Wrong answer to the question. I suggest a great little book: "Rulers of Evil" by Tupper Saussy. You will also find out the cause of American revolution. History books are written by victors and they will rarely tell the truth.
hello i'm from indonesia.apparently i have subscribed to you for 5-6 years. i remember back when i was younger. i watch your one sided video about indonesia. still like history channel. thoug that one video i must dislike
Who should we put in charge there? Umm... how about the Austrian Emperor's little brother? Brilliant! Next we'll fight the Prussians! What could possibly go wrong?
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807 and completely abolished slavery anywhere in its empire in 1833, thirty years before the American Civil War. Public opinion in Britain was strongly opposed to slavery and the working classes of great cities like Liverpool and Manchester were willing to suffer the economic consequences of supporting an anti-slavery position. British public opinion had also been appalled by the loss of life and the dreadful condition experienced by atmy only five years earlier in the Crimea and in the Indian Mutiny.
So the history is a bit more complex here: to this day there is a building in Abercromby Square in Liverpool with a Confederate mural (now the English department building in the UofL). The city also held a notable fundraiser for the Confederate cause at St. George's Hall. Both Union and Confederate men were active in the city, and while Manchester leaned more towards the Union, I've always been told that 'Liverpool gentlemen' had more sympathies for the South.
What a load of revisionst garbage... because of the slave trade my arse. Britain couldn't support the secession of of states from the American union because it had an empire where there were many countries and colonies who have taken that as a green light to remove British rule. Those who think it was on moral grounds because they were opposed to slavery also think the British empire was benign and a civilising influence. When the reality is that it was about resource and human exploitation which caused untold misery and death.
UK didn't ban the slave trade in 1807, the empire limited slavery but it didn't really happen to around 1869 it was only limited to the Chattel Slave trade. Slavery wasn't fully ban till 2015 as the last Eurpean State to do so. For example UK had 1 million Germans as Slaves after WWII for a few years after the war .A lot of Africa was under Slavery by them and forced to work on plantations such as in Rhodesia and South Africa.
@@bmc7434 You are stretching a point with the example of German POW slaves!. It was quite normal for all countries to have prisoners of war carry out some productive activity to cover the cost of keeping them and to give them something to do - it was not slavery but simply pragmatic use of time on their hands .
@@bmc7434 Well that's complete garbage. Slavery was all but banned on the Island of Britain in 1067, slavery was only officially outlawed on the Island of Britain in 2015 because there was no need for it to be done due to all the other laws such as forced labour, kidnapping etc that already made slavery illegal. They did not use the German prisoners as slaves, slavery existed nowhere legally in the British Empire following 1833 after is abolishing, it was not fully enforced until later as the Empire could not afford the manpower, ships or money to do so, mainly due to the Napoleonic wars, and once they had they became the first and only nation in this planets history to both abolish slavery and enforce it worldwide.
@@coolmanidk Sweet tea is common among British and Irish descended rednecks, just as common as beer is among You continental English, even I speak with an English accent and I was born in Carolina
Reasons why? It would be expensive and unpopular in Britain, Britain got food exports from the North, Canada was not well defended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia would also get involved, France was busy in Mexico and probably wouldn’t be able to help much.
How on earth do you think either Prussia, Austria or Russia would get involved? All three of those country's navies were much weaker, even combined, when compared to Britain's navy. Russia was recently beaten by Anglo-Franco-Turkish forces in the Crimean war, and in 1866 Prussia and Austria fought eachother in the Brother's war.
@@fot6771 Balance of Power, if Britain gets involved France will too (They already said this in real history, France wanted to keep the war going so USA would not get involved in Mexico). Prussia will get involved if France gets involved. Russia already sent ships to the USA as a show of support, so Russia is already involved. It doesn't matter if their navies are weaker on a larger picture because it would no longer be limited to an American conflict. It would be like the Seven Years War all over again, and Britain does not want to destabilize all of Europe over a war for slaves and cotton.
@@fot6771 In answer to the OP original position, there is a precedent. In the American Revolution after great hesitation other European powers slowly started intervening to varying degrees against the United Kingdom after the revolutionaries had accomplished a few limited tactical victories revealing they were not a hopeless cause. For the most part this was bordering on deleterious to outright calamitous in the long run, with France being the best known example driving themselves into eventual bankruptcy & also a lesser known fact is the fleet which secured the coastal flanks at Yorktown was destroyed in a failed invasion attempt on Jamaica. The Spanish provided some support from their colonies for food & other items but their naval contributions led to widespread destruction against the Royal Navy. The most likely contributions directly were actually those who were most hesitant, the Netherlands, which though only meager military support occurred with minimal to negative losses, their provision of credit to the American monetary system was a lifesaver for the Continental Congress. Likewise other powers played loose games of feigned 'neutrality' but were indirect aid for America, such as Prussia denying use of their territories to transport Hessian & other mercenaries to the North Sea for deployment, the Russian Empire not providing soldiers for hire & cutting out Baltic timber for the Royal Navy, etc. What everyone was interested in was breaking the UK's mercantilistic hold on trade monopolization; however, though many thought an American victory would lead to reimposition of territorial present on North America the British outmaneuvered them at Ghent & granted most of the concessions asked for to americans, & as mentioned above most of them lost money leading to the French Revolution & ironically eventual Napoleonic occupation whereas the British eventually restored their trade balance with the US & paid off most of their economic losses after a generation. Likewise similar dilemmas posed themselves in the Civil War. European countries wanted to end the Monroe Doctrine preventing many of their interests in the Western hemisphere from being openly addressed, instead of sleight of hand actions like France claiming Mexico installed Maximillien as a monarch by "plebiscite" & that it was an independent Empire that just happened to require French foreign legion support, etc. However the Confederacy never was able to maintain a strong tactical, much less any strategic, wins that made them appear like a worthwhile investment, the Confederate Greyback was an obscene pile of useless paper that would have been a money sink, the US had a pretty indomitable coastal blockade even if the Merrimac had a brief good run, & the population advantage the North had was just too much to deny. So if any power did break rank to tip the balance, ultimately all of them would at some degree have to, because it would have been a deep committed investment requiring outside assistance to tip the trajectory, plus the US would always remember the betrayal in case of victory. The consequences of most actions would have been bad for pretty much most parties involved, if not all of them, as mentioned above in the Revolution, but once the first steps were taken in a strong commitment then Balance of Power in a colonial rivalry would have mandated immediate responses. Ultimately that's why it didn't happen, no one wanted to be first for a Lost Cause with minimal upside & no guarantee of anything other than possibly angering a strong trading partner on the distant premise the Monroe Doctrine could be abated using an unreliable regional proxy.
@@fot6771Plus none of those countries had any interests in the Americas, except Russia, but Alaska was a deserted, worthless (at that time) wilderness and Russia was happy for America to take it off her hands in exchange for some cash 💸
The British and the French DID get involved in the U.S. Civil War, particularly Britain. They literally planned to invade and break up the United States and recolonize it for their imperial interests. The wheat Britain imported from the North was a minuscule fraction of the cotton the British economy relied on from the southern slave states. The British made their spy headquarters in Montreal where they would meet Confederate spies. Not only did the British government send thousands of troops to Canada ready to invade if the Union kept losing, Britain, France and Spain all sent troops to Mexico in 1861 to invade the U.S. from the South, which subsequently started a Mexican Civil War.
"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow" - Lord Palmerston, PM 1855-1858 and 1859-1865.
Palmerston said one thing publicly and privately supported the Confederacy in hopes of breaking up the United States and recolonizing it. During the U.S. Civil War, the British government allowed Confederate war ships to be built in England and those ships were sent around the Union blockade and to the south and used to attack Union ships. That's a fact and after the war the U.S. government brought claims against the British government for violating their pretend neutrality and the British government paid over $15 million to settle.
There is a letter from the Lancashire Cotton Workers Union telling Lincoln that cotton they would not allow the use of Confederate cotton in cotton textile mills.
That this video doesn't mention the Lancashire Cotton Famine or the hardship that the cotton workers in the UK faced, and still considered dealing with slave produced cotton as an evil act that they would not do, kind of leaves some important context out of the discussion. The UK refused to support the confederacy because the working class in the UK recognised that slavery is bad.
Why should the British interfere? Not a single reason. They had a good thing going, that is the British Empire. They had the biggest industrial capacity of the time. What was the southeastern US to them?
The British did get involved. "What was the southeastern US to them?" A lot. Billions worth. One reason was for cotton. The British govt. imported the majority of its cotton from the American slave states in the South which the British depended on for its economy. Second was they wanted to partition and recolonize the new American republic to bring it back under the control and interests of the British Empire which was a global corporation. "They had a good thing going, that is the British Empire. They had the biggest industrial capacity of the time." That empire depended on control of natural resources from foreign lands that were then sent back to Britain to produce goods from those raw materials to sell back to the nations of the world. The North American landmass that became The United States of America was also a critical geographic prize for commerce and wealth which is why the European empires; Britain, Spain, France, the Dutch Republic, colonized it in the first place. Causing a U.S. Civil War that would destabilize and destroy the new country was exactly what the British Empire wanted and why Britain, France and Spain colluded and got involved.
That's probably one of the biggest factors. Canada would have been impossible to defend against the US, and the British government understood they'd lose the region in the event of a war. The US was much more powerful in the 1860s.
@CedarHunt Canada was still more loyal to the British, and the British didn't have nearly as many others to war with at this time like they did during the American Revolution and War of 1812. More of Britain should've been able to muster it's forces and go straight towards the source of the problem.
@@thalmoragent9344 That's just factually wrong. The British would have been attacked by the Spanish, French, Austrians and Russians and would have lost significant territory to them if they had sent any meaningful percentage of their forces to fight the Union.
If Britain had picked sides, why on earth would they support the Confederacy? Britain stopped the Trans Atlantic slave trade for one and Britain was the most powerful military and industrial economy bar none so the confederacy was small fry.
Let's be clear: Britain could almost certainly have helped defeat the Union. But I'm not sure how many Americans realise how repulsive slavery was to most Britons by 1860. Any attempt to directly support the Confederacy by Britain's old aristocratic elements would have brought down the government. Even the unemployed cotton mill workers supported the Union. The North knew exactly what it was doing in framing the stuggle as one against slavery, and it was frankly a brilliant strategy.
Slavery wasn't outlawed till 2015 in the UK, Slavery was very popular in the UK just not chattel slavery, since it allowed other races to spread. UK Supported South Africa which had slavery till 1990 for example.
Slavery was banned in the British Empire before the US Civil War started. In 1861 for Britain to have sided with slavers for economic gain would have shown extreme hypocrisy...
Yall act like the British empires red coats weren't made with southern cotton in Northern textile factories. Smh. After slavery ended on paper, white and black men produced more cotton together than in any years before. Also, the British and French were at war, and Napolean was about to sell the Louisiana Purchase to fund his war against the Brits. Who also were about to lose all due to greedy bankers. They thought they lost against Napolean and sold all for pennies on the dollar. The British people still pay a tax on that. The south should've won but Lincoln sent so many immigrants to the front line that it was insane. He had a constant supply of new soldiers at all times.
Out of the 115 military conflicts the United States has been involved in since the 1780s Britain supported America in about 30-35 conflicts and France supported America in about 25-30 conflicts
Families will fight internally for the smallest of reasons. However when an outside enemy threatens, they usually unite without hesitation. Humans will remain tribal for at least a few hundred years. To our credit and despair...
Britain was engaged at great cost inn the global abolition of slavery and was enforcing that policy on slave trading nations on the high seas, sonia wouldn’t make sense for Britain to side with the confederates who wanted to keep slavery, in a foreign civil war .
Another complication that rarely gets mentioned is that there were well over 10,000 Canadian men serving in the Union army. If the British government had chosen to support the South militarily, they would have been sending in troops to kill those men. That very well could have led to a breach in the Empire and it's not impossible that Canada might ultimately have joined the United States on the heels of that.
The British Empire was already draining its energy with its colonies, and the thought of joining another foreign fight was unappealing. Queen Victoria issued a proclamation on May 13, 1861, declaring the United Kingdom's neutrality in the American Civil War. However, some of her behaviors may have been contradictory
? Seeing as Queen Victoria was just a figurehead...no? While the proclamation was in her name, she just rubber-stamped it. She wasn't literally running Britain, that's what the Prime Minister was for.
*in the British colonies, not Britain (not England) itself. There had never been any statute establishing or mentioning slavery in Britain until the 1998 Human Rights Act. Although there had been the legal precedent set by the Somersett Vs Stewart case (that any slave that set foot in Britain proper was automatically free).
This channel uses AI generated scripts and partially AI generated animation, unfortunately. It is very clear when you have the gist of what ChatGPT generated scripts sound like. The voiceover is also AI generated, you can tell the difference between his voice here and his voice for the sponsor. This channel used to be decent until 2023, but since then its just AI generated slop.
The real reason was that the Uk feared that the US would invade Canada and its possessions in the Caribbean. Britain moved troops to Canada just in case. Secretary of State Seward wanted a war with Britain but was overruled by Lincoln. US presidents like Jefferson and Madison believed the US would be treated as liberators by the Canadians. The British public was hostile to slavery. Neutrality was the best option for the UK. The Trent Affair was caused by the US Attorney General not understanding international law, the French pointed out to Lincoln that the US was in the wrong.
"The real reason was that the Uk feared that the US would invade Canada and its possessions in the Caribbean. " The British government feared no such thing. That was the fake reason the British government used when a British mail steamer wad caught by a Union Naval ship off the coast of Cuba with 2 Confederate envoys onboard on their way to meet with the British government. The British govt. wanted and provoked the U.S. Civil War because it wanted to destroy the new republic and partition it and recolonize it for British interests. That's just a fact. The cotton from the southern U.S. states also was critical to the British economy as the majority of its cotton came from the U.S. southern states. "Secretary of State Seward wanted a war with Britain but was overruled by Lincoln." That was in response to finding out Britain's plans and involvement in instigating the U.S. Civil War and supporting the Confederacy. The handful of Union states were never going to invade Canada offensively as it had no reason to and would never have been able to anyways as they were preoccupied with a civil war that if lost, would be the end of the United States. Trying to make the British Empire look like they were responding to American threats is factually false. The British government planned and plotted the end of the United States through supporting the Confederacy.
Not only was the King Cotton strategy completely delusional from the beginning, but it also ruined the South's ability to build cash or foreign credit through trade before the blockade took hold around 1863. But in addition the Confederacy's diplomatic missions to the UK and France were severely undermined by their strict orders to lecture the Europeans on how slavery was morally good, actually, which undoubtedly was weird and annoying to countries that abolished the practice decades prior.
Britain did seriously consider helping the confederacy, but we had two ultimatums that the confederates wouldn't have accepted. A return of ex-british union territories/states and the big one that the confederacy released every single slave and ban it. Britain had offered help to the union but the off was for Britain to fully assist the union in the war with the full might of the British military for in return Britain takes Texas and assistance in challenging France in trying to colonise/subjugate Mexico. The union wouldn't be willing to give away any American soil and so Britain stayed really.
The other thing that happened was that Britain wasn't dumb. They could see that something was going to happen. So they also began stockpiling cotton and making preparations to grow cotton in Egypt and India. The reason why they didn't do that yet was because cotton did take investment and the tyranny of distance making things difficult too. Egypt wouldn't have been as long distance, but India was even farther out. Also Suez Canal didn't exist yet. So they were fine buying Southern cotton while it was practical, but they suspected that war or other strife would break out making purchasing southern cotton difficult, so they had some reserves.
This is why the Emancipation Proclamation is so historically significant. What is lost to history is that it was just as significant as a foreign policy document as well as a domestic one. Prior to the Proclamation the Union was fighting a "war of secession". When the Proclamation was issued it was the Union then declaring that the Civil War was a war to end slavery. Once that happened there was no way that any European power could or would help the Confederacy since that would be a direct support of slavery.
Yes, the biggest mistake for the Confederacy was to put all the stock on King Cotton, of course Great Britain wouldn't risk anything for a rebellious pseudo nation that only has a few commodities to offer that any colony of its empire can provide, especially Egypt. Yes, the prices of cotton rose, but it was a pain Great Britain was willing to take as they knew the Confederacy had no chance of winning the war against the Union who was a more valuable ally for the British, in fact that's the reason the Confederacy was asking for help in the first place.
Imagine Colombia putting an embargo on cocaine! But coca only grows at high altitude in tropical latitudes. Not many places fit those requirements. The South embargoed underwear. Not very bright.
Dear knowledgia people.. i stated this comment half a year or a year ago .. and you left heart on it lol (how sweet) but at that time that was sign that you noticed and i hoped that you would start to make content about it. The comment was: Im big fan of Greco-Roman history, and you made a lot of content concerning Rome, but im seeing lack of Greek history vids so i would like a series that start with Trojan war (PossibleFiction but still) that goes to Minoans, Mycenaeans, Spartans, Greco-Persian Wars, Alexander The Great and a series end with Greco-Roman Affairs and greek asimilation into Rome
Britain probably would have been the decisive factor had they supported the Confederacy. There was the ability of the Royal Navy to blockade the Union and supply the South. As well as her stationing forces in Canada, to draw strength from the Unions effort against the Rebels. British forces had been battle hardened by the Crimean War. So could have at least held onto the Canadian Heartlands, whilst the economic effects of the Blockade took effect. The Northern public would have been reconciled to an end to the war, much as they had been in 1814.
A Guernsey man died fighting for native Canada free peoples around this time I forgot his name so the union did launch an attack that failed against the free nations of Canada around this time maybe I am wrong it might be the first civil war with the uk but I feel I am not wrong still research it find it and see if I am wrong or right...I do know the queen had a boat built in the azores to destroy many union boats but it was a kinda secret help from the uk to the confederates
Primarily Britain was a trading nation which would trade with both sides and because of its vast colonies already had interests elsewhere so had little reason to get involved other than to protect Canada’s integrity. However had the north decided through overconfidence to attack Canada in any meaningful way they would have given such support to the south that the north would have been destroyed while fermenting attacks along the northern border. One cannot emphasise enough the power that Britain had at its means at this time and a likely alliance with France whom could be offered territory in Mexico would have been an alliance the north could not stop. I really cannot see how Americans today cannot realise the realities of the times then, or their precarious state they might have taken themselves in by hubris.
Charles Francis Adams Sr was the son of John Quincey Adams and grandson of John Adams, both of whom served as Presidents of the US. C.F. Adams himself also ran for the presidency himself but was never elected. He was however instrumental on the international front, as by maintaining Britain's neutrality throughout the Civil War, made him an unsung hero to the Union.
Actually Britain did surrepticiously. The City had large investments in the South. Also the Lancashire cotton industry depended on cotton from the confederacy for its very existence. A great great great grandfather of mine was a very capable sea captain - a Scot from Aberdeen actuall named Scot. He successfully ran the naval blockade for years bringing back cotton to Liverpool. He never lost a ship to being impounded. The ship owners were so grateful that the gave him a meritorious award and a substantial payment.
The short answer is they were making too much money from Union imports, Canada was indefensible, and there was concern Russia would use any British distraction to pursue an irredentist policy in the Black Sea. Basically Britain did not want to fight America and Russia at the same time because Albion would lose.
‘Canada was indefensible’ the war of 1812 proves the opposite, Canada was not only easily defended but the US lost their capital and had to beg for peace.
The cotton mills in the North West of England relied on the confederacy for cotton. Despite this the workers whose jobs were on the line supported the Unionist side and were mostly against slavery. They continued this support throughout the civil war.
Not for long they didn't. President Lincoln took care of that with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I'm continuously amazed how many people still believe the Lost Cause BS and are sympathetic to the traitorous Slave states. Semper Fi
The whole thing was about slavery. The time in the cotton manufacturing areas in Lancashire (North West England) was referred to as the Cotton Famine. It was a period of layoffs and extreme hardship for the workers. I believe at the time it was seen as primarily due to the lack of the raw material (cotton) coming from the American South. A more modern view is, apparently, that there was over production in the years leading up to the war so to an extent would have happened anyway. Whatever, the mill owners just wanted to trade but the mill workers backed the Union because of slavery - linking the war to aboliton. If the confederate states had really just wanted to get British backing, they almost certainly could have but at a cost: they would have had to abolish slavery. Of course there was a reason they tried to break away in the first place, and from this side of the world I doubt it was "state's rights".
Wrong. It was about creating interminable debt so that international banking could finally get the US in its evil clutches. Every single southern state had legislation in their statehouses for the abolition of slavery. It's cheaper to pay immigrants $2 a day than maintain a slave.
@@theodoresmith5272 Exactly they broke away to keep slavery. I don't think that anyone in England was stockpiling so much there was too much in warehouses waiting to be sold.
@johnforrest695 the South actually embargoed itself..how stupid was that. The union didn't have the ships or ports to blockade the south til 1863. It was well known a war was coming and there was extra buying before it in Britain. Cotton doesn't go bad quickly if it's kept. The north sold captured cotton during the war. The 2nd part was expanding secondary cotton production such as eygpt and Australia. It took off but lowered the price especially after the war was over. The south biggest screw up was the market was never the same and they lost the labour to harvest it in a scale like before. All they had to do, not that I agree with it, is do what everyone else was like the British in India. Free them, but pay them little and charge them a lot for room and board. Also if southern cotton was already on a British ships sailing to England, and USA navy ships stopping them, would have caused a big problem for the union.
There was no way this was going to happen at this point in time. Britain and most of the world was against slavery by now. I think the only other major country that still did slavery was Brazil, but they were certainly not a major power.
Liverpool was the defacto home port of the Confederate navy. They never had a navy with Liverpool giving them one. The city supplied ships snd munitions to both sides..
The American Civil War was in essence the second civil war as the American War of Independence was a civil war between pro-British Americans & anti-British Americans. The British natuarally sided with the pro-British while Spain & France sided with the anti-British.
One reason is Britain abolished slavery 50 years earlier and in the empire as a whole by 1836. It would of been a hard sale even for cotton for the textile mills in the UK.Then there were other concerns.
Good video, i appreciate that you mentioned everything correctly this time, and it seems like you guys actually took into account things I've been commenting about this period of time on your channel. This was a good video, and i didn't see anything about inaccurate like before. I revoke my criticism of your channel and apologize for the negative impact, but i was right, and it did make the channel better... you were very truthful this time and didn't just follow everyone elses ideas about it. I know it's a sensitive or controversial topic, but truth is truth, and you guys did it correctly this time. Thank you for this, and my apologies for being so mean, but i can't control my desire to spread knowledge if i know it. I will continue supporting the channel going further from here on out.
Government officials may have been pro Confederate, but the people, especially the mill workers that were hurt by the blockade, were mostly pro Union. Going against public opinion to intervene in a war thousands of miles away with no benefit is a really bad idea
Also, an end to the trade in cotton was never on the table. It's not as if the Union intended to end cotton production and sale overseas if they won. Davis and Confederate politicians were arrogant and boasted quite openly that they had Britain under their thumb because of cotton. The British were not amused and this further weakened support for the Confederacy.
Another notable attempt at legitimacy the confederacy hoped to gain was from the Catholic Church. A confederate ambassador went to the Vatican City or papal states as it was known back then to seek recognition from the pope of the time Pius IX, he left completely convinced he had won the pope over especially after a letter from the pope was received. The problem? He hadn’t, Pius had been unimpressed by the diplomats admission of him and Jefferson Davis and by extension much of the south being Protestant as well as his outright refusal to speak of gradual emancipation, as for the letter it was mistranslated by the confederates as being a recognition of statehood.
Being a Homeless Veteran for 10yrs if any of you think it's easy it's not. Nobody cares about our situation Now i make 22k weekly. have a home, a wife, a lovely daughter... A child of God. HALLELUJAH
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
Fun Fact: Ulysses S Grant is his book talks about how Jewish traders from europe were still trading slaves and cotton for Gold to the south after Abraham lincoln banned it. Him and Sherman never liked jews again after that.
But the royalist, imperial or banking forces behind Britain never gave up on their world-dominating ambitions and megalomania. Somebody was planning and funding the Confederate rebellion from British Canada, and Mexico as well. The goal of the great world game is always to undermine and divide your enemy against themselves, as Britain had tried repeatedly with America. Britain may have outlawed slavery in word, but not in deed, as the south in 1860 was still effectively a British colony, and the slave (and drug and sex) trades had long been British dominated. Imperial forces were still dreaming of a "golden circle" of slave states surrounding the Caribbean cotton and sugar trades. That's why Lincoln knew he was fighting the invisible hand of an international force, not just an American one. The elites goal was always to break the Union (and still is), and therefore why his priority was to save it. Even Russia got involved with a naval blockade on both coasts at the low point of the war, to protect the US from European invasion. After the war, Britain resisted reconstruction, and funded their masonic orders which grew into the KKK. By WW1 they took over the State Department, and the Executive branch after WW2. Today the world elites are fomenting race and gender wars, mass migration, stolen elections and fake pandemics. It's called "hybrid" war, and it's all part of the great game.
Obviously the AI on this channel has never heard of knights of the Golden Circle and their efforts to funnel money from England to the South during the Civil War
@@danlower7834 its not AI at all. Knowledgia has always had this kind of animation style long before AI went mainstream. And i can't find any information of the claims you made, so could you provide them?
Britain gave the confederates lots of Aid. In my own town limerick in Ireland they supplied uniforms to the confederates throughout the war..and that was one small UK city
That was private enterprise, not military aid sanctioned by the government. The UK was legally allowed to export to the CSA, just not send weapons. But war profiteers smuggled guns into the CSA, and they had agents procure ships from British shipyards, then sail them to third party nations to outfit them with weapons and armour. This was all done illicitly.
We couldn’t have joined the fight For the south they had slaves .. we abolished slavery across the world decades before and policed it too . We were the First Nation to ban slavery over thirty years before And it was never allowed in the islands of Great Britain
america will always look to support from britain and france cos these two are like the mother and father of america without them there would be no america
@@alanparker9608 that’s kinda false you forgot Spain also, SPAIN was the first to Colonized that continent. And America is a continent, USA IS THE COUNTRY. America as a continent exsisted for centuries
@@TreyMessiah95 indeed but by america I meant North America like USA Canada but yeah Spain was there and most of Latin America and 1/3 of modern day USA was part of Spain especially after France gave them their big land of Louisiana
One major problem for Britain would (yes, really, odd though it'd look today) be aligning, as THE global anti-slavery power, with a bunch of slave-owning provinces whose attempt to secede from their own nation was based subsantially at least in the slavery issue anyway. While to Victorian Britons of all classes, ending slavery worldwide was seen practically as a sacred mission, including on occasion via subjection of opposed polities to reprisals up to and including war.
There is a quote in Gettysburg the movie where I think General Longstreet mentions the South should have freed the slaves first AND then fired on Fort Sumter. Not sure how feasible that would have been to the Southern economies and war effort but if they wanted freedom from the Union through secession, it might have paved the way for European intervention. The slavery issue essentially made it impossible for any of the major powers to get involved as they (like Great Britain) opposed slavery themselves. Would make for an interesting what if scenario
Economic and moral reasons although in the long term it was most probably beneficial to Britain if the USA had been carved into two or more independent states. No chance any individual European state could compete with the USA economy due to the size of it.
What about CSS Shenandoah? Refitted and re-armed in Birkenhead (part of the port of Liverpool). It was said of Liverpool at the time that "more Confederate flags flew over Liverpool than over Richmon Va".
United States: Great Britain we need help. Confederate South: Great Britain we need help. Great Britain: you wanted independence and you got what you wanted.
They didn’t know America would eventually rival them, and then even surpass them economically politically military and now 250 years later after America’s independence the Britain is dependent on the USA and not the otherway round
They actually did. It was understood by almost everyone to be inevitable given the physical size and abundant natural resources of the US, even in the 18th century.
@@Bertie_Ahern Correct, and so it made a lot more sense at the time to foster good relations with the USA and help strengthen its democratic institutions and a "reasonable" political culture, rather than antagonise them or stoke lasting resentment. At the end of the day, a single friendly America was more of a benefit to Britain's long-term interests than two smaller Americas which hate each other and would probably hate the UK too.
Try the Britannia's Fist Trilogy by Peter Tsouras. An alternate history that sees Britain and France go to war against the United States, siding with the Confederates. It's flawed but also, I think, one of the more underrated alt-Civil War histories. He has some interesting ideas.
Shouldn't the map show West Virginia as being part of the North? Maybe not at the beginning of the video, but by the end it had split away from Confederate Virginia. You wouldn't even need to explicitly mention the change in the map, just quietly slip it in.
Unlike today the people that ran Britain were not morons, why choose a side when you can supply arms and supplies to both sides fighting a war that strengthens Canada’s security as both sides weakened their threat level.
Neutral would have meant the British recognizing the south as France wished them to do. Recognition would have meant the British would regard trade with the south as valid and any interference from the Union would be crushed by the British navy. So neutral not so much, the British continued to recognize the union as the only valid government. Also at the start of the war British public opinion was heavily in favour of the north because of slavery, despite the north not rejecting slavery formally. Remeber the British were leading the fight against slavery worldwide, capturing slaveships, pressuring other states and even directly attacking countries in Africa involved in it. There were other factors that did not make the union or the south popular, that being the frequent American expansionist attacks either formally or with fillibusters on almost every country in North America, this did not engender any likeing for the country. Additionally there was nothing of value going to war for either side for the British. Just as the Americans profiteered on the Napoleonic Wars so did the British on this.
@@appelanseeofbogalusa5235Huh? They’re both fighting for independence from their parent nation and were beating the odds despite being heavily outnumbered. The American revolution is another great example. Fighting for independence and France and Spain gave them the supplies they needed
No it’s not. They’re fighting for independence from their parent nation and beating the odds despite being outnumbered. American revolution is another good comparison.
I've always thought it interesting that the US (as so-called 'Patriots') fought for the right to secede from Britain and be independent and yet aggressively denied that same right to the Southern states. Double standards?
The right to representation! To vote! Colonies had no members in parliament! The south wanted their state laws enforced for runaway property! Early in the American nations founding there was even Black slave owners! Later the South decided to go the race route! Blacks were easier to make a slave class coming from Africa so not knowing the continent like the native Americans who would flee westward when the South tried to make them slave labor same with white indentured servants who would flee to other colonies making it expensive and far enough away to avoid being recaptured!
@@stephenyoung2742 The right to representation? For whom? Certainly not for indentured servants, slaves or indigenous Indians. And on completion of the rebellion not for the remaining loyalists either. This was for the elite. And your global history is a little skewed.
The video misses two key points. One was that Prince Albert campaigned quietly for England to stay neutral. I would guess that Victoria would honor his views even after his death. Second, Palmerston wanted the US to remain weak and he felt the US Civil War regardless of the outcome would weaken the United States. He was anti-American. But England needed American Corn more than cotton. Third, the Russian Czar was very Pro-American. Fourth, England had a counsel officer in South Carolina. His reports were instrumental in keeping the peace.
Because the ones seeking responsible government accepted the slaves and women as people not property. Where they have access to private health care practitioners who can actually deliver health care legally.
There were a few in the UK who wanted to support the Confederacy but they were mainly better off people whose income depended on the import of cotton. The country was still very proud of the fact that it had abolished the Slave Trade in 1807 and slavery in general in its Empire in 1833 so the majority of the British were a lot more on the side of the Union, even if they were personally suffering from the restrictions of cotton imports. There were some who provided goods to the Confederacy under the fact that the UK was a neutral country but those were very few.
Try Rocket Money for free: RocketMoney.com/knowledgia
Wrong answer to the question. I suggest a great little book: "Rulers of Evil" by Tupper Saussy. You will also find out the cause of American revolution. History books are written by victors and they will rarely tell the truth.
Please Urdu audio truck with upload
hello i'm from indonesia.apparently i have subscribed to you for 5-6 years. i remember back when i was younger. i watch your one sided video about indonesia. still like history channel. thoug that one video i must dislike
Also in France: "We're gonna go conquer Mexico since the USA is busy fighting a civil war and can't do anything about it."
Who should we put in charge there?
Umm... how about the Austrian Emperor's little brother?
Brilliant! Next we'll fight the Prussians! What could possibly go wrong?
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807 and completely abolished slavery anywhere in its empire in 1833, thirty years before the American Civil War. Public opinion in Britain was strongly opposed to slavery and the working classes of great cities like Liverpool and Manchester were willing to suffer the economic consequences of supporting an anti-slavery position.
British public opinion had also been appalled by the loss of life and the dreadful condition experienced by atmy only five years earlier in the Crimea and in the Indian Mutiny.
So the history is a bit more complex here: to this day there is a building in Abercromby Square in Liverpool with a Confederate mural (now the English department building in the UofL). The city also held a notable fundraiser for the Confederate cause at St. George's Hall. Both Union and Confederate men were active in the city, and while Manchester leaned more towards the Union, I've always been told that 'Liverpool gentlemen' had more sympathies for the South.
What a load of revisionst garbage... because of the slave trade my arse. Britain couldn't support the secession of of states from the American union because it had an empire where there were many countries and colonies who have taken that as a green light to remove British rule. Those who think it was on moral grounds because they were opposed to slavery also think the British empire was benign and a civilising influence. When the reality is that it was about resource and human exploitation which caused untold misery and death.
UK didn't ban the slave trade in 1807, the empire limited slavery but it didn't really happen to around 1869 it was only limited to the Chattel Slave trade. Slavery wasn't fully ban till 2015 as the last Eurpean State to do so. For example UK had 1 million Germans as Slaves after WWII for a few years after the war .A lot of Africa was under Slavery by them and forced to work on plantations such as in Rhodesia and South Africa.
@@bmc7434 You are stretching a point with the example of German POW slaves!. It was quite normal for all countries to have prisoners of war carry out some productive activity to cover the cost of keeping them and to give them something to do - it was not slavery but simply pragmatic use of time on their hands .
@@bmc7434 Well that's complete garbage. Slavery was all but banned on the Island of Britain in 1067, slavery was only officially outlawed on the Island of Britain in 2015 because there was no need for it to be done due to all the other laws such as forced labour, kidnapping etc that already made slavery illegal. They did not use the German prisoners as slaves, slavery existed nowhere legally in the British Empire following 1833 after is abolishing, it was not fully enforced until later as the Empire could not afford the manpower, ships or money to do so, mainly due to the Napoleonic wars, and once they had they became the first and only nation in this planets history to both abolish slavery and enforce it worldwide.
Britain : * Sipping Tea Aggressively
*Tea plate clattering loudly*
I didn't think it was even possible to do this, then I saw Billy Butcher menacingly drinking tea in the boys....
Same with the Southerners?
I thought you guys like beer more?
@@coolmanidk Sweet tea is common among British and Irish descended rednecks, just as common as beer is among You continental English, even I speak with an English accent and I was born in Carolina
Reasons why? It would be expensive and unpopular in Britain, Britain got food exports from the North, Canada was not well defended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia would also get involved, France was busy in Mexico and probably wouldn’t be able to help much.
How on earth do you think either Prussia, Austria or Russia would get involved? All three of those country's navies were much weaker, even combined, when compared to Britain's navy.
Russia was recently beaten by Anglo-Franco-Turkish forces in the Crimean war, and in 1866 Prussia and Austria fought eachother in the Brother's war.
@@fot6771 Balance of Power, if Britain gets involved France will too (They already said this in real history, France wanted to keep the war going so USA would not get involved in Mexico). Prussia will get involved if France gets involved. Russia already sent ships to the USA as a show of support, so Russia is already involved. It doesn't matter if their navies are weaker on a larger picture because it would no longer be limited to an American conflict. It would be like the Seven Years War all over again, and Britain does not want to destabilize all of Europe over a war for slaves and cotton.
@@fot6771 In answer to the OP original position, there is a precedent. In the American Revolution after great hesitation other European powers slowly started intervening to varying degrees against the United Kingdom after the revolutionaries had accomplished a few limited tactical victories revealing they were not a hopeless cause.
For the most part this was bordering on deleterious to outright calamitous in the long run, with France being the best known example driving themselves into eventual bankruptcy & also a lesser known fact is the fleet which secured the coastal flanks at Yorktown was destroyed in a failed invasion attempt on Jamaica. The Spanish provided some support from their colonies for food & other items but their naval contributions led to widespread destruction against the Royal Navy. The most likely contributions directly were actually those who were most hesitant, the Netherlands, which though only meager military support occurred with minimal to negative losses, their provision of credit to the American monetary system was a lifesaver for the Continental Congress. Likewise other powers played loose games of feigned 'neutrality' but were indirect aid for America, such as Prussia denying use of their territories to transport Hessian & other mercenaries to the North Sea for deployment, the Russian Empire not providing soldiers for hire & cutting out Baltic timber for the Royal Navy, etc. What everyone was interested in was breaking the UK's mercantilistic hold on trade monopolization; however, though many thought an American victory would lead to reimposition of territorial present on North America the British outmaneuvered them at Ghent & granted most of the concessions asked for to americans, & as mentioned above most of them lost money leading to the French Revolution & ironically eventual Napoleonic occupation whereas the British eventually restored their trade balance with the US & paid off most of their economic losses after a generation.
Likewise similar dilemmas posed themselves in the Civil War. European countries wanted to end the Monroe Doctrine preventing many of their interests in the Western hemisphere from being openly addressed, instead of sleight of hand actions like France claiming Mexico installed Maximillien as a monarch by "plebiscite" & that it was an independent Empire that just happened to require French foreign legion support, etc. However the Confederacy never was able to maintain a strong tactical, much less any strategic, wins that made them appear like a worthwhile investment, the Confederate Greyback was an obscene pile of useless paper that would have been a money sink, the US had a pretty indomitable coastal blockade even if the Merrimac had a brief good run, & the population advantage the North had was just too much to deny. So if any power did break rank to tip the balance, ultimately all of them would at some degree have to, because it would have been a deep committed investment requiring outside assistance to tip the trajectory, plus the US would always remember the betrayal in case of victory. The consequences of most actions would have been bad for pretty much most parties involved, if not all of them, as mentioned above in the Revolution, but once the first steps were taken in a strong commitment then Balance of Power in a colonial rivalry would have mandated immediate responses.
Ultimately that's why it didn't happen, no one wanted to be first for a Lost Cause with minimal upside & no guarantee of anything other than possibly angering a strong trading partner on the distant premise the Monroe Doctrine could be abated using an unreliable regional proxy.
@@fot6771Plus none of those countries had any interests in the Americas, except Russia, but Alaska was a deserted, worthless (at that time) wilderness and Russia was happy for America to take it off her hands in exchange for some cash 💸
The British and the French DID get involved in the U.S. Civil War, particularly Britain. They literally planned to invade and break up the United States and recolonize it for their imperial interests. The wheat Britain imported from the North was a minuscule fraction of the cotton the British economy relied on from the southern slave states. The British made their spy headquarters in Montreal where they would meet Confederate spies.
Not only did the British government send thousands of troops to Canada ready to invade if the Union kept losing, Britain, France and Spain all sent troops to Mexico in 1861 to invade the U.S. from the South, which subsequently started a Mexican Civil War.
"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow" - Lord Palmerston, PM 1855-1858 and 1859-1865.
Palmerston said one thing publicly and privately supported the Confederacy in hopes of breaking up the United States and recolonizing it. During the U.S. Civil War, the British government allowed Confederate war ships to be built in England and those ships were sent around the Union blockade and to the south and used to attack Union ships. That's a fact and after the war the U.S. government brought claims against the British government for violating their pretend neutrality and the British government paid over $15 million to settle.
@@jmo8525thanks… I didn’t know that 👍
There is a letter from the Lancashire Cotton Workers Union telling Lincoln that cotton they would not allow the use of Confederate cotton in cotton textile mills.
That this video doesn't mention the Lancashire Cotton Famine or the hardship that the cotton workers in the UK faced, and still considered dealing with slave produced cotton as an evil act that they would not do, kind of leaves some important context out of the discussion. The UK refused to support the confederacy because the working class in the UK recognised that slavery is bad.
Why should the British interfere? Not a single reason. They had a good thing going, that is the British Empire. They had the biggest industrial capacity of the time. What was the southeastern US to them?
The British did get involved. "What was the southeastern US to them?" A lot. Billions worth.
One reason was for cotton. The British govt. imported the majority of its cotton from the American slave states in the South which the British depended on for its economy. Second was they wanted to partition and recolonize the new American republic to bring it back under the control and interests of the British Empire which was a global corporation.
"They had a good thing going, that is the British Empire. They had the biggest industrial capacity of the time."
That empire depended on control of natural resources from foreign lands that were then sent back to Britain to produce goods from those raw materials to sell back to the nations of the world. The North American landmass that became The United States of America was also a critical geographic prize for commerce and wealth which is why the European empires; Britain, Spain, France, the Dutch Republic, colonized it in the first place. Causing a U.S. Civil War that would destabilize and destroy the new country was exactly what the British Empire wanted and why Britain, France and Spain colluded and got involved.
They were also worried that the Union would attack Canada if they assisted the Confederates.
After what happened in the War of 1812 Nope we didn’t want that to happen
@TheBandit025Nova
Well, I doubt that they'd want a repeat 😅 plus, the UK would still be in a better position than they were in 1812
That's probably one of the biggest factors. Canada would have been impossible to defend against the US, and the British government understood they'd lose the region in the event of a war. The US was much more powerful in the 1860s.
@CedarHunt
Canada was still more loyal to the British, and the British didn't have nearly as many others to war with at this time like they did during the American Revolution and War of 1812.
More of Britain should've been able to muster it's forces and go straight towards the source of the problem.
@@thalmoragent9344 That's just factually wrong. The British would have been attacked by the Spanish, French, Austrians and Russians and would have lost significant territory to them if they had sent any meaningful percentage of their forces to fight the Union.
If Britain had picked sides, why on earth would they support the Confederacy? Britain stopped the Trans Atlantic slave trade for one and Britain was the most powerful military and industrial economy bar none so the confederacy was small fry.
Let's be clear: Britain could almost certainly have helped defeat the Union. But I'm not sure how many Americans realise how repulsive slavery was to most Britons by 1860. Any attempt to directly support the Confederacy by Britain's old aristocratic elements would have brought down the government. Even the unemployed cotton mill workers supported the Union. The North knew exactly what it was doing in framing the stuggle as one against slavery, and it was frankly a brilliant strategy.
Slavery was about to be obsolete regardless do to technology , it wasn't about Slavery as much as you people think.
@@jakeruffin9433are you going to say it was about the states rights?
You say the Brits were repulsed by slavery in 1860. And just what were they doing in Ireland at the time and in India? F them
I heard Lincoln kept slaves odd that he was against slavery
Slavery wasn't outlawed till 2015 in the UK, Slavery was very popular in the UK just not chattel slavery, since it allowed other races to spread. UK Supported South Africa which had slavery till 1990 for example.
Slavery was banned in the British Empire before the US Civil War started. In 1861 for Britain to have sided with slavers for economic gain would have shown extreme hypocrisy...
It was banned by William the Conqueror in the 11th century.
Slavary was still legal in British colonies 🤷 why do yall always skip this
@@TreyMessiah95 Britain outlawed slavery on August 1, 1834 with the Slavery Abolition Act. The US Civil War started in 1861.
@@TreyMessiah95 Slavery ceased to be legal in the colonies sometime in the 1830s, so well before the American Civil War.
Yall act like the British empires red coats weren't made with southern cotton in Northern textile factories. Smh. After slavery ended on paper, white and black men produced more cotton together than in any years before. Also, the British and French were at war, and Napolean was about to sell the Louisiana Purchase to fund his war against the Brits. Who also were about to lose all due to greedy bankers. They thought they lost against Napolean and sold all for pennies on the dollar. The British people still pay a tax on that. The south should've won but Lincoln sent so many immigrants to the front line that it was insane. He had a constant supply of new soldiers at all times.
LOL.
Slavery had been outlawed in the British Empire for decades and supporting the Confederacy would have been political suicide.
Out of the 115 military conflicts the United States has been involved in since the 1780s Britain supported America in about 30-35 conflicts and France supported America in about 25-30 conflicts
Yep, but if it wasn't for French involvement, U.S. probably wouldn't exist today.
@@echo5226 yes they took the USA from britain, look where that landed them
Only 25 to 30? Makes you wonder who the U.S.'s real ally is...............Hmm.
Families will fight internally for the smallest of reasons.
However when an outside enemy threatens, they usually unite without hesitation.
Humans will remain tribal for at least a few hundred years. To our credit and despair...
@rospencer611 Very eloquent and true. Well done.
Britain was engaged at great cost inn the global abolition of slavery and was enforcing that policy on slave trading nations on the high seas, sonia wouldn’t make sense for Britain to side with the confederates who wanted to keep slavery, in a foreign civil war .
Another complication that rarely gets mentioned is that there were well over 10,000 Canadian men serving in the Union army. If the British government had chosen to support the South militarily, they would have been sending in troops to kill those men. That very well could have led to a breach in the Empire and it's not impossible that Canada might ultimately have joined the United States on the heels of that.
The British Empire was already draining its energy with its colonies, and the thought of joining another foreign fight was unappealing.
Queen Victoria issued a proclamation on May 13, 1861, declaring the United Kingdom's neutrality in the American Civil War. However, some of her behaviors may have been contradictory
? Seeing as Queen Victoria was just a figurehead...no?
While the proclamation was in her name, she just rubber-stamped it.
She wasn't literally running Britain, that's what the Prime Minister was for.
TLDW: Slavery was banned in England in 1833. The American Civil War began in 1861.
*in the British colonies, not Britain (not England) itself.
There had never been any statute establishing or mentioning slavery in Britain until the 1998 Human Rights Act.
Although there had been the legal precedent set by the Somersett Vs Stewart case (that any slave that set foot in Britain proper was automatically free).
Let's go another epic Bangerrrrrrrr sending love from Chicago
This channel uses AI generated scripts and partially AI generated animation, unfortunately. It is very clear when you have the gist of what ChatGPT generated scripts sound like. The voiceover is also AI generated, you can tell the difference between his voice here and his voice for the sponsor.
This channel used to be decent until 2023, but since then its just AI generated slop.
The real reason was that the Uk feared that the US would invade Canada and its possessions in the Caribbean. Britain moved troops to Canada just in case. Secretary of State Seward wanted a war with Britain but was overruled by Lincoln. US presidents like Jefferson and Madison believed the US would be treated as liberators by the Canadians. The British public was hostile to slavery. Neutrality was the best option for the UK. The Trent Affair was caused by the US Attorney General not understanding international law, the French pointed out to Lincoln that the US was in the wrong.
"The real reason was that the Uk feared that the US would invade Canada and its possessions in the Caribbean. "
The British government feared no such thing. That was the fake reason the British government used when a British mail steamer wad caught by a Union Naval ship off the coast of Cuba with 2 Confederate envoys onboard on their way to meet with the British government. The British govt. wanted and provoked the U.S. Civil War because it wanted to destroy the new republic and partition it and recolonize it for British interests. That's just a fact. The cotton from the southern U.S. states also was critical to the British economy as the majority of its cotton came from the U.S. southern states.
"Secretary of State Seward wanted a war with Britain but was overruled by Lincoln."
That was in response to finding out Britain's plans and involvement in instigating the U.S. Civil War and supporting the Confederacy. The handful of Union states were never going to invade Canada offensively as it had no reason to and would never have been able to anyways as they were preoccupied with a civil war that if lost, would be the end of the United States. Trying to make the British Empire look like they were responding to American threats is factually false. The British government planned and plotted the end of the United States through supporting the Confederacy.
Not only was the King Cotton strategy completely delusional from the beginning, but it also ruined the South's ability to build cash or foreign credit through trade before the blockade took hold around 1863. But in addition the Confederacy's diplomatic missions to the UK and France were severely undermined by their strict orders to lecture the Europeans on how slavery was morally good, actually, which undoubtedly was weird and annoying to countries that abolished the practice decades prior.
Honestly, the CSA's diplomatic strategy was so absurdly idiotic it probably cost them the war more than any single battle did.
Who dislikes this?!
Greets from Germany
landlords
There is no historical evidence of a Civil War, just another story. More than likely the North carried out a landgrab and a genocide on the Southerns!
Walmart
Britain did seriously consider helping the confederacy, but we had two ultimatums that the confederates wouldn't have accepted. A return of ex-british union territories/states and the big one that the confederacy released every single slave and ban it. Britain had offered help to the union but the off was for Britain to fully assist the union in the war with the full might of the British military for in return Britain takes Texas and assistance in challenging France in trying to colonise/subjugate Mexico. The union wouldn't be willing to give away any American soil and so Britain stayed really.
We finally get a map of the CSA that includes the Indian territory, then he puts West Virginia in there too...
0:25 I heard 1961 not 1861
einteen fr
Yes, You're right
I heard 19 too.
Guy pronounced it wrong
Davis just full on forgot India exists or what ? lol
Why those who have suppressed slavery had to support a country that wanted to keep in place slavery?
When your kids fight you become neutral. What else can you do.😂
Great content!
Thanks
The other thing that happened was that Britain wasn't dumb. They could see that something was going to happen. So they also began stockpiling cotton and making preparations to grow cotton in Egypt and India. The reason why they didn't do that yet was because cotton did take investment and the tyranny of distance making things difficult too. Egypt wouldn't have been as long distance, but India was even farther out. Also Suez Canal didn't exist yet. So they were fine buying Southern cotton while it was practical, but they suspected that war or other strife would break out making purchasing southern cotton difficult, so they had some reserves.
This is why the Emancipation Proclamation is so historically significant. What is lost to history is that it was just as significant as a foreign policy document as well as a domestic one. Prior to the Proclamation the Union was fighting a "war of secession". When the Proclamation was issued it was the Union then declaring that the Civil War was a war to end slavery. Once that happened there was no way that any European power could or would help the Confederacy since that would be a direct support of slavery.
Yes, the biggest mistake for the Confederacy was to put all the stock on King Cotton, of course Great Britain wouldn't risk anything for a rebellious pseudo nation that only has a few commodities to offer that any colony of its empire can provide, especially Egypt. Yes, the prices of cotton rose, but it was a pain Great Britain was willing to take as they knew the Confederacy had no chance of winning the war against the Union who was a more valuable ally for the British, in fact that's the reason the Confederacy was asking for help in the first place.
Imagine Colombia putting an embargo on cocaine! But coca only grows at high altitude in tropical latitudes. Not many places fit those requirements. The South embargoed underwear. Not very bright.
Dear knowledgia people.. i stated this comment half a year or a year ago .. and you left heart on it lol (how sweet) but at that time that was sign that you noticed and i hoped that you would start to make content about it.
The comment was:
Im big fan of Greco-Roman history, and you made a lot of content concerning Rome, but im seeing lack of Greek history vids so i would like a series that start with Trojan war (PossibleFiction but still) that goes to Minoans, Mycenaeans, Spartans, Greco-Persian Wars, Alexander The Great and a series end with Greco-Roman Affairs and greek asimilation into Rome
They declared neutrality and smiled smugly and said "Ahhhh those little rascals, now they'll get a taste of their own medicine"
How do you do this kind of awesome mapping?
No mention of the Trent affair in this video surprises me.
The Trent Affair was a major reason. Lincoln declaring the blocking of southern ports directly caused The Queen to declare neutrality.
Britain probably would have been the decisive factor had they supported the Confederacy. There was the ability of the Royal Navy to blockade the Union and supply the South. As well as her stationing forces in Canada, to draw strength from the Unions effort against the Rebels. British forces had been battle hardened by the Crimean War. So could have at least held onto the Canadian Heartlands, whilst the economic effects of the Blockade took effect. The Northern public would have been reconciled to an end to the war, much as they had been in 1814.
A Guernsey man died fighting for native Canada free peoples around this time I forgot his name so the union did launch an attack that failed against the free nations of Canada around this time maybe I am wrong it might be the first civil war with the uk but I feel I am not wrong still research it find it and see if I am wrong or right...I do know the queen had a boat built in the azores to destroy many union boats but it was a kinda secret help from the uk to the confederates
Primarily Britain was a trading nation which would trade with both sides and because of its vast colonies already had interests elsewhere so had little reason to get involved other than to protect Canada’s integrity. However had the north decided through overconfidence to attack Canada in any meaningful way they would have given such support to the south that the north would have been destroyed while fermenting attacks along the northern border. One cannot emphasise enough the power that Britain had at its means at this time and a likely alliance with France whom could be offered territory in Mexico would have been an alliance the north could not stop. I really cannot see how Americans today cannot realise the realities of the times then, or their precarious state they might have taken themselves in by hubris.
Charles Francis Adams Sr was the son of John Quincey Adams and grandson of John Adams, both of whom served as Presidents of the US. C.F. Adams himself also ran for the presidency himself but was never elected. He was however instrumental on the international front, as by maintaining Britain's neutrality throughout the Civil War, made him an unsung hero to the Union.
Very interesting
Nicely informative video
Good video.
Actually Britain did surrepticiously. The City had large investments in the South. Also the Lancashire cotton industry depended on cotton from the confederacy for its very existence. A great great great grandfather of mine was a very capable sea captain - a Scot from Aberdeen actuall named Scot. He successfully ran the naval blockade for years bringing back cotton to Liverpool. He never lost a ship to being impounded. The ship owners were so grateful that the gave him a meritorious award and a substantial payment.
The short answer is they were making too much money from Union imports, Canada was indefensible, and there was concern Russia would use any British distraction to pursue an irredentist policy in the Black Sea.
Basically Britain did not want to fight America and Russia at the same time because Albion would lose.
‘Canada was indefensible’ the war of 1812 proves the opposite, Canada was not only easily defended but the US lost their capital and had to beg for peace.
The cotton mills in the North West of England relied on the confederacy for cotton. Despite this the workers whose jobs were on the line supported the Unionist side and were mostly against slavery. They continued this support throughout the civil war.
Oklahoma wasn’t really in the confederacy, they had many allies but also many union suppprters. Don’t forget this is still “Indian territory”
The union had 8 slave states in 1864. The Union even made a brand new slave state called West Virginia in 1863.
Not for long they didn't. President Lincoln took care of that with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I'm continuously amazed how many people still believe the Lost Cause BS and are sympathetic to the traitorous Slave states.
Semper Fi
The whole thing was about slavery. The time in the cotton manufacturing areas in Lancashire (North West England) was referred to as the Cotton Famine. It was a period of layoffs and extreme hardship for the workers. I believe at the time it was seen as primarily due to the lack of the raw material (cotton) coming from the American South. A more modern view is, apparently, that there was over production in the years leading up to the war so to an extent would have happened anyway. Whatever, the mill owners just wanted to trade but the mill workers backed the Union because of slavery - linking the war to aboliton. If the confederate states had really just wanted to get British backing, they almost certainly could have but at a cost: they would have had to abolish slavery. Of course there was a reason they tried to break away in the first place, and from this side of the world I doubt it was "state's rights".
Wrong. It was about creating interminable debt so that international banking could finally get the US in its evil clutches. Every single southern state had legislation in their statehouses for the abolition of slavery. It's cheaper to pay immigrants $2 a day than maintain a slave.
The states right to slavery. Most of the states literally say that in there manifest. I have heard that England had stockpiled cotton before hand.
White people in the south didn't want to work in the fields.
@@theodoresmith5272 Exactly they broke away to keep slavery. I don't think that anyone in England was stockpiling so much there was too much in warehouses waiting to be sold.
@johnforrest695 the South actually embargoed itself..how stupid was that. The union didn't have the ships or ports to blockade the south til 1863. It was well known a war was coming and there was extra buying before it in Britain. Cotton doesn't go bad quickly if it's kept. The north sold captured cotton during the war. The 2nd part was expanding secondary cotton production such as eygpt and Australia. It took off but lowered the price especially after the war was over. The south biggest screw up was the market was never the same and they lost the labour to harvest it in a scale like before. All they had to do, not that I agree with it, is do what everyone else was like the British in India. Free them, but pay them little and charge them a lot for room and board. Also if southern cotton was already on a British ships sailing to England, and USA navy ships stopping them, would have caused a big problem for the union.
I learn more from the comments section than the actual video.
Hello Knowledgia, i would really love you to make a video on the fernandine Wars 1369-1381?-2?, Thank you.
There was no way this was going to happen at this point in time. Britain and most of the world was against slavery by now. I think the only other major country that still did slavery was Brazil, but they were certainly not a major power.
The CSA claimed Kentucky and Missouri as well
Please note: the map of the US didn’t look quite the same as the one used in this video.
9:41 utter disaster? are we thinking about the same battle of antietam here?
Liverpool was the defacto home port of the Confederate navy. They never had a navy with Liverpool giving them one. The city supplied ships snd munitions to both sides..
They were steadfastly anti slavery
The American Civil War was in essence the second civil war as the American War of Independence was a civil war between pro-British Americans & anti-British Americans. The British natuarally sided with the pro-British while Spain & France sided with the anti-British.
Cammell Laird built the CSA Alabama for the South. 🏴
One reason is Britain abolished slavery 50 years earlier and in the empire as a whole by 1836.
It would of been a hard sale even for cotton for the textile mills in the UK.Then there were
other concerns.
Good video, i appreciate that you mentioned everything correctly this time, and it seems like you guys actually took into account things I've been commenting about this period of time on your channel. This was a good video, and i didn't see anything about inaccurate like before. I revoke my criticism of your channel and apologize for the negative impact, but i was right, and it did make the channel better... you were very truthful this time and didn't just follow everyone elses ideas about it. I know it's a sensitive or controversial topic, but truth is truth, and you guys did it correctly this time. Thank you for this, and my apologies for being so mean, but i can't control my desire to spread knowledge if i know it. I will continue supporting the channel going further from here on out.
One thing you didn't mention is that the Brits had some sympathy for the South because they wanted to see America break apart.
Government officials may have been pro Confederate, but the people, especially the mill workers that were hurt by the blockade, were mostly pro Union. Going against public opinion to intervene in a war thousands of miles away with no benefit is a really bad idea
Also, an end to the trade in cotton was never on the table. It's not as if the Union intended to end cotton production and sale overseas if they won. Davis and Confederate politicians were arrogant and boasted quite openly that they had Britain under their thumb because of cotton. The British were not amused and this further weakened support for the Confederacy.
Another notable attempt at legitimacy the confederacy hoped to gain was from the Catholic Church. A confederate ambassador went to the Vatican City or papal states as it was known back then to seek recognition from the pope of the time Pius IX, he left completely convinced he had won the pope over especially after a letter from the pope was received. The problem? He hadn’t, Pius had been unimpressed by the diplomats admission of him and Jefferson Davis and by extension much of the south being Protestant as well as his outright refusal to speak of gradual emancipation, as for the letter it was mistranslated by the confederates as being a recognition of statehood.
It would have been something that wouldn't go over in the UK is slavery.
Being a Homeless Veteran for 10yrs if any of you think it's easy it's not. Nobody cares about our situation Now i make 22k weekly. have a home, a wife, a lovely daughter... A child of God. HALLELUJAH
I'm feeling really motivated.
Could you share some details about the bi-weekly topic you brought up?
All thanks to Maria Luisa Clare
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Maria Luisa Clare.
Wow 😱 I know her too
Miss Maria Luisa Clare is a remarkable individual whom has brought immense positivity and inspiration into my life.
Fun Fact: Ulysses S Grant is his book talks about how Jewish traders from europe were still trading slaves and cotton for Gold to the south after Abraham lincoln banned it. Him and Sherman never liked jews again after that.
But the royalist, imperial or banking forces behind Britain never gave up on their world-dominating ambitions and megalomania. Somebody was planning and funding the Confederate rebellion from British Canada, and Mexico as well. The goal of the great world game is always to undermine and divide your enemy against themselves, as Britain had tried repeatedly with America. Britain may have outlawed slavery in word, but not in deed, as the south in 1860 was still effectively a British colony, and the slave (and drug and sex) trades had long been British dominated. Imperial forces were still dreaming of a "golden circle" of slave states surrounding the Caribbean cotton and sugar trades. That's why Lincoln knew he was fighting the invisible hand of an international force, not just an American one. The elites goal was always to break the Union (and still is), and therefore why his priority was to save it. Even Russia got involved with a naval blockade on both coasts at the low point of the war, to protect the US from European invasion. After the war, Britain resisted reconstruction, and funded their masonic orders which grew into the KKK. By WW1 they took over the State Department, and the Executive branch after WW2. Today the world elites are fomenting race and gender wars, mass migration, stolen elections and fake pandemics. It's called "hybrid" war, and it's all part of the great game.
Obviously the AI on this channel has never heard of knights of the Golden Circle and their efforts to funnel money from England to the South during the Civil War
@@danlower7834 its not AI at all. Knowledgia has always had this kind of animation style long before AI went mainstream. And i can't find any information of the claims you made, so could you provide them?
Britain gave the confederates lots of Aid. In my own town limerick in Ireland they supplied uniforms to the confederates throughout the war..and that was one small UK city
That was private enterprise, not military aid sanctioned by the government. The UK was legally allowed to export to the CSA, just not send weapons. But war profiteers smuggled guns into the CSA, and they had agents procure ships from British shipyards, then sail them to third party nations to outfit them with weapons and armour. This was all done illicitly.
We couldn’t have joined the fight
For the south they had slaves .. we abolished slavery across the world decades before and policed it too . We were the First Nation to ban slavery over
thirty years before
And it was never allowed in the islands of Great Britain
america will always look to support from britain and france cos these two are like the mother and father of america without them there would be no america
@@alanparker9608 that’s kinda false you forgot Spain also, SPAIN was the first to
Colonized that continent.
And America is a continent, USA IS THE COUNTRY.
America as a continent exsisted for centuries
@@TreyMessiah95 indeed but by america I meant North America like USA Canada but yeah Spain was there and most of Latin America and 1/3 of modern day USA was part of Spain especially after France gave them their big land of Louisiana
Don't fotget that the support of Spain was very hight in the independence of the United States. So much as France's or even slighty more.
@@TreyMessiah95 The USA can still be called America, don't be pendantic.
If we are talking about the USA . Britain was the mother and father of it . France had minimal input really.
One major problem for Britain would (yes, really, odd though it'd look today) be aligning, as THE global anti-slavery power, with a bunch of slave-owning provinces whose attempt to secede from their own nation was based subsantially at least in the slavery issue anyway. While to Victorian Britons of all classes, ending slavery worldwide was seen practically as a sacred mission, including on occasion via subjection of opposed polities to reprisals up to and including war.
There is a quote in Gettysburg the movie where I think General Longstreet mentions the South should have freed the slaves first AND then fired on Fort Sumter. Not sure how feasible that would have been to the Southern economies and war effort but if they wanted freedom from the Union through secession, it might have paved the way for European intervention. The slavery issue essentially made it impossible for any of the major powers to get involved as they (like Great Britain) opposed slavery themselves. Would make for an interesting what if scenario
The entire point of the confederacy was to fight for the right to own slaves, why would they have freed them that makes no sense
Economic and moral reasons although in the long term it was most probably beneficial to Britain if the USA had been carved into two or more independent states. No chance any individual European state could compete with the USA economy due to the size of it.
The Scottish shipyards were building a couple of ships for the confederacy so we were not exactly nurtural
Because the war was made about slavery.
Which it was... read the founding constitutions of the confederate states.
@@l.augustinekhalafala5237 Not to mention their various statements as to why they were seceding. It was slavery, slavery, slavery.
What about CSS Shenandoah? Refitted and re-armed in Birkenhead (part of the port of Liverpool). It was said of Liverpool at the time that "more Confederate flags flew over Liverpool than over Richmon Va".
Ohhh really? What's your source for this conjecture?
United States: Great Britain we need help.
Confederate South: Great Britain we need help.
Great Britain: you wanted independence and you got what you wanted.
They didn’t know America would eventually rival them, and then even surpass them economically politically military and now 250 years later after America’s independence the Britain is dependent on the USA and not the otherway round
Every member of NATO is a vassal of the United States.
not for long, but UK probably wont exist in a few years anyway
@@imperatorvespasian3125 why do you think that, im actually kinda curious?
They actually did. It was understood by almost everyone to be inevitable given the physical size and abundant natural resources of the US, even in the 18th century.
@@Bertie_Ahern Correct, and so it made a lot more sense at the time to foster good relations with the USA and help strengthen its democratic institutions and a "reasonable" political culture, rather than antagonise them or stoke lasting resentment. At the end of the day, a single friendly America was more of a benefit to Britain's long-term interests than two smaller Americas which hate each other and would probably hate the UK too.
Try the Britannia's Fist Trilogy by Peter Tsouras. An alternate history that sees Britain and France go to war against the United States, siding with the Confederates. It's flawed but also, I think, one of the more underrated alt-Civil War histories. He has some interesting ideas.
England didn't support the south Scotland supplied blankets and uniforms to the confederate soldiers.
Why did they assassinate Lincoln and not Davis??
Shouldn't the map show West Virginia as being part of the North? Maybe not at the beginning of the video, but by the end it had split away from Confederate Virginia. You wouldn't even need to explicitly mention the change in the map, just quietly slip it in.
Unlike today the people that ran Britain were not morons, why choose a side when you can supply arms and supplies to both sides fighting a war that strengthens Canada’s security as both sides weakened their threat level.
Neutral would have meant the British recognizing the south as France wished them to do. Recognition would have meant the British would regard trade with the south as valid and any interference from the Union would be crushed by the British navy. So neutral not so much, the British continued to recognize the union as the only valid government. Also at the start of the war British public opinion was heavily in favour of the north because of slavery, despite the north not rejecting slavery formally. Remeber the British were leading the fight against slavery worldwide, capturing slaveships, pressuring other states and even directly attacking countries in Africa involved in it. There were other factors that did not make the union or the south popular, that being the frequent American expansionist attacks either formally or with fillibusters on almost every country in North America, this did not engender any likeing for the country. Additionally there was nothing of value going to war for either side for the British. Just as the Americans profiteered on the Napoleonic Wars so did the British on this.
Britain and France still built ships and weapons for the confederacy. It was like giving weapons to Ukraine.
Don’t relate today’s Ukraine to the Confederates. 👎That’s low.
@@appelanseeofbogalusa5235Huh? They’re both fighting for independence from their parent nation and were beating the odds despite being heavily outnumbered.
The American revolution is another great example. Fighting for independence and France and Spain gave them the supplies they needed
No it’s not. They’re fighting for independence from their parent nation and beating the odds despite being outnumbered.
American revolution is another good comparison.
But they’re both struggling for independence and getting supplies from UK and France.
How’s that low? Same struggle. US in 1775-1783 is another good example
The English Civil War ended at Gettysburg.
I've always thought it interesting that the US (as so-called 'Patriots') fought for the right to secede from Britain and be independent and yet aggressively denied that same right to the Southern states. Double standards?
The right to representation! To vote! Colonies had no members in parliament! The south wanted their state laws enforced for runaway property! Early in the American nations founding there was even Black slave owners! Later the South decided to go the race route! Blacks were easier to make a slave class coming from Africa so not knowing the continent like the native Americans who would flee westward when the South tried to make them slave labor same with white indentured servants who would flee to other colonies making it expensive and far enough away to avoid being recaptured!
@@stephenyoung2742 The right to representation? For whom? Certainly not for indentured servants, slaves or indigenous Indians. And on completion of the rebellion not for the remaining loyalists either. This was for the elite. And your global history is a little skewed.
Anyone fighting in the American Civil war would have to be extremely old to be a veteran of the War of Independence.
The video misses two key points. One was that Prince Albert campaigned quietly for England to stay neutral. I would guess that Victoria would honor his views even after his death. Second, Palmerston wanted the US to remain weak and he felt the US Civil War regardless of the outcome would weaken the United States. He was anti-American. But England needed American Corn more than cotton. Third, the Russian Czar was very Pro-American. Fourth, England had a counsel officer in South Carolina. His reports were instrumental in keeping the peace.
Your map incorrectly shows West Virginia as part of the confederacy when it’s very formation was to separate from Virginia to join the Union
Time to take the colony back
Because the ones seeking responsible government accepted the slaves and women as people not property. Where they have access to private health care practitioners who can actually deliver health care legally.
You're showing Oklahoma as a state in the Confederacy, when Oklahoma was a territory and could not have been part of the Confederacy.
Britain nearly did but cool heads prevailed during the Trent affair
Cause they couldn’t openly support slavery
There were a few in the UK who wanted to support the Confederacy but they were mainly better off people whose income depended on the import of cotton. The country was still very proud of the fact that it had abolished the Slave Trade in 1807 and slavery in general in its Empire in 1833 so the majority of the British were a lot more on the side of the Union, even if they were personally suffering from the restrictions of cotton imports.
There were some who provided goods to the Confederacy under the fact that the UK was a neutral country but those were very few.
Sod the Americans, who left but still took the French help while we chose the Caribbean and sugar over 13 sad counties fighting native Americans.
Long story short we couldn’t care less.
On your map,you appear to show Oklahoma as a Confederate state.Interesting because it was’nt a state then, actually the Indian territory.