The Civil War and the Threat of Foreign Intervention

In 1862, the American Civil War seemed to be reaching a climax, as General Lee prepared to invade Maryland. On the other side of the Atlantic, the British and French struggled to agree on whether to offer mediation (and inevitably Southern independence), or remain strictly neutral.
Patreon: / oldbritannia
#history #civilwar #britishempire

[@panzeroftruth7500]

I have school tomorrow sir. How dare you deprive me of my sleep.

[@johnnyfields1392]

It's 6:30 fym sleep

[@andreyshpigelman5478]

​@@johnnyfields1392wait till you hear about time zones, they're gonna blow your mind

[@crocodil8983]

​@@andreyshpigelman5478 what do you expect For us not to succumb to ansomnea for the sake of objectify useless education

[@BungheeGumHxH]

@@johnnyfields1392Bro thinks we all live in the same time…

[@GlizzyGoblin757]

@@johnnyfields1392actual moron

[@davidmajer3652]

Great to learn the position on the American Civil War from the British perspective.

[@sammymcfone8281]

Wouldn't be a civil war if you all just did as you were told... Just saying. GB

[@thedewberry_6399]

There is a statue of Lincoln in Manchester (England), on the plaque it states Lincoln wrote an open letter to the city where he thanks the cotton mill workers of the city, as they were so in favour of the union and of the abolition of slavery, they refused to work with any southern cotton, despite this drastically impoverishing them and basically putting them out of work.

[@BridgeOridge]

80 years later they finally get why FDR's joke about teaming up with Hitler was so hillarious 😂👏🏻🤣

[@jackbharucha1475]

It is interesting to see themes of so many contemporary conflicts play out in the way foreigners viewed our country’s Civil War. “No military solution” and all that. What can seem like a worthy cause to those involved can seem like senseless bloodshed to outsiders.

[@darthparallax5207]

It's been senseless since precisely the Napoleonic era. The time of Spanish Succession was able to field and modern looking armies (replacing Knights on horseback with Gun brigades), but the quality of guns was not yet able to make fields of war completely efficient destroyers of life just yet; "Chess logic", almost, of a strategy to capture, not kill, particularly the flags-- was the old way. 1804 comes and it's the beginning of military cynicism that even the victories were never worth such high casualties in both % and sheer numbers. The US Civil War is.....totally unromanticizable except that sympathy for the lowest ranked infantry on both sides is already at World War One levels. The North cause was more just, but it still wasn't worth that much death.

[@AltbinariesPPK]

​@@darthparallax5207preserving the union wasn't worth it???🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨

[@CantusTropus]

@@AltbinariesPPKMaybe not? Why is "preserving the Union" such a sacred and essential duty that it is worth any amount of blood sacrifice?

[@AltbinariesPPK]

@@CantusTropus absolutely

[@AltbinariesPPK]

@@secretname4190 because you can't betray your nation because you want to keep using people like livestock

[@Idahoguy10157]

Both France and the UK were only paying attention to Washington and the indecisive military campaign in the East. The Union’s Western theater was decidedly successful. The Mississippi River was under Union control. The Confederate Armies were being beaten.

[@SteezyRider]

This is true, but the western theater did not really solidify under Union control until a bit later in the war. Antietam was the beginning of that.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@SteezyRider …. The Union plan to win. The “Anaconda Plan”. Was in the West. Along with a Union blockade of Confederate trade. Richmond and Washington were so close to one another there were going to be major battles over them. The Army of the Potomac under McClellan’s leadership would never be destroyed. But McClellan on the aggressive was uninspired. He lacked a killer instinct. Robert E Lee was blessed with a succession of mediocre Union commanders. Till meeting Generals Meade at Gettysburg, and later Meade under Grant.

[@CantusTropus]

How much did the Western theatre really matter?

[@spikethompson2000]

@@CantusTropuslet’s see, cutting the confederacy in two, capturing the confederates largest port in New Orleans, capturing its vital trade route of the Mississippi, I would say it was strategically significant

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@CantusTropus … until after Gettysburg the Eastern theater on land was a stalemate. As Grant went East and took command, Sherman had already captured Atlanta and was taking his forces to the sea. The Union kept destroying the ability of the South to wage war. The Civil War in the East was a bloody affair. But until late in the war it accomplished nothing in and of itself

[@gusscharlau8166]

a good thing to also note is the U.S ambassador to Russia Cassius Clay managed to get Russia to promise that if France and/or Britain recognized the south that it would be war with Russia Cassius Clay is also the man who forced Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation way earlier than he wanted to by refusing to leave his post as ambassador to become a general.

[@user-vo9wd6tx6c]

How realistic was that threat? It seems like Russia's navy was pretty incompetent during the Crimean War, was there significant improvements between 1856 and 1862?

[@andrewgilmore4040]

​@@user-vo9wd6tx6ci am assuming, but russia declaring for the US is still a huge impediment for UK and France to get entangled into a foreign war for what gain? As the video explains, the cash crops in the Confederate States were being replaced by other sources. Would you get involved as the UK or France if it meant going to war with all of Russia, Navy or not?

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

​@@user-vo9wd6tx6cRussia can threat India if that happens...

[@michaelthayer5351]

I mean Russia was probably out for revenge after the Crimean War and the logic likely was that Britain, even with French Support, would not dare risk war with the US and Russia at the same time. But even if Britain did decide on war with her two great rivals there'd be doubt she would have the resources to effectively pursue the war and end up defeated .

[@thomasjamison2050]

@@user-vo9wd6tx6c It would have been a matter related to control of the cotton trade. It was a very realistic threat before the perfection of the Northern blockade. After that, not so much.

[@gogolsoul]

I studied the UK and the American Civil War, particularly the Trent Affair and the CSS Alabama. I've always considered it a clash of determination and will, and I left with huge respect for USA's Secretary of State, Seward. The UK and France certainly indulged the idea of mediating and recognising the Confederacy but never too seriously. Especially not after Antietam. The Confederacy wanted to be seen as an independent state. But how they went about it diplomatically was awful. Withholding cotton exports from UK screwed themselves and pushed the UK to other cotton markets. Seward always gave the impression the North was absolutely committed to fighting the war and keeping the Confederacy treated as a rebellion though. He really frothed at the mouth whenever foreign states tried to stick their nose into the Civil War.

[@frank-ko6de]

That's deluded entitled Brit logic for you. Imagine the US daring to intervene as an intermediary during the multiple wars that were constant with England in Europe, and how absurd that would have sounded.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Interesting good points.

[@benhuge2237]

@@frank-ko6de Actually America tried intervene in Fenian raid in Canada so that deluded entitlement seem to belong to America as well retard.

[@MichaelRimmer-qx8jp]

⁠@@frank-ko6deare you serious? The US does nothing but stick its nose into foreign affairs, the only thing stopping it in this period is that it wasn’t yet powerful enough.

[@Zyzyx442]

Thanks for continued uploads, always fun to learn new stuff from new perspectives

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

I love this crucial added perspective! Your videos are always a gem.

[@kwd3109]

Really enjoyed that. Your presentation and research are accurate and well written . My compliments.

[@WeirdMagnus]

I was just rewatching some of your videos, thank you!

[@robertorios5834]

So glad I came across this channel

[@AFGuidesHD]

When was the "civil war" first referred to as a civil war ?

[@olefante380]

It was referred to a civil war even before the civil war had begun "In your hands, is the momentous issue of civil war. There can not be a civil war without you being the aggressors" Lincolns speech before ft. Sumter. As to when it became widespread? Around the 1910s.

[@novustempestus3389]

At the very latest, it's verbatim called a civil war in the Gettysburg Address.

[@shaunwu3910]

I guess the second part of the question is when the term "war of northern aggression" started being used. Was it war time southern propaganda or did this phrase emerge post war? Genuinely curious.

[@jeffreygao3956]

@@shaunwu3910 Made up by racists during the Civil Rights movement.

[@Heath580]

Some in the north always called it that. Some called it the "War for the Union." Civil War is inaccurate imo, that word implies two sides, each wanting full control of a landmass. It was really a failed revolution. "War of Secession" or "War Between the States" is more accurate to me

[@iden4869]

great video from a great channel 👍

[@magako_v.3]

Many thanks for these videos.

[@denisdorohoi]

absolutely adore this channel. in uni rn but after i graduate this year im gonna be on ur patreon. this content is too good to not support. absolutley brilliant

[@TheSilver2001]

Great work as usual! Keep it up :)

[@joshwebb5016]

Another Brilliant video. My favourite channel on KZbin right now

[@ryan0the0robb]

This is probably my favorite channel. Ive really enjoyed every video

[@PersimmonHurmo]

The amount of blunders committed by the British during the great game was utterly baffling. They had not made such blunders against their rivalry in France. It is as if Britain treated America like a rebellious child, not a geopolitical rival. When Britain hesitated to drive the dagger between American ribs and split them open, America not only did so eagerly every time, but the last stab they cheeringly stroke hand in hand with the soviets.

[@Gleifel]

HE’S BACK GUYS

[@swaggerog7284]

Love your stuff bro

[@grahamhodge8313]

Very informative. A lot of information that I did not know.

[@user-qp1np9fp4q]

Great video man! I would love to see a video about the aims of each nation in the congress of Vienna, there aren't any good quality videos about that subject apart from PH's and you are frankly the best in that business.

[@GlouchCar]

Thanks a lot for the amazing quality of your content. What software do you use for your maps ?

[@unusualhistorian1336]

Great documentary, keep it u!

[@josephb7594]

Another fab upload!

[@thomaswatson1739]

Can we get a video on the Confederacy’s ideas of the Golden Circle and how realistic it was, (had they won the war)

[@crusader2112]

I second this suggestion. 👍

[@HamzaAli_9507]

I third this suggestion. 👍

[@thanhhoangnguyen4754]

Hear Hear

[@leaveme3559]

Britain wouldn't have allowed it

[@Adsper2000]

The problem is that French Mexico would have hemmed them in from the south, and the Europeans (who the Confederates would be indebted to) would not have just allowed them to usurp Spain’s empire in the Caribbean. Maybe they get Cuba, and maybe France/Habsburg Mexico sells them the Rio Grande, but that’s about it.

[@TheTripleAce3]

Please do more videos about various powers during the ACW

[@legoGnerd]

I did my undergraduate dissertation on the British reaction to the 1863 Russian fleet episode in New York

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Sounds good!

[@bcvetkov8534]

It needs to be mentioned had Britain and France (who might I add was also trying to install an Austrian to rule Mexico at the time.) tried to force a peace between the Union and Confederacy it would've spelled disaster for British Canada because a professional Union army would've swiftly and brutally conquered it. (Especially, Eastern Canada.) I doubt the British would send a million men to try and retake it. Ironclads were also getting pumped out at an alarming rate by late 1862 to 1863. So, the Royal Navy might not have been able to achieve naval dominance as easily as people believe. By the time of Antietam it was clear the South was on borrowed time. Their economy was already in ruins and they were running out of men to put in uniform. Lee lost a lot of experienced men at Antietam and especially at Gettysburg a year later. When you also consider that Grant during the same time as the battle of Gettysburg took Vicksburg thus severing the South in two by completing the anaconda plan it shows how quickly the war turned against the South.

[@pocketmarcy6990]

It would have turned a civil war into a continental one

[@michaelrimmer338]

@@secretname4190exactly, and the Union would have had a war on two fronts.

[@mullerreus145]

This is very generous to the Union lmao, bordering on fanfiction

[@willw8011]

@@secretname4190 Peak strength of the Union Army was 700,000. Over 2 million men served in the Union Army during the US Civil War. 400,000+ Union military died. Confederate Army peak strength was over 400,000. Over 1 million served during the war. Over 200,000 died during the war. At the time, the Union army was the most modern in the world.

[@avenaoat]

@@willw8011 Funny The unionist white volunters from the Confederacy was 100 000 and the colored unionist soldiers were 300 000. They were almost so many as the all Confederacy Army.

[@XIXCentury]

Always a treat

[@Philip_of_Santos]

I can’t help it but say “Checkmate LINCOLNITES” 😂

[@alansmithee8831]

A topic so much covered by US and then likely to be the TV series Civil War, or opinion on that, the view from UK is often drowned out or restricted to related events in UK, like cotton mils. Timely to give thanks for a view of the events in US from UK and how the US and Confederates at the time saw that.

[@eventsmydearboy9208]

Time for a cup of Earl grey and scones Old Britannia has uploaded

[@phil-jo8px]

I can't seem to find your original videos on the British empire. Did you move them to a different platform? I'd love to watch them again. Thanks

[@jamesh4616]

I imagine Britain's purchase of American cotton and Britain's aversion to slavery will both take center stage in this one.

[@kubli365]

sounds like Chinese dominance in manufacturing

[@frank-ko6de]

That's British hypocrisy for you. They certainly weren't averse to slavery. It was just no longer convenient to import slaves, when they literally colonized whole nations that did their bidding. But, keep drinking the kool aide.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

Had Britain recognised the South and tried to break the blockade there would inevitably have been war with the USA, which would have been costly for both sides, and lead to a painfully long war, with a likely US invasion of Canada forcing Britain to transport thousands of soldiers across the ocean. Even had the war led to British success, the losses would have been horrific and the financial costs likewise, perhaps a taste of what was to come 50 years later. Not to mention the fact that the US would have become a sworn enemy of the British Empire and possibly even choosing to support the German Empire in WW1. Britain was therefore wise to stay out.

[@AFGuidesHD]

Not necessarily. If Britain/ France sent troops then it would only be in small numbers. If the US invaded Canada then they'd risk full blown war. Which I highly doubt they would whilst fighting the CSA.

[@thomasrinschler6783]

@@AFGuidesHD The US would have immediately invaded Canada the moment a British soldier landed in the Confederacy, if not before. Also, remember at that time, virtually all of Canada's population was located in the Windsor - Toronto - Quebec City axis (far moreso than now, when that still is pretty much the truth), so the US could occupy pretty much anything of significance in Canada quickly, unless the UK sent a lot more troops ahead of time than what they did historically.

[@seraphimconcordant]

@@thomasrinschler6783 The UK had soldiers already stationed in canada lmao, it would have been suicidal for the US to send any large contingent up north. They were barely holding the Maryland line. If ANY troops were vacated from that theater Lee's Gettysburg campaign would have been a triumph, and that spells doom for the US. Imagine being the doofus that declares war on Britain and sends 20K men to trudge through the canadian tundra only to hear that your country lost it's capital and all of your leaders have been captured. Remember that Baltimore was extremely pro-Confederate as well, so had Lee captured it they would have supplied them and joined the southern cause.

[@pgf289]

What spare army did the Union have to invade Canada with? The Royal Navy breaking the blockade and supplying the Confederacy with arms and materiel would have totally changed the calculus.

[@AFGuidesHD]

@@pgf289 Exactly, the US invading Canada would mean the Union have half as many troops at Gettysburg. The Union invading Canada would be Germany declaring war on America tier disastrous.

[@minerat27]

More??? You're really spoiling us!

[@Brian-----]

Another win, sir! 🙂

[@Giorgos-ee5kn]

Next , do a video about the Balkan wars, thanks

[@Dayvit78]

I would have liked to hear more about the influence of the blockade on British policy, if it had any. If the British were thinking that the South was unconquerable despite the blockade - it sounds like a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars where British had a full blockade, yet Napoleon was still defeated.

[@soviet9366]

British public opinion came to see the war as about slavery, which we had ended in the empire, so closing the door to UK support for the south

[@dapperbunch5029]

That was only after Antietam, really that was the South’s one chance to win.

[@spikethompson2000]

An overall good video, though it should also be noted Britain imported large amounts of grain from the United States during the war, meaning that if Britain chose to side with the south, it would have severely disrupted food supplies, and anyone will tell you that a cotton famine, while bad, is nowhere near as serious as an actual famine

[@RealArcalian]

I wonder how many British statesmen cursed their inaction in hindsight. But, likewise in hindsight, it seems unlikely that anything short of the direct and full military assistance by Britain and France (instead of the British assistance in creating one Ironclad for the Confederacy), would've been enough to turn the tide.

[@WFHermans]

At that time Britain was stronger as an industrial nation than the USA, I think it would have turned the tide. The Confederate States would have promised to end slavery in return for British and French aid I think.

[@RealArcalian]

@@WFHermans Britain being stronger, not without the southern cotton. And no, the Confederates would have promised no such thing.

[@proof4469]

The abolitionist movement in Britain was very strong and politically influential. There were several riots over the issue of slavery, and many politicians were made or broken by the anti-slavery voters. Britain even remotely supporting the CSA in any way would've been a political nightmare, in my opinion.

[@enderman_of_d00m24]

it would've helped keep the British Empire's hegemony going longer. the Rise the USA was part of what brought the slow downfall of the British Empire

[@MrRAGE-md5rj]

They would have to. Even if the South succeeded in driving back the Union, they would've still had to end slavery as a business because the prices of keeping & maintaining entire families of slaves would've gotten too high.@@RealArcalian

[@jakerupp3840]

Could you please do a video on the heligoland/zanzibar treaty along with other German colonial concessions

[@ZoomerHistorian]

Great video

[@Meanietube]

Fascinating

[@thomasjamison2050]

A decent commentary. It is good to remember that the Brits, at least in the press, had long maintained a position that splitting the Union was a good idea. Not so much because America could be viewed as a threat, but as the idea of commercially controlling the cotton trade was quite attractive. British propaganda sold the notion to the south that the south that English tariffs on cotton were due solely to Northern tariffs on British goods, and that if the Northern tariffs could be removed, English cotton tariffs could be removed and the cotton plantation owners could thus make considerable more money. All nonsense of course because all governments then primarily depended on tariffs to support themselves, and no one was going to run a government without tariffs. But the southern politicians, then as now, could be really stupid.

[@heather4421]

Do you have a place where you cite your sources?

[@michaelthayer5351]

I seriously doubt the Royal Navy would have had as easy a time as people imagine breaking the Union Blockade in a meaningful and sustained fashion. In 1862 alone the Union Navy laid down and commissioned a hundred modern ironclads and by the end of the war the US Navy was the largest in the world with nearly 700 ships. Britain had barely 10,000 regular troops to defend the entirety of her exposed Canadian holdings at that time and during the earlier Crimean War the Anglo-French Allies had immense difficulty supplying the formations sent to the Black Sea. Britain likely would not be able to sustain much more than 100,000 men in North America against a Union Army that at it's peak was a million strong. It was still fighting the Confederate Army as well that was about half to three-quarters the size at any given time, and I imagine the North could have raised another 5 Corps to fight the British.

[@michaelthayer5351]

@@secretname4190 The point is it would have been a much more hard fought endeavor with the Union eventually in 1863 and certainly by 1864 having a quantitative and qualitative advantage in North American waters with Britain's main logistical ports being those in Jamaica and Nova Scotia, as by 1862 most of the Confederacy's major ports had been seized or were under siege. The Union would also be operating close to home waters with the advantages of having support infrastructure, coastal defenses, and easier logistics while Britain would be fighting on the other side of the Atlantic with precarious routes of supply and reinforcement. This is coincidentally the main worry of the modern US Navy vis-à-vis China as while the US Fleet is still by far the largest and most capable navy it is stretched by global commitments and risks being overwhelmed by the concentrated Chinese Fleet in East Asian waters. Their is a difference between naval primacy and naval dominance let alone the omnipotence that some ascribe to the Victorian Royal Navy or Modern US Navy.

[@michaelrimmer338]

Would have been interesting for sure. You wonder if the Confederate, British/French and Native America pressure from all sides would have been too much?

[@CantusTropus]

Interesting! People sometimes like to portray a Union victory as a historical inevitability, but really it wasn't the case. Union morale was low early on in the war, and if Antietam and Gettysburg had gone differently it's quite likely that war support would have collapsed entirely. This video shines light on the fact that such an event would likely also have made the British bold enough to put real pressure on the Union as well, making peace even more likely. Thanks!

[@stoopid6036]

Where do you find your information/what is your research method?

[@user-tg7ox8de1y]

Scroll to the end left side says sources

[@kurtsell8376]

Seems to me like there was never going to be any meaningful European intervention or mediation. This is because, since Britinnen and France were not willing to go to war the had to rely on the South to push the North into accepting mediation and negotiating an end to the war. The problem with this is that since the Northern and Southern basic goals were polar opposites (the preservation and dissolution of the Union respectively) for there to be any serious negotiations at all the Union would have to agree to the dissolution of the Union and the failure of their war goal. So, in order for there to be intervention and mediation on behalf of the South, the South would have to have already convinced the Union it could not win the war. So, in effect, the only way Britain and France could have to have been if the South had already all but won the war, and at that point mediation would have been pointless. TLDR: Intervention/mediation was never going to affect the outcome of the war because the, in order for France and Britain to intervene (since they would not go to war themselves), the South would have to effectively win the war by itself just to get the North to the negotiation table.

[@Jimmylad.]

0:44 does anyone know the name of the French foreign minister who said this? Great video!

[@joshwebb5016]

Could very well be wrong but I believe it was Edouard Drouyn De Lhuys.

[@garrettallen7427]

Amazing video! it's quite interesting learning about how Britian's leaders were so scared of American might that they were willing to put away their own morals and principles. Very informative!

[@somehistorynerd]

I think it was what America could become that scared them.

[@k00lkidz4]

Plz make a video on the suez crisis

[@MiguelLopez-yc2rh]

I think it would be interesting knowing more about the Civil War from the perspective of spaniards. The confederates had expansionist ideas in the caribbean sea and wanted to buy or annex Cuba.

[@micahistory]

interesting video, I am glad no peace or intervention was made

[@hockeysexmaster69]

Where did you come from? These are some of the most well produced and interesting videos I've seen on these topics

[@SBattisonPortfolioChannel]

I know this is meant to represent a specific year in the war but even then your map of the confederacy or at least confederate holdings that year is incomplete. Still a good video as always sorry to sound nitpicky as an American I can't help but notice how many different people outside of the US get this wrong. Besides the interior wasn't pacified yet and Indian nations were sovereign participants- something many Americans also forget.

[@zingerman11259]

0:01 the map is incorrect, the lower half of Arizona and New Mexico were also part of the CSA, but its it alot of people dont know this

[@sebastienhardinger4149]

Great video - in popular history Antietam is considered a clear end to foreign hopes for intervention - interesting that it was still discussed even after Antietam One thing - you repeatedly mention "Pope's army" - Pope commanded the Union Army of Virginia, not the main Union Army of the Potomac. the Army of Virginia was merged into the Army of the Potomac just before Antietam and Pope was relieved of command - the Union force at Antietam was commanded by McClellan

[@OldBritannia]

Thank you for your kind comments. I'll freely admit I'm no expert on the military history of the Civil War. The Pope comments are a bit of a hold over from the first draft of the script where I was going to posit (what seems like) one of the great what if's of the war. Namely, where Lee almost surrounded Pope's army just above the Rapidan on August 19, mentioned in Osprey's Second Manassas p. 27. Obviously, Pope then escaped, and looking back I'd have probably just been better removing all references to him.

[@andrewzebic6201]

Who was best: Lord Palmerston or Pitt the Elder?

[@Molten_Boron]

I was looking for this comment. PITT THE ELDER!

[@jaquanhaynes6169]

You should do Franco-Prussian war that'll be a good one

[@TheMormonPower]

Industrialization with tractors picking the cotton, and machines seperating the cotton seed, would have financially necessitated freeing the slaves. Machines were cheaper than buying and feeding slaves😮

[@erichluepke855]

There we go with Napoleon III changing his mind over and over

[@americanminotaur2518]

Jeez, why are there so many people saying “Britain should have sided with the Confederacy to weaken the US?” A Confederate victory would have led to the continuation of slavery in the south, probably not indefinitely but for much longer than it would have in the Union. Would allowing chattel slavery to continue for a few more decades at the very least really be worth it?

[@kilerik]

As far as I remember, Russia was more pro-union than you mentioned but I don't remember the source I read.

[@ferrjuan]

Didn’t stop the French from intervening in Mexico though.

[@nailil5722]

good content as always but your accent makes it hard again to follow through

[@naughtiusmaximus7103]

Wait, goodwill? There was no goodwill between the US and Britain in the mid 19th century. Don't bring the 20th and 21st century relations into this. the US was cold if not outright hostile to the British since the 1812 war. We had no reason to thaw this relationship, especially with the British and their allies the French actively invading Mexico in direct violation of US' Monroe Doctrine. It was a war the British and French would also have lost. In the 19th Century it remained prohibitively expensive to field large armies over the Atlantic. Britain and France only managed 40,000 troops in their invasion of Mexico. That is basically nothing to the Union armies, who at their largest were around 700,000 strong. They would reliably be able to overrun Canada in the event of intervention. Britain and France in particular could hardly afford to commit that many troops overseas when Prussia was on the rise, and especially not after the Second Schleswig War with heightened tension over Prussian expansion. Nevermind this was the introduction of ironclads, which were not very seaworthy at the time. It would be exceedingly unlikely for Britain and France to decisively end the Union blockade in the face of the Union's local superiority in ironclads, let alone try to blockade the Union itself. And really, regarding the thaw in the Anglo-American relationship, it was only once Britain could no longer resist US rising economic might and its dominance in an emerging energy source (oil) when relations thawed, and that was in the 1880s when America started throwing its weight around with the Open Door Policy in China. Further wars (1 and 2) would then cement Britain's junior and hence good relationship with the US for over a century to come.

[@Gamenetreviews]

That French Algeria map seems off

[@ArdnoliusOfficial]

Lee's Ego and great Arrogance played very, very against him at Gettysburg. After day 1 he had to give the correct instructions to his generals, and take that same day Little Round Top, Cemetery Hill and Cullp's Hill, the charge. of Pickett was purposeless nonsense and total madness on Lee's part, if they had taken the advantageous position they would have won the Battle, and not only would they have achieved the recognition of several nations but they would also have marched towards Washington DC, probably taking it

[@humboldtsentinel]

You left out the part where Russia sailed its grand fleet to both New York & San Francisco as a show of support for the Union, and a warning that they would intervene if Britain tried to prop up the slaveocracy.

[@AFGuidesHD]

Yeah that's like the USN being "deterred" by the current Russian navy lol.

[@masterplokoon8803]

It wasn't that reason, the Crimean war had just ended and the Russians feared that Britain might want to bottle up the Russian navy in the Baltic and Black seas in case of a new conflict so in American ports the Russian fleet had freedom of movement in case of conflict.

[@robertclive491]

Oh no, not Russia's shitty fleet.

[@zacharyhenderson2902]

So that's how Europe saw the Civil War. Interesting

[@johnhooper7040]

Because of the dage to it's cotton industry and the plight of the workers, Britain should have intervened, sent the Royal Navy to break the blockade of Confederate ports to release exports of cotton!

[@DanA.-jo4sg]

What a missed opportunity to reduce American power when it was at it's most vulnerable. A massive geostrategic mistake and lack of forethought. The British very easily could have removed the blockade against southern ports and tipped the balance in favour of the South. It shows the British didn't fully understand that America would evolve into an empire that would replace their own. The slavery issue was irrelevant since Industrialization was soon to make it obsolete. It was already on it's way out.

[@fot6771]

It was perhaps the last chance to contain the US's growth and maintain a Franco-British world order.

[@aghomidaniel1937]

The USA would still have been stronger

[@PJ2437]

Greater US President, Lincoln or FDR?

[@_Devil]

One minor correction: Oklahoma (then called the Indian Territory) wasn't officially apart of the Confederacy. The Native tribes are CSA-Aligned because Jefferson Davis promised them freedom from further Union expansion, but outside of volunteers the territory never fully entered the war on the side of the Confederacy

[@keegandecker4080]

“Queen Victoria! The Americans are still practicing chattel slavery!” ‘How awful, how dreadful!’ “Your majesty, what should we do about all the starving children in our coal mines?” ‘Nothing!’

[@purplesprigs]

Are you forgetting India and South Africa? She was a saint, to be sure.

[@keegandecker4080]

@@purplesprigs how saintly the British behavior was in the Raj, certainly. Tell me, what was that thing Victoria’s government invented to corral the Boers? The concentration camp?

[@europhile2658]

You seem to have forgotten that the US wanted reparations for Britain's involvement in the war. They wanted all of Canada though settled for a large sum of cash. Britain was regarded as a belligerent or at least involved in extending the war and causing many deaths

[@OldBritannia]

This is far in the future and not particularly relevant to 1862 in my opinion. The Alabama claims are interesting though, and I discuss them in my other great game series

[@europhile2658]

@@OldBritannia yes in the future for the reparations but during the course of the war the actions that lead to the demands were happening. Possibly not 1862 but not many years after. It is one aspect of the war that not many cover

[@thomasdevine867]

France wanted Mexico and California. Britain also had hopes of gaining control of California and, with the Monroe Doctrine dead, the trade of Latin America. Britain was also kicking around the idea of asking for bases in New Orleans and Charleston SC. Both France and Britain only gave up their designs on the Trans-Mississippi West after the ACW.

[@paul1780]

Comment for the algorithm.

[@jamesa.m.ritchie413]

One commentator below noted that a British recognition of the Confederacy would likely have resulted eventually in a US military intervention into Canada. Another mentioned 20K British troops in Canada at the time, and another mentioned that the US could take a beating from the Confederacy and yet find the troops to put down a Sioux rebellion in Minnesota. These very good insights were in fact related. Canadian military historian C.P. Stacey put the actual British troop highpoint at 16,000 in British North America during the American Civil War; however these should be understood as cadres. Each British unit would train and lead Canadian militias. On paper this was supposed to be 300,000 Canadian militia but in reality probably never realistically amounted to more than 30,000. BUT there is historical evidence (correspondence and oral histories) that Britain was prior to 1863 actively providing native rebellions inside the US with "arms, ammunition and military supplies" through the middleman services of the Hudson's Bay Company. (This is why later Sitting Bull would see refuge in Canada, not because Canadians or British were nice, but because that's where the military supplies came from.) The failure of the Minnesota Uprising demonstrated to the British that proxy support for Native uprisings would not destabilize the USA, and for the various reasons outlined in your video, the tipping point was passed by the time of Gettysburg. Cross border arms, support and safe havens for raiders continued to be a feature of the Canadian prairies up until World War One. The socalled "undefended border" was defended (so far as Britain was concerned) largely by Native proxies. (And the US returned the favour by funneling military aid to Fenians and Metis rebels in British North America.)

[@weeewoooooooo]

Reading this, you'd be forgiven in thinking the Revolutionary War didn't exist.

[@TheGhostOf2020]

How the hell could someone be a fervent anti-slavery advocate prime minister while actively advocating for the slave states declaring independence BECAUSE they declared the reason was slavery was their ‘god given right’. Did they not have any eyes west of the Appalachian’s? The union made Nashville a union city early in the war and the Mississippi River and New Orleans weren’t confederate holdings for long. The western frontier was pretty fiercely pro union and volunteered in units that were like seeing darts Vader show up. When a dude who’s been living with bears and buffalo surviving by simply knowing the land and his training with a rifle, you had yourself units that simply saw it as another Tuesday to march 1000 miles through the desserts of Arizona and New Mexico and just obliterate all Texan/confederate control by just marching through. The Coloradan volunteers whoops the Texans out so hard that the Californian column marched from LA through Santa Fe and what is now El Paso and occupied it without even needing to engage in much fighting or resistance. Mind you California column was just 5000 random volunteers that said ‘sure why not’ when asked if anyone wanted to march through the Mojave then Sonoran deserts to the rio grande to kick out the confederate sympathizers. Mind you that was a sizable number for the population of California for the time to just at the drop of a hat volunteer to march 1000 miles with little idea of what that would entail. The Europeans who saw any hope for a confederate victory in the war was either diluted or being lied to. It may have taken longer, but it was doomed to fail. It would have had made Mexico and US, its only neighbors have commons ground to destroy the CSA at all costs, something the CSA couldn’t have the man power for.

[@markorr7125]

It is wrong to portray the "British" attitude to the ACW as if only 3 men mattered or had any influence. You did mention that the rest of the cabinet was against the mediation policy but gave the impression that they did not matter. You never mentioned the rest of the Liberal party in parliament nor public opinion. The cabinet or the party could have ousted Palmerston. Liberal MPs would have most likely chosen a new PM. If it had come to a general election the majority of voters were staunchly abolitionist, including those unemployed mill workers who overwhelmingly supported a petition calling on the government not to help the slave-holding Confederacy.

[@OldBritannia]

It’s not wrong, it’s diplomatic history (‘what one clerk said to another’ as someone put it). Palmerston and Russell were the most important figures in foreign policy, it’s natural to focus on them in a short video like this. It could have gone more in depth sure, but I take issue with you declaring it ‘wrong’. You are massively overstating how important the northern cause was to the British electorate and the Liberal party. Pam is not getting turned out office if he recognises the South after a major Union defeat (the precondition he generally thought necessary) .

[@HBCOU]

Reparations now Reparations tomorrow Reparations forever!

[@demarcomixon]

It sucks that the British position can just be summed up as how do we weaken America versus liberating human beings from captivity. Anyway great video, I hope you do a video on the British perspective on the American Negro Civil Rights Movement.

[@AFGuidesHD]

Yeah, also sucks how American position in WW2 can be summed up as how do we weaken the British Empire versus defeating Nazism. That's just how governments work though.

[@leaveme3559]

​@@AFGuidesHDAmerica did both at the same time

[@greatsageequaltoheaven8115]

​@@AFGuidesHDBe glad we Americans allowed you British at the victory table, for it was American and Soviet power the won the war losing your empire was merciful compared to liberating all of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales from English control.

[@demarcomixon]

@@AFGuidesHD You have a good point but it’s still fxcked up though. I But it’s Britains fault why its empire collapsed. The British should’ve done everything in its power to keep the 13 Colonies in the first British empire.

[@AFGuidesHD]

@@demarcomixon I agree it is entirely Britain's fault.

[@markharris4906]

This seems a really weak analysis. There is no point talking about "Europe" because the only power that mattered was Britain. France, Russia, Austria and whoever else could have done nothing without the blessing of the British fleet. The antislavery movement in England especially in the non confoirmist heartland of lancashire, the very people that suffered most from the cotton famine caused Palmerstone some serious concern. For a British premier to have declared his prefernce for a slave state was anathema to his eoectorate an to those people in particular - he was walking on eggshells

[@explodingwolfgaming8024]

Commenting 4 algorithm

[@deesus1085]

UK trying to take its shot 😂

[@HootOwl513]

You didn't mention Napoleon III's imperialist adventures in Mexico.

[@AFGuidesHD]

Napoleon didn't rule Britain

[@HootOwl513]

@@AFGuidesHD He did rule France, and he was busily setting up some Austrian noble -- a relative -- to be the ''Emperor of Mexico'' i.e., a French puppet. Was Palmerston unaware of this?

[@qr8440]

Three cheers for Jeff Davis and the red, white, and red.

[@jamesslater9098]

Racist.

[@qr8440]

@@jamesslater9098 Anything to contribute?

[@jamesslater9098]

@@qr8440 Just pointing out that you're a massive racist who supports a state created for slavery.

[@qr8440]

@@jamesslater9098 Ok

[@ash-vs6tr]

The only major flaw I see in this video is that the conflict was always about slavery it just wasn’t outright stated by the union to try and keep the loyal slave states on their side however in the south it was outright stated in multiple state declarations of independence that it was about slavery

[@zoeygeorge2403]

For the south it was always about slavery, but for the north it took a while for slavery to become the obvious (and most politically expedient) factor. Lincoln himself said if he could restore the union without freeing a single slave he would do it just as easily as if it required freeing every slave. It was a brutally slavery-loving south versus an apathetic north, and it took many black Americans joining the union ranks to help shift that opinion.

[@lovablesnowman]

​@zoeygeorge2403 albeit it wasn't that Lincoln was pro slavery or anything. He genuinely hated it. He just thought it wasn't politically possible to abolish slavery (nor did he think it was the Presidents role to do so either interestingly enough)

[@Wanderer628]

This video mostly covers the cabinet but not the sentiment in the House of Commons or wider country. After leading the fight against slavery for the past half century, few to none in the UK wanted to support a slave state and the overwhelming sentiment was pro north. The possibility might have been discussed but it likely would have also been political suicide to support the south. It's a pity the moral argument doesn't win out more often. America overthrowing democracies to install fascist dictatorships and military Juntas more friendly to American business interests comes to mind.

[@MrJMB122]

Lincoln wasn't a dictator nor were the men that came after him Honestly the South should have been under military rule for 100 year

[@andrewgrandfield7214]

Now do Taiwan :)

[@derrickstorm6976]

You clearly haven't watched this channel before

[@OttoVonRibagnac]

I still don't understand how such an opportunity could be missed to destroy American power. What a lack of realism and long-term vision.

[@AFGuidesHD]

Many such cases. It does make the whole "balance of power" doctrine look a farce. To allow America to aggressively expand across thousands of miles, wage war against Mexico, Spain and everyone else, but then bemoan about Russia taking Bessarabia.

[@ethankirsch9786]

How would the world be better from the UK and France attempting to cripple the US?

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

So... you like war?

[@AFGuidesHD]

@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Not really relevant as to weather one likes war or not. Chamberlain didn't like war yet started the most destructive one in history.

[@shorewall]

Lol, The North dominated the South economically and demographically. Even if the South won its independence due to interference from the British and French, the North would be 75% as powerful, and would now be a seething anti-British and French nation. Canada, the South, Mexico, the Caribbean, and beyond would now be in the North's sights. Any enemy to the British would be entertained. WW1 goes much differently.

[@Romaboo680]

Brits: "America bad because slavery." Brits when you ask who built the CSS Alabama and came within inches of formally recognizing the CSA: "REEEEEEEE! You weren't supposed to remember that!!"

[@zoeygeorge2403]

We may have "abolished slavery first" but were still paying compensation to the descendants of slave-owners all the way up to 2015. "British historians talk as if the Empire took part in the slave trade purely for the satisfaction of abolishing it".

[@leaveme3559]

​@@zoeygeorge2403slavery was still a thing in the empire indian workers were moved work in plantations in Caribbean......Indian workers were once again used to build railway tracks in africa where in countless died There decendents continue to live there

[@ghostie7028]

@@zoeygeorge2403 Britain didn't abolish slavery first, and I dont think anyone even says that

[@memofromessex]

@@zoeygeorge2403 We spent a fortune and live in opposing slavery through the West African Squadron and later on in East Africa. It wasn't entirely purely done for the sake of African lives (it was sometimes used as an excuse to take territory), but no other nation/country/civilisation has done more to oppose the subjection of another people than Britain (not even close).

[@greatsageequaltoheaven8115]

​@memofromessex That's completely false paying slave owners compensation for their crimes is not a good thing😂, American got rid of slavers the proper way, the John Brown way, don't act moral bribing slave owners to free their slave in name only as an excuse to colonize.

[@williambranch4283]

Russian Empire said no! Sent Russian navy.

[@thanhhoangnguyen4754]

In which the Russian navy gonna be sink very quickly. Considering how their navy basically worthless compare to best naval power in the world of the Royal Navy. Don't try to challenge Britian naval capabilities especially if you are a landlock nation that don't even have much war water port.