Consider the war of 1812, when the US invaded canada.. and the consequence of that is why the White house had to be whitewashed. (After the counterattack set it on fire...)
Actually, Abraham Lincoln did not want us to continue going to war. In the famous Second Inaugural Address, delivered before his assasination, he said the following: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.". The USA wanted peace with the world -- and completely disrmed after the Civil War, not to rearm until the 1890's on its way to being a world power.
“Did they [the observers] just walk near the battlefield?” Basically yes. The observers were usually officers and other rich types and would observe from that point of view, hanging out with the American officers on either side - not in the actual line of fire. It’s like an exchange program for the sorts of people who sip tea in tents and discuss strategy and ancient history while regular people are doing the dying. But local well-to-do people too would go picnic and watch a battle for entertainment like it’s a sport - and often realize that, big surprise, watching people get killed and/or dismembered doesn’t match the sanitized, romantic notion of “a fine battle”. Or that their side is losing (shock!) and maybe they need to gtfo.
Obviously Americans focus on their civil war, but civil wars occurred long before they existed, I'd flip the question, what do Americans think of our civil wars? Here is a list from England alone: This is a list of civil wars that have occurred in the history of England. The Anarchy (1135-1154) - a civil war in England and Normandy between 1135 and 1154 surrounding a succession crisis towards the end of the reign of Henry I, fought between the supporters of the claim of King Stephen and that of Empress Matilda (also known as Empress Maud or Maude). The eventual outcome was the accession of the Angevins in the person of Henry II. First Barons' War (1215-1217) - a civil war in the Kingdom of England in which a group of rebellious barons, led by Robert Fitzwalter and supported by a French army under the future Louis VIII of France, made war on King John of England. Second Barons' War (1264-1267) - a civil war between the forces of a number of barons led by Simon de Montfort against Royalist forces led by Prince Edward (later Edward I of England), in the name of Henry III. Despenser War (1321-1322, 1326) - A baronial revolt in England and Wales against Edward II instigated by Marcher Lords in opposition to court favourite Hugh Despenser. Invasion of England (1326) - Continuation of the Despenser War. Isabella of France, and her lover, Roger Mortimers invasion led to: the executions of Hugh Despenser the Younger and Hugh Despenser the Elder; The abdication of Isabella's husband King Edward II for their son Edward III; and Edward II died, most likely assassinated by orders of Isabella and Mortimer. Wars of the Roses (1455-1487) - a series of dynastic civil wars for the throne of England fought between supporters of two rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet: the House of York and the House of Lancaster. The English Civil War (1642-1652) - a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") in the Kingdom of England over, principally, the manner of its government. First English Civil War (1642-46) - the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament Second English Civil War (1648-49) - the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament Third English Civil War (1650-52) - the supporters of King Charles II against the supporters of the Rump Parliament Jacobite Rebellions -A Civil war in England, Scotland, and Ireland fought over many years to restore the House of Stuart to the British throne. The conflict started after James II and VII was deposed and exiled in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Williamite War in Ireland (1688-91) -The Battle of the Boyne saw the last battle between two rival claimants for the throne Jacobite rising of 1689 (1689-92) Jacobite rising of 1715 (1715-16) Jacobite rising of 1719 (1719) Jacobite rising of 1745 (1741-1746) -Jacobite restoration attempt defeated
the better question is : will they have a desire to take a road trip into Europe with its capital in London by driving through Canada and then to the invisible road across the Atlantic ?
6:20 it is hilarious to hear “Good to see countries being noble standing by the union against slavery” while the video is talking about the ottoman empire who didn’t abolish slavery until 1924 xD
If I’m not mistaken, I seem to recall learning somewhere that many of the cotton mills (I believe mainly around Manchester, which was a city full of cotton mills) in the UK refused to use/buy the cotton from slave owning plantations in the US and sourced their cotton from other places until the American Civil War ended and slavery was abolished.
The Cotton Famine. People had no work for 5 years and lived on the brink of starvation. The only alternative to American cotton was Indian cotton which was poor quality and unworkable. The north of England shut down for the duration of the War.
@@atorthefightingeagle9813 Thank you, I knew that they had refused the slave picked plantation cotton but I couldn’t remember all the details…but I also felt that it deserved to be acknowledged.
@@Acridblue999 I don’t doubt that but I was rather disappointed by the fact that things like this weren’t mentioned in the video, as I’m sure it wouldn’t have just been the Manchester cotton mill workers that took this stance. The same must have happened in other places around the world and it’s always uplifting to learn of the ways that humans will stand up for what is right…especially when it is to their own detriment.
@@lynnejamieson2063 Well in those days British cotton mills overwhelmingly supplied most of the world and they had far more to lose than other countries. Causing mills to shut down and people on the verge of starvation. Lincoln knew this and thats why his letter was specifically for the people in Manchester. I doubt if it affected other countries the same, but yes there would have been support from people in other countries.
@@zelmawoodthat's a false argument. The sovereign nation as a concept itself is still quite Young. Most western nations in Europe transitioned into a sovereign nation state only by the 19th century. However, as feudal nations with clearly defined borders they'd been around for centuries, often able to trace their origins back to the Roman empire.
@@saladspinner3200 Look closer. There was no United Kingdom before 1801. No Belgium before 1830. No Italy before 1861. And now look at the rest of the world. Not just Western Europe.
@@saladspinner3200It's not about sovereignty. They did not exist in any form. Not as a feudal nation. Not as subterritory. They were simply not a political entity in 1783. And this is a case for many countries in the world. Calling the US "very young" is absurd when compared to Israel, Pakistan and many other nations.
A lot of freed slaves fled to canada via the bridge at niagara falls.. They were safe in canada cause britain was (at least officially) VERY much against slavery
An estimated 35-55 tens of thousands of Canadians joined the Union Army to fight against slavery. Many heads of horses were sold to the US also. The officer leading the troops that captured John Wilkes Booth was a Canadian.
The Unionists would never have attacked Canada; just like in 1812, New England would have voted NO. In addition, the Canadian provinces would have defended themselves; French Canadians didn't want to disappear into the US and neither the Loyalists descendants whose grandfathers had likely fought in 1812. The proof of this would come just two years after the end of the US civil war with the creation of the Dominion of Canada in July 1867.
I love the sarcasm. "Yeh the 1700s was along time before the internet, crazy isn't it" as if the world doesn't know the internet wasn't invented by the British until 1983. Silly boy.
📺I loved to watch „North and South“ with Patrick Swayze with my Mom and my sister on tv as a kid. Back then mainly for the beautiful dresses 😆 but I also learned early about the American civil war and felt immediately that slavery is a very cruel, inhumane thing.
yeah I remember it too. It was a good series. But that was just an ideological representation (like most of American movies and TV-shows). The slavery was not really a reason for the war... it was just an additional fuel, for most people. The real reason was about political and economical control over the states.
@@damyr Of course, of course. I just wanted to say that this series brought me into an early contact with a topic I would otherwise never been interested in at such a young age. The deeper understanding of the connections came later. 😉
@@damyr So it was! That started about the federal income and tarifs, after the 1820's. The argument about slavery, was only one of the sparks at the powder keg...
Fun Fact: a lot of strategists still believe that the US kinda sucks at war and are only able to win because they simply have a vast amount of troops and ammunition to throw at the enemy. Quantity over quatily so to speak. There are many examples of NATO maneuvers where the US was pitted against a similar sized enemy and they most of the time lost. The most humiliating loss was a case in which the maneuver was one German U-Boat against a fleet trying to defend a ship in their midst. After the americans started to think that the U-Boat was somehow lost or in the wrong spot because they didn't find any signs of it for hours, it suddenly surfaced right besides the protected ship in the middle of the fleet and the captain yelled over to them: "by the way, You guys are dead!". They didn't find it with dozens of sonars driving right through the fleet to the target
It was a small Sweedish diesel submarine (HSMS Gotland). And the UK managed to "drop nuklear bombs" on American cities during excercise. Twice, because the US "asked for a rematch".
Ok, there's no reason to underestimate American military abilities. They know and can fight as much as any other nation. They lost in Vietnam rather because of political and economical reasons, not because they were bad in fighting. And that movie reference is not a representation of the whole war. American navy suffered losses in the initial stage of the war in Atlantic, but they didn't take too much time to adapt. After a few months, they started to be pretty successful. Already in 1943 they practically won the war against U-boat wolf packs, by decimating them so much, they were not considered to be a serious threat anymore.
@@reindeer7752 You really believe that there was only one U-Boat in history? U-Boat is just the german name for submarine. Yes, they captured one in WW2 (the one on display) but there were hundreds of german submarines (U-Boats) and there still are dozens today...
@@peytonburrell6303 No. A civil war in the US would destabilise the world. When the British empire collapsed after ww2, the US took on the mantle of world policeman. If the police start fighting amongst themselves then it becomes open day for all the bad guys.
It's amazing to see ottoman empire being pro-union considering the amount of slavery they were responsible for. The again as always. No one really cared they just wanted it to be over with.
True! But this was the Tanzimat era of the Ottoman Empire (probably the most progressive time of the empire), where they had just had a very anti-slavery sultan (Abdülmecid I), who outlawed slavery of black people and Circassians, so I think there was at least some kind of ideological overlap as well as a pretty strong economic incentive.
Let's be clear: The Turks were only for the Turks themselves. They couldn't care less about what happened half a world away. They did however very much care about what it did to their bottom-line and having a major competitor for the profitable cotton-market taken out of the competition did wonders for that same bottom-line. Of course the Turks had a lot of very correct and flowery language about the inhumanity of slavery and such, but let's not forget that the slavetrade was also run from Istanbul and Ankara even though the national laws were against that. The Turks decided that advocating for slave-trade was neither politically expedient by reasons of legality, nor overly profitable in the long term and thus infeasible as an earning-model and they chose their side accordingly.
Why everyone thinks the US civil war was fought because of slavery? They fought for political and economical control. Abolition of slavery was a secondary reason at best, and mostly advertised to masses, so they could get hyped and choose to support and fight for "morally righteous" side.
@@damyr . The various Declarations of Causes of Seceding States all mention the possibility of the abolition of slavery as one main reason for secession. For example, from Mississippi "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. "
Australia has a digital record of newspapers of the time. The website is known as the TROVE, which searchable, American War, Filter search to newspapers, filter years to the 1860’s. Before the war it was called the American Crises, often reports were reprints from English correspondence/newspapers. Generally weekly updates of the Civil War were reported in the papers.
@@playlisttarmac while i agree with you completly, the Emu war is just too funny and USians in general can't even say Emu properly.... they say e-moo and out themselves
@@feldegast It was a culling. Nothing more! Not one human was killed or even wounded by an Emu. How was it a war? so funny how gullible people get sucked in.
Its important to know that Europe had abolished slavery themselves not that long ago and that the people of the nations were against slavery so taking any other stance on it was very dangerous as uprisings could easily be triggered. We were at war with Prussia at that time so Denmark was very busy
Many European powers abolished slavery in practice centuries before the US did. Late abolishment (on paper) was typically just some de-facto putting things into written law, closing some loopholes, adding some remote territory under mainland laws, or referring to the abolishment serfdom/feudalism (which wasn't quite slavery). The French king, for example, abolished slavery all the way back in the 14th century, But what is typically counted is the French Republic, post-revolution, abolishing it by law again, or alternatively, the end of the 20 or so years Napoleon allowed it specifically for some remote colonies in the Americas. What I'm trying to say is that mainland Europeans were not new to the concept of slavery being bad and were not sensitive because it was a recent issue for them. Quite the contrary - it was the normal state of things, and supporting a state that allows slavery would probably have been seen as anachronistic as it would be to vote for the "Round up the Irish and put them into work camps"-party right now.
@@LynxLord1991 there's a bit of difference between slaves in the collonial understanding and the feudalism/serfdom. Not that any is good, but there are different mechanisms behind them.
@@leno_o17 While true neither excuses any one who did any of it, my point in the first comment was that Europe had taken an anti slavery stance and much of Europe was swept up in anti slavery fervour, for any nation to go against it would invite public issues and national ridicule by the other powers who very much tried beating each other down for such embarrassments
Here's a nice piece of history......general Grant sent a 45colt revolver to Garibaldi and asked him if he wanted to join the army as general but Garibaldi refused because of the war in Italy to unite the peninsula 👍
I once read somwhere that prussian officers wondered why both sides continued to rely on weapons and tactics they considered to be antiquated. The prussian army was at the time already equipped with cartridge firing needle rifles, as opposed to the barrel loading muskets the Americans used. Also the large infantry formation charging into enemy fire and waiting to mass fire their weapons with only basic aiming and only when ordered to do so was falling out of fashion in europe and was replaced by trusting the individual soldier to take cover (which was previousely considered to be cowardly!), find a target and fire a well aimed shot without any extra order.
Locals had picnics watching the Civil War battles, journalists would stand on hills overlooking the battles. So foreign observers would have very little issue gathering information.
The union weren't against slavery, they were against losing all those agricultural states and the wealth derived there from. As Lincoln wrote in a letter to Horace Greeley, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it..."
Ryan did you know Manchester's busy textile mills dressed the world. Because of this, great fortunes were made and ordinary families were fed. But in 1862, Lancashire mill workers, at great personal sacrifice, took a principled stand by refusing to touch raw cotton picked by US slaves which caused a famine, even president lincoln wrote manchester thanking them.
Most of the populace of countries supported the Union, because most of them allready outlawed slavery. Big part of Europe did it before the 19th century.
You must differentiate Canadians as Canada was not what it is today between 1861 and 1865 during the American Civil War. What is now Canada comprised the Canadas (the Ontario and Quebec of today), Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British Columbia, Manitoba and Rupert's Land. Canadians from the Maritimes (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI) actually fought for both sides depending mostly on their family background (mostly from New England and New York); the French in the Canadas just watched while the English also fought for both sides depending on their family background (mostly from New York, Pennsylvania). However, it can generally be said that most Canadians were for the end of slavery and thus the Unionists as it had been abolished in the British Empire in 1833. In fact Lower Canada (Quebec) effectively abolished slavery in the 1790s, and Upper Canada (Ontario) and Nova Scotia about 1800. Slavery was only legally abolished in 1833. The real worry of the Canadian provinces was whether the US civil war would come to them; and in fact, it was an event that pushed forward Canadian Confederation.
I wasn't around at the time, but from what I've heard, the South wanted to keep slavery, and so didn't want to join the Union. But it's probably more complicated than that.
This video was about how governments reacted, but I doubt that ordinary people paid much attention. Here in Finland, during the 1860s about 10% of the population died of starvation and illness because early frost destroyed crops several years in a row. Even if this distant war was mentioned in a newspaper, I don't think that many people thought much about it. They probably used the newspaper to insulate their house, anyways.
@nellitheretrogamer8666 - That starvation event actually caused Finns to immigrate to Sweden and then on to the USA. I was not aware of that until your comment led me to a bit of research.
2:20 until very recently, war turousm was a popular activity, people used to even have picnics while watching battles, it's something that heavily decreased and even essencially stoped due to the high firepower used nowadays, be it the AeO of modern weaponds as well as the reach and damage capabilities of individual weaponds, not to mention how we fight today is completely different, with a major part being within populated of previously populated areas, rather than fields of battle.
Ryan, you have a great presentation style. You are very entertaining and I thoroughly enjoy your wit and humor. You certainly are more tolerant of the "haters" than I would be. Good job!!
Fun fact: Sweden were actually the first country in the world not formally involved in the revolutionary war to recognize the United States.. We did it even before the treaty of Paris😊
Fun fact... Frederick, the Great saved tha ass of the Yanks, because of holdin' the Tommies back to start a full naval commerce war, which would had brought the rebellion to an end for sure. The British could not effort a war on the continent, which had Prussia and France as enemies. Hanover, was near the Prussian border...
Paraphrasing a comment by a Prussian general at the time "not so much a war as two armed bands chasing each other around the countryside, from which little of military value can be learned."
Lol yeah sorry about that. It means that Americans make this conflict bigger than it actually was. Here in Europe you have such conflicts once in two decades.
In the case of the British Empire, senior statesmen seriously entertained recognising and helping the Confederacy even if it meant war (particularly as matters like the Trent affair seemed to indicate the Union was arrogant and provocative) partially due to economics but also recognition of the growing power of the US and thus the opportunity to weaken and divide it seemed useful. However, after Antietam it became more questionable as to whether the South could win on its own and after the Emancipation Proclaimation underlined the conflict as being all about slavery, the intensely anti-slavery British could never support the South. As for Canada, there was preparation in case of war with the Union in the shape of a massive increase in military forces stationed there as well as a move to consolidate the colonies of British North America (which resulted in the Dominion of Canada being formed). In the end there was an unofficial invasion of Canada after the US Civil War, the 'Fenian raids', where Irish civil war veterans tried to use their arms, numbers and experience to attack Canada and hold it hostage until Britain released Ireland. This failed, partially due to Anglo-Canadian prepared defences and partially due to President Grant considering them thieves and deserters (which they were). Ultimately, the raids futher spurred the urgency in uniting Canada and strengthening of anti-US opinion as the raids could not have happened without US arms and sanctuary. As a result, by the 1870s, Britain and Canada had little time for the North (pro-terrorist) or the South (pro-slavery).
The original video should have been called: "What did Prussia, Austria, England, France, Russia and Turkey think of the American Civil War?" "The world" would imply actually talking about a few more countries than the above list.
Change it to "How does this benefit me, at this very moment?" and I fully agree. A lot of good things like an universal public healthcare or social security systems, that pay your cost of living, if you happen to lose your job, are things basically everyone profits off and therefore benefit everyone. Sadly a lot of people think short term: "Why should I pay a little bit right now, without any benefit right now?" Cause they don't think about a distant future where they need it and would have to pay a lot at once, without such a system.
At geopolitical scale, it's not evil, it's the basis of a nation, otherwise, the ruler in charge is just a traitor. 1st current example that comes in my mind: macron.
Both of my sets of English great-grandparents were in their late teens/early 20s at the time of the US Civil War and I cannot imagine that they would have had much or any interest in a conflict so far away at a time when literacy itself was not a forgone conclusion by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't know what did rest of the world think of the American Civil War, but we definitely learn about that in schools and it takes pretty high amount of hours just for your civil war, it's comparable to Napoleonic wars or french revolution.
Manchester UK basically ran on its mills making cloth - if the supply of cotton was cut off no more Manchester economy. I believe that Canada after the US civil war and the possibility of invasion decided that the UK was too far away to protect it so it decided to move toward independence in 1867.
Manchester mill workers refused to process American cotton, they and their families starved and died as a result, quite clearly seen in my own family tree. President Lincoln sent ships with emergency supplies to alleviate the suffering. Manchester inhabitants definitely cared, not least because it rekindled memories of Peterloo, which was still within living memory. Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks to the working men of Manchester including the quote: .... the working- men of Europe have been subjected to severe trials, for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances, I cannot but regard your decisive utterances upon the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country."
I'd say outside of the union blockade hindering southern trade with Europe, the germans got the most use out of it by observing the train schedules. It's also kinda funny, because I remember one historian mention how the progression of tactics in the civil war predicted how ww1 would be fought. And by that i mean it started with great charges, and would ultimately end up with both sides hunkering down in fortified trenches near the end of the war
The British weren't really building ships for the Confederacy. Yeah one shipyard did build 3 ships for them, but the source of the orders was obfuscated through various middle men. The one delivered was sailed to the Azores to be fitted with arms and became the CSS Alabama. After that the other two were seized and became the HMS Scorpion and HMS Wivern.
It’s not a shock that so many European countries were pro-union since Britain had been hitting everyone with the abolition stick ever since the end of napoleon, plus the union was the more industrialised and better long term trade partner.
Yeah the Ottoman Empire did not support the union out of noble motivations, haha. The Ottoman Empire only completely abolished slavery in 1924, after a slow, gradual and uneven process, mainly due to British pressure... Great video!
I as a german dont know much about the civil war apart from what we saw in the movies and a cpl series about this in tv. In school we had maybe just an hour about this just a presentation of a few facts like north and south fighting for 5 yrs. 🤣🤣
Most Europe was already super anti-slavery for centuries at that point, either by law or just because it was seen so morally wrong that anyone doing it would be ostrasized.
fun fact: Tadeusz Kościuszko, a Polish military engineer became a "lieutenant-general" in the American civil war, fighting for the union "On learning of the American Revolution, Kościuszko, a man of revolutionary aspirations, sympathetic to the American cause and an advocate of human rights, sailed for the Americas in June 1776 along with other foreign officers, likely with the help of a French supporter of the American revolutionaries, Pierre Beaumarchais. After finally arriving in Philadelphia (after a Caribbean shipwreck) he sought out Benjamin Franklin at his print shop; offering to take engineering subject exams (in lieu of any letters of recommendation), he received a high mark on a geometry exam and Franklin's recommendation. On 30 August 1776, Kościuszko submitted an application to the Second Continental Congress at the Pennsylvania State House, and was assigned to the Continental Army the next day." - from wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Ko%C5%9Bciuszko#American_Revolutionary_War
Problem is, that this "massive" conflict had around 600k deaths, right? That was average war in Europe for hundreds of years:) Battle of Grunwald for example. One battle. 10k deaths. Siege Of Leningrad? 5 milions. Battle of Alesia? Yeah, maybe 300k deaths. So Civil War in USA is a little basic conflict in Europe, that we had hudreds in our history:) A phew houses in my town are older that USA:)
The American Civil War can in a sense be seen as the first modern war. It is not comparable to any wars before this in any way. It was also a very cruel and deadly war. And no, medieval wars did not usually have 100s of thousands of deaths (at least not as military casualties). Also the tactics applied were often very ineffective and thus increased the numbers of dead and the duration of the war.
@@thomasfranz6467 An estimated 1.5 - 2 million people died in Europe in the Napoleonic Wars (1798 - 1815). We have always been bloodthirsty and the "small" number of victims has to be seen relative to the small population back then
You're comparing deaths from wars in which multiple countries were involved. The American Civil War was citizen against citjzen, often brother against brother. Why are you considering the figures some kind of competition anyway?
Lol, the US is not the only country ever had a civil war... So I am wondering whether John and Jane from Alabame are also interested in the recent African civil wars or historic civil wars in Europe..
The French did care, they lent the US money and because they were never paid back, France remained in debt. This escalated the uprisings in France and the French Revolution happened. Because of the US's inability to pay back the money, Louis XVI lost his head.
Calling the war of 1861-1865 a "Civil War" is a misnomer. It was *not a civil war* - it was a (failed) "War of (Southern) Secession" or "War of (Southern) Independence". In a civil war, you have two of more sides, divided mostly by politics (though ethnic, religious, or linguistic factors may also play a part), fighting for the control of the *entire* territory; they all claim to be the legitimate holders of power and authority. (Sometime one of the sides may settle for a smaller territory, but that is just a pragmatic decision - a decisive win does not seem feasible -, not the original plan.) The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 was a civil war: both Republicans and Nationalists claimed legitimacy over all of Spain. The Russian Civil War before the creation of the USSR was a civil war: both Reds and Whites claimed legitimacy over the territory of the crumbling Russian Empire (though, for some regional players, like the Ukrainians, Finns, Poles, and a few more, the war was a War of Independence - it was complicated). But the American War of 1861-1865 was not like that. What we had was *part of a country wanting out* because they disagreed on a fundamental political/economical/social issue (slavery), and not claiming overall legitimacy instead of the Union. It was a war of secession, not a civil war.
Worth noting that it would have been difficult for any of those countries to support the confederates (even in the case it would have been beneficial economically), since afaik they already banned slavery at this point. Britain did it in 1834 and France in 1848. Some like Spain did it more or less at the same time as USA though.
Confederates at the time - 'Don't take my slaves!' Unionists at the time - 'Dude, free your slaves' The rest of the world at the time - 'Ugh, I cant believe they still have slaves' Republicans today - 'iT wAsNt AbOuT sLaVeRy!!!!!! WAAAAARRGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
I'm from Denmark, and I swear Google is spying on me. Just today I was talking with a colleague, and in reference to something I went, "Oh yeah, kinda like the American Civil War." My colleague went, "They had a civil war? I'm guessing it was a long time ago?" I mean, to be fair, it is on another continent, 100+ years ago, but I was still surprised.
The Union was not specifically against slavery; that came after the war was won as a thank you to those slaves, then the rest, who supported and enlisted with the Union. Lincoln's long term plan was to repatriate the former slaves to their African homelands, or the Caribbean and or S America, but was persuaded to do otherwise.
At the start of the US civil war both the Union and the Confederacy were telling the rest of the world that the war wasn't about slavery, though most countries knew it was.
Hello, I am Spanish, and I would like to say that these videos always ignore the fact that Spain was a great help for your independence, and that you have the portrait of Bernardo de Galvez in the Senate.
Well i don't know much about your civil war in the past, i'm Dutch and it was a long time ago. I'm more worried about the next civil war in the US when people clash over the presidency later thid year. It's a fucked up country with only one freedom. The freedom to get your head blown off. And the worse thing is, too many people over here still look at the US as an example and don't appreciate our hard fought rights and social security. Next 25 years, Europe will go down the same path. Not as fast, cuz the US is extreme in every way, but we'll get there too. Unflrtunately...
Why do you think we probably didn’t know about the civil war, because there was no internet? Heard about schools? In Europe we learn a lot about the world when we are young, also about worldhistory.
It is crazy how greedy people are at others expense... when you think about it nothing has changed not just America but also the west in general,think of those who make your iPhone, sneakers, cheap clothing what conditions do they put up with so the companies you buy pretty much everything from can make it cheap in a foreign country so you can buy it cheaper than you would if built on home soil or how many people suffer to keep gas prices low or US dominance across the world
Hm, I see the emotion and tension in the presenter. That said, the US is entering into a new historical pivotal era. American Democracy, by its prevailing definition is under siege and one of the sides in this debate is (again) displaying distinctly Confederate tendencies. I am glad that I no longer live in the US, because I can see how this can erupt very easily into an extremely nasty replay of the 19th century Civil War. This time not prevailingly regionally delinineated but now much more ideologically so and accross ALL of the states. That could get exceedingly ugly.
@@Centurion101B3C The USA has always had more than 2 parties. Right now we have independents, greens, libertarians, and anyone else who's vain enough to want to run.
@@reindeer7752 No, you have basically 2 relevant political parties with a coterie of useful fools that can be leveraged by those 2 parties to maintain the control by those 2 main parties.
WOW. Somebody did something for money? ( Besides working, career, etc.) That would never happen today. Better not let the government know, they might just start doing that.
Yo, America, you werent the only nation to fight a civil war. You were the only ones to fight a civil war for slavery. To the rest of us your civil war is nothing of not. Hell, my homeland had a civil war "The New Zealand Wars" about the British cheating my people, the Māori out of their land and not honouring Te Tiriti
They didn't really fight for or against the slavery. There were far more important reasons (financial). The abolition was rather a secondary reason, mostly advertised to ordinary people from the Union, to get them more hyped for the war, by making them to believe they will fight on the righteous side.
@TlpeneThorner - The video explicitly states there were other civil wars going on, so why the sarcasm? The New Zealand Wars were nothing of not to most of the world, too.
@damyr - The South definitely was fighting to keep slavery. You can find manifestos by various state's leaders and the vice president t of the Conferdracy stating their cause was exactly that.
@@reindeer7752 I mean, sure. But it was not among main reasons of the war. Rather just an additional nuance, because those states wanted to have their own, independent government and their own laws. And btw, slavery wouldn't last much anyway, even if Confederates won. The social awareness moment was happening in the South as well as in the North.
Yeah it was a big war. It was horrible. The cost of having to send all those observers... Terrible. Just terrible. So would you lot mind to keep the next one a bit smaller? Or maybe plan it off-season so we can save some money on air-travel? That would be great. Thanks! PS. We're keeping the Irish this time so you'll have to make do with the English, just shout "sovereignty" and point to where you want them to go.
I've never had any interest in the American Civil War...... the English Civil War is something I'm more interested in however as much as I love History' English/British , it does not interest me as much as other pockets of history
Hey Ryan im french and made my graduate presentation about american civil war By the way i've watched à lot of your video about dumb thing american says to people and to be fair french are pretty close on That point. In fact France is the more american country of Europe (maybe due to WWII alliance) some french know more things about america than our own country and woaw thats blow my mind. One Day a guy from paris ask me if we got internet in my town 😂 i was tempted to answer no What is that? 😂 So dont Feel embarassed by thing american says about other people and country its the same here
Sorry, my Frank brother, but the Germans get the most American country in Europe. Indeed, it's no wonder. The biggest ethnicity in the US, came by far from Germany. Around 25% + X
we know when it was, as we mostly know the entire world history, only you ppl dont know anything. as if your google does not give global results. no idea. but when the internet came to be, I used to it gain more and more knowledge, especially geography - as you - internet.
Here's a thought. While I find the idea of reacting to cultural differences interesting, most of your videos focus on ways Europe is better than the US and similar things. I feel like these videos are too tilted towards stroking the egos of my fellow Europeans. The thing I'd love to see are things that are done right by countries you wouldn't consider moving to. Maybe something about living in the Middle East (even somewhat biased videos like Fluffy going to Saudi Arabia)? Maybe some of the Eastern Asian countries that supposedly have a rougher life than the "more developed" west? It would probably be much more educational, although it would run the risk of losing viewers. I love the aspect of educating yourself using different perspectives but feel it's kind of biased when "the rest of the world" only talks about European countries, as if they didn't skip the majority of the world's population, who mostly were unaffected in this case.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
Just because the Union invaded Canada (again) doesn't mean they would win. War with Canada would have meant war with the Empire.
Consider the war of 1812, when the US invaded canada.. and the consequence of that is why the White house had to be whitewashed. (After the counterattack set it on fire...)
It's amazing how there are so many Americans don't know how the British set the White House on fire, having invaded the USA from out of Canada.
a bit like the American revolutionary war from 1775 to 1783?
@@stonedmountainunicorn9532 Exactly, or 1812. Either way It's a war you'd rather avoide if you were the US unless absolutely neccesary.
Actually, Abraham Lincoln did not want us to continue going to war. In the famous Second Inaugural Address, delivered before his assasination, he said the following: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.". The USA wanted peace with the world -- and completely disrmed after the Civil War, not to rearm until the 1890's on its way to being a world power.
“Did they [the observers] just walk near the battlefield?” Basically yes. The observers were usually officers and other rich types and would observe from that point of view, hanging out with the American officers on either side - not in the actual line of fire. It’s like an exchange program for the sorts of people who sip tea in tents and discuss strategy and ancient history while regular people are doing the dying.
But local well-to-do people too would go picnic and watch a battle for entertainment like it’s a sport - and often realize that, big surprise, watching people get killed and/or dismembered doesn’t match the sanitized, romantic notion of “a fine battle”. Or that their side is losing (shock!) and maybe they need to gtfo.
Obviously Americans focus on their civil war, but civil wars occurred long before they existed, I'd flip the question, what do Americans think of our civil wars?
Here is a list from England alone:
This is a list of civil wars that have occurred in the history of England.
The Anarchy (1135-1154) - a civil war in England and Normandy between 1135 and 1154 surrounding a succession crisis towards the end of the reign of Henry I, fought between the supporters of the claim of King Stephen and that of Empress Matilda (also known as Empress Maud or Maude). The eventual outcome was the accession of the Angevins in the person of Henry II.
First Barons' War (1215-1217) - a civil war in the Kingdom of England in which a group of rebellious barons, led by Robert Fitzwalter and supported by a French army under the future Louis VIII of France, made war on King John of England.
Second Barons' War (1264-1267) - a civil war between the forces of a number of barons led by Simon de Montfort against Royalist forces led by Prince Edward (later Edward I of England), in the name of Henry III.
Despenser War (1321-1322, 1326) - A baronial revolt in England and Wales against Edward II instigated by Marcher Lords in opposition to court favourite Hugh Despenser.
Invasion of England (1326) - Continuation of the Despenser War. Isabella of France, and her lover, Roger Mortimers invasion led to: the executions of Hugh Despenser the Younger and Hugh Despenser the Elder; The abdication of Isabella's husband King Edward II for their son Edward III; and Edward II died, most likely assassinated by orders of Isabella and Mortimer.
Wars of the Roses (1455-1487) - a series of dynastic civil wars for the throne of England fought between supporters of two rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet: the House of York and the House of Lancaster.
The English Civil War (1642-1652) - a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") in the Kingdom of England over, principally, the manner of its government.
First English Civil War (1642-46) - the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament
Second English Civil War (1648-49) - the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament
Third English Civil War (1650-52) - the supporters of King Charles II against the supporters of the Rump Parliament
Jacobite Rebellions -A Civil war in England, Scotland, and Ireland fought over many years to restore the House of Stuart to the British throne. The conflict started after James II and VII was deposed and exiled in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Williamite War in Ireland (1688-91) -The Battle of the Boyne saw the last battle between two rival claimants for the throne
Jacobite rising of 1689 (1689-92)
Jacobite rising of 1715 (1715-16)
Jacobite rising of 1719 (1719)
Jacobite rising of 1745 (1741-1746) -Jacobite restoration attempt defeated
How could the USA have reacted if they didnt exist yet?
@@CobraChicken101 Well obviously I mean their reaction now :D
the better question is : will they have a desire to take a road trip into Europe with its capital in London by driving through Canada and then to the invisible road across the Atlantic ?
Yes, I knew of those, the eternal thirst for a British crown! 👑
Marx was also very pro-Union and saw the civil war as a fight for communism
6:20 it is hilarious to hear “Good to see countries being noble standing by the union against slavery” while the video is talking about the ottoman empire who didn’t abolish slavery until 1924 xD
I'm sure Ryan has seen some videos about slavery over the world, but for plenty other Americans it's just their own slavery and Africa.
Other close US friends, were a little later. Saudi Arabia, for example, did it in 1962...
Turkey didn't pass legislation explicitly prohibiting slavery until 1964 when it was finally adopted.
Morocco still has slavery and they refuse to ban it.
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 Officially anyway. Neither the U.S. or Saudi Arabia have gotten rid of slavery, they just rebranded it in a number of ways.
If I’m not mistaken, I seem to recall learning somewhere that many of the cotton mills (I believe mainly around Manchester, which was a city full of cotton mills) in the UK refused to use/buy the cotton from slave owning plantations in the US and sourced their cotton from other places until the American Civil War ended and slavery was abolished.
The Cotton Famine. People had no work for 5 years and lived on the brink of starvation. The only alternative to American cotton was Indian cotton which was poor quality and unworkable. The north of England shut down for the duration of the War.
@@atorthefightingeagle9813 Thank you, I knew that they had refused the slave picked plantation cotton but I couldn’t remember all the details…but I also felt that it deserved to be acknowledged.
@@lynnejamieson2063 Lincoln acknowledged it by sending a letter of thanks to the cotton mill workers in Manchester for their support.
@@Acridblue999 I don’t doubt that but I was rather disappointed by the fact that things like this weren’t mentioned in the video, as I’m sure it wouldn’t have just been the Manchester cotton mill workers that took this stance. The same must have happened in other places around the world and it’s always uplifting to learn of the ways that humans will stand up for what is right…especially when it is to their own detriment.
@@lynnejamieson2063 Well in those days British cotton mills overwhelmingly supplied most of the world and they had far more to lose than other countries. Causing mills to shut down and people on the verge of starvation. Lincoln knew this and thats why his letter was specifically for the people in Manchester. I doubt if it affected other countries the same, but yes there would have been support from people in other countries.
USA is a very young compared to most.
@@zelmawood im not talking about sovereign states, but oke!
@@zelmawoodthat's a false argument. The sovereign nation as a concept itself is still quite Young. Most western nations in Europe transitioned into a sovereign nation state only by the 19th century. However, as feudal nations with clearly defined borders they'd been around for centuries, often able to trace their origins back to the Roman empire.
@@saladspinner3200 Look closer. There was no United Kingdom before 1801. No Belgium before 1830. No Italy before 1861.
And now look at the rest of the world. Not just Western Europe.
@@zelmawood You are missing my point. Read my previous comment again and try to grasp it, word by word.
@@saladspinner3200It's not about sovereignty. They did not exist in any form. Not as a feudal nation. Not as subterritory. They were simply not a political entity in 1783. And this is a case for many countries in the world.
Calling the US "very young" is absurd when compared to Israel, Pakistan and many other nations.
A lot of freed slaves fled to canada via the bridge at niagara falls..
They were safe in canada cause britain was (at least officially) VERY much against slavery
Fun fact, the UK was the first to abolish slavery and did so across the colonies in 1834
Not exactly true. They were using slave labor in India up until the time of Ghandi.
An estimated 35-55 tens of thousands of Canadians joined the Union Army to fight against slavery. Many heads of horses were sold to the US also.
The officer leading the troops that captured John Wilkes Booth was a Canadian.
And after that, they still considered invading Canada?
The Unionists would never have attacked Canada; just like in 1812, New England would have voted NO. In addition, the Canadian provinces would have defended themselves; French Canadians didn't want to disappear into the US and neither the Loyalists descendants whose grandfathers had likely fought in 1812. The proof of this would come just two years after the end of the US civil war with the creation of the Dominion of Canada in July 1867.
I love the sarcasm. "Yeh the 1700s was along time before the internet, crazy isn't it" as if the world doesn't know the internet wasn't invented by the British until 1983. Silly boy.
I thought Al Gore invented the internet.
@@howardhales6325 I thought the internet was created by accident by a U.S. weapon contractor during the 50s.
@@howardhales6325 th-cam.com/video/Cut3D2JkcrQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DqKS8xeUOKl-4Acz
The only thing I "know" about American Civil War is watching "North and South" TV show in the 80s 🤣🤣
📺I loved to watch „North and South“ with Patrick Swayze with my Mom and my sister on tv as a kid.
Back then mainly for the beautiful dresses 😆 but I also learned early about the American civil war and felt immediately that slavery is a very cruel, inhumane thing.
Me too! And I loved Kirstey Alley's character, the fierce abolitionist.
yeah I remember it too. It was a good series. But that was just an ideological representation (like most of American movies and TV-shows). The slavery was not really a reason for the war... it was just an additional fuel, for most people. The real reason was about political and economical control over the states.
@@damyr
Of course, of course.
I just wanted to say that this series brought me into an early contact with a topic I would otherwise never been interested in at such a young age.
The deeper understanding of the connections came later. 😉
@@fragglerock8702 Didn't she hang in the end...?
@@damyr So it was! That started about the federal income and tarifs, after the 1820's. The argument about slavery, was only one of the sparks at the powder keg...
Fun Fact: a lot of strategists still believe that the US kinda sucks at war and are only able to win because they simply have a vast amount of troops and ammunition to throw at the enemy. Quantity over quatily so to speak. There are many examples of NATO maneuvers where the US was pitted against a similar sized enemy and they most of the time lost.
The most humiliating loss was a case in which the maneuver was one German U-Boat against a fleet trying to defend a ship in their midst. After the americans started to think that the U-Boat was somehow lost or in the wrong spot because they didn't find any signs of it for hours, it suddenly surfaced right besides the protected ship in the middle of the fleet and the captain yelled over to them: "by the way, You guys are dead!". They didn't find it with dozens of sonars driving right through the fleet to the target
Same with Vietnam, only Australia won any battles!
It was a small Sweedish diesel submarine (HSMS Gotland). And the UK managed to "drop nuklear bombs" on American cities during excercise. Twice, because the US "asked for a rematch".
Ok, there's no reason to underestimate American military abilities. They know and can fight as much as any other nation. They lost in Vietnam rather because of political and economical reasons, not because they were bad in fighting.
And that movie reference is not a representation of the whole war. American navy suffered losses in the initial stage of the war in Atlantic, but they didn't take too much time to adapt. After a few months, they started to be pretty successful. Already in 1943 they practically won the war against U-boat wolf packs, by decimating them so much, they were not considered to be a serious threat anymore.
Americans captured a U-boat. Its on display in Chicago and is the only one existing.
@@reindeer7752 You really believe that there was only one U-Boat in history? U-Boat is just the german name for submarine. Yes, they captured one in WW2 (the one on display) but there were hundreds of german submarines (U-Boats) and there still are dozens today...
And now it looks like you're heading for another one.
Not if Democrats win
Europeans are overjoyed about that fact apparently
@@peytonburrell6303 No. A civil war in the US would destabilise the world. When the British empire collapsed after ww2, the US took on the mantle of world policeman. If the police start fighting amongst themselves then it becomes open day for all the bad guys.
It's amazing to see ottoman empire being pro-union considering the amount of slavery they were responsible for.
The again as always. No one really cared they just wanted it to be over with.
True! But this was the Tanzimat era of the Ottoman Empire (probably the most progressive time of the empire), where they had just had a very anti-slavery sultan (Abdülmecid I), who outlawed slavery of black people and Circassians, so I think there was at least some kind of ideological overlap as well as a pretty strong economic incentive.
Let's be clear: The Turks were only for the Turks themselves. They couldn't care less about what happened half a world away. They did however very much care about what it did to their bottom-line and having a major competitor for the profitable cotton-market taken out of the competition did wonders for that same bottom-line. Of course the Turks had a lot of very correct and flowery language about the inhumanity of slavery and such, but let's not forget that the slavetrade was also run from Istanbul and Ankara even though the national laws were against that. The Turks decided that advocating for slave-trade was neither politically expedient by reasons of legality, nor overly profitable in the long term and thus infeasible as an earning-model and they chose their side accordingly.
For a while it was a boost to the Egyptian cotton production, as it was to India.
Why everyone thinks the US civil war was fought because of slavery? They fought for political and economical control. Abolition of slavery was a secondary reason at best, and mostly advertised to masses, so they could get hyped and choose to support and fight for "morally righteous" side.
@@damyr .
The various Declarations of Causes of Seceding States all mention the possibility of the abolition of slavery as one main reason for secession.
For example, from Mississippi
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. "
Australia has a digital record of newspapers of the time. The website is known as the TROVE, which searchable, American War, Filter search to newspapers, filter years to the 1860’s. Before the war it was called the American Crises, often reports were reprints from English correspondence/newspapers. Generally weekly updates of the Civil War were reported in the papers.
what did the USA think of Australia's Emu war? about the same as what Australia thought about the US civil war...
lol a better example would be the Eureka stockage. (re-written as my last post looks corrupted and I could not fix a typo.)
@@playlisttarmac while i agree with you completly, the Emu war is just too funny and USians in general can't even say Emu properly.... they say e-moo and out themselves
It is too funny to think people think it was a real war. It is like saying we are having a was against misinformation.
@@yendor9078 the Australian's with the guns lost against the Emus..... as a result i never underestimate Australian wildlife, it can be sneaky!
@@feldegast It was a culling. Nothing more! Not one human was killed or even wounded by an Emu. How was it a war? so funny how gullible people get sucked in.
Its important to know that Europe had abolished slavery themselves not that long ago and that the people of the nations were against slavery so taking any other stance on it was very dangerous as uprisings could easily be triggered. We were at war with Prussia at that time so Denmark was very busy
Many European powers abolished slavery in practice centuries before the US did. Late abolishment (on paper) was typically just some de-facto putting things into written law, closing some loopholes, adding some remote territory under mainland laws, or referring to the abolishment serfdom/feudalism (which wasn't quite slavery). The French king, for example, abolished slavery all the way back in the 14th century, But what is typically counted is the French Republic, post-revolution, abolishing it by law again, or alternatively, the end of the 20 or so years Napoleon allowed it specifically for some remote colonies in the Americas.
What I'm trying to say is that mainland Europeans were not new to the concept of slavery being bad and were not sensitive because it was a recent issue for them. Quite the contrary - it was the normal state of things, and supporting a state that allows slavery would probably have been seen as anachronistic as it would be to vote for the "Round up the Irish and put them into work camps"-party right now.
Remember that many countries didn't have slavery at all. No reason to abolish something that technically isn't a thing.
@@leno_o17 Every people had slaves at some point
@@LynxLord1991 there's a bit of difference between slaves in the collonial understanding and the feudalism/serfdom. Not that any is good, but there are different mechanisms behind them.
@@leno_o17 While true neither excuses any one who did any of it, my point in the first comment was that Europe had taken an anti slavery stance and much of Europe was swept up in anti slavery fervour, for any nation to go against it would invite public issues and national ridicule by the other powers who very much tried beating each other down for such embarrassments
Here's a nice piece of history......general Grant sent a 45colt revolver to Garibaldi and asked him if he wanted to join the army as general but Garibaldi refused because of the war in Italy to unite the peninsula 👍
I once read somwhere that prussian officers wondered why both sides continued to rely on weapons and tactics they considered to be antiquated.
The prussian army was at the time already equipped with cartridge firing needle rifles, as opposed to the barrel loading muskets the Americans used.
Also the large infantry formation charging into enemy fire and waiting to mass fire their weapons with only basic aiming and only when ordered to do so was falling out of fashion in europe and was replaced by trusting the individual soldier to take cover (which was previousely considered to be cowardly!), find a target and fire a well aimed shot without any extra order.
You mean "Fire at Will"...
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 more or less. Just with "fire at will" being the rule rather than the exception.
It's good to learn about the American Civil War, just before the next one.
As I see it, not only young in years but immature, in essence playground bully
Locals had picnics watching the Civil War battles, journalists would stand on hills overlooking the battles. So foreign observers would have very little issue gathering information.
Well... This occured in the first battle at the first Bull Run...
Harry Turtledove's althistory series on that theme are worth a read, goes all the way to an alternative version of the World War that features a CSA.
Came here to recommend this, too. Great story.
The union weren't against slavery, they were against losing all those agricultural states and the wealth derived there from. As Lincoln wrote in a letter to Horace Greeley, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it..."
Ryan did you know Manchester's busy textile mills dressed the world. Because of this, great fortunes were made and ordinary families were fed. But in 1862, Lancashire mill workers, at great personal sacrifice, took a principled stand by refusing to touch raw cotton picked by US slaves which caused a famine, even president lincoln wrote manchester thanking them.
Most of the populace of countries supported the Union, because most of them allready outlawed slavery. Big part of Europe did it before the 19th century.
You must differentiate Canadians as Canada was not what it is today between 1861 and 1865 during the American Civil War. What is now Canada comprised the Canadas (the Ontario and Quebec of today), Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British Columbia, Manitoba and Rupert's Land. Canadians from the Maritimes (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI) actually fought for both sides depending mostly on their family background (mostly from New England and New York); the French in the Canadas just watched while the English also fought for both sides depending on their family background (mostly from New York, Pennsylvania). However, it can generally be said that most Canadians were for the end of slavery and thus the Unionists as it had been abolished in the British Empire in 1833. In fact Lower Canada (Quebec) effectively abolished slavery in the 1790s, and Upper Canada (Ontario) and Nova Scotia about 1800. Slavery was only legally abolished in 1833.
The real worry of the Canadian provinces was whether the US civil war would come to them; and in fact, it was an event that pushed forward Canadian Confederation.
2:13 - check term "Military attaché"
I wasn't around at the time, but from what I've heard, the South wanted to keep slavery, and so didn't want to join the Union.
But it's probably more complicated than that.
Why do people always forget economic interests when asking why countries do what they do?
This video was about how governments reacted, but I doubt that ordinary people paid much attention. Here in Finland, during the 1860s about 10% of the population died of starvation and illness because early frost destroyed crops several years in a row. Even if this distant war was mentioned in a newspaper, I don't think that many people thought much about it. They probably used the newspaper to insulate their house, anyways.
@nellitheretrogamer8666 - That starvation event actually caused Finns to immigrate to Sweden and then on to the USA. I was not aware of that until your comment led me to a bit of research.
In UK. It concerns me that a lot of issues weren't settled by the civil war and rumble on to this day
2:20 until very recently, war turousm was a popular activity, people used to even have picnics while watching battles, it's something that heavily decreased and even essencially stoped due to the high firepower used nowadays, be it the AeO of modern weaponds as well as the reach and damage capabilities of individual weaponds, not to mention how we fight today is completely different, with a major part being within populated of previously populated areas, rather than fields of battle.
A war with Canada would've meant a war with the British Empire, which the Union couldn't have won alone. Especially whilst fighting the Confederates
Ryan, you have a great presentation style. You are very entertaining and I thoroughly enjoy your wit and humor. You certainly are more tolerant of the "haters" than I would be. Good job!!
Fun fact: Sweden were actually the first country in the world not formally involved in the revolutionary war to recognize the United States.. We did it even before the treaty of Paris😊
But the Netherlands was the first to give a salute to the American flag
@@commandbrawler9348The Netherlands independence greatly inspired U.S. independence. The declaration of independence took a lot from the Dutch one.
Fun fact... Frederick, the Great saved tha ass of the Yanks, because of holdin' the Tommies back to start a full naval commerce war, which would had brought the rebellion to an end for sure. The British could not effort a war on the continent, which had Prussia and France as enemies. Hanover, was near the Prussian border...
Paraphrasing a comment by a Prussian general at the time "not so much a war as two armed bands chasing each other around the countryside, from which little of military value can be learned."
Me from Europe and lover of history.
My opinion about the American Civil War is that it is like a balloon. Its get big with a lot of air in it.
What is that supposed to mean?
Lol yeah sorry about that. It means that Americans make this conflict bigger than it actually was. Here in Europe you have such conflicts once in two decades.
Always fascinating to see things haven't changed much over the centuries. The powers that be vs the public I mean. Money talks, power walks.
In the case of the British Empire, senior statesmen seriously entertained recognising and helping the Confederacy even if it meant war (particularly as matters like the Trent affair seemed to indicate the Union was arrogant and provocative) partially due to economics but also recognition of the growing power of the US and thus the opportunity to weaken and divide it seemed useful. However, after Antietam it became more questionable as to whether the South could win on its own and after the Emancipation Proclaimation underlined the conflict as being all about slavery, the intensely anti-slavery British could never support the South. As for Canada, there was preparation in case of war with the Union in the shape of a massive increase in military forces stationed there as well as a move to consolidate the colonies of British North America (which resulted in the Dominion of Canada being formed). In the end there was an unofficial invasion of Canada after the US Civil War, the 'Fenian raids', where Irish civil war veterans tried to use their arms, numbers and experience to attack Canada and hold it hostage until Britain released Ireland. This failed, partially due to Anglo-Canadian prepared defences and partially due to President Grant considering them thieves and deserters (which they were). Ultimately, the raids futher spurred the urgency in uniting Canada and strengthening of anti-US opinion as the raids could not have happened without US arms and sanctuary. As a result, by the 1870s, Britain and Canada had little time for the North (pro-terrorist) or the South (pro-slavery).
2:15 that's exactly how it was done, but often they also entered on one of the sides through some contact and investigated from there
The original video should have been called: "What did Prussia, Austria, England, France, Russia and Turkey think of the American Civil War?"
"The world" would imply actually talking about a few more countries than the above list.
"How does this benefit me?" Source of all evil.
A way of keeping ones children alive.
Change it to "How does this benefit me, at this very moment?" and I fully agree.
A lot of good things like an universal public healthcare or social security systems, that pay your cost of living, if you happen to lose your job, are things basically everyone profits off and therefore benefit everyone. Sadly a lot of people think short term:
"Why should I pay a little bit right now, without any benefit right now?" Cause they don't think about a distant future where they need it and would have to pay a lot at once, without such a system.
At geopolitical scale, it's not evil, it's the basis of a nation, otherwise, the ruler in charge is just a traitor.
1st current example that comes in my mind: macron.
Both of my sets of English great-grandparents were in their late teens/early 20s at the time of the US Civil War and I cannot imagine that they would have had much or any interest in a conflict so far away at a time when literacy itself was not a forgone conclusion by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't know what did rest of the world think of the American Civil War, but we definitely learn about that in schools and it takes pretty high amount of hours just for your civil war, it's comparable to Napoleonic wars or french revolution.
Manchester UK basically ran on its mills making cloth - if the supply of cotton was cut off no more Manchester economy. I believe that Canada after the US civil war and the possibility of invasion decided that the UK was too far away to protect it so it decided to move toward independence in 1867.
Manchester mill workers refused to process American cotton, they and their families starved and died as a result, quite clearly seen in my own family tree.
President Lincoln sent ships with emergency supplies to alleviate the suffering. Manchester inhabitants definitely cared, not least because it rekindled memories of Peterloo, which was still within living memory. Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks to the working men of Manchester including the quote:
.... the working- men of Europe have been subjected to severe trials, for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances, I cannot but regard your decisive utterances upon the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country."
I'd say outside of the union blockade hindering southern trade with Europe, the germans got the most use out of it by observing the train schedules.
It's also kinda funny, because I remember one historian mention how the progression of tactics in the civil war predicted how ww1 would be fought. And by that i mean it started with great charges, and would ultimately end up with both sides hunkering down in fortified trenches near the end of the war
The British weren't really building ships for the Confederacy. Yeah one shipyard did build 3 ships for them, but the source of the orders was obfuscated through various middle men. The one delivered was sailed to the Azores to be fitted with arms and became the CSS Alabama. After that the other two were seized and became the HMS Scorpion and HMS Wivern.
02:14 - Yes. Just like that. This is even depicted in the movie "Gettysburg" in the form of a British observer on the Confederate side.
It’s not a shock that so many European countries were pro-union since Britain had been hitting everyone with the abolition stick ever since the end of napoleon, plus the union was the more industrialised and better long term trade partner.
Yeah the Ottoman Empire did not support the union out of noble motivations, haha. The Ottoman Empire only completely abolished slavery in 1924, after a slow, gradual and uneven process, mainly due to British pressure... Great video!
I as a german dont know much about the civil war apart from what we saw in the movies and a cpl series about this in tv. In school we had maybe just an hour about this just a presentation of a few facts like north and south fighting for 5 yrs. 🤣🤣
Most Europe was already super anti-slavery for centuries at that point, either by law or just because it was seen so morally wrong that anyone doing it would be ostrasized.
fun fact: Tadeusz Kościuszko, a Polish military engineer became a "lieutenant-general" in the American civil war, fighting for the union
"On learning of the American Revolution, Kościuszko, a man of revolutionary aspirations, sympathetic to the American cause and an advocate of human rights, sailed for the Americas in June 1776 along with other foreign officers, likely with the help of a French supporter of the American revolutionaries, Pierre Beaumarchais. After finally arriving in Philadelphia (after a Caribbean shipwreck) he sought out Benjamin Franklin at his print shop; offering to take engineering subject exams (in lieu of any letters of recommendation), he received a high mark on a geometry exam and Franklin's recommendation. On 30 August 1776, Kościuszko submitted an application to the Second Continental Congress at the Pennsylvania State House, and was assigned to the Continental Army the next day." - from wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Ko%C5%9Bciuszko#American_Revolutionary_War
pomyliłeś wojny. Materiał jest o wojnie domowej, nie wojnie rewolucyjnej
Problem is, that this "massive" conflict had around 600k deaths, right? That was average war in Europe for hundreds of years:) Battle of Grunwald for example. One battle. 10k deaths. Siege Of Leningrad? 5 milions. Battle of Alesia? Yeah, maybe 300k deaths. So Civil War in USA is a little basic conflict in Europe, that we had hudreds in our history:) A phew houses in my town are older that USA:)
The American Civil War can in a sense be seen as the first modern war. It is not comparable to any wars before this in any way. It was also a very cruel and deadly war. And no, medieval wars did not usually have 100s of thousands of deaths (at least not as military casualties). Also the tactics applied were often very ineffective and thus increased the numbers of dead and the duration of the war.
@@thomasfranz6467
An estimated 1.5 - 2 million people died in Europe in the Napoleonic Wars (1798 - 1815).
We have always been bloodthirsty and the "small" number of victims has to be seen relative to the small population back then
There are many structures in the USA older than 1776.
You're comparing deaths from wars in which multiple countries were involved. The American Civil War was citizen against citjzen, often brother against brother. Why are you considering the figures some kind of competition anyway?
@@reindeer7752 I'm just comparing the US to Europe, as many Americans do.
or is it only ok if it is in America's favor?
Lol, the US is not the only country ever had a civil war...
So I am wondering whether John and Jane from Alabame are also interested in the recent African civil wars or historic civil wars in Europe..
The video explicitly states there were other civil wars going on around the same time.
The Romans did a lot...
The French did care, they lent the US money and because they were never paid back, France remained in debt. This escalated the uprisings in France and the French Revolution happened. Because of the US's inability to pay back the money, Louis XVI lost his head.
Calling the war of 1861-1865 a "Civil War" is a misnomer. It was *not a civil war* - it was a (failed) "War of (Southern) Secession" or "War of (Southern) Independence".
In a civil war, you have two of more sides, divided mostly by politics (though ethnic, religious, or linguistic factors may also play a part), fighting for the control of the *entire* territory; they all claim to be the legitimate holders of power and authority. (Sometime one of the sides may settle for a smaller territory, but that is just a pragmatic decision - a decisive win does not seem feasible -, not the original plan.)
The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 was a civil war: both Republicans and Nationalists claimed legitimacy over all of Spain. The Russian Civil War before the creation of the USSR was a civil war: both Reds and Whites claimed legitimacy over the territory of the crumbling Russian Empire (though, for some regional players, like the Ukrainians, Finns, Poles, and a few more, the war was a War of Independence - it was complicated).
But the American War of 1861-1865 was not like that. What we had was *part of a country wanting out* because they disagreed on a fundamental political/economical/social issue (slavery), and not claiming overall legitimacy instead of the Union. It was a war of secession, not a civil war.
Worth noting that it would have been difficult for any of those countries to support the confederates (even in the case it would have been beneficial economically), since afaik they already banned slavery at this point. Britain did it in 1834 and France in 1848. Some like Spain did it more or less at the same time as USA though.
Confederates at the time - 'Don't take my slaves!'
Unionists at the time - 'Dude, free your slaves'
The rest of the world at the time - 'Ugh, I cant believe they still have slaves'
Republicans today - 'iT wAsNt AbOuT sLaVeRy!!!!!! WAAAAARRGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
I'm from Denmark, and I swear Google is spying on me. Just today I was talking with a colleague, and in reference to something I went, "Oh yeah, kinda like the American Civil War." My colleague went, "They had a civil war? I'm guessing it was a long time ago?"
I mean, to be fair, it is on another continent, 100+ years ago, but I was still surprised.
The Union was not specifically against slavery; that came after the war was won as a thank you to those slaves, then the rest, who supported and enlisted with the Union. Lincoln's long term plan was to repatriate the former slaves to their African homelands, or the Caribbean and or S America, but was persuaded to do otherwise.
At the start of the US civil war both the Union and the Confederacy were telling the rest of the world that the war wasn't about slavery, though most countries knew it was.
We are more worried about the next one. I mean 40% of you guys can't agree who one the last election for president.
I don't think of the American Civil War. Why would I - I don't live in the USA. Many AMERICANS don't even think (or KNOW!) about it!
Hello, I am Spanish, and I would like to say that these videos always ignore the fact that Spain was a great help for your independence, and that you have the portrait of Bernardo de Galvez in the Senate.
Well i don't know much about your civil war in the past, i'm Dutch and it was a long time ago. I'm more worried about the next civil war in the US when people clash over the presidency later thid year. It's a fucked up country with only one freedom. The freedom to get your head blown off. And the worse thing is, too many people over here still look at the US as an example and don't appreciate our hard fought rights and social security. Next 25 years, Europe will go down the same path. Not as fast, cuz the US is extreme in every way, but we'll get there too. Unflrtunately...
Why do you think we probably didn’t know about the civil war, because there was no internet? Heard about schools? In Europe we learn a lot about the world when we are young, also about worldhistory.
Have a look at Foil, Arms and Hog explaining brexit ... it'll make things easier to understand.
th-cam.com/video/4h0J6VrHuQE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Ae-PIMMO4luSnPCp
Anyone who isnt using dark mode is a psycho
All I know is S'more flavoured schnapps had a lot do with it.
what I know about it is part of Assasins Creed III storyline so ... i guess you have to play it yourself xD
I grew up pre internet and knew about US history. We didn't learn much about asia
Well, news existed before the internet:) I would claim that many people were more informed before the internet.
Hi, love your videos, if your interested in British history and culture, you should watch the British crusade against slavery
And the documentary, the 13 hours that saved Britain, both amazing projects
What are those headphones called??
If you want to know what the confederates were doing around the world,look up the raider CSS Shenandoah.
Ryan, how can we contact you outside TH-cam?
It is crazy how greedy people are at others expense... when you think about it nothing has changed not just America but also the west in general,think of those who make your iPhone, sneakers, cheap clothing what conditions do they put up with so the companies you buy pretty much everything from can make it cheap in a foreign country so you can buy it cheaper than you would if built on home soil or how many people suffer to keep gas prices low or US dominance across the world
With a few exceptions all wars are caused by economic issues.
I dont know anything about the civil war....never think about
Fun thing with Ottomans: while they were pro-Union, the Ottoman Empire was lousy with slavery.
Hm, I see the emotion and tension in the presenter. That said, the US is entering into a new historical pivotal era. American Democracy, by its prevailing definition is under siege and one of the sides in this debate is (again) displaying distinctly Confederate tendencies. I am glad that I no longer live in the US, because I can see how this can erupt very easily into an extremely nasty replay of the 19th century Civil War. This time not prevailingly regionally delinineated but now much more ideologically so and accross ALL of the states. That could get exceedingly ugly.
I agree and add that some other Western countries are edging closer to a similar event. The tipping point is not that far off.
Europe is seeing a rise in right-wingers, too, so don't feel so comfortable there.
@@reindeer7752 Perfectly comfy here. Thank you! We don't have the 2 party system here, so we can manage quite nicely.
@@Centurion101B3C The USA has always had more than 2 parties. Right now we have independents, greens, libertarians, and anyone else who's vain enough to want to run.
@@reindeer7752 No, you have basically 2 relevant political parties with a coterie of useful fools that can be leveraged by those 2 parties to maintain the control by those 2 main parties.
Speaking of the civil war not being long ago... It ended 41 years before the invention of airplanes.
WOW. Somebody did something for money? ( Besides working, career, etc.) That would never happen today. Better not let the government know, they might just start doing that.
Yo, America, you werent the only nation to fight a civil war. You were the only ones to fight a civil war for slavery. To the rest of us your civil war is nothing of not. Hell, my homeland had a civil war "The New Zealand Wars" about the British cheating my people, the Māori out of their land and not honouring Te Tiriti
They didn't really fight for or against the slavery. There were far more important reasons (financial). The abolition was rather a secondary reason, mostly advertised to ordinary people from the Union, to get them more hyped for the war, by making them to believe they will fight on the righteous side.
@TlpeneThorner - The video explicitly states there were other civil wars going on, so why the sarcasm? The New Zealand Wars were nothing of not to most of the world, too.
@damyr - The South definitely was fighting to keep slavery. You can find manifestos by various state's leaders and the vice president t of the Conferdracy stating their cause was exactly that.
@@reindeer7752 I mean, sure. But it was not among main reasons of the war. Rather just an additional nuance, because those states wanted to have their own, independent government and their own laws.
And btw, slavery wouldn't last much anyway, even if Confederates won. The social awareness moment was happening in the South as well as in the North.
@@damyr would you name the other reasons?
Before the internet? Has there been a world already? 🤔
I don't think anyone cared
Did you notice the allusion to King Cotton?
Yeah it was a big war. It was horrible. The cost of having to send all those observers... Terrible. Just terrible. So would you lot mind to keep the next one a bit smaller? Or maybe plan it off-season so we can save some money on air-travel? That would be great. Thanks!
PS. We're keeping the Irish this time so you'll have to make do with the English, just shout "sovereignty" and point to where you want them to go.
Don't worry we'll live stream it next time❤❤❤
What civil war? Did the Yanks have one too?
We are not interested, but look what a mess it is in now! Sort of like all of Africa!
You're not interested but you watched it. LOL!
Its nothing like Africa. Its more like Brexit.
I've never had any interest in the American Civil War...... the English Civil War is something I'm more interested in however as much as I love History' English/British , it does not interest me as much as other pockets of history
Hey Ryan im french and made my graduate presentation about american civil war
By the way i've watched à lot of your video about dumb thing american says to people and to be fair french are pretty close on That point. In fact France is the more american country of Europe (maybe due to WWII alliance) some french know more things about america than our own country and woaw thats blow my mind.
One Day a guy from paris ask me if we got internet in my town 😂 i was tempted to answer no What is that? 😂
So dont Feel embarassed by thing american says about other people and country its the same here
Sorry, my Frank brother, but the Germans get the most American country in Europe. Indeed, it's no wonder. The biggest ethnicity in the US, came by far from Germany. Around 25% + X
we know when it was, as we mostly know the entire world history, only you ppl dont know anything. as if your google does not give global results. no idea. but when the internet came to be, I used to it gain more and more knowledge, especially geography - as you - internet.
The usual enormous European ignorance and bigotry. You know all about 333 million Americans from every country in the world.
Crying in spanish 😂
Here's a thought. While I find the idea of reacting to cultural differences interesting, most of your videos focus on ways Europe is better than the US and similar things. I feel like these videos are too tilted towards stroking the egos of my fellow Europeans. The thing I'd love to see are things that are done right by countries you wouldn't consider moving to. Maybe something about living in the Middle East (even somewhat biased videos like Fluffy going to Saudi Arabia)? Maybe some of the Eastern Asian countries that supposedly have a rougher life than the "more developed" west? It would probably be much more educational, although it would run the risk of losing viewers. I love the aspect of educating yourself using different perspectives but feel it's kind of biased when "the rest of the world" only talks about European countries, as if they didn't skip the majority of the world's population, who mostly were unaffected in this case.
" IN ER NET " !?
Apart from Americans, who gives a f***.No one is the answer because nearly every country has had one.
The title is in the past tense. Did you miss that? Its a historical question, not your f**** opinion.
@@reindeer7752my answer is still the same, nobody GAVE a fxxx , because most of us had been through it many times.