So, how big of a deal is the American Civil War?

[Reverend Joe]

And if you're American, calm down. This is directed towards Europeans mainly.

I was just wondering how much focus, if any at all, the American Civil War receives in European public school. Do you study it at all? If so, what is the focus? Do you mainly study European reactions to the war? Or is the focus more on the overall effects of the war, such as the beginnings of Egyptian cotton?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I'd like to preface this with something: I'm an American, but I lived and went to school in Germany for a year as an exchange student.

I think Germans know we had a Civil War, have a notion that it was about slaves and probably know little about the whole state's rights issue (or propaganda whatever your opinion may be), but don't know or care to know all that much more about it. Though those interested in history did generally seem to be exceptions to this rule they were still relatively unversed in the American Civil War.

[Reverend Joe]

I'd like to preface this with something: I'm an American, but I lived and went to school in Germany for a year as an exchange student.

I think Germans know we had a Civil War, have a notion that it was about slaves and probably know little about the whole state's rights issue (or propaganda whatever your opinion may be), but don't know or care to know all that much more about it. Though those interested in history did generally seem to be exceptions to this rule they were still relatively unversed in the American Civil War.

Ah. So, average American's opinion/knowledge, then?

[KarlXII]

Ah. So, average American's opinion/knowledge, then?

Basically, ask your average American, and the words "South" "Slavery" and "the North won" pop up. Same goes for the average European, though in a different language.

[SwordsMaster]

Now, as someone who did receive an "education" in Europe, I'm afraid that as hard as it is for americans to accept, there were more interesting things happening in the world, and the US was very much a backwater with no real clout on the world stage.

Most of us know that the Civil war happened, and know also about slavery, Lincoln, etc, and even get to suspect that slavery was just another flag and not the real cause, but the italian unification, franco-prussian wars, the french taking over Mexico, and yet another partition of Poland and the constant intrigues between France, Prussia, Russia and Austria engineered by Bismark kind of take centre stage here.

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, pretty much same here. In schools it was mentioned and that's pretty much it. Bigger stuff was happening in the world at the time. Most of the things I know about it, I learned from films and series.

[Husar]

Well, overall we talked about the french revolution three times in high school.
Then we had Bismarck and the crusades among the more interesting topics and perhaps some others I forgot. Oh and the third Reich, we had that in our religion course(I was in the protestant one) once or twice as well. We didn't talk about the Russian Revolution due to lack of time (probably talked too long about the french the third time ). the american revolution was in the books but we never really talked about it. Nowhere.

But then a conflict that has only two sides is obviously boring and unchallenging for europeans.

[Marius Dynamite]

In Scottish schools they don't tend to teach any world history before WW1. Anything that goes further back is usually to do with 19th century life in Britain and the growth in Democracy in Britain (both extremely boring)

The exam paper is split into different topics with candidates only having to do one. Naturally they are supposed to pick the one they have been taught for that year.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1 Norman Conquest and Expansion 1050–1153
2 The Crusades 1096–1204
3 Scotland 1689–1715
4 The Atlantic Slave Trade
5 The American Revolution
6 Patterns of Migration: Scotland 1830s–1930s
7 Appeasement and the Road to War, to 1939
8 The Origins and Development of the Cold War 1945–1985
9 Ireland 1900–1985: a Divided Identity

When I sit my exam, I will be doing No 7. Although things like the American Revolution is taught and examined, I'm told only a few school opt for it since learning about WW2 & WW1 is generally easier, and at the end of the day your certificate doesnt say what you studied, only the mark you got on the exam.

I would imagine the majority of Scots, and probably Brits and maybe Europeans know that the Civil War was between North and South, about slavery and Lincoln was involved and that they would know from watching TV shows where the kids are gettting taught it (i.e. Recess, Lizzie McGuire, Sabrina or whatever)

In conclusion, we don't get taught anything about the American Civil War like in America probably because our own nations home history (however boring) takes that place.

[Flavius Clemens]

I studied history up to aged 16, so I can speak for my English school up to 1982. I don't remember the ACW being touched at all in school. This is before the National Curriculum was introduced so there was rather more variety than nowadays, especially before exam courses that we'd start at age 14. I have vague memories of doing General Wolfe at Quebec in middle school (age 8-12), but that's about as close to US history as we got then.
At secondary school we did the Plains Indians as part of our first year but I don't think we covered the ACW period. For exam course we did Britain 1815 - 51, history of medicine from earliest times to 20th Century and local history.
Not to say that we knew nothing about the ACW, just not at school. I remember the comic Battle, which mostly had WW2 stories did have one about a Mexican involved in the ACW.

[PBI]

I think the only wars we studied in any degree of detail were the English Civil War and the two World Wars (what with I suppose being the three most important conflicts in modern English history).

We actually did quite a bit of 20th century American history (Prohibition, the Depression, the Cold War etc) but not really anything from the 19th. Until quite recently my knowledge of the ACW was limited having seen films like Gone With the Wind.

I suspect there's not really much interest in the ACW over here to be honest, apart from possibly some interest in it as a foreshadowing of the trench warfare of WWI (arguably).

[Viking]

Basically, ask your average American, and the words "South" "Slavery" and "the North won" pop up. Same goes for the average European, though in a different language.

I'd second that. At least, there's not much more coming to mind when I hear the word.

[Reverend Joe]

Now, as someone who did receive an "education" in Europe, I'm afraid that as hard as it is for americans to accept, there were more interesting things happening in the world, and the US was very much a backwater with no real clout on the world stage.

Most of us know that the Civil war happened, and know also about slavery, Lincoln, etc, and even get to suspect that slavery was just another flag and not the real cause, but the italian unification, franco-prussian wars, the french taking over Mexico, and yet another partition of Poland and the constant intrigues between France, Prussia, Russia and Austria engineered by Bismark kind of take centre stage here.

It's perfectly easy for me to accept; all the other stuff you mentioned sounds a lot more interesting with some dudes with giant mutton chops writing eloquent letters to mom about how their life sucks, but they're proud to be fighting this glorious fight against tyranny and all that crap.

However, as to your comment on slavery, it actually was a major cause of the war; it's just that at the time, nobody wanted to address or think about it. In fact, one of the primary factors in the fight for "State's rights" was the rights of certain states to own slaves, at a time when the majority of the population (i.e. the North) was slowly moving towards abolition. Rich people are very clever about hiding their agendas.

[spmetla]

Because Hawaii is part of the US the ACW gets a fair bit of going over in the textbook. BUT, because Hawaii was not part of the US during the ACW our State history usually goes over how the war allowed the rise of the early sugar plantations in Hawaii which took over the role as the main economy of Hawaii from whaling. The power of sugar growers in Hawaii allowed them to overthrow the monarchy and establish a republic which was annexed by the US.

Though I don't think that most residents of Hawaii will be able to give more than the standard North vs. South, slavery thing than anyone else. Hawaii usually ranks fairly low on education in the US.

One funny outcome of the ACW is in the Hawaii Army National Guard we have this Korean/American guy who's our Adjutant General: Major General Robert G.F. Lee. Parents obviously had a sense of humor.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I had read that Moltke (Elder) didn't have a high opinion of US soldiering, but "went to school" on the lessons of the ACW and quickly put the ideas to good use -- the absolutely vital character of railroads for theatre troop movement, the defensive killing power of the rifled musket and overall advantage of the tactical defense, and the importance of breech loading weaponry on the battlefield.

Does this get addressed.

[Pannonian]

For that period, British history is covered, as the main developments that lead to modern Britain took place during that time. Only inter-war Germany really gets covered as far as exclusively foreign history goes. Curricular history in the UK tends to concentrate on political and social developments that lead to modern Britain, thus 19th century politics and the birth of the modern parties, the proto-NHS and proto-welfare state, imperialism and the causes of WW1, etc. It doesn't cover the outside world much, but it does do a fairly decent job of explaining why modern Britain is what it is.

[Knight of the Rose]

To my knowledge, History teaching plays a major part in European countries in establishing a national identity. As we have many countries, and there has been a lot of wars, the national curriculum was seen as a rally point where the youth could find pride in their country (so that they in turn would fight for it in the next war). This has only slowly been replaced by a more international outlook, and in europe this first and foremost meant Europe. In western Europe, the european union is influencing this line of thought.

This basically means that national history comes first, european history comes second, and "all other" comes third. ACW is on the same level as Ancient Near East, Moghul Empire, China (propably Chinese history is becoming more popular than ACW) and African history. As our colonial background mostly played out in Africa, South America and India, I think that these 'Histories' usually would come before ACW. So maybe ACW is on the fourth step on the ladder.

In turn, only those interested in American History in particular would be exposed to it, and then they would have to choose the timeframe, ie colonization, independence, acw, growth to world power, wwi & ii, cold war, and modern-day america. So ACW would be 1 in 8 topics on a minor topic.

To answer your question: Not a big deal. I think you would have difficulty in even finding educated people to answer the most simple questions on ACW.

I had read that Moltke (Elder) didn't have a high opinion of US soldiering, but "went to school" on the lessons of the ACW and quickly put the ideas to good use -- the absolutely vital character of railroads for theatre troop movement, the defensive killing power of the rifled musket and overall advantage of the tactical defense, and the importance of breech loading weaponry on the battlefield.

Does this get addressed.

Only at university level for specialized courses, or at "biased" history teachers in high scool, for my country at least.

And for the record, I'm from Denmark/Scandinavia/Western Europe

/KotR

[Husar]

I had read that Moltke (Elder) didn't have a high opinion of US soldiering, but "went to school" on the lessons of the ACW and quickly put the ideas to good use -- the absolutely vital character of railroads for theatre troop movement, the defensive killing power of the rifled musket and overall advantage of the tactical defense, and the importance of breech loading weaponry on the battlefield.

Does this get addressed.

Who is Moltke?(Ok, he might have shown up somewhere on the sidelines in a list of names with political influence)

You know, a friend of mine asked the teacher we had in history for the last two years(in the somewhat more specialized history course that had 5 hours per week instead of 3, we call it "Leistungskurs") why we never talked about wars and only about politics, she said because wars were never really important during history...
Such things like them warmongerers or strategy etc were never really part of our historical education, it was very often pretty much a social and political history course. We had the crusades once but it was also a lot about the politics behind them and the cultural differences etc.
So as has been said, that's probably left for the university or personal studying.

[spmetla]

Sounds like Germany has certainly changed from the nation in which most male adults had read Clausewitz. Wonder how much of this has to do with the US's effort to stamp out nazism and militarism in Germany after the second world war.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im struggling to remember the level of deatil we did it in, i think we generally studied american history, starting with the slave trade speeding through the war of independance and finishing up somewhere in the civil war, i think we spent a little bit of time on it, we discussed the various issues to do with states rights and slavery, i think we spent more time on the conditions for the war starting i don't think we really did anything on the actual war...

In the UK, history was more concerned was telling us about the development of secret voting, workers rights and all that jazz, under the heading industrial revolution, basically the social and political impacts of it, other than that it was the two world wars, the build up to both world wars, and the formation of the welfare state after world war 2, 'a home fit for hero's' and that kind of stuff...

Basically american history is touched on, from the first colonists to the slave trade the war of independance and finishing in the civil war, but the whole subject of america is over pretty quickly and... at least in the UK anyway, the war of independance and the build up and the slave trade are giving far more time...

[Husar]

Sounds like Germany has certainly changed from the nation in which most male adults had read Clausewitz. Wonder how much of this has to do with the US's effort to stamp out nazism and militarism in Germany after the second world war.

I think perhaps a lot but also the guilt some still feel today. I mean Hitler is still seen as the worst and most cruel man in history and always comes up here and there so we're constantly reminded.

Maybe comparable to when the romans got rid of their kings and the following monarchs made sure to call themselves caesar and not king because they feared calling themselves kings would result in a revolt.

[CBR]

I had read that Moltke (Elder) didn't have a high opinion of US soldiering, but "went to school" on the lessons of the ACW and quickly put the ideas to good use -- the absolutely vital character of railroads for theatre troop movement, the defensive killing power of the rifled musket and overall advantage of the tactical defense, and the importance of breech loading weaponry on the battlefield.

Does this get addressed.

I believe the quote goes something like: "two armed mobs chasing each other around the country, from which nothing could be learned."

His interest in railways dates back to at least 1843 with his article:"What Considerations should determine the Choice of the Course of Railways?" He studied the war of 1859 where the French put their railroad to good use and in 1862 published a history of that campaign.

The Prussian army started to use breechloaders already in the late 40's.

If one compares the campaigns fought in Europe around the same time as the ACW they are short wars full of maneuver. They were fought over more open terrain and in larger regions with higher population density compared to the Eastern theater in the ACW.

So I doubt Moltke learned much from the ACW as he already knew it or it was not relevant. Though I do think he did use one officer who had been an observer (witnessing the Charleston siege) for the assault on the Danish position at Dybbøl.

But for the OP: Public school is ages ago for me so can hardly remember it. I'm pretty sure any detailed military stuff was not part of it and the ACW is generally not that important exept for those who focus on military or US history. I think the focus was more on the 20th century and some about Danish history.


CBR

[Martok]

I'm not surprised that the ACW receives little attention outside our own country. As SwordsMaster pointed out, we were little more than a political & economic backwater during that time -- it wasn't until the Spanish-American War that we began to receive/enjoy any real clout on the world stage.

For me, I think the real question is: How important/significant is the American Civil War to history overall? Was it a turning point (even if not everyone's aware of it)? Or was it more just a minor squabble involving a third-rate power?

I think the only wars we studied in any degree of detail were the English Civil War and the two World Wars (what with I suppose being the three most important conflicts in modern English history).

Apologies for the off-topic question, but which one is considered "the" English Civil War, anyway? Cromwell's Parliamentarians vs. Charles' Royalists, or the War(s) of the Roses? I'm guessing the former, but don't wish to assume.

[Flavius Clemens]

Apologies for the off-topic question, but which one is considered "the" English Civil War, anyway? Cromwell's Parliamentarians vs. Charles' Royalists, or the War(s) of the Roses? I'm guessing the former, but don't wish to assume.

You're right to us the English Civil War is the Parliamentarians vs. Royalists one. That said, it tends to be described as a series of linked wars nowadays (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms). I guess you'd find plenty of people without any interest in military history wouldn't recognise the term English Civil War at all, the reasonably aware would know it by that name and the specialists will go for more specific titles.

[KrooK]

In Poland into College you are studying it into topic called America into 2nd half of XIX century.
American civil war takes about 5 min.

People are learning that it had rather small affect on Europe. Much more important that time was
unity of Germany and Italy.

[hellenes]

Well in Greece we start history class where else than *surprise* ANCIENT GREECE!!! We go on to Alexander's Hellenic Empire, the Roman conquest...The hellenization of ERE...the battle of Matzikert....The fall of Constantinople 1453....The Ottoman occupation....And because the Hellenic Revolution comes at 1821...We dont get into deph in US history just a brief on slavery and the war....What I do know is that Lincoln didnt abolish slavery right away rather than 4 years after the war...

[Conradus]

Wasn't Lincoln shot within weeks of ending the Civil War?

As for us here in Belgium, little to no attention is paid to it. The words Lincoln, slavery and North vs South come to mind, but not much else.

[Reverend Joe]

Wasn't Lincoln shot within weeks of ending the Civil War?

Indeed he was.

And honestly, the responses I have received do not surprise me in the least; the only thing I was wondering was if any of the history lessons mention the Civil War in relation to the creation of Egyptian cotton; but I guess that would be getting fairly advanced for public schooling.

What does surprise me, on the other hand (even though it shsouldn't,) is how eager Europeans are to say that the American Civil War is hardly mentioned at all because the U.S. was a backwards-ass country at the time. As if it's a big surprise to us.

[Martok]

What does surprise me, on the other hand (even though it shsouldn't,) is how eager Europeans are to say that the American Civil War is hardly mentioned at all because the U.S. was a backwards-ass country at the time. As if it's a big surprise to us.

Not a surprise to you and me, no.

I'd be willing to wager, however, that a significant percentage -- probably even a majority -- of Americans greatly overestimate our nation's importance on the world stage prior to the end of the 19th century. You have to admit that going by the history taught to us in elementary school and high school, one would get the impression we were a major force from the War of 1812 on, when in reality not many countries took us seriously until our victory in the Spanish-American War.

(And maybe not even then. I sometimes get a sneaking suspicion that perhaps we weren't truly reckoned as a world power until WWI.)



EDIT: Flavius Clemens: Thanks for the confirmation/clarification, btw.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Not a surprise to you and me, no.

I'd be willing to wager, however, that a significant percentage -- probably even a majority -- of Americans greatly overestimate our nation's importance on the world stage prior to the end of the 19th century. You have to admit that going by the history taught to us in elementary school and high school, one would get the impression we were a major force from the War of 1812 on, when in reality not many countries took us seriously until our victory in the Spanish-American War.

(And maybe not even then. I sometimes get a sneaking suspicion that perhaps we weren't truly reckoned as a world power until WWI.)



EDIT: Flavius Clemens: Thanks for the confirmation/clarification, btw.

I feel like to some extent we were not considered a first-rate power until even well after WWI, because seriously what did we do there but tip the balance?

Oh and Hellenes Lincoln did abolish slavery during the war, but only in those states which seceded. I know we covered how exactly the rest of the slave states got rid of slavery in high school, but I don't remember at the moment how. It's been a while.

[PBI]

Apologies for the off-topic question, but which one is considered "the" English Civil War, anyway? Cromwell's Parliamentarians vs. Charles' Royalists, or the War(s) of the Roses? I'm guessing the former, but don't wish to assume.

You're right to us the English Civil War is the Parliamentarians vs. Royalists one. That said, it tends to be described as a series of linked wars nowadays (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms). I guess you'd find plenty of people without any interest in military history wouldn't recognise the term English Civil War at all, the reasonably aware would know it by that name and the specialists will go for more specific titles.

Yes, sorry, I meant the conflict between Parliamentarians & Royalists. Sorry, I didn't realise the term is not widely understood as such outside the UK.

Although there have been various other civil wars in English history, it's generally only the Parliamentarian/Royalist conflict that is referred to as "the Civil War", I suppose because was such a fundamental battle of ideologies rather than a dynastic struggle like the War of the Roses.

What does surprise me, on the other hand (even though it shsouldn't,) is how eager Europeans are to say that the American Civil War is hardly mentioned at all because the U.S. was a backwards-ass country at the time. As if it's a big surprise to us.

Don't take it personally; at least from my experience, history teaching at school level in this country is very England-centric so any conflicts not directly involving us are generally ignored. It's not a comment on the relative importance of the nations involved.