Why didn't Britain Support the Confederacy?

[@Knowledgia]

Try Rocket Money for free: RocketMoney.com/knowledgia

[@andrzejzie7046]

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.

[@tehreemabbas2433]

Please Urdu audio truck with upload

[@TheCsel]

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.

[@fot6771]

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.

[@TheCsel]

@@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.

[@intagliooglethorpe8434]

@@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.

[@neilgodwin6531]

​​@@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 💸

[@Bertie_Ahern]

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.

[@jakeruffin9433]

Slavery was about to be obsolete regardless do to technology , it wasn't about Slavery as much as you people think.

[@wilddinofacts2073]

@@jakeruffin9433are you going to say it was about the states rights?

[@mattosullivan9687]

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

[@mel.3687]

I heard Lincoln kept slaves odd that he was against slavery

[@bmc7434]

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.

[@welshskies]

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.

[@PixisuME]

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.

[@davidhamilton7020]

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.

[@bmc7434]

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.

[@rayofhope1114]

@@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 .

[@waldorfmcvitty4854]

@@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]

Britain : * Sipping Tea Aggressively

[@dan_38]

*Tea plate clattering loudly*

[@Augustei]

I didn't think it was even possible to do this, then I saw Billy Butcher menacingly drinking tea in the boys....

[@BaylaOwen]

Same with the Southerners?

[@coolmanidk]

I thought you guys like beer more?

[@BaylaOwen]

@@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

[@MiamiGameHunter]

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."

[@EdgedShadow]

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?

[@ianblake815]

They were also worried that the Union would attack Canada if they assisted the Confederates.

[@TheBandit025Nova]

After what happened in the War of 1812 Nope we didn’t want that to happen

[@thalmoragent9344]

​@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

[@CedarHunt]

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.

[@thalmoragent9344]

@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.

[@CedarHunt]

@@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.

[@waichui2988]

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?

[@alanparker9608]

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

[@echo5226]

Yep, but if it wasn't for French involvement, U.S. probably wouldn't exist today.

[@SamuelDone-bu4ri]

@@echo5226 yes they took the USA from britain, look where that landed them

[@towgod7985]

Only 25 to 30? Makes you wonder who the U.S.'s real ally is...............Hmm.

[@rospencer611]

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...

[@towgod7985]

@rospencer611 Very eloquent and true. Well done.

[@CARL_093]

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

[@wepzuk6073]

We should have done it. Supporting the South and helping them win would have been excellent for us and them.

[@Red-hh7dm]

@@wepzuk6073 woah wtf. No we shouldn't have. Are you mad? Yes it was in part, hypocritical for the north to have a problem with secession as they did the same with Britain, but under no circumstances should neither Britain, nor anyone want to support that which was so obviously in defense of slavery.

[@rpaterson433]

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.

[@P4Tri0t420]

Who dislikes this?! Greets from Germany

[@jrdsm]

landlords

[@misterrbojangles]

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!

[@Hugohhhgg]

TLDW: Slavery was banned in England in 1833. The American Civil War began in 1861.

[@crazyirish209]

Davis just full on forgot India exists or what ? lol

[@crowbar9566]

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 .

[@hellenicboi14]

We finally get a map of the CSA that includes the Indian territory, then he puts West Virginia in there too...

[@jasongaston17]

Let's go another epic Bangerrrrrrrr sending love from Chicago

[@Samwell_2024]

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.

[@stephenpodeschi6052]

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.

[@MXForce16]

0:25 I heard 1961 not 1861

[@joshtroufield]

einteen fr

[@JohnSmith957.]

Yes, You're right

[@carlpitlick5104]

I heard 19 too.

[@markosieohmarkosie]

Guy pronounced it wrong

[@davea6314]

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...

[@alangknowles]

It was banned by William the Conqueror in the 11th century.

[@TreyMessiah95]

Slavary was still legal in British colonies 🤷 why do yall always skip this

[@davea6314]

@@TreyMessiah95 Britain outlawed slavery on August 1, 1834 with the Slavery Abolition Act. The US Civil War started in 1861.

[@johnforrest695]

@@TreyMessiah95 Slavery ceased to be legal in the colonies sometime in the 1830s, so well before the American Civil War.

[@batmansdad4978]

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.

[@WhyIsYoutubeSoTerrible]

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.

[@someguy3766]

Honestly, the CSA's diplomatic strategy was so absurdly idiotic it probably cost them the war more than any single battle did.

[@schris3]

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.

[@petehoover6616]

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.

[@loneprimate]

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.

[@johnforrest695]

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".

[@tomtravis3077]

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]

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.

[@monnica1862]

White people in the south didn't want to work in the fields.

[@johnforrest695]

@@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.

[@theodoresmith5272]

@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.

[@raverdeath100]

"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.

[@EthanNelson-1]

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

[@juancamorphosis]

I'm feeling really motivated. Could you share some details about the bi-weekly topic you brought up?

[@EthanNelson-1]

All thanks to Maria Luisa Clare

[@EthanNelson-1]

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.

[@pablicioborges]

Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Maria Luisa Clare.

[@Isabella1-l]

Wow 😱 I know her too Miss Maria Luisa Clare is a remarkable individual whom has brought immense positivity and inspiration into my life.

[@robertskrzynski2768]

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.

[@SouthernGentleman]

The union had 8 slave states in 1864. The Union even made a brand new slave state called West Virginia in 1863.

[@tjmul3381]

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

[@c.j.3970]

Great content! Thanks

[@burakbrknamikaze9048]

How do you do this kind of awesome mapping?

[@craigmacdonald391]

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.

[@vincentspassero-noska8127]

Oklahoma wasn’t really in the confederacy, they had many allies but also many union suppprters. Don’t forget this is still “Indian territory”

[@SD78]

LOL. Slavery had been outlawed in the British Empire for decades and supporting the Confederacy would have been political suicide.

[@doktortutankamazon31]

The Trent Affair was a major reason. Lincoln declaring the blocking of southern ports directly caused The Queen to declare neutrality.

[@michaelthayer5351]

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.

[@sausagejockyGaming]

‘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.

[@uToobeD]

They declared neutrality and smiled smugly and said "Ahhhh those little rascals, now they'll get a taste of their own medicine"

[@ilikedota5]

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.

[@AnvilMAn603]

9:41 utter disaster? are we thinking about the same battle of antietam here?

[@lordsnow4029]

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

[@billalbert8990]

Please note: the map of the US didn’t look quite the same as the one used in this video.

[@barbiquearea]

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.

[@RobertJackman]

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.

[@alanparker9608]

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

[@TreyMessiah95]

@@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

[@alanparker9608]

@@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

[@rogelioreggae2955]

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.

[@RoachChaddjr]

@@TreyMessiah95 The USA can still be called America, don't be pendantic.

[@marcuslynch9950]

If we are talking about the USA . Britain was the mother and father of it . France had minimal input really.

[@stigmontgomery7901]

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?

[@anthonysullivan3238]

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.

[@brokenbridge6316]

Nicely informative video

[@michaelowino228]

Good video.

[@sixwest]

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.

[@BIGHSM]

Very interesting

[@bigpraga]

Hello Knowledgia, i would really love you to make a video on the fernandine Wars 1369-1381?-2?, Thank you.

[@michaelthespikel5685]

They didn't want to get their ass completely kicked in

[@popbottles229]

Cause they couldn’t openly support slavery

[@JohnnyChronic18]

Because the war was made about slavery.

[@l.augustinekhalafala5237]

Which it was... read the founding constitutions of the confederate states.

[@loneprimate]

@@l.augustinekhalafala5237 Not to mention their various statements as to why they were seceding. It was slavery, slavery, slavery.

[@johnhumphrey9953]

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.

[@trainglen22]

It would have been something that wouldn't go over in the UK is slavery.

[@danlower7834]

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

[@Red-hh7dm]

@@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?

[@johnburns4017]

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..

[@marcuslynch9950]

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

[@someguy3766]

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.

[@daniels7907]

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.

[@SouthernGentleman]

Britain and France still built ships and weapons for the confederacy. It was like giving weapons to Ukraine.

[@appelanseeofbogalusa5235]

Don’t relate today’s Ukraine to the Confederates. 👎That’s low.

[@SouthernGentleman]

@@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

[@SouthernGentleman]

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.

[@SouthernGentleman]

But they’re both struggling for independence and getting supplies from UK and France.

[@SouthernGentleman]

How’s that low? Same struggle. US in 1775-1783 is another good example

[@jonmce1]

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.

[@salvatoreregalbuto5444]

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.

[@Eevee13-xo]

Long story short we couldn’t care less.

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

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.

[@kennethmclennan905]

England didn't support the south Scotland supplied blankets and uniforms to the confederate soldiers.

[@mikemines2931]

The English Civil War ended at Gettysburg.

[@Jack-xo2zp]

You're showing Oklahoma as a state in the Confederacy, when Oklahoma was a territory and could not have been part of the Confederacy.

[@interstellaraudiodnb]

Because Britain banned slavery already. End of video

[@johnfleet235]

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.

[@martincamacho2444]

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

[@MATTY110981]

Every member of NATO is a vassal of the United States.

[@imperatorvespasian3125]

not for long, but UK probably wont exist in a few years anyway

[@unamedname2748]

@@imperatorvespasian3125 why do you think that, im actually kinda curious?

[@Bertie_Ahern]

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.

[@someguy3766]

@@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.

[@pyeitme508]

Because not worth it. :P

[@michaelpjeffries1521]

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.

[@edwardblair4096]

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.

[@andypandy9013]

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.

[@nickphillips2125]

It's pronounced 'Cry-me-an' not "Crim-e-an"

[@PiotrDzialak]

The native pronounciation of the place is Kreem or Krim.

[@nabara6949]

Tips : if it's not an english word, DO NOT pronounce it the english way.

[@Red-hh7dm]

@@nabara6949 tip: the english will speak english, thanks

[@seytanuakbar3022]

You forgot Russian support for USA. UK didn't want for Russia to attack India or Canada.

[@Red-hh7dm]

@@seytanuakbar3022 no, it was Russia who feared Britain attacking Alaska via Canada. Britain had no such fear of Russia, they just defeated years prior in the Crimean War. No such fear was held of backward Russia

[@Red-hh7dm]

@@seytanuakbar3022 and Russia had no possibility of attacking India, as to do so would mean conquering Afghanistan first, which could not be done, no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' about it. So your comment is completely ahistorical and flawed

[@rabemolon]

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.

[@williambranch4283]

Victorian moralism and opposition from the Russian Empire. Britain could get cotton from Egypt and India.

[@cruzefrank]

Time to take the colony back

[@willhovell9019]

There was more to Britain than the cotton manufacturing. Slavery was an abomination of the British empire, but yet indentured labour was widespread. Canada had a border with the Union

[@pepperonish]

As soon as I heard the AI voice mispronounced the Crimean war I was out.

[@anonnymousperson]

after the taxing Crimian war...

[@HavNCDy]

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

[@CedarHunt]

It wouldn't have made a difference. The British didn't have a large standing army, and the US had spent decades building coastal defenses explicitly designed to repel a naval attack like the kind that occurred in 1812. Thats not even including the coastal ironclads that the Union commissioned within 6 months of the start of the war. With the Brits engaged halfway around the world, their holdings in Europe and Asia would have been easy pickings for France and Spain and Russia. All that would have happened is the British would have lost their fleets and armies, and then the US would have taken Canada.

[@Kostas_999]

wdym they didnt have a large standing army?, they was the british empire, they was one of the worlds superpowers at the time.

[@CedarHunt]

@@Kostas_999 I mean exactly that. In the 1860s, the British were a great power among many. The entire British military at the time was a few hundred thousand men scattered across the globe. The Union army within a year of the war starting was well over a million.

[@bigenglishmonkey]

the british army was 240,000 strong at that time, plus tens of thousands of royal marines that would fight, and tens of thousands of canadian militia. so lets say around 300,000 to 330,000 given the numbers i have seen. then add the fact that a war (if it looked likely) would prevent 300,000 men from the british isle's and canada joining the union. so you could potentially see 300,000 troops leaving the union, joining the confederacy, and the union now in a 2 front war and with canada to land on theres not much use for those coastal defenses. and i suppose if push came to shove it could find extra men in the 220,000 in india at the time, since there was actually very little conflict happening at that time for britain.

[@CedarHunt]

@@bigenglishmonkey A two front war where the British were massively outgunned and outmanned, thousands of miles from resupply and reinforcement, and facing a force with every advantage. Yeah, it's pretty obvious who wins there, and it's not the British. Canada would have fallen in months and would have made a very nice addition to the Union.

[@oliverwortley3822]

sure bud.

[@evanneal4936]

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.

[@andrewbarker6230]

Britain nearly did but cool heads prevailed during the Trent affair

[@jorgegveram1]

First time I can say this, the only reason why the British didn’t support the confederacy is because they abolish the Slavery 10 years before, that is why the British didn’t support and wil NOT support the confederacy, easy, you made the video too long.

[@monnica1862]

This.

[@bigenglishmonkey]

more like 30 years before, and 50 since the navy started fighting against slavers.

[@LordVVar]

August 1st, 1834

[@bmc7434]

UK didn't ban slavery till 2015, as it was forced by the EU. Millions of Africans, Islanders, and Asians that lived in defacto slavery in the Empire.

[@bigenglishmonkey]

@bmc7434 wrong

[@gwenmiller516]

On your map,you appear to show Oklahoma as a Confederate state.Interesting because it was’nt a state then, actually the Indian territory.

[@nickstevens3139]

Is this a trick question?

[@paulofearghail9408]

*banked ON (not "off of"). The same is true for the word "based."

[@malin5468]

I am a long term US resident of British origin. I used to find the usage “off of “ very offensive, since juxtaposing two prepositions is ungrammatical. But then I discovered the phrase actually has roots in British English. So now I reluctantly use it myself, or at least allow my American editors to “correct” me.

[@EdgedShadow]

The AI voice used for this video mispronounces so many things.

[@thegrumpyraccoon]

I have a feeling like they started to use AI voice in these videos. Something feels off.

[@dudu6647]

slop channel

[@swoovey]

There were more Confederate flags in Liverpool, England than in Richmond, Virginia.

[@tjmul3381]

Ohhh really? What's your source for this conjecture?

[@swoovey]

@tjmul3381 Google it buddy xx

[@Red-hh7dm]

@@tjmul3381 ikr? Im calling BS

[@swoovey]

@@Red-hh7dm it just takes one Google search guys, not that hard

[@josiahgarcia9033]

They banned slavery

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

Oklahoma Territory was not in the Confederacy.

[@jarynn8156]

Oklahoma Territory didn't exist. It wouldn't come to be until the late 1800s. That is Indian Territory. And Indian Territory wasn't really organized. Its usually depicted as Confederate because all of the "Civilized Tribes" supported the Confederacy as did many minor tribes.

[@TheFranchiseCA]

Most of the Indian Territory was CSA-aligned, this is more accurate than the opposite.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@jarynn8156 I would not count it as Confederate at all. Color it green or something.

[@jarynn8156]

@@TheLoyalOfficer But those who fought fought for the Confederates. It was a tribal militia that was one of the final confederate forces to surrender even.

[@mathewfinch]

It would be more accurate to say that the native tribes were anti-US federal government.

[@thomasbraun8857]

They did on the down low

[@Red-hh7dm]

@@thomasbraun8857 no they didn't

[@thomasbraun8857]

@Red-hh7dm yes they did LMAO 🤣 are you kidding me

[@aradat9671]

Because

[@maddogePGH]

This isn't very accurate

[@ArousedRat1]

poor west virginia, stuck with a bunch of slavers : (

[@elmexo4375]

I dont buy the argument for the reasoning behind this being slavery because Britain has allied itself with several countries that practice slavery, for strategic gain, since Britain abolished it.

[@gumdeo]

Exactly, the Ottomans being an obvious example.