitigate the cotton shortage. However, this shift had complex economic and social impacts on Indian farmers and the rural economy. ~kay
@@RootHistoryChannel The British Port city consulates of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire and Egypt began to give free of charge cotton seeds to the agricultural producers. BTW French people started the Equador originated Gossypium Barbadense production in lower Egypt about 1830. This type cotton is better quality and only in tropical area is better for it. What a pity this type cotton production decreased before the Civil War.
That was mainly in Britain, but poor crops during some years in France also limited British choices. About 40% of the British grain imports came from the USA. However, the British were almost the sole supplier of saltpetre to the USA, essential for gunpowder production for the war. On balance that encouraged both to cooperate rather than conflict.
@@tacitdionysus3220 Funny, but the salt import was important to the USA from the British Isles, The local salt production was not enough for the North. However the South salt import from the Caribic islands and the British Isles was blokaded by the Federal Navy. The "Salt War" was important for the USA, the Navy destructed the Sea Salt Works in Florida. Banks first campaign was not against Port Hudson, but against the South Lousiana brand new salt mine!
@@avenaoat Yeah, its fascinating how war highlights key materials. Before going to New Guinea, my dad's battalion was in Western Australia during 1942 when invasion was a possibility there. Battalion records show two shortages. The first was pencils, to be used down to an inch long, due to a ship carrying graphite being torpedoed. The other was toilet paper; reason not given but rationed to one roll per 100 men per day. Yikes!
The role of morals in the film belies the title. Of course, nonintervention was a complex decision. Perhaps not emphasized enough is the difficulties in mounting an expeditionary invasion across the ocean. Also, at a time of reoccurring revolutionary conflict in Europe, would it be good for these governments to support a revolutionary war?
Not only did the Prussians learn a lot, such as the use of railroads and observation balloons and ironclads, but Bismarck needed better timing before going to war with France.
I believe Prussia would have seized the opportunity to unite Germany considerably sooner than it actually did, just in 1870, if Britain and France had actually tried to send a large number of "boots on the ground" to aid the Confederacy. In addition, it is likely that French and British colonies would have joined the rebellion against their rule, similar to what the American colonies had done during the Revolutionary War.
That’s an intriguing perspective…It’s certainly possible that Prussia, under Otto von Bismarck, could have accelerated German unification if Britain and France had diverted significant resources to aid the Confederacy. Such a move might have weakened their European influence, creating opportunities for Prussia to act sooner….Additionally, colonial uprisings in response to British and French involvement could have further destabilized their empires, echoing the American Revolutionary War…It’s fascinating to consider how interconnected global events were during this period. ~Kay
This is excellent analysis. The leit motif of this video is that Europe had a trouble-free ability to intervene if it wanted to. Warfare was, by contrast, always breaking out or threatening to break out during the entire 19th century. Their forces were engaged or threatening to be engaged, elsewhere. Indeed, one of the reasons American independence worked out was that the Brits could not devote all their resources to winning that war. It was tough enough as it was, and needed France's help, but if Washington had to face, say, double the size of the army he actually did, it might well have gone differently. But supporting an army that far from home in a rebellious colony proved tough and even in 1776 Britain had other things to worry about. It would have been even _tougher_ in 1860 where the would be no loyalist contingent to look towards in the US north. I don't think "boots on the ground" were ever a realistic possibility for either England or France. Armadas, as the Spanish discovered, sometimes sink or break up before deploying a single soldier.
@@curious968 I suppose there was another problem: if Britain and France had gone this route, they would have had to contend with a large Union Army that had already been drafted and trained, and England would have jeopardized its possessions in Canada. It's interesting to note that Napoleon III did indirectly intervene in the Mexican Civil War crisis, which coincided with the American conflict, by appointing an Austrian royalist to the throne on his behalf in the hopes of establishing a connection with the Confederacy through the Mexican territory. However, the U.S. government immediately extended its naval blockade to the Mexican shores after the American Civil War ended, so Napoleon III decided to withdraw, and the plan failed.
@@curious968 Quite so. They were also recovering from previous wars (e.g. the Crimean War with Russia) and off doing other things (e.g. French colonisation in Vietnam). I suspect some American historians tend to project the undoubted later importance of the USA in world affairs back onto earlier times when it was much less of a player.
The map of Western Europe was about 80 years premature to political reality. All of Ireland was part of the British Empire. The success of Irish independence did not occur until after 1920. Germany as a unified country did not occur until 1871. Surely the creators of this production could have done better.
The slave-holders of the South were quite aggressive before the war. There was talk of Cuba becoming a slave State or two, thus Spain lost with a South victory. France faced trouble holding Mexico with Union opposition but the South would need to expand to match the North. The incentives to expand remained w/ slave-holders and would cause problems with anyone holding Mexico. Texas, The Mexican-American war and the Gadsden purchase was bad enough from the Mexican point of view. How many Mexican states would the Confederacy wound up with before their inevitable destruction by the North? Would those states ever returned to Mexico? Doubtful.
Are you saying that the Europe should have done more to help the United Stated defeat the Confederacy? If Europe did the right thing for thir own selfish reason is that a bad thing? Obviously it cannot be controverted that the existance of the Confederacy was dangerous in itself, a state that had repudiated the Declaration of Independence and was committed not just to perpetuating slavery but expanding it as a reading of the constitution of the confederacy makes clear. The starving cotton workers of Manchester wrote to Abraham Lincoln imploring him to abolish slavery. Would you say that was 'selfish reasons'. Possibly but President LIncoln called it the greatest act of Christian Heroism in History or something like that. Would you say that the International Working People's Association (The First International) writing to President Lincoln to abolish slavery and express the urgency of abolishing slavery and defeating the Confederacy acting in selfish self interest? Possibly as free labour cannot compete against slave labour so we are either all free or all slaves. The greatest thing the United States ever did was defeat at great costs, the Confederacy. You could say that it was self interest and self preservation on the part of the Greatest Experiment in Democracy in History. '... and that Government of The People, By The People, For The People, shall not perish from this earth.'
Thank you so much for your kind words! You’re absolutely right, history is full of ‘what ifs,’ and imagining alternate outcomes can be both fascinating and insightful…I’m glad you enjoyed the perspective shared in the video. ~Kay
King Cotton was not sufficiently powerful enough on his own. The Brits simply created Pharaoh Cotton, in Egypt, to make up for a decline in Southern cotton availability.
Most likely Britain didn't go to war because a dying Prince Albert toned down the British response to a US act of war against a British ship, so the US had a face saving way out. The original drat of the letter was drafted to make it hard for the US to avoid war with Britain. War was avoided because Prince Albert had some sense. It is hard to argue that he did it for selfish reasons.
Hey! You saw that episode of the 1975 BBC series about Edward VII. I remember watching that and the chapter on Albert writing a letter to keep the UK out of this. At least I think it was Edward VII....It might have been another series of the late 1970...
The USA would always consider anyone trying to take/hold or threaten Louisiana an enemy. France, Spain, England, the Confederacy or even pirates. The civil war wouldn't have been the last war if the Union had lost. There would have been one every 20 years or so until the Mississippi ran unvexed to the sea.
In late 1861 Great Britain almost enter the war against the union (a union ship stopped a British ship at gunpoint and carried off 2 confederate depermats) the British prime minster at the stat of the war was pro confederate but the queen's husband prince Albert said (don't be too hasty) things cooled down and France Napoleon III was too busy in Mexico
The laboring class in Europe identified with the enslaved people was an important reason European nations not to support those that did the enslaving. Egypt & India were also important in replacing American cotton. Today America is the 3rd largest producer of cotton and the highest quality. The USA exports $53B of cotton every year.
Eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama were stronghold of Southerners who fought for the Union. Such as the 1st Alabama Cavalry. Nathan Bedford Forrest called them "home grown Yankees". Just imagine how the Confederate Battle flag waving fanatics across the U.S.A., both in the South and the North, would react if a Civil War movie from the side of the Southerners who fought for the Union was made!
Another reason why England and France did not join the war in support of the confederacy was the Russians told them if they join the war, that Russia would declare war on them. The Russian Empire supported the Union.
The reality of why Britian and France stayed out of the American Civil War is that strategically, the Union military would be a whole problem for both nations. Consider the union up until 1863 was bleeding out the Confederacy with its JV team. Confederate offenses in Maryland were strategic disasters despite the union at the time being led by arguably one of the most incompetent commanders in US History with General McClellan. Out west, the rebels where being whipped both strategically and tactically by Grant and company. The union was effectively fighting with literally less than a tenth of it's manpower, yet by 1862 was already wearing down the Confederacy with superior manpower. Now, France wasn't ever going to be a factor militarily. They were being bogged down by Mexican insurgents who would eventually evict them with support from the union, of which were not shy in hiding that support. Consider also that France, as mentioned in the video, had Otto Von Bismark, who was a big supporter of the Union, beating the war drum not far away from the French homeland. This leaves Britian. Though they had the navy to become a problem for the union on the open seas, any amphibious assault on the US mainland would be suicide. Why? Shallow draft ironclad monitors would end entire careers of any British captain dumb enough to take them on near the ports, beaches, and harbors. US monitors were effectively being produced in silly numbers following the class of the Monitor and Virginia in 1862. Taking on open seas union vessels was one thing, getting troops on US soil protected by grumpy union monitors trolling anywhere a British red coat could even take a piss anywhere on US soil was another thing. Also, consider the logistics required to send say 50K British regulars across the pond. Sending 50K troops 3000 plus miles is bordering on implausible considering 19th century logstics. And even if the British could pull it off, 50K troops is a drop in the bucket considering that the aforementioned union was starting to overwhelm the CSA using less than 10 percent of it's avaliable manpower. Again, 8 to 9 percent of avaliable fighting aged Union men never put on a union uniform, much less deploy to a Civil War battlefield. Invade via Canada you say? Well, this would be an even poorer option considering the likely invasion route south into union territory put it right at two of the unions most populated states, New York and Pennsylvania. Large militias alone from these two massive states in terms of population would make for an ugly welcoming party. And this is before any consideration of deploying union regulars that had occupied northern forts. Additionally, the Union had the manpower, again from just those two states, to pull a reverse uno card to invade, pillage, and plunder lower Canada, annexing a whole ass British colony and using it as a bargaining chip against further British meddling. Lastly, you'd have Russia, also at the time who had supported the Union cause, and wasn't too thrilled about the Crimean War, would likely take advantage of any military intervention by the British, who would more than likely at the minimum start threatening British colonial interests. Even taking away the economic and political reasons that kept France and Britian out of the US Civil War, from a strategic military standpoint alone, both France and Britian would have been soundly beaten had they made a guest appearance anywhere near Union territory. By 1862, and especially by 1863, when the grown-ups started taking over leadership of the union Armies, you had an industrialized union military backed and supplied with a then state of the art infrastructure and logistics apparatus, with arguably millions of men in reserve, that was effectively unbeatable by any military on earth at the time, especially fighting on home court.
I just wonder about France’s and Britain’s previous involvement in the Crimean War and the problems incurred from that was also on the table for decision making.
Palmerston and Napoleon did meet in Paris with Confederate envoys to assess and agree on a proposed invasion of the US. Sources say that if General Lee could lay siege to Washington DC then Britain and France would invade on three fronts. Down from Canada, up from Mexico, and then a vast naval armada hitting Boston, New York and up the Potomac River to flatten Washington. The fleet was to have a total of 4,000 guns! However, Meade repulsed Lee at Gettysburg. Surely one of the great moments of history in that it did NOT happen.
Where were these troops to come from? What was the size of the British Army? The Navy? How were these troops to get from England to Canada? Mexico was already fighting French troops and winning as many battles as loosing. An invasion was logistically impossible.
This was a pipe dream. Lee couldn't invade Maryland without being evicted while losing a third of his troops. Laying siege to DC bordered on comical. The French were being slapped around by Mexican insurgents. If they somehow got north, they'd end up facing the western Union Armies, who even early in the war, were already breaking off boots into the asses of rebel armies. Again, the French got evicted by Mexican insurgents, yet they would have a chance against union regulars out west? Again comedy. The British invading from Canada? And you'd think that PA and NY, two of the largest states in the union by population, would let them just waltz through? And by what miracle of 19th century logistics would allow enough British troops to even have the numbers to pull off something like getting through NY and PA without being violently and quickly evicted? If anything, the union would have invaded and gone Sherman on lower Canada out of principle the second the British would have started stockpiling troops in Canada. And that little fleet would have been turned to splinters. Ironclad monitors were a whole problem as early as 1862. You are talking about British warships against shallow draft specialists, armored, with revolving turrets. British gunboats against monitors in their element would be effectively horse cavalry vs tanks. If these sources were correct, they were high AF to have concocted such a ridiculous strategy.
11:11 your European map is way off, for instance, Germany during the US Civil War was comprised of a plethera of smaller States; German unification was not accomplished until 1871, well after the end of our Civil War.
Not really. The Royal Navy would have destroyed it. Britain would have had more trouble with the Union Army and they probably would have lost Canada. If Britain and France had intervened, they may have won but they would have poisoned relations with the US. Developing good relations with the US paid off for Britain in the 20th century. The HMS Warrior probably could have sunk much of the US navy by itself. In the event of war, Britain would have produced more armored steam ships like that.
@@castlerock58 yep, after the Napoleonic wars the British navy had more ships than the next ten countries combined until the 1st world war. and just to help visualise, the union had 4 squadrons or 671 ships at the end of the war, Britain had 3 squadrons, but its stated in 1864/65 that each royal navy squadron was bigger than any other single nation had. meaning each of Britain's squadrons was larger than the unions 4 combined.
And Liverpool smuggled arms to the Confederacy, ships from Liverpool attacked Union shipping, the last Confederate ship to surrender did so in Liverpool
Why have you shown the famous image of The Charlottetown Conference of September 1864, with soon to be Canada's first Prime Minister John A. MacDonald as a debate about the American Civil War? Certainly, Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were concerned by the Civil War and perhaps were in some ways motivated by that conflict to unit in an effort to defend against US post civil war expansionism into Canada, but this image doesn't reflect that concern.
The Emancipation applied *only* to slaves in Confederate-held territory, effectively freeing no slaves at all. People held in bondage throughout the North were not freed until the passage & signing of the XIII th Amendment, after the War was over.
When the ACW started there were still slave states remaining within the Union. Therefore a rebellion of one sector of the USA against another, to Europeans, was just another attempted 'war of independence'. The Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam was sufficient to promote the idea that it was now a war for abolition - which both the UK and France could agree with. The EP only freed slaves in the South of course but it was a start.
So according to this video, Britain did not get involved in the US Civil War for selfish reasons. By this reasoning, just because the US starts a civil war everyone has to join as a belligerent otherwise they are acting selfishly. Nonsense. The US stayed out of WW1 and WW2, selling everything including weapons to whoever could pay for them until the US was dragged into the conflicts. Profiting from other people's wars is very common. For example, someone is getting very rich from the Ukraine war. Britain had no interest in the US Civil War, it had no skin in the game. Britain's interests were its empire and global trade which were guaranteed by a mighty navy. What it could not buy from the war zone it would buy elsewhere, like cotton from India. Anything the warring parties no longer provided would be sourced from elsewhere and the production would be increased until it met demand. The confederacy were never going to be able to compel the British Empire into acting on its behalf.
Britain may not officially have been in war but the US was so annoyed by British involvement that they demanded reparations. The initial claim was for Canada! though they settled for some millions in compensation. It was said that many Americans died because the Confederacy was supported by Britain. You have a good video but I feel that unless you address the American demands for reparations it is very incomplete
You need to remove 1 picture of other nations lobbying...you show an 1867 picture of Canadian Confederation,independence from Britain at Prince Esward Island,Charlatton
Morality was one weapon. England had abolished slavery. Lincoln freed slaves in all states except those that were part of the Confederacy. By doing this, he placed the English government in a difficult sitatuation. If it supported the Confederacy they would appear to be supporting slavery. The English public, which opposed slavery, would not welcome this action.
The Emancipation applied *only* to slaves in Confederate-held territory, effectively freeing no slaves at all. People held in bondage throughout the North were not freed until the passage & signing of the XIII th Amendment, after the War was over.
Don´t forget Russia........they support the Union, even send their fleet to support the north IF the UK backed the south.......and to have the ships far from the Royal Navy in case of war in Europe.....
the best the south could of ever hoped for was a stalemate. they couldn't defeat the north. actually the south did quite well for what they had. the north had a lot more people and most of the factories. they could keep getting supplies and people. the south could not. it lasted longer than it should have because the north had poor leadership. i'm not talking lincoln i'm talking generals. when grant took over things turned around for the north. grant was called a butcher but that's what it took. he knew that the south could not resupply men and supplies as he could.
The Union had their best generals in the west, in part due politics in the service. So the South started out great. Once the Union realized it had to get serious, things slowed down, and then they brought their A team east when they claimed the Mississippi.
Simply. Both British and French were terrified from the Federal northern American states 🇺🇸 navel forces. They realized confidral southern states were weaker in the attacking navel sector , industrial sectors, banking institutions...
Cassius Clay went to Russia as a diplomat and had them threaten war if anyone sided with the Concederacy. That's a bigger factor than the moral high ground of slavery.
Thanks!
Thank you so much for your generous support..It means a lot and helps us keep creating content. We truly appreciate you🤍
“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”
Lord Palmerston British Prime Minister 1859-1865
this can be said about every country
Fact is as much as Britain and France needed cotton, they needed the union's grain even more as the United States had by then become the worlds largest grain exporter
An interesting & relevant fact, thank you.
in 1860 the two largest and most modern militaries of the world were those of Great Britain and France. By 1862 the two largest and most modern militaries of the world were those of the United States and Confederate States of America. Serious British and French losses in a North American war would have punctured the myth of European invincibility upon which 19th century empire building depended.
The battle of Antitum convinced Britain and France to forget about supporting the Confederacy.
The real decisive factor is often overlooked. The US Ambassador to the Czar convinced him to threaten to go to war with England and France if they recognized the Confederacy.
I did not know that, thanks for sharing.
One American politician exclaimed how “King Wheat” defeated “King Cotton”.
Where's that from?
That's more accurate than the video. England needed food imports a lot more than cotton. The issue of slavery was raised by the North to keep the Civil War from becoming WW1. Towards the end of the Civil War Russia sent it's fleet to the US anticipating a world war with England and France.
@@vasheed It was a world war, and many Union soldiers were recruited from foreign nations.
What isn't told was Lincoln had gotten Russia to send their naval fleets to anchor in major northern ports on the east coast as well as San Francisco, as a guard against English and French intervention. Russia did this because of English and French intervention in the Crimea war. The fleet stayed over the winter of 62-63, and left in the spring with Lincolns emancipation proclaimtion
Excellent, thanks for sharing those important details. Our presenters touched on world-wide factors & implications of the Civil War, they left Russia out of the equation entirely.
The war was not about slavery, at least not for two years. In his 1st inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln stated, ““… I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. (in other words, it’s NOT about slavery) Then he makes this threat …, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties (tariffs) and imposts but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no use of force against or among the people anywhere..." (in other words it’s about collecting his revenue).
In his 1st inaugural address Lincoln also stated his support for the fugitive slave laws and his support for the Corwin amendment, which would have prevented the Federal government from interfering with slavery.
One of the main reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep the European powers out of the war.
The "Union" military was segregated and remained segregated for 83 years after the war, until 1948. There was no righteous cause!
Slavery ended as a result of the war, but wasn't the reason for the war.
It's often overlooked that Lincoln turned away multiple peace delegations from the South prior to the Northern invasion. If President Lincoln had not wanted a war with the South there would have been no War.
The South left the Union to protect slavery. The North fought to save the union. The slavery was still legal but free states would substantially out number slave states. So the South left
Intervention could have easily caused a world war; British colonies, especially Ireland, would have seized the moment to start it's own way of independence, the Franco-Prussian war might have started then, while the Ottoman Empire grew richer because of its own cotton market.
Wow, that was really good, thank you. Shows how a single incident can change the future of millions.
The Trent Affair was Britain just being pissy. 40 years earlier, Britain had no problem capturing American ships and forcing the sailors into service on British ships.
and USA has no problem in have double standards by the a lot those so called US sailors ex RN sailors that jump ship also we were stopping the Patrice by 1811 the USA has used this to hide the real reason for 1812 war and that was a land grab of Canada which they failed to do
40 years is two generations - or was then. I don't blame you for what your grandfather did!
The British government got India Crown Colony and the British government started to incease the cotton production in India in 1858 3 years before Civil War.
You’re absolutely right…after the British government took control of India in 1858, they significantly increased cotton production there…This became especially critical during the American Civil War (1861-1865), when the Union blockade and Confederate embargo disrupted American cotton exports…By 1862, India supplied about 90% of Britain’s raw cotton imports, up from 31% in 1860, helping to mitigate the cotton shortage. However, this shift had complex economic and social impacts on Indian farmers and the rural economy.
~kay
@@RootHistoryChannel The British Port city consulates of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire and Egypt began to give free of charge cotton seeds to the agricultural producers.
BTW French people started the Equador originated Gossypium Barbadense production in lower Egypt about 1830. This type cotton is better quality and only in tropical area is better for it. What a pity this type cotton production decreased before the Civil War.
West Europe was American food dependent and North was the food producer.
That was mainly in Britain, but poor crops during some years in France also limited British choices. About 40% of the British grain imports came from the USA. However, the British were almost the sole supplier of saltpetre to the USA, essential for gunpowder production for the war. On balance that encouraged both to cooperate rather than conflict.
@@tacitdionysus3220 Funny, but the salt import was important to the USA from the British Isles, The local salt production was not enough for the North. However the South salt import from the Caribic islands and the British Isles was blokaded by the Federal Navy. The "Salt War" was important for the USA, the Navy destructed the Sea Salt Works in Florida. Banks first campaign was not against Port Hudson, but against the South Lousiana brand new salt mine!
@@avenaoat Yeah, its fascinating how war highlights key materials. Before going to New Guinea, my dad's battalion was in Western Australia during 1942 when invasion was a possibility there.
Battalion records show two shortages. The first was pencils, to be used down to an inch long, due to a ship carrying graphite being torpedoed. The other was toilet paper; reason not given but rationed to one roll per 100 men per day. Yikes!
The role of morals in the film belies the title. Of course, nonintervention was a complex decision. Perhaps not emphasized enough is the difficulties in mounting an expeditionary invasion across the ocean. Also, at a time of reoccurring revolutionary conflict in Europe, would it be good for these governments to support a revolutionary war?
Good point
Not only did the Prussians learn a lot, such as the use of railroads and observation balloons and ironclads, but Bismarck needed better timing before going to war with France.
I believe Prussia would have seized the opportunity to unite Germany considerably sooner than it actually did, just in 1870, if Britain and France had actually tried to send a large number of "boots on the ground" to aid the Confederacy.
In addition, it is likely that French and British colonies would have joined the rebellion against their rule, similar to what the American colonies had done during the Revolutionary War.
That’s an intriguing perspective…It’s certainly possible that Prussia, under Otto von Bismarck, could have accelerated German unification if Britain and France had diverted significant resources to aid the Confederacy. Such a move might have weakened their European influence, creating opportunities for Prussia to act sooner….Additionally, colonial uprisings in response to British and French involvement could have further destabilized their empires, echoing the American Revolutionary War…It’s fascinating to consider how interconnected global events were during this period.
~Kay
This is excellent analysis. The leit motif of this video is that Europe had a trouble-free ability to intervene if it wanted to. Warfare was, by contrast, always breaking out or threatening to break out during the entire 19th century. Their forces were engaged or threatening to be engaged, elsewhere.
Indeed, one of the reasons American independence worked out was that the Brits could not devote all their resources to winning that war. It was tough enough as it was, and needed France's help, but if Washington had to face, say, double the size of the army he actually did, it might well have gone differently. But supporting an army that far from home in a rebellious colony proved tough and even in 1776 Britain had other things to worry about. It would have been even _tougher_ in 1860 where the would be no loyalist contingent to look towards in the US north.
I don't think "boots on the ground" were ever a realistic possibility for either England or France. Armadas, as the Spanish discovered, sometimes sink or break up before deploying a single soldier.
@@curious968 I suppose there was another problem: if Britain and France had gone this route, they would have had to contend with a large Union Army that had already been drafted and trained, and England would have jeopardized its possessions in Canada.
It's interesting to note that Napoleon III did indirectly intervene in the Mexican Civil War crisis, which coincided with the American conflict, by appointing an Austrian royalist to the throne on his behalf in the hopes of establishing a connection with the Confederacy through the Mexican territory. However, the U.S. government immediately extended its naval blockade to the Mexican shores after the American Civil War ended, so Napoleon III decided to withdraw, and the plan failed.
@@curious968 Quite so. They were also recovering from previous wars (e.g. the Crimean War with Russia) and off doing other things (e.g. French colonisation in Vietnam). I suspect some American historians tend to project the undoubted later importance of the USA in world affairs back onto earlier times when it was much less of a player.
The map of Western Europe was about 80 years premature to political reality. All of Ireland was part of the
British Empire. The success of Irish independence did not occur until after 1920. Germany as a unified
country did not occur until 1871. Surely the creators of this production could have done better.
I noticed the same thing. You'd think they could get a real historian to look at their graphics prior to publication.
As a means of supporting our efforts please hit the LIKE & SUBSCRIBE button.🤍🙏
The slave-holders of the South were quite aggressive before the war. There was talk of Cuba becoming a slave State or two, thus Spain lost with a South victory. France faced trouble holding Mexico with Union opposition but the South would need to expand to match the North. The incentives to expand remained w/ slave-holders and would cause problems with anyone holding Mexico.
Texas, The Mexican-American war and the Gadsden purchase was bad enough from the Mexican point of view. How many Mexican states would the Confederacy wound up with before their inevitable destruction by the North? Would those states ever returned to Mexico? Doubtful.
Are you saying that the Europe should have done more to help the United Stated defeat the Confederacy?
If Europe did the right thing for thir own selfish reason is that a bad thing?
Obviously it cannot be controverted that the existance of the Confederacy was dangerous in itself, a state that had repudiated the Declaration of Independence and was committed not just to perpetuating slavery but expanding it as a reading of the constitution of the confederacy makes clear.
The starving cotton workers of Manchester wrote to Abraham Lincoln imploring him to abolish slavery. Would you say that was 'selfish reasons'. Possibly but President LIncoln called it the greatest act of Christian Heroism in History or something like that.
Would you say that the International Working People's Association (The First International) writing to President Lincoln to abolish slavery and express the urgency of abolishing slavery and defeating the Confederacy acting in selfish self interest? Possibly as free labour cannot compete against slave labour so we are either all free or all slaves.
The greatest thing the United States ever did was defeat at great costs, the Confederacy. You could say that it was self interest and self preservation on the part of the Greatest Experiment in Democracy in History.
'... and that Government of The People, By The People, For The People, shall not perish from this earth.'
We will never know what would have happened but it is interesting to imagine all outcomes. Thank you for your amazing perspective!
Thank you so much for your kind words! You’re absolutely right, history is full of ‘what ifs,’ and imagining alternate outcomes can be both fascinating and insightful…I’m glad you enjoyed the perspective shared in the video.
~Kay
King Cotton was not sufficiently powerful enough on his own. The Brits simply created Pharaoh Cotton, in Egypt, to make up for a decline in Southern cotton availability.
Most likely Britain didn't go to war because a dying Prince Albert toned down the British response to a US act of war against a British ship, so the US had a face saving way out. The original drat of the letter was drafted to make it hard for the US to avoid war with Britain. War was avoided because Prince Albert had some sense. It is hard to argue that he did it for selfish reasons.
Hey! You saw that episode of the 1975 BBC series about Edward VII. I remember watching that and the chapter on Albert writing a letter to keep the UK out of this. At least I think it was Edward VII....It might have been another series of the late 1970...
I wasn't aware of the Trent affair. Interesting information. Thank you.
The USA would always consider anyone trying to take/hold or threaten Louisiana an enemy. France, Spain, England, the Confederacy or even pirates. The civil war wouldn't have been the last war if the Union had lost. There would have been one every 20 years or so until the Mississippi ran unvexed to the sea.
In late 1861 Great Britain almost enter the war against the union (a union ship stopped a British ship at gunpoint and carried off 2 confederate depermats) the British prime minster at the stat of the war was pro confederate but the queen's husband prince Albert said (don't be too hasty) things cooled down and France Napoleon III was too busy in Mexico
What is a depermat?
@@edlutz7218 diplomats I misspelled
The laboring class in Europe identified with the enslaved people was an important reason European nations not to support those that did the enslaving. Egypt & India were also important in replacing American cotton. Today America is the 3rd largest producer of cotton and the highest quality. The USA exports $53B of cotton every year.
not all Southerners supported the Confederacy
Yes but I think Southern property owners largely kept quiet. The book /A Yankee Loose in Dizxie/ by R. Geer iis historectly interesting
West Virginia agrees with your post
No kidding
Eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama were stronghold of Southerners who fought for the Union. Such as the 1st Alabama Cavalry. Nathan Bedford Forrest called them "home grown Yankees". Just imagine how the Confederate Battle flag waving fanatics across the U.S.A., both in the South and the North, would react if a Civil War movie from the side of the Southerners who fought for the Union was made!
Some folks don't understand being federalist whores.... the rest of us...DEO VINDICE
Another reason why England and France did not join the war in support of the confederacy was the Russians told them if they join the war, that Russia would declare war on them. The Russian Empire supported the Union.
The reality of why Britian and France stayed out of the American Civil War is that strategically, the Union military would be a whole problem for both nations. Consider the union up until 1863 was bleeding out the Confederacy with its JV team. Confederate offenses in Maryland were strategic disasters despite the union at the time being led by arguably one of the most incompetent commanders in US History with General McClellan.
Out west, the rebels where being whipped both strategically and tactically by Grant and company. The union was effectively fighting with literally less than a tenth of it's manpower, yet by 1862 was already wearing down the Confederacy with superior manpower.
Now, France wasn't ever going to be a factor militarily. They were being bogged down by Mexican insurgents who would eventually evict them with support from the union, of which were not shy in hiding that support. Consider also that France, as mentioned in the video, had Otto Von Bismark, who was a big supporter of the Union, beating the war drum not far away from the French homeland.
This leaves Britian. Though they had the navy to become a problem for the union on the open seas, any amphibious assault on the US mainland would be suicide. Why? Shallow draft ironclad monitors would end entire careers of any British captain dumb enough to take them on near the ports, beaches, and harbors. US monitors were effectively being produced in silly numbers following the class of the Monitor and Virginia in 1862. Taking on open seas union vessels was one thing, getting troops on US soil protected by grumpy union monitors trolling anywhere a British red coat could even take a piss anywhere on US soil was another thing.
Also, consider the logistics required to send say 50K British regulars across the pond. Sending 50K troops 3000 plus miles is bordering on implausible considering 19th century logstics. And even if the British could pull it off, 50K troops is a drop in the bucket considering that the aforementioned union was starting to overwhelm the CSA using less than 10 percent of it's avaliable manpower. Again, 8 to 9 percent of avaliable fighting aged Union men never put on a union uniform, much less deploy to a Civil War battlefield.
Invade via Canada you say? Well, this would be an even poorer option considering the likely invasion route south into union territory put it right at two of the unions most populated states, New York and Pennsylvania. Large militias alone from these two massive states in terms of population would make for an ugly welcoming party. And this is before any consideration of deploying union regulars that had occupied northern forts. Additionally, the Union had the manpower, again from just those two states, to pull a reverse uno card to invade, pillage, and plunder lower Canada, annexing a whole ass British colony and using it as a bargaining chip against further British meddling.
Lastly, you'd have Russia, also at the time who had supported the Union cause, and wasn't too thrilled about the Crimean War, would likely take advantage of any military intervention by the British, who would more than likely at the minimum start threatening British colonial interests.
Even taking away the economic and political reasons that kept France and Britian out of the US Civil War, from a strategic military standpoint alone, both France and Britian would have been soundly beaten had they made a guest appearance anywhere near Union territory. By 1862, and especially by 1863, when the grown-ups started taking over leadership of the union Armies, you had an industrialized union military backed and supplied with a then state of the art infrastructure and logistics apparatus, with arguably millions of men in reserve, that was effectively unbeatable by any military on earth at the time, especially fighting on home court.
I just wonder about France’s and Britain’s previous involvement in the Crimean War and the problems incurred from that was also on the table for decision making.
Why is it selfish to allow Slavery to fail? Remember Europe halted Slavery.
Europeans also abolished slavery for the most part by 1860, though I believe France had not.
Palmerston and Napoleon did meet in Paris with Confederate envoys to assess and agree on a proposed invasion of the US. Sources say that if General Lee could lay siege to Washington DC then Britain and France would invade on three fronts. Down from Canada, up from Mexico, and then a vast naval armada hitting Boston, New York and up the Potomac River to flatten Washington. The fleet was to have a total of 4,000 guns!
However, Meade repulsed Lee at Gettysburg. Surely one of the great moments of history in that it did NOT happen.
Where were these troops to come from? What was the size of the British Army? The Navy? How were these troops to get from England to Canada? Mexico was already fighting French troops and winning as many battles as loosing. An invasion was logistically impossible.
This was a pipe dream. Lee couldn't invade Maryland without being evicted while losing a third of his troops. Laying siege to DC bordered on comical. The French were being slapped around by Mexican insurgents. If they somehow got north, they'd end up facing the western Union Armies, who even early in the war, were already breaking off boots into the asses of rebel armies. Again, the French got evicted by Mexican insurgents, yet they would have a chance against union regulars out west? Again comedy.
The British invading from Canada? And you'd think that PA and NY, two of the largest states in the union by population, would let them just waltz through? And by what miracle of 19th century logistics would allow enough British troops to even have the numbers to pull off something like getting through NY and PA without being violently and quickly evicted? If anything, the union would have invaded and gone Sherman on lower Canada out of principle the second the British would have started stockpiling troops in Canada.
And that little fleet would have been turned to splinters. Ironclad monitors were a whole problem as early as 1862. You are talking about British warships against shallow draft specialists, armored, with revolving turrets. British gunboats against monitors in their element would be effectively horse cavalry vs tanks.
If these sources were correct, they were high AF to have concocted such a ridiculous strategy.
11:11 your European map is way off, for instance, Germany during the US Civil War was comprised of a plethera of smaller States; German unification was not accomplished until 1871, well after the end of our Civil War.
The Union Navy was. Also a huge deterrent for European intervention.
Not really. The Royal Navy would have destroyed it. Britain would have had more trouble with the Union Army and they probably would have lost Canada. If Britain and France had intervened, they may have won but they would have poisoned relations with the US. Developing good relations with the US paid off for Britain in the 20th century. The HMS Warrior probably could have sunk much of the US navy by itself. In the event of war, Britain would have produced more armored steam ships like that.
@@castlerock58 yep, after the Napoleonic wars the British navy had more ships than the next ten countries combined until the 1st world war.
and just to help visualise, the union had 4 squadrons or 671 ships at the end of the war, Britain had 3 squadrons, but its stated in 1864/65 that each royal navy squadron was bigger than any other single nation had.
meaning each of Britain's squadrons was larger than the unions 4 combined.
@@castlerock58
The royal navy would have problems with the well armed low draft monitors guarding the sea ports.
The British built ships for the Confederacy.
And Liverpool smuggled arms to the Confederacy, ships from Liverpool attacked Union shipping, the last Confederate ship to surrender did so in Liverpool
Why have you shown the famous image of The Charlottetown Conference of September 1864, with soon to be Canada's first Prime Minister John A. MacDonald as a debate about the American Civil War? Certainly, Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were concerned by the Civil War and perhaps were in some ways motivated by that conflict to unit in an effort to defend against US post civil war expansionism into Canada, but this image doesn't reflect that concern.
THAT is no cap
The Emancipation applied *only* to slaves in Confederate-held territory, effectively freeing no slaves at all. People held in bondage throughout the North were not freed until the passage & signing of the XIII th Amendment, after the War was over.
Skibidi
Russia supported the Union. The Russian navy came to the US as a means of avoiding the British navy.😊
When the ACW started there were still slave states remaining within the Union. Therefore a rebellion of one sector of the USA against another, to Europeans, was just another attempted 'war of independence'. The Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam was sufficient to promote the idea that it was now a war for abolition - which both the UK and France could agree with. The EP only freed slaves in the South of course but it was a start.
The Emancipation Proclomation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held territory, effectively freeing no slaves at all.
So according to this video, Britain did not get involved in the US Civil War for selfish reasons. By this reasoning, just because the US starts a civil war everyone has to join as a belligerent otherwise they are acting selfishly. Nonsense.
The US stayed out of WW1 and WW2, selling everything including weapons to whoever could pay for them until the US was dragged into the conflicts. Profiting from other people's wars is very common. For example, someone is getting very rich from the Ukraine war.
Britain had no interest in the US Civil War, it had no skin in the game. Britain's interests were its empire and global trade which were guaranteed by a mighty navy. What it could not buy from the war zone it would buy elsewhere, like cotton from India.
Anything the warring parties no longer provided would be sourced from elsewhere and the production would be increased until it met demand. The confederacy were never going to be able to compel the British Empire into acting on its behalf.
Britain may not officially have been in war but the US was so annoyed by British involvement that they demanded reparations. The initial claim was for Canada! though they settled for some millions in compensation. It was said that many Americans died because the Confederacy was supported by Britain.
You have a good video but I feel that unless you address the American demands for reparations it is very incomplete
Pragmatism portion shows an 1869 foto of the 2American railways uniting 4years after the war
Morality&honour of all races under God thankfully won out!
You need to remove 1 picture of other nations lobbying...you show an 1867 picture of Canadian Confederation,independence from Britain at Prince Esward Island,Charlatton
Morality was one weapon. England had abolished slavery. Lincoln freed slaves in all states except those that were part of the Confederacy. By doing this, he placed the English government in a difficult sitatuation. If it supported the Confederacy they would appear to be supporting slavery. The English public, which opposed slavery, would not welcome this action.
The Emancipation applied *only* to slaves in Confederate-held territory, effectively freeing no slaves at all. People held in bondage throughout the North were not freed until the passage & signing of the XIII th Amendment, after the War was over.
THE MEXICAN ARMY FOUGHT SEVERAL BATTLES AGAINST THE CONFEDERATE ARMY ON BOTH U.S. AND MEXICAN SOIL.✝️✝️✝️🌹🌞⛓️💝🥳PEACE.
Don´t forget Russia........they support the Union, even send their fleet to support the north IF the UK backed the south.......and to have the ships far from the Royal Navy in case of war in Europe.....
the best the south could of ever hoped for was a stalemate. they couldn't defeat the north. actually the south did quite well for what they had. the north had a lot more people and most of the factories. they could keep getting supplies and people. the south could not. it lasted longer than it should have because the north had poor leadership. i'm not talking lincoln i'm talking generals. when grant took over things turned around for the north. grant was called a butcher but that's what it took. he knew that the south could not resupply men and supplies as he could.
The Union had their best generals in the west, in part due politics in the service. So the South started out great. Once the Union realized it had to get serious, things slowed down, and then they brought their A team east when they claimed the Mississippi.
Pretty weak hypothetical. Both tactically and morally, supporting the South was a bad idea for Europe.
At least they were able to read the tea leaves accurately. Blind ideologies are always short sighted and lead to bad policies.
You completely ignore th Eurpean militeary conflicts at the same time youoverestimate the importance of the states.
Please use better maps of Europe 😂
Simply. Both British and French were terrified from the Federal northern American states 🇺🇸 navel forces. They realized confidral southern states were weaker in the attacking navel sector , industrial sectors, banking institutions...
BUT the US itself has alway acted on self-interest it selfish reason And a Confederacy win and 3 state North America would sorted Europe
Not even one minute in, and this lost cause nonsense begins
Would have been a lot Better!
NOW we're having to do it, all over again!
PRAISE GOD!
AND KEEP ON TRUMPING! AMEN!
I believe the Russian navy kept England and France out.
doubtful, the 1/3 of the British navy was larger than the unions, and that was 670 ships.
Russia was still smarting from the Crimean War.
Long live the South!
Redundant and far to long. Edit to ten minutes.
Cassius Clay went to Russia as a diplomat and had them threaten war if anyone sided with the Concederacy. That's a bigger factor than the moral high ground of slavery.
I feel like this is common knowledge
Why is your writing so bad? You never get to the point and constantly repat yourself.
Once Gettyburg was over, the Europeans pretty much moved away from supporting the Confederacy.