What was the world’s reaction to the American Civil War?
Calculated interest. Europe saw it as a test of liberal republicanism against traditional aristocracy.. France made an alliance with the CSA since with the USout of the picture, they could invade Mexico on behalf of their conservative allies there.Britain was hoping for the US to lose in power. Some Britons sympathized with the South due to their ethnic ties to old aristocracy, while others hoped for Federal Victory for abolition to occur. The armsmakers of Britain sold weapons to both sides eagerly.Mexico’s fate depended on the war-they had their own civil war, and if the Confederacy won, they would aid the French and the Mexican conservatives. If the Union won, the US army would then force the US out of Mexico and restore Juarez’s government.Germans and Italians were more idealistic-they volunteered on both sides for their own reasons, mostly the Union for the sake of abolition, which echoed old 1848 socialist sentiments. Garibaldi himself volunteered to lead the US army for Lincoln, but King Victor Emmanuel needed him more.Russia was hoping to make inroads into the Pacific; Czar Nicholas was no friend of the US.King Rama IV of Thailand offered war elephants to President Lincoln, hoping he could intercede on their behalf to counter increasing British and French influence.The Emancipation Proclamation made little difference on American soil, but it was a huge coup in Europe. The war became more about morality than politics, and the anti-Republican British found themselves confronted by abolitionist liberals who cheered. Charles Darwin himself hoped and prayed for British intervention on the Federal side to end slavery in a civilized nation. Napoleon III realized that the Republicans and Liberals in France now had a standing point against him and he decided to bow out on direct aid to the Confederacy until they won the war.Lincoln’s staff kept their promise to Juarez and manifested Napoleon’s fears-the moment Grant and Sherman received surrenders of the rebel armies, Grant dispatched Sherman and Sheridan to Texas. Napoleon the III immediately evacuated the French army-if he fought the Americans, his overstretched, outnumbered army would lose and the Republicans in France would overthrow him. With the French gone and the US aiding Mexico, Juarez was able to rally loyalists and win back his country.
What did the rest of the world think about the American Civil War at that time?
Keeping things brief: most of the outside world, if they cared at all, favored the Union cause over that of the Confederacy for one of two reasons. More liberal nations (basically western Europe) because of opposition to slavery, more conservative nations out of opposition to rebellion against established authority.Notable specific examples:UNITED KINGDOM: While the population in general strongly favored a Union victory, the aristocracy, despising the levelling nature of American democracy, favored the Southern oligarchy. In particular Prime Minister Palmerston, or "Lord Pam", saw the Confederacy as an opportunity to weaken the growing United States before it became a world power that could challenge British dominance. However, he was steadfastly against going to war if it could be avoided, and made it national policy to offer mediation on the basis of separation only if it became clear the Confederacy would prevail on its own.FRANCE: Again, popular opinion favored the North, but less strongly so than in England. However, Emperor Napoleon III wanted to re-colonize Mexico, and he took advantage of circumstances to send an army of invasion to come in and establish a puppet emperor (Maximilian). Napoleon flirted with Confederate recognition, but held back short of full commitment, unwilling to cross Britain on a matter of foreign policy.PRUSSIA: At the time a very liberal population ruled by very conservative monarchs and aristocrats. For different reasons, all sides generally favored the Union.RUSSIA: Tsar Alexander II was about to free the serfs when the Civil War broke out. He favored the Union both on humanitarian and legal grounds.ITALY: Had just had a patriotic war of unification, and despised the idea of petty lords disunifying a country they held as a model.MEXICO: At first vaguely relieved that the Southern filibusterers who had threatened to invade Mexico to force slavery on it (yes, they were real) were sucked up into the war. The people generally didn't care much, but the liberal government that came into power in 1859 generally favored the Union. State governors bordering Texas, however, favored the Confederacy, mostly for reasons of commerce and corruption.Most of the rest of the world, generally speaking, couldn't care less.
Which war was more brutal: The American Civil War or World War I?
600,000 Americans died in the American Civil War. 116,500 American soldiers died in World War 1. The reasoning behind thinking the American civil war was a more brutal war is that it all took place in the U.S. All the civilian casualties and infrastructure damage affected Americans. Medical care during the civil war was deplorable and archaic. Pain medicine and anesthesia were in their infancy. Sterile procedures were still not prevalent even well after the civil war. President Garfield died from his wound being probed with dirty fingers. There were not hospitals for the wounded in the civil war. Due to motorized vehicles not horse drawn wagons wounded could be evacuated quicker. Both wars saw a lot of hand to hand combat but again the wounds were worse in the civil war. There were trench warfare at the end of the civil war but most battles were troops marching on the other army in the civil war. Gas weapons were terrible during WW1 but still didn't exceed the brutality of the Civil war.
How is the American Civil War similar to World War I and World War II? I have to compare the causes of conflict for a history project.
They are all total wars. Before the civil war, the typical goal of a war was to fight a great battle and defeat the enemy ending the war. Warfare changed during the neploeanic wars. Nation state had risen and Armies got bigger making it harder to destroy them in one battle. If a nation’s army was destroyed they could build a new army. The new goal in war was to destroy a nation’s will and capacity to wage war. To do this industry, infrastructure, agriculture and at times the civilian population all became military targets. Wars become long and more costly. It’s one of the reasons the union won. The south was always looking for that one key battle to defeat the north. The north figured out they had the manpower and resource advantage and more importantly Grant and Sherman recognized they had to destroy the south’s capacity to wage war. WW1 and WW2 built on this concept of total war with each war taking it further. In other words the all become a variation of wars of attrition.Technology advances. The civil war was the first large war to see the benefits of industrialization. Large scale use of trains, rifles, the telegraph, artillery, etc… all made their debut or rapidly advance during the civil war. WW1 saw the intrudction of large scale use of machinguns, aircraft, tanks, submarines, chemical weapons, modern artillery. WW2 saw many of the weapons from WW1 reach thier true potential married up with improved tactics and doctrine. In all these wars technology played key roles and gave a nation tactical or even strategic advantages over the other side like never before.That’s my two cents…
I have to compare and contrast the American Civil War and World War I...any ideas?
One of the similarities was trench warfare. I remember reading about it in a magazine called war monthly. the chapter was called ignored lessons. the stupidity of masses of soldiers charging across open ground to attack trenches was one of the feature's of the american civil war and by the time of the first world war the same stupid things were still happening. also in the civil war the union army were sent up a steep hill to attack confederates on the maryes heights. the confederates were safe behind a stone wall and the union soldiers suffered massive losses. in a similar way the germans were sent up the slopes of belgian fortresses and were shot down in large numbers.When the first world war began the french were still wearing kepis like the soldiers of the civil war. they also wore dark blue jackets and bright red trousers and the trousers were blamed for the huge losses the french suffered in august 1914. mining under enemy positions was another similarity. at messines in the great war the british dug tunnels under messines ridge and packed explosives under it and blew a massive hole in it killing thousands of germans. a similar event had already happened in the civil war. Cavalry were still being used in the great war but tanks appeared in 1916 so that was a difference and obviously there were no planes in the civil war. In the civil war some of the ships were armoured such as the merrimac and monitor. coloured soldiers fought in the civil war but they were not allowed to fight in the great war.
English Civil War vs American Civil War?
Which war do you find most interesting in a historical sense? http://www.usronline.org/staff/cavallini/specialPrograms/eUllrich/ow/images/civil%20war%20soldiers.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Burton%2C_William_Shakespeare-_The_Wounded_Cavalier.jpg
Which came first? Civil War or World War 1? :O?
Okay guys...shut up:D Itw as for my retarted friends. Excuse me that i woke up just now im tired adn my brain isnt working soo muuch. So shut up and get a life? Im sorry that you love hurting people? Made a mistake so fk off
I have to compare and contrast the American Civil War and World War I...any ideas?
Both wars were fought with the tactics of previous wars without thinking about the improvement of weapons. Civil War was fought with the Tactics of Napoleon. No consideration for the much more accurate cannons, accurate rifles Vs muskets, breech loading Vs muzzle loading and cartridge type weapons. Using the outdated tactics of Napoleon in the face of modern weapons gave very high casualty rates. WW One, was fought with the same head on charge kind of mentality. This time time they ran into rapid fire cannons and machine guns. Surprise attack was almost impossible due to planes and balloons. So the similarity was using tactics of previous wars which were out dated. In the Civil War the South had to come up with new ideas to counter the north. The south came up with new weapons such as iron clads and submarines. In World War One new weapons were also used to end the stalemate. Poison gas was one, tanks were another. So another similarity, coming up with newer weapons to win the war. The Iron clads and subs of the south did not succeed but the tanks of the British did. Differences, The US Civil War was a limited war, basically one nation fighting itself. It did not extend much beyond the USA. WW One of the other hand involved many nations and fighting took place all over the world. Ocean battles, fights in Africa between the colonies, etc. The Civil War as a war on the battle field, made up of discrete battles. Battle Of Gettysburg, Battle of Bull Run, with rest time between the battles. The Civilians were usually not bothered by the war. (At least until Sherman started destroying everything in his path.) In World War One the fighting was almost non-stop with few discrete battles. Also the civilians were greatly displaced as the battle field extended into long lines. IMO both wars were fought by stupid generals. Lee was suppose to be the best General of the Civil War yet he made some pretty stupid decisions at Gettysburg. The repeated frontal assaults in WW One was also stupid. In both cases, after failing in an attack, both Lee and the generals of WW One repeated the same stupid attack. If an attack does not work the first time, when you got the most forces and maybe an element of surprise, how stupid do you have to be to try the exact same thing again? Hope this helps...
Help on the ironclads american civil war?
Monitor v. Virginia, historic naval battle of the American Civil War fought on March 9, 1862, between a Union ship, the Monitor, and the Confederate Virginia (also known as Merrimack). Both vessels had been covered in iron; the battle was the first conflict between ironclad warships. On March 9, 1862, the Monitor engaged the Virginia at Hampton Roads, off the Virginia coast, where on the previous day the Virginia had destroyed two Union ships. Exchanges of fire did not produce substantial damage, but after a few hours of battle the Virginia was forced to withdraw to Norfolk because of sinking tides. The battle at Hampton Roads is thus generally considered a draw. The encounter, however, proved the effectiveness of the new ironclad ships, and it marked the beginning of modern naval engineering. The Virginia, originally a wooden steam frigate called the Merrimack, had been sunk and abandoned by Union forces in the Elizabeth River off Norfolk, Virginia, in the spring of 1861. It was raised by Confederate forces a few months later and rebuilt as an ironclad vessel and renamed the Virginia. Two months after the inconclusive battle with the Monitor, the Virginia was destroyed by Confederate forces when they evacuated the Norfolk Navy Yard. John Ericsson, a Swedish-American engineer, designed the Monitor. It was a much lighter vessel than the Virginia and had a revolving turret with two heavy guns. It sank on December 31, 1862, during a storm off Cape Hatteras in North Carolina. During World War II (1939-1945), it was mistaken for a submarine and hit by depth charges. Rediscovered in 1976, its hull has since been visited by divers and robot drones, and the ship's anchor was recovered in 1983. The Monitor's hull itself, however, is badly corroded.
IB history IA question on an aspect of the american civil war or world war two help!!?
Civil War: Abraham Lincoln's changing perspective on Slavery as the Civil War progressed. Sam Houston's refusal to join the Confederacy. Women and homelife during the Civil War. Prison Camps during the Civil War. Black Confederate soldiers (I know it sounds crazy, but there were some), weapon improvements during the Civil War, the Civil War's effect on World Economy. Draft Riots. Jefferson Davis. World War II: How WWI set the stage for WWII. The Interwar Years. Japanese Americans during WWII, German POW camps in America, Jimmy Stewart's role in the Army Air Corps, Women's Sport Leagues, American Opposition to WWII, Military instalations which sprang up all over the counrty & disappeared after the war, the Aleutian Islands, Eisenhower's reaction to the Holocaust.