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.
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.
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
That's probably one of the biggest factors. Canada would have been impossible to defend against the US, and the British government understood they'd lose the region in the event of a war. The US was much more powerful in the 1860s.
@CedarHunt Canada was still more loyal to the British, and the British didn't have nearly as many others to war with at this time like they did during the American Revolution and War of 1812. More of Britain should've been able to muster it's forces and go straight towards the source of the problem.
@@thalmoragent9344 That's just factually wrong. The British would have been attacked by the Spanish, French, Austrians and Russians and would have lost significant territory to them if they had sent any meaningful percentage of their forces to fight the Union.
Reasons why? It would be expensive and unpopular in Britain, Britain got food exports from the North, Canada was not well defended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia would also get involved, France was busy in Mexico and probably wouldn’t be able to help much.
How on earth do you think either Prussia, Austria or Russia would get involved? All three of those country's navies were much weaker, even combined, when compared to Britain's navy. Russia was recently beaten by Anglo-Franco-Turkish forces in the Crimean war, and in 1866 Prussia and Austria fought eachother in the Brother's war.
@@fot6771 Balance of Power, if Britain gets involved France will too (They already said this in real history, France wanted to keep the war going so USA would not get involved in Mexico). Prussia will get involved if France gets involved. Russia already sent ships to the USA as a show of support, so Russia is already involved. It doesn't matter if their navies are weaker on a larger picture because it would no longer be limited to an American conflict. It would be like the Seven Years War all over again, and Britain does not want to destabilize all of Europe over a war for slaves and cotton.
Slavery was banned in the British Empire before the US Civil War started. In 1861 for Britain to have sided with slavers for economic gain would have shown extreme hypocrisy...
Yall act like the British empires red coats weren't made with southern cotton in Northern textile factories. Smh. After slavery ended on paper, white and black men produced more cotton together than in any years before. Also, the British and French were at war, and Napolean was about to sell the Louisiana Purchase to fund his war against the Brits. Who also were about to lose all due to greedy bankers. They thought they lost against Napolean and sold all for pennies on the dollar. The British people still pay a tax on that. The south should've won but Lincoln sent so many immigrants to the front line that it was insane. He had a constant supply of new soldiers at all times.
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.
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
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.
Yes, the biggest mistake for the Confederacy was to put all the stock on King Cotton, of course Great Britain wouldn't risk anything for a rebellious pseudo nation that only has a few commodities to offer that any colony of its empire can provide, especially Egypt. Yes, the prices of cotton rose, but it was a pain Great Britain was willing to take as they knew the Confederacy had no chance of winning the war against the Union who was a more valuable ally for the British, in fact that's the reason the Confederacy was asking for help in the first place.
Imagine Colombia putting an embargo on cocaine! But coca only grows at high altitude in tropical latitudes. Not many places fit those requirements. The South embargoed underwear. Not very bright.
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.
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.
What about CSS Shenandoah? Refitted and re-armed in Birkenhead (part of the port of Liverpool). It was said of Liverpool at the time that "more Confederate flags flew over Liverpool than over Richmon Va".
The way that I heard it, the British assessment was that the Confederates, were in the main, a rural economy. Where as the Union was more of an industrial economy and so had the advantage.
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.
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.
The whole thing was about slavery. The time in the cotton manufacturing areas in Lancashire (North West England) was referred to as the Cotton Famine. It was a period of layoffs and extreme hardship for the workers. I believe at the time it was seen as primarily due to the lack of the raw material (cotton) coming from the American South. A more modern view is, apparently, that there was over production in the years leading up to the war so to an extent would have happened anyway. Whatever, the mill owners just wanted to trade but the mill workers backed the Union because of slavery - linking the war to aboliton. If the confederate states had really just wanted to get British backing, they almost certainly could have but at a cost: they would have had to abolish slavery. Of course there was a reason they tried to break away in the first place, and from this side of the world I doubt it was "state's rights".
Wrong. It was about creating interminable debt so that international banking could finally get the US in its evil clutches. Every single southern state had legislation in their statehouses for the abolition of slavery. It's cheaper to pay immigrants $2 a day than maintain a slave.
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.
The British and French both supported the south. Hence the need for the northblocade of the south. Guns and ammo and other supplies were trying to be sent and the norths blocked them very successfully
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?
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.
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.
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
@@appelanseeofbogalusa5235Huh? They’re both fighting for independence from their parent nation and were beating the odds despite being heavily outnumbered. The American revolution is another great example. Fighting for independence and France and Spain gave them the supplies they needed
No it’s not. They’re fighting for independence from their parent nation and beating the odds despite being outnumbered. American revolution is another good comparison.
At least one European power attempted to aidcthe Confederates. In 1862 France, along with the British and Spanish, sent an armada to take Mexican ports to collect debts. When the British and Spanish saw that the French intended to stay to set up a.puppet government, the withdrew. The French advanced inland towards Mexico City and were defeated in Puebla on May 5th of the same year. Th9snis where Cinco de Mayo originated. Had the French not been defeated on that day, they could have set up operations in Mexico, provided material and suppliesbto the CSA and eventually, aid them with combat troops. History would be diiferent today....
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.
america will always look to support from britain and france cos these two are like the mother and father of america without them there would be no america
@@alanparker9608 that’s kinda false you forgot Spain also, SPAIN was the first to Colonized that continent. And America is a continent, USA IS THE COUNTRY. America as a continent exsisted for centuries
@@TreyMessiah95 indeed but by america I meant North America like USA Canada but yeah Spain was there and most of Latin America and 1/3 of modern day USA was part of Spain especially after France gave them their big land of Louisiana
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.
@@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.
If they had they would have smashed the union blockade then the union would have been invaded from the north. The union would have been smashed. So no they did not. They did not even send miltary advisors or weapons as they are right now doing for the Ukraine.
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 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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@harrysilva4952 nah man black people can live here no problem, I just don't care about the rest of the us simple as that, no identification with from new york whatever just want a secession from the rest of the us
Because they weren't sure the Confederates would WIN and hadn't fully grasped the threat to their empire that America would be in the future. Anyone telling you it's due to not wanting to support a country using human bondage, doesn't truly grasp real politik.
Try Rocket Money for free: RocketMoney.com/knowledgia
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.
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.
Out of the 115 military conflicts the United States has been involved in since the 1780s Britain supported America in about 30-35 conflicts and France supported America in about 25-30 conflicts
Yep, but if it wasn't for French involvement, U.S. probably wouldn't exist today.
@@echo5226 yes they took the USA from britain, look where that landed them
They were also worried that the Union would attack Canada if they assisted the Confederates.
After what happened in the War of 1812 Nope we didn’t want that to happen
@TheBandit025Nova
Well, I doubt that they'd want a repeat 😅 plus, the UK would still be in a better position than they were in 1812
That's probably one of the biggest factors. Canada would have been impossible to defend against the US, and the British government understood they'd lose the region in the event of a war. The US was much more powerful in the 1860s.
@CedarHunt
Canada was still more loyal to the British, and the British didn't have nearly as many others to war with at this time like they did during the American Revolution and War of 1812.
More of Britain should've been able to muster it's forces and go straight towards the source of the problem.
@@thalmoragent9344 That's just factually wrong. The British would have been attacked by the Spanish, French, Austrians and Russians and would have lost significant territory to them if they had sent any meaningful percentage of their forces to fight the Union.
Reasons why? It would be expensive and unpopular in Britain, Britain got food exports from the North, Canada was not well defended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia would also get involved, France was busy in Mexico and probably wouldn’t be able to help much.
How on earth do you think either Prussia, Austria or Russia would get involved? All three of those country's navies were much weaker, even combined, when compared to Britain's navy.
Russia was recently beaten by Anglo-Franco-Turkish forces in the Crimean war, and in 1866 Prussia and Austria fought eachother in the Brother's war.
@@fot6771 Balance of Power, if Britain gets involved France will too (They already said this in real history, France wanted to keep the war going so USA would not get involved in Mexico). Prussia will get involved if France gets involved. Russia already sent ships to the USA as a show of support, so Russia is already involved. It doesn't matter if their navies are weaker on a larger picture because it would no longer be limited to an American conflict. It would be like the Seven Years War all over again, and Britain does not want to destabilize all of Europe over a war for slaves and cotton.
Britain : * Sipping Tea Aggressively
*Tea plate clattering loudly*
I didn't think it was even possible to do this, then I saw Billy Butcher menacingly drinking tea in the boys....
Slavery was banned in the British Empire before the US Civil War started. In 1861 for Britain to have sided with slavers for economic gain would have shown extreme hypocrisy...
It was banned by William the Conqueror in the 11th century.
Slavary was still legal in British colonies 🤷 why do yall always skip this
@@TreyMessiah95 Britain outlawed slavery on August 1, 1834 with the Slavery Abolition Act. The US Civil War started in 1861.
@@TreyMessiah95 Slavery ceased to be legal in the colonies sometime in the 1830s, so well before the American Civil War.
Yall act like the British empires red coats weren't made with southern cotton in Northern textile factories. Smh. After slavery ended on paper, white and black men produced more cotton together than in any years before. Also, the British and French were at war, and Napolean was about to sell the Louisiana Purchase to fund his war against the Brits. Who also were about to lose all due to greedy bankers. They thought they lost against Napolean and sold all for pennies on the dollar. The British people still pay a tax on that. The south should've won but Lincoln sent so many immigrants to the front line that it was insane. He had a constant supply of new soldiers at all times.
Who dislikes this?!
Greets from Germany
landlords
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.
They didn’t know America would eventually rival them, and then even surpass them economically politically military and now 250 years later after America’s independence the Britain is dependent on the USA and not the otherway round
Every member of NATO is a vassal of the United States.
not for long, but UK probably wont exist in a few years anyway
@@imperatorvespasian3125 why do you think that, im actually kinda curious?
The union had 8 slave states in 1864. The Union even made a brand new slave state called West Virginia in 1863.
0:25 I heard 1961 not 1861
einteen fr
Yes, You're right
Because the war was made about slavery.
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."
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.
Yes, the biggest mistake for the Confederacy was to put all the stock on King Cotton, of course Great Britain wouldn't risk anything for a rebellious pseudo nation that only has a few commodities to offer that any colony of its empire can provide, especially Egypt. Yes, the prices of cotton rose, but it was a pain Great Britain was willing to take as they knew the Confederacy had no chance of winning the war against the Union who was a more valuable ally for the British, in fact that's the reason the Confederacy was asking for help in the first place.
Imagine Colombia putting an embargo on cocaine! But coca only grows at high altitude in tropical latitudes. Not many places fit those requirements. The South embargoed underwear. Not very bright.
Let's go another epic Bangerrrrrrrr sending love from Chicago
This channel uses AI generated scripts and partially AI generated animation, unfortunately. It is very clear when you have the gist of what ChatGPT generated scripts sound like. The voiceover is also AI generated, you can tell the difference between his voice here and his voice for the sponsor.
This channel used to be decent until 2023, but since then its just AI generated slop.
Davis just full on forgot India exists or what ? lol
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.
Good video.
What about CSS Shenandoah? Refitted and re-armed in Birkenhead (part of the port of Liverpool). It was said of Liverpool at the time that "more Confederate flags flew over Liverpool than over Richmon Va".
Very interesting
Cause they couldn’t openly support slavery
The way that I heard it, the British assessment was that the Confederates, were in the main, a rural economy. Where as the Union was more of an industrial economy and so had the advantage.
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.
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.
The whole thing was about slavery. The time in the cotton manufacturing areas in Lancashire (North West England) was referred to as the Cotton Famine. It was a period of layoffs and extreme hardship for the workers. I believe at the time it was seen as primarily due to the lack of the raw material (cotton) coming from the American South. A more modern view is, apparently, that there was over production in the years leading up to the war so to an extent would have happened anyway. Whatever, the mill owners just wanted to trade but the mill workers backed the Union because of slavery - linking the war to aboliton. If the confederate states had really just wanted to get British backing, they almost certainly could have but at a cost: they would have had to abolish slavery. Of course there was a reason they tried to break away in the first place, and from this side of the world I doubt it was "state's rights".
Wrong. It was about creating interminable debt so that international banking could finally get the US in its evil clutches. Every single southern state had legislation in their statehouses for the abolition of slavery. It's cheaper to pay immigrants $2 a day than maintain a slave.
The states right to slavery. Most of the states literally say that in there manifest. I have heard that England had stockpiled cotton before hand.
White people in the south didn't want to work in the fields.
Nicely informative video
How do you do this kind of awesome mapping?
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.
The British and French both supported the south. Hence the need for the northblocade of the south. Guns and ammo and other supplies were trying to be sent and the norths blocked them very successfully
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?
They did on the down low
Oklahoma wasn’t really in the confederacy, they had many allies but also many union suppprters. Don’t forget this is still “Indian territory”
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.
It's pronounced 'Cry-me-an' not "Crim-e-an"
The native pronounciation of the place is Kreem or Krim.
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.
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
It would have been something that wouldn't go over in the UK is slavery.
*banked ON (not "off of"). The same is true for the word "based."
Britain and France still built ships and weapons for the confederacy. It was like giving weapons to Ukraine.
Don’t relate today’s Ukraine to the Confederates. 👎That’s low.
@@appelanseeofbogalusa5235Huh? They’re both fighting for independence from their parent nation and were beating the odds despite being heavily outnumbered.
The American revolution is another great example. Fighting for independence and France and Spain gave them the supplies they needed
No it’s not. They’re fighting for independence from their parent nation and beating the odds despite being outnumbered.
American revolution is another good comparison.
But they’re both struggling for independence and getting supplies from UK and France.
How’s that low? Same struggle. US in 1775-1783 is another good example
At least one European power attempted to aidcthe Confederates. In 1862 France, along with the British and Spanish, sent an armada to take Mexican ports to collect debts. When the British and Spanish saw that the French intended to stay to set up a.puppet government, the withdrew. The French advanced inland towards Mexico City and were defeated in Puebla on May 5th of the same year. Th9snis where Cinco de Mayo originated.
Had the French not been defeated on that day, they could have set up operations in Mexico, provided material and suppliesbto the CSA and eventually, aid them with combat troops. History would be diiferent today....
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.
Britain looked at the Confederates and looked at Union and said ‘USA is my daddy’ 😂
On your map,you appear to show Oklahoma as a Confederate state.Interesting because it was’nt a state then, actually the Indian territory.
Blighty wanted 2 weak supplicants
England didn't support the south Scotland supplied blankets and uniforms to the confederate soldiers.
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
Prince Albert.
america will always look to support from britain and france cos these two are like the mother and father of america without them there would be no america
@@alanparker9608 that’s kinda false you forgot Spain also, SPAIN was the first to
Colonized that continent.
And America is a continent, USA IS THE COUNTRY.
America as a continent exsisted for centuries
@@TreyMessiah95 indeed but by america I meant North America like USA Canada but yeah Spain was there and most of Latin America and 1/3 of modern day USA was part of Spain especially after France gave them their big land of Louisiana
Don't fotget that the support of Spain was very hight in the independence of the United States. So much as France's or even slighty more.
Because
To arms in Dixie!
poor west virginia, stuck with a bunch of slavers : (
LOL.
Slavery had been outlawed in the British Empire for decades and supporting the Confederacy would have been political suicide.
Because not worth it. :P
Because Britain banned slavery already. End of video
I have a feeling like they started to use AI voice in these videos. Something feels off.
slop channel
Oklahoma Territory was not in the Confederacy.
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.
Most of the Indian Territory was CSA-aligned, this is more accurate than the opposite.
@@jarynn8156 I would not count it as Confederate at all. Color it green or something.
@@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.
It would be more accurate to say that the native tribes were anti-US federal government.
I wish America wasn't all one piece
Why?
It isn't, Canada is right there in North America.
They DID.
If they had they would have smashed the union blockade then the union would have been invaded from the north. The union would have been smashed.
So no they did not. They did not even send miltary advisors or weapons as they are right now doing for the Ukraine.
@@bigbad25They would've done it if not for the Russians
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.
wdym they didnt have a large standing army?, they was the british empire, they was one of the worlds superpowers at the time.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
sure bud.
253 years ago America did not exist. But Russia, Türkiye (Ottoman) existed.
*slavery*
Ohio
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.
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.
This.
more like 30 years before, and 50 since the navy started fighting against slavers.
August 1st, 1834
the confedarates should have won it sucks being part of the union
Ure a racist odd
There's this great place called hell, domt worry, you'll be going there sooner than you think
To bad racist idiot, you lost.
@@harrysilva4952 nah man black people can live here no problem, I just don't care about the rest of the us simple as that, no identification with from new york whatever just want a secession from the rest of the us
Because they weren't sure the Confederates would WIN and hadn't fully grasped the threat to their empire that America would be in the future.
Anyone telling you it's due to not wanting to support a country using human bondage, doesn't truly grasp real politik.
You forgot Russian support for USA. UK didn't want for Russia to attack India or Canada.
Because they despised slavery
lol
Play a major part for sure
@@clintstewart5545 no funnier then how the confede💩 got its ass handed to them. LOL