Europeans fascination with the American Civil War

[Barker]

I have always been curious as to the steadfast interest of Europeans in the Great American Tragedy? I really have never posed this type of question but I am curious none the less. Besides the Military Historical context why?

Thanks for any answers, as I have a curious mind

Marc

[Sarkus]

Because the Crimean War and Franco-Prussian War are dull in comparison?
:-)

Just kidding. I'm interested in hearing the answer myself.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Barker]

America was far from perfect then as is farther from perfect today. Life then was simpler but harder day to day. Life today is harder and day to day is more difficult because of beauracracy. Does that make sense?

[Jayavarman]

I have always been curious as to the steadfast interest of Europeans in the Great American Tragedy? I really have never posed this type of question but I am curious none the less. Besides the Military Historical context why?

Thanks for any answers, as I have a curious mind

Marc

Steadfast interest = ???

I am an American, but I have an interest in the English Civil War, too.

[Wilfred Ivanhoe]

There is a number of people in Russia who are interested in South and Southern culture (especially music). And they like to read about this war because South took part in it. But these people are not very numerous (several thousands, I think).

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Wilfred Ivanhoe]

Russia supported North because of Polish Rebellion in 1861-1863. And Alexander II was seeking for new allies against Britain and France.

There was a poll on one Russian Internet site. The question was "Which side in ACW you like the most?".
Answers:
Confederacy - 75 %.
Union - 21 %.
None of them - 4 %.

[Comtedemeighan]

Russia supported North because of Polish Rebellion in 1861-1863. And Alexander II was seeking for new allies against Britain and France.

There was a poll on one Russian Internet site. The question was "Which side in ACW you like the most?".
Answers:
Confederacy - 75 %.
Union - 21 %.
None of them - 4 %.

I'm guessing everybody loves to root for the underdog (CSA)

[cwjelen]

Or maybe it´s just the question what would have happened if the South had won.
And of course it was the first "total war" with actions directly against civilians and had the first elements of trench warfare.

[HMSWarspite]

Can't speak for all of Europe, but it is the biggest conflict in the middle of the 19th century - the Crimean war was far smaller and just a little earlier. The Franco-prussian is shorter and one sided (Sedan command anyone ) Also I find that a lot of Europeans have a wider view of the world than a lot of Americans (no disrespect intended). We get interested in the Pacific war, even the bits that are US only.... Also, it is an interesting example of a war where overwhelming might (the North) cannot initially be appplied to swat a wasp until they go through quite a learning process... the psychology of miliatary incompetance and all that...

[Sarkus]

Russia supported North because of Polish Rebellion in 1861-1863. And Alexander II was seeking for new allies against Britain and France.

There was a poll on one Russian Internet site. The question was "Which side in ACW you like the most?".
Answers:
Confederacy - 75 %.
Union - 21 %.
None of them - 4 %.

Do you think that opinion is affected by current Russian opinions of the US? Like maybe a "what if the US hadn't become a superpower" kind of thing?

On a related note I was reading tonight about a Russian who resigned from the Tsar's army, emigrated to the US, and rose to the rank of general in the Union army by war's end.

[fusileer2002]

Well when I was young I saw a couple of TV series - The Blue & The Gray and North and South. I really enjoyed them, especially the latter, and have been really interested in the ACW history ever since. Though I'm also interested in lots of other wars and eras too.

[Bruit Bleu]

The Secession War (as we call it in France) is fascinating as it is a very bloody total war between two brother countries about the fondamental question of slavery.
Moreover, the US cinema industry has exported thousand of movies about it, and it helped with John Wayne to create the american mythology.
There is also very great franco-belgian bandes-dessinées (comics) on the matter, for example Les Tuniques Bleues or Blueberry.

This is one of the few events in the short american history (no offense of course ), and everybody has heard about it - with the Independance War and Lafayette.
But in France, who (among the vast public, not wargamers) knows about the 1812 war, the Mexican war or Théodore Roosevelt ?
I think that most french don't even know the French & Indian War !

[nervouspete]

Hullo all!

First post here. I bought ACW a week ago and have been having much - partially baffled - fun with it.

I can't answer for my fellow Europeans or Englishmen, but here's what interests me.

I think it's the fact that its like the starter for the main course as regards the First World War. It's the first time that mass produced weaponry and supply allowed massive armies to be fielded. The deadliness of the weapons involved meant that defence easier than assault, and huge numbers of lives were thrown away advancing on prepared positions. Citizen's armies were formed with appeals to patriotism. A deadly naivety amongst all ranks blinded most of the participants to the duration of the war and the slaughter that would take place.

So in that sense, I believe that many British see the Civil War as a herald of the new age of warfare, and empthaise because there's a shared horror of fresh faced idealistic youth thrown against the guns. There's a link in the divisions formed as well. In WWI there were the 'pals', which were units from one town or city who enlisted en mass. Whole populations of young men would be wiped out, and practically an entire town would be bereaved at a time. I understand the same system happened in the civil war, with the same results. It is a horrific tragedy that no lessons were learned from the war. Indeed, WWI was MORE deadly before trench warfare came along, with thousands dying in hours in open field engagements similar to the civil war. The famous 'Kindermort' where Germany fielded units comprised of colleges of German students against a small but highly trained force of English riflemen. The fire was so thick that they believed they were facing many machine guns, when in reality it was just the incredible practised rate of Lee Enfield rifles. One German general broke down and cried that 'All my boys are dead' pointing at the slag heaps and conical hills of the coal mining region where they fell.

In that reflection, I think a lot of Europeans have a fascination with the war. It's also the last time America tasted the brutality of total war on its own soil, and there's nothing more brutal than a civil war. England had one in which some estimates put the dead at one and a half million - many due to starvation. However, the US civil war was in many respects grimmer, because the emotional fallout was so much more intense and prolonged. The restoration and a couple of centuries of more moderate leaders led to the healing of all wounds. But in the US civil war, the fact that most of the fighting was on Confederate soil, the emotional question of right to self-government, the mistreatment by some generals and troops, and the amazing performance of a smaller army has led to a heightened emotional fallout. (Incidently, I'm pro-union, but the more I read and study this period, the more in admiration I am of the South's incredible generalship and self-sacrifice.)

There's also a massive 'What If?' question that hangs over it. There's a brilliant documentary I'm sure you all know called CSA, about America today if the Confederates won. The degree to which this would have changed the world is literally incalculable.

Then there's the added aspect of the Emancipation Proclamation. Many in England think of the slavery issue first and seccession second as the reasons for the fight. It's not true, but it's what defines it in our eyes. It adds a heroic grandeur to the entire thing - somewhat a veneer to the main independence question , but it did cause people to think of a higher, nobler ideal and that vision is very alluring. It also makes heroes and villains of the sides - somewhat unfairly, and as ever the entire thing was shades of grey. And yet the entire thing led to the conquering of a great evil - slavery. And there's so many astonishing stories that welled up from this.

But despite all this, the BIGGEST factor I have to say are the personalities involved. Lincoln, the noble, clever, wonky-faced leader. Lee and Johnson, the two great generals. Unconditional Surrender Grant. And McClellan.

Yes, McClellan. Same time I got the game I got the Ken Burns box set. A housemate of mine, early twenties, with no interest in the war got hooked as well. And what pulled him in? His overhearing while cooking that McClellan found Lee's top secret plans, and having the man out-numbered - withdrew! "What the **** is wrong with that guy!?" he walked into the lounge and bellowed, frying pan in hand. He then watched from the start, and now won't shut up about McClellan.

So in summary, it's just a fascinating cocktail. You've got the grimness and forboding of WWI. You've got the heated emotions over a massive expanse of geography that defined America's character today. You've got the technology and the style of fighting that heralded future warfare. You've got the amazing 'what-if ?' nature of it all. You've got an incredible underdog in the Confederacy. You've got the issue of slavery and the struggle towards the light of the abolitionists dragging America with them. You've got amazing characters and stories and - and, it's the first properly documented and photographed war. And at a safe, non-participant European remove, its pretty exotic, especially contrasted to the grim horror of the two world wars.

So nah, it isn't that surprising for me that Europeans are interested.

Oh, and thanks AGEOD for a wonderful game!

[Chertio]

For the end of slavery in the South and the making of America (as a Brit I always wanted us to be the 51st state) - the stuff of legend and one of the most decisive events in modern history.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Here's my take on it, speaking as an American I suppose its like with the Americans with the interest in the Napoleonic Wars, despite the U.S. playing little to no role in that conflict. If you're interested in miltiary history in a given time frame, you are going to be interested in the major conflicts. The ACW was the major conflict of the 19th century that that involved rifled muskets, leading to different tactics than the Napoleonic Wars, hence it is natural for anyone interested in that period to study the ACW.

[Barker]

Wow, some really incredible answers! The main interest for me being an American is that it personally effected our family, our land, our own morality. This was a fight of subjective opinion on both sides. I heard an interesting radio program the other day on Lincoln. He was basically a bigot reformed later on. The program was authored on NPR, (National Public Radio). They went into the fact that when Lincoln was elected President, his main focus was on a strict policy of holding the Union together. When he he declared the emancipation decleration that there was legal issues in DC on this. Lincoln was worried that he alon did not have the power to free the slaves in North but he did have the power to confiscate property in the south due to War Prizes. If you notice he left the border states intact with slavery out of fear that if he did free them at that time they would flock south. He could not unilaterally free them in the north but he could free them if they were taken as war prizes. At one time he submitted papers to the south prior to the emancipation that stated a 100 year plan to end slavery. It was too late and to far to come back so he needed to preserve the union at all costs. That is why he gave certain generals free reign to do what they wanted. This was intersting fact that really I never heard about war prize liberation.

[Banks6060]

Lincoln was not pro-slavery. But he was also not stupid. Sometimes one has to do a little evil to achieve a greater good. Which in Lincoln's case he did. For Lincoln...it was less about the slaves...according to what I've read.

Lincoln only passed the emancipation proclamation to rally POLITICAL support for the Union cause. It made the war ABOUT SLAVERY...instead of about state's rights. And it's something that invariably changed the course of the war. Lincoln didn't care so much about the slaves...perhaps personally...but his job was to keep the Union together...and that's exactly the end to which he used the means.

Lincoln was great because he knew that turning the south's cause against itself would mean the end for slavery. And he was patient enough to bear the cost of letting slavery linger in order to achieve that end.

[soundoff]

Lincoln was not pro-slavery. But he was also not stupid. Sometimes one has to do a little evil to achieve a greater good. Which in Lincoln's case he did. For Lincoln...it was less about the slaves...according to what I've read.

Lincoln only passed the emancipation proclamation to rally POLITICAL support for the Union cause. It made the war ABOUT SLAVERY...instead of about state's rights. And it's something that invariably changed the course of the war. Lincoln didn't care so much about the slaves...perhaps personally...but his job was to keep the Union together...and that's exactly the end to which he used the means.

Lincoln was great because he knew that turning the south's cause against itself would mean the end for slavery. And he was patient enough to bear the cost of letting slavery linger in order to achieve that end.

+1 As a European who sees the Emancipation Proclamation as an entire nonsense and worthy of any slippery politican of todays age......it was a masterstroke on Lincolns part......a work of true genius.

[Redeemer]

Lincoln was not pro-slavery. But he was also not stupid. Sometimes one has to do a little evil to achieve a greater good. Which in Lincoln's case he did. For Lincoln...it was less about the slaves...according to what I've read.

Lincoln only passed the emancipation proclamation to rally POLITICAL support for the Union cause. It made the war ABOUT SLAVERY...instead of about state's rights. And it's something that invariably changed the course of the war. Lincoln didn't care so much about the slaves...perhaps personally...but his job was to keep the Union together...and that's exactly the end to which he used the means.

Lincoln was great because he knew that turning the south's cause against itself would mean the end for slavery. And he was patient enough to bear the cost of letting slavery linger in order to achieve that end.

I believe one of Lincoln's most famous quotes goes something like this. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Yeah, initially the war was about Preserving the Union, as the Critterden-Johnson Act stated, and even Lincoln himself , as Redeemer pointed out. Later on, freeing the slaves became seen as a means to that end, since presumably, preserving slavery was a major goal of the CSA, if they ended slavery throughout the Union then the reason for secession would no longer be there. Also since southernors themselves saw their slaves as "property", then runaway slaves of secessionists were "contraband" - spoils of war, belonging to the Union, who then freed them, mostly. Its actually an intereting "What If?". If the CSA collpased in 1861, ignoring for a minute the unlikelihood of such a scenario, what would have happened with the slave question.

[TheDoctorKing]

Yeah, initially the war was about Preserving the Union, as the Critterden-Johnson Act stated, and even Lincoln himself , as Redeemer pointed out. Later on, freeing the slaves became seen as a means to that end, since presumably, preserving slavery was a major goal of the CSA, if they ended slavery throughout the Union then the reason for secession would no longer be there. Also since southernors themselves saw their slaves as "property", then runaway slaves of secessionists were "contraband" - spoils of war, belonging to the Union, who then freed them, mostly. Its actually an intereting "What If?". If the CSA collpased in 1861, ignoring for a minute the unlikelihood of such a scenario, what would have happened with the slave question.

That's a really good question. The Supreme Court had decided in the 1850s (the Dred Scott case) basically that your property was your property and states couldn't arbitrarily take your property away from you, like by declaring it a free human being and a citizen. Northerners were terrified that this meant that thousands of black slaves would suddenly turn up in their cities working essentially for nothing and pushing down wages. Today, we think of this as a foolish fear, but it was real enough in peoples' minds at the time. Maybe if the war had fizzled, southern slave owners would have taken this idea seriously. Agriculture in the south was enormously profitable; perhaps some of those profits could be re-invested in industry. We could have ended up having another war, twenty or thirty years later, incalculably _more_ deadly and destructive because it would have been taking place across the country and not just in one section. A true Civil War, in the sense that two systems would have been struggling for control of one country, as opposed to one region trying to break away. That's an alternative history mod I'd like to see...

[Major Tom]

Lincoln was not pro-slavery. But he was also not stupid. Sometimes one has to do a little evil to achieve a greater good. Which in Lincoln's case he did. For Lincoln...it was less about the slaves...according to what I've read.

Lincoln only passed the emancipation proclamation to rally POLITICAL support for the Union cause. It made the war ABOUT SLAVERY...instead of about state's rights. And it's something that invariably changed the course of the war. Lincoln didn't care so much about the slaves...perhaps personally...but his job was to keep the Union together...and that's exactly the end to which he used the means.

Lincoln was great because he knew that turning the south's cause against itself would mean the end for slavery. And he was patient enough to bear the cost of letting slavery linger in order to achieve that end.

I don't know if it's apocryphal or not, but I believe Lincoln was quoted as saying that if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, he would. Lincoln was not primarily motivated by the slavery issue, rather he used it to rally support for what he did care about -- preserving the union.

[Major Tom]

...I think it's the fact that its like the starter for the main course as regards the First World War...
Oh, and thanks AGEOD for a wonderful game!

Nervous Pete - Welcome to the forum, and thanks for a wonderful, enlightening post.

[Bo Rearguard]

I think it's the fact that its like the starter for the main course as regards the First World War. It's the first time that mass produced weaponry and supply allowed massive armies to be fielded. The deadliness of the weapons involved meant that defence easier than assault, and huge numbers of lives were thrown away advancing on prepared positions. Citizen's armies were formed with appeals to patriotism. A deadly naivety amongst all ranks blinded most of the participants to the duration of the war and the slaughter that would take place.

There some historians and academics who are of the mind to reclassify World Wars One and Two as one huge conflict....the European Civil War 1914-45. The term is often used to explain the rapid decline of Europe's global hegemony and the emergence of the European Union. During this period Europe lost its position in the world, its hegemony, and caused itself to be divided into two spheres of influence: one American, and one Russian. Seems like a bit of an oversimplification of the actual complex political situation, but I sometimes wonder if that is why the ACW has some resonance with Europeans as well.

[Barker]

This is a great topic and great answers...thanks for all your input

[kyle]

Yeah, initially the war was about Preserving the Union, as the Critterden-Johnson Act stated, and even Lincoln himself , as Redeemer pointed out. Later on, freeing the slaves became seen as a means to that end, since presumably, preserving slavery was a major goal of the CSA, if they ended slavery throughout the Union then the reason for secession would no longer be there. Also since southernors themselves saw their slaves as "property", then runaway slaves of secessionists were "contraband" - spoils of war, belonging to the Union, who then freed them, mostly. Its actually an intereting "What If?". If the CSA collpased in 1861, ignoring for a minute the unlikelihood of such a scenario, what would have happened with the slave question.

As an American, the civil war interests me because I can identify with the combatants; I know the generals faces, and many of the subordinates. I can identify and like WWII for many of the same reasons. I also like pre 1400 and roman warfare, more because its like a boy playing with knights. I'm almost completely ignorant of wars and conflicts that existed amongst Europe after 1400 up to WWI. There's some events like Elizabeth/Spain; Russia/Swedan;Napolian; but dates and the why's are very hazzy, mostly because if it didn't concern the US, it wasn't taught in schools for the most part. But even wars such as Napolian's conflicts/wars, it is harder for me to identify with the generals, and just who they are.

side notes:
The war was about power of congress and federal rights vs state rights. An issue going back to the colonial days. About two stubborn brothers, and big brother telling what little brother can and can't do. The North arguably saw themselves as a collective whole where the South looked upon themselves as individual nations/states. One of many underlining issues, but a major issue, was that of slavery. The compromise of 1820 heavily favored the Union as time past, as did the natural geography of the land. So a civil war was probably inevitable, regardless of the slavery issue.

Someone posted US was far from perfect than, as it is far from perfect now. Around that time we were arguably more of a democracy. Now we are more of an Empire and dictatorship, despite what our politicians say. We are slowly but surely becoming a new aged Rome, but arguably less glamerous. I'm thankful that Canadians and Mexicians are civil relative to other nations neighbors around the world, even when we don't always make it easy.

[Andriko]

I think that amongst english historians (not the public who to be honest don't know much about it), find it interesting in the context of a continuum of english liberties (English Civil War - Glorius Reveloution - US War of Independence - American Civil War).

There is also the sense in which it defines the USA as a nation, and not just a state.

And I would have to consider photography as important, as well as soldiers memoirs - as the 19th C progressed, there were so many things which aid a modern historian. For example, we can look at photographs of the Civil War, but only belated oil paintings of the Napoleonic era. Secondly, it was one of the first instances of a total mobilisation of a literate armed force, so we can read about how a regular civilian felt when facing combat - does anyone rember an excelent TV series about the subject which i beleive was one of the first to extensivley use private diaries etc?

[Wilfred Ivanhoe]

Do you think that opinion is affected by current Russian opinions of the US? Like maybe a "what if the US hadn't become a superpower" kind of thing?

No. Those Russians who don't like USA usually know nothing about American history (and history of ACW).
Typical way is:
1) listen to country or (and) rockabilly music;
2) read about Antebellum South and Civil war;
3) become ACW re-enactor, do historical research or play AACW.

On a related note I was reading tonight about a Russian who resigned from the Tsar's army, emigrated to the US, and rose to the rank of general in the Union army by war's end.

Yes, John Basil "Crazy Cossack" Turchin aka Ivan Vasilyevich Turchaninov, former colonel of Russian army.