4 ms·

I think the real answer and probably why the article is a bit light on actual anecdotes, is that Britain or its military at the time probably didn't think much

I think the real answer and probably why the article is a bit light on actual anecdotes, is that Britain or its military at the time probably didn't think much of it all, especially from a military point of view. Plus they were super busy with imperial concerns, especially in the British Raj post-1857 rebellion. The U.S., although gaining steam economically (pun intended), was still a backwater, rural, nation isolated by a whole lot of ocean (edit: I meant all this from a military point of view). I am sure the abolitionists in power in Parliament were interested in the outcome of the war from that point of view, but it was really of very little consequence to UK or Europe as a whole.

nostromo 4y ago
The US economy overtook the UK's right around the civil war. That's also around when the US population overtook the UK's. They may have not thought much about the war, but it wouldn't be because the US had a small economy or population.
- kensai 4y ago
  Really? I thought that happened way after WWI. The UK economy back then had a gazillion of colonies to sustain it.
  - sillyquiet 4y ago
    No OP's correct, the US surpassed the UK both in population and in GDP sometime around the middle of the 19th century.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I think the point is that looking at the UK in a vacuum, outside the context of colonies like India, Kenya, Singapore, etc., is probably misleading.
    - fmajid 4y ago
      The US overtook the UK in 1860, but overtaking the entire British Empire was closer to 1900.
- sillyquiet 4y ago
  Right right, you are absolutely correct, but I meant that the U.S. was inconsequential to Europe militarily.
- digisign 4y ago
  Would have taken quite a while to be noticed, given the speed of communication and lack of American military presence overseas. Compared to the British Empire.
pirate787 4y ago
The US South provided 80% of British cotton, and the textile industry was the UK's largest employer and industry.[1]. [1] https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/liverpools-abercromby-square/britain-and-us-civil-war/impact-cotton-trade https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/liverpools-aberc...
- bombcar 4y ago
  The US was economically beginning to be involved on the world level, but wasn't really a "power worth considering" until after WWI, partially just because of distance.
  - sillyquiet 4y ago
    yeah, this was really my point. A (maybe terrible) modern analogy is how concerned would we be with a civil war in say, South America, where a significant chunk of our lithium comes from? We would probably be concerned, but our economic and military clout means that we would always be the customer for whoever won that civil war.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      > We would probably be concerned, but our economic and military clout means that we would always be the customer for whoever won that civil war. Don’t we typically just give a fuckton of guns and resources (and maybe more) to whichever side we want to win.
      - tomcam 4y ago
        Absolutely not. We are also perfectly willing to overthrow democratically elected governments as well.
      - kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
        A good read about that: The Savage Wars of Peace.
- 4y ago
jeremyjh 4y ago
Quite a few European powers embedded observers with both sides of the conflict. The application of improved small arms and artillery was something that military minds were very interested in, to see how it played out in a large scale conflict.
rayiner 4y ago
Not true. By 1860, the US was of comparable size to the UK and France, and had a similar GDP per capita to the UK. De Tocqueville‘s “Democracy in America” had introduced Europe to America’s prosperity in the 1830s and 1840s, so it wasn’t unknown. The war might not have been militarily relevant to Europeans, but that doesn’t mean people weren’t paying attention. The US was as big and as rich as the European powers at that point. It’s like today: If France broke out in a civil war it would be all over the news 24/7.
qiskit 4y ago
> The U.S., although gaining steam economically (pun intended), was still a backwater, rural, nation isolated by a whole lot of ocean A "backwater"? That forced the 49th parallel on the british in the 1810s? That took oregon territories from the british in the 1840s? The "backwater" that "took" louisiana territories from france and alaska from the russians? The "backwater" that took texas,california,et al from mexico? The "backwater" that took control over the yangtze river from china in 1854? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol The "backwater" that forced japan to open in the 1850s? Which no european power, including britain, was able to do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition It wasn't the british navy that dominated the seas mid 1800s. It was american whalers. By the civil war, we had been shitting on the british and the rest of the great powers for decades. Not bad for a "backwater".

nostromo 4y ago

The US economy overtook the UK's right around the civil war. That's also around when the US population overtook the UK's. They may have not thought much about the war, but it wouldn't be because the US had a small economy or population.

kensai 4y ago
Really? I thought that happened way after WWI. The UK economy back then had a gazillion of colonies to sustain it.
- sillyquiet 4y ago
  No OP's correct, the US surpassed the UK both in population and in GDP sometime around the middle of the 19th century.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I think the point is that looking at the UK in a vacuum, outside the context of colonies like India, Kenya, Singapore, etc., is probably misleading.
  - fmajid 4y ago
    The US overtook the UK in 1860, but overtaking the entire British Empire was closer to 1900.
sillyquiet 4y ago
Right right, you are absolutely correct, but I meant that the U.S. was inconsequential to Europe militarily.
digisign 4y ago
Would have taken quite a while to be noticed, given the speed of communication and lack of American military presence overseas. Compared to the British Empire.

pirate787 4y ago

The US South provided 80% of British cotton, and the textile industry was the UK's largest employer and industry.[1]. [1] https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/liverpools-abercromby-square/britain-and-us-civil-war/impact-cotton-trade https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/liverpools-aberc...

bombcar 4y ago
The US was economically beginning to be involved on the world level, but wasn't really a "power worth considering" until after WWI, partially just because of distance.
- sillyquiet 4y ago
  yeah, this was really my point. A (maybe terrible) modern analogy is how concerned would we be with a civil war in say, South America, where a significant chunk of our lithium comes from? We would probably be concerned, but our economic and military clout means that we would always be the customer for whoever won that civil war.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    > We would probably be concerned, but our economic and military clout means that we would always be the customer for whoever won that civil war. Don’t we typically just give a fuckton of guns and resources (and maybe more) to whichever side we want to win.
    - tomcam 4y ago
      Absolutely not. We are also perfectly willing to overthrow democratically elected governments as well.
    - kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
      A good read about that: The Savage Wars of Peace.
4y ago

jeremyjh 4y ago

Quite a few European powers embedded observers with both sides of the conflict. The application of improved small arms and artillery was something that military minds were very interested in, to see how it played out in a large scale conflict.

rayiner 4y ago

Not true. By 1860, the US was of comparable size to the UK and France, and had a similar GDP per capita to the UK. De Tocqueville‘s “Democracy in America” had introduced Europe to America’s prosperity in the 1830s and 1840s, so it wasn’t unknown. The war might not have been militarily relevant to Europeans, but that doesn’t mean people weren’t paying attention. The US was as big and as rich as the European powers at that point. It’s like today: If France broke out in a civil war it would be all over the news 24/7.

qiskit 4y ago

> The U.S., although gaining steam economically (pun intended), was still a backwater, rural, nation isolated by a whole lot of ocean A "backwater"? That forced the 49th parallel on the british in the 1810s? That took oregon territories from the british in the 1840s? The "backwater" that "took" louisiana territories from france and alaska from the russians? The "backwater" that took texas,california,et al from mexico? The "backwater" that took control over the yangtze river from china in 1854? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol The "backwater" that forced japan to open in the 1850s? Which no european power, including britain, was able to do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition It wasn't the british navy that dominated the seas mid 1800s. It was american whalers. By the civil war, we had been shitting on the british and the rest of the great powers for decades. Not bad for a "backwater".