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. :Zzzz:
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 :wall: ). 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. :mellow:

[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.

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.

:laugh4: 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.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

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. :wink:

[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. :wink:
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. :bow:

[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. :bow:

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

And, until at least the middle of 1863, his comment would have been more or less exactly correct.


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

Gotcha. The ACW would have done no more than confirm ideas he'd already been well-advanced in addressing. Not too surprising really. I think the only possible lesson that would have been relevant on a macro level was the foreshadowing of total war -- and just how tough and bloody it was to beat an opponent into complete surrender.

Wars of manuever sound far less horrific. We managed to kill about 220k in combat and combat related deaths, along with another 400k to disease etc. out of a population of roughly 32M. Some of the hardest fought battles featured casulaty rates over 30%. Positively medieval.

[Pannonian]

Wars of manuever sound far less horrific. We managed to kill about 220k in combat and combat related deaths, along with another 400k to disease etc. out of a population of roughly 32M. Some of the hardest fought battles featured casulaty rates over 30%. Positively medieval.
One of the most impressive figures, percentage-wise, that I've seen, is Towton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton), where a battle that was resolved in a single day totalled some 30K casualties, when the population of the whole of England was around 3 million at the time - 1% of the country's population killed in battle on a single day. In terms of the number of deaths I think it tops even the first day of the Somme.

[Stig]

As an answer to the OP:
The American Civil War gets no attention what so ever in Holland. I know you had one, because I'm vaguely interested in history (studying Archaeology). But from my old highschool class I think I'm the only one who even knows it has happened. We're simply not interested in what you were doing on your little continent.
In Holland history education is not learning 2000 dates by hard. There are 6 years of High School (the highest level, were you get prepared for Uni). In that you get 6 years of History, split up into two parts. Let's call those A and B.
Part A is your first three years, the first of those you learn roughly 4000BC till the Middle Ages (Stone Age of Holland, Egypt, Romans and Greeks, Franks, Crusades and religion and finally the rise of cities). Second year you learn from the Dutch Rebellion till 1900, doing stuff as Dutch Rebellion, Exploration, Golden Age, Napoleon and 19th century of Europe and such. Third year you get modern history, doing things as WW1 and 2, Korea, Vietnam, Coldwar etc.
Then, Part B. Which, when I was still at school was optional (so hardly anyone did it, except for those forced to and me). There you get case studies. In the fourth and fifth year you get the history and development of countries and other things. Germany, Austria and Russia are in that. Next things as Women Suffrage (or however you write it) and things as school. The last year you get specified subjects, in my year we had Vietnam and Education and our exams were about those two subjects only.

All in all we Dutch can't be bothered with your civil war. I did a Pubquiz today, it proved that many Dutchmen in my age group (students and such, 18-30) can't be bothered with history. Why want to know it? It serves no use to most of us, people become lawyers, ICT-people, bankers, I don't know. They give :furious3: all about Floris the fifth building the Ridderzaal. We can't be bothered with our own history, let alone yours.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One of the most impressive figures, percentage-wise, that I've seen, is Towton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton), where a battle that was resolved in a single day totalled some 30K casualties, when the population of the whole of England was around 3 million at the time - 1% of the country's population killed in battle on a single day. In terms of the number of deaths I think it tops even the first day of the Somme.

And that was a knackers yard of the first order. Have you read about the density of troops in some of those opening rushes?!? They were nearly in napoleonic column they had so many foot sloggers stuffed into the same areas. No wondering about what happened if the German MG crews made up out of the dugouts before the rush got to the first trench...

[CBR]

Wars of manuever sound far less horrific. We managed to kill about 220k in combat and combat related deaths, along with another 400k to disease etc. out of a population of roughly 32M. Some of the hardest fought battles featured casulaty rates over 30%. Positively medieval.
Shorter perhaps, at least most of the Napoleonic Wars and other 19th century were rather short, but not less nasty when armies engaged.

The worst ACW battle when looking at % losses for just one day (and same for actual number of casualties) is AFAIK Antietam with 22.6%/15.5% Confederate/Federal losses. Gettysburg was 30.2/21.2 but was over 3 days.

Going through a number of 18th century battles it is easy to find similar and even worse losses. To mention just a few:

Malplaquet 1709 15/24 French/Allied (Marlborough gaining a Pyrrhic victory losing twice as many men)

Torgau 1760 33-50/30 Prussian/Austrian (Frederick the Great kept the losses secret so they are only estimates. Nearly half the Austrian losses were POW) It was there that Frederick the Great sent his 10 Grenadier battalions into what became a death ride with losses of IIRC 50-66% and they never reached the Austrian gunline.

Borodino 1812 22/33 French/Russian. Considered the bloodiest day in the Napoleonic Wars with estimated casualties of about 65-70,000 among around 250,000 soldiers.

There is IIRC a tendency of lower % a day with bigger battlefields/armies as not all get engaged because of the distances and time involved. That is seen in later Napoleonic times with both sides using armies divided into several corps.


CBR

[CountArach]

I learnt absolutely zero about the ACW, it simply wasn't offered until I got to Uni. Of course I taught myself a lot.

[King Kurt]

I have always had a keen interest in the ACW but I think that mostly come from wargamming as opposed to school. I do recall that we had a year at school where all we learnt was American history - don't forget this was about 1968 for me, I am sure they do not do that now!! - we started with the war of independence and finished round about WW1 if I recall. The refain Louisana purchase 1803 seems stuck in my subconscious!! I am sure we covered the war in some detail, but probably more from the causes, issues, effects etc point of view as opposed to a sequence of events. This was all when I was 15 so it is difficult to separate what I learned then to what I have learned since - probably for about 10 years ACW was a big interest for me as I was a serious competition wargammer in ACW and I read constantly about - often whole books about single battles or campaigns - I even read a book about combined operations in the ACW.

My overwhelming opinion of the war was that it was vital for the development of the USA in that it shaped how the nation developed. Europe ignored it and did not really take on all the lessons learnt about the effect of firepower on the battlefield. Arguebly the link between the military and industry was forged in the ACW and that is still a central facet of the USA today. As for its importance globally, well the USA has dominated the world stage since the middle of the 20th century and a significant factor in that is her industrial/ military might - a force that began in the ACW, so I would judge it to be of high impotance - in the long run - in world history.

[Owen Glyndwr]

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.


What are you talking about? America has always been the great liberator and defender of freedom! :P



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.


You are right Uesugi, Lincoln abolished Slavery in the Emancipation Proclamtaion, but only to those states which had seceded. This was mainly a propoganda move implemented after the victoroy over the South in the Battle of Antietam to raise morale and support in the north while encouraging the slaves in the South to cause unrest. However, as you said, it was only in the states which had seceded because the Civil War was not officially over slavery, and he did not want to those valuable border states like Missouri and Maryland.

Slavery did not become officially abolished until the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1865. (Which is the year the Civil War Ended by the way.)


I find it very interesting (though not in the least surprising) That American History is not covered in Europe (And if it is, it is done very lightly), and yet nowadays American Politics are viewed and regarded across the world.

[Knight of the Rose]

I find it very interesting (though not in the least surprising) That American History is not covered in Europe (And if it is, it is done very lightly), and yet nowadays American Politics are viewed and regarded across the world.

US status as a leading world power ought to lead to a more widespread wish to investigate its origins. But as Europeans goes, our own history is so complex, that we cannot hope to learn the young more than an understading of their own past. To learn the past of the US is (sadly) not a priority, as we also want people to know math and languages ect.

/KotR

[Kralizec]

It got little attention when I was in high school, but that goes for a lot of periods and events. WW1 and onwards got covered pretty well, and the rest of history got the shaft- or at least that's how I view it in retrospect.

[Tiberius of the Drake]

First of all Im American.
But that being said I am far more intersted in european history and international perspectives. im sure this is the same in other places, but all my life i've had my country's history and especially the ACW shoved down my throat my entire life. I love studying the ACW and ive actually had the privalege of going to many of the battle sites. But honestly the ACW, as much as my more conservatice colleagues would disagree, was of little importance on the international scale. The only way that the ACW could be considered internationally important would be from a military history standpoint. the ACW saw the further developement of WWI style trench warfare(especially at Vicksburg, Petersburg, and Richmond) and the beginning of the end of Napoleonic like linear tactics. But other that that, the ACW was of very little importance on an international scale.

[Pontius Pilate]

:laugh4: 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.

Reverend Joe, your constant bashing of America and everything American is getting quite old. You may disagree with modern U.S. policies, but that does not make the country stupid or it's history stupid. The only point of this thread was to make fun of America and show how European culture is superior, the same old same. Would you please come up with another punch line.:thumbsdown:


There was ALOT more to the ACW than what you mentioned above. And a war with over 600,000 dead is hardly boring. In the U.S. the subject is covered in detail, while other events like the English Civil War are also covered, but not to the same extent. I guess every country spends more time learning their own history than world history. But don't get me wrong, it's not like American schools completely skip over the subject of world history. I know that other things were going on in the world at the same time, but if you are really a student of history and enjoy history, you should try to learn about alot of subjects and not limit yourself to specific topics. And to say that one country's history is more important than the other, especially when you know little of one, is stupid and obiviously bias.

[Husar]

That it had 600.000 dead people doesn't make it any less boring, WW1 had more and it was arguably even more boring. ~;)

And everybody knows that european culture is superior, american culture is just many of the european ones and others mixed together. Calling the USA america despite the fact that it's just one of many countries on the continent america is rubbish as well, in fact, and I often feel it's a bit disrespectful of the other americas so stop whining about europeans belittling "america" please. :juggle2:

No offense intended, I just wanted to point that out and for reference, I like the USA overall.

[Strike For The South]

American culture is much more than a mixing of "original" cultures but Im splitting hairs.

[Pontius Pilate]

That it had 600.000 dead people doesn't make it any less boring, WW1 had more and it was arguably even more boring. ~;)

And everybody knows that european culture is superior, american culture is just many of the european ones and others mixed together. Calling the USA america despite the fact that it's just one of many countries on the continent america is rubbish as well, in fact, and I often feel it's a bit disrespectful of the other americas so stop whining about europeans belittling "america" please. :juggle2:

No offense intended, I just wanted to point that out and for reference, I like the USA overall.


WWI boring??? Really, European culture superior? Even to African and Asian cultures as well? American culture is really a european culture? I think someone needs to get out a little more and maybe see the world. saying one culture is more superior to the other is not only ignorant, but stupid as well. and American and European culture is definitly different. and your best argument against America is that its name disgraces other countries? Please, come up with something better than that, that was pathetic.


EDIT: that's just great, I finally notice the *spoiler tags* after I post a reply. but still, you insult something in plain view and then say you mean no offense?? what is with that?

[SwordsMaster]

Relax, man. Why are you getting your panties in a bunch? It's just a forum.

[spmetla]

Out of curiosity do you Euros learn about Napoleon III's little project in Mexico with Emperor Maximilian? I know that it would likely not have happened if the US wasn't in a civil war because Mexico is the US's backyard.

[PBI]

Hmm, so a piece of Mexican and French history, mostly of interest to those in the Americas?

Nope, not even a blip on the radar here I'm afraid. I have heard of it, but not from school.

The thing to understand is, in UK schools we really don't do a lot of going through history learning names and dates; the history syllabus tends to be more about focusing on a relatively small number of historical episodes, but studying them in a lot of detail. So there tend to be a lot of historical events and periods I've never heard of or know next to nothing about, but the bits I have studied I know quite well.

[Pontius Pilate]

It's just a forum.

exactly.

[Martok]

Easy, everyone. Let's dial it back a notch.


Truth be told, it'll likely be a long time still (probably centuries) before we'll know and understand what impact -- big or small -- the American Civil War had on the world. Just like any other historical event.

[Pontius Pilate]

All in all we Dutch can't be bothered with your civil war. I did a Pubquiz today, it proved that many Dutchmen in my age group (students and such, 18-30) can't be bothered with history. Why want to know it? It serves no use to most of us, people become lawyers, ICT-people, bankers, I don't know. They give :furious3: all about Floris the fifth building the Ridderzaal. We can't be bothered with our own history, let alone yours.


maybe you should post on a different forum.

[Strike For The South]

maybe you should post on a different forum.

It's merely envy my boy. :laugh4: and I will point out they are right. I mean think about it...how much do YOU know about the English civil war or the French revolution?

[Pontius Pilate]

Truth be told, it'll likely be a long time still (probably centuries) before we'll know and understand what impact -- big or small -- the American Civil War had on the world. Just like any other historical event.


well its already been over a 150 years... the ACW was crucial to the development of the U.S. and it decided whether the country was truly strong enough to stay together. also, Great Britain was watching the conflict somewhat closely and the South wanted GB to intervene as it would be a key to a Southern victory. but one of the reasons Great Britain did not help was because it had already abolished slavery a few decades earlier, while the South stood for slavery.

[Pontius Pilate]

It's merely envy my boy. :laugh4: and I will point out they are right. I mean think about it...how much do YOU know about the English civil war or the French revolution?


:laugh4::laugh4:funny you should ask that, I just finished studying both those topics in my world cultures class.

[Strike For The South]

:laugh4::laugh4:funny you should ask that, I just finished studying both those topics in my world cultures class.

Are you in college? Have in-depth did you go?

[Pontius Pilate]

Are you in college? Have in-depth did you go?

I'm not in college, but I know more than enough to not be ignorant nor biased about it. there is also a thing called the internet and research and books.

[King Kurt]

Out of curiosity do you Euros learn about Napoleon III's little project in Mexico with Emperor Maximilian? I know that it would likely not have happened if the US wasn't in a civil war because Mexico is the US's backyard.

I actually did a bit about it for O level history - admittedly some time ago - about 1969 from memory!!
The point of it was all about Napoleon III using foreign policy to divert attention away from problems at home - so you have his involvement in Italian Unification, the Crimean War and the Mexican Adventure. So we knew they went, but I couldn't tell you much more about it. The point in question was that he got involved in any war going - the details weren't important.

Now I need a long lie down after having to think about something I haven't thought about fot nearly 40 years!!!!

Martok - I think you do the ACW a little diservice. I think we can judge its place in history quite well now. The war shaped what the USA has become - you only have to think about how things might have gone if the South had won. To think of it, that might make quite an interesting thread in its own right - I may do that in a day or two.

[a completely inoffensive name]

well its already been over a 150 years... the ACW was crucial to the development of the U.S. and it decided whether the country was truly strong enough to stay together. also, Great Britain was watching the conflict somewhat closely and the South wanted GB to intervene as it would be a key to a Southern victory. but one of the reasons Great Britain did not help was because it had already abolished slavery a few decades earlier, while the South stood for slavery.

I am learning about the ACW right now, and from what I have been taught, the ACW was important on the international level. The South was hoping for intervention from GB or other European countries, which if had happened, might have been enough for the South to gain its independence. The French take over of Mexico was in response of the U.S. being distracted of the ACW and unable to back up its Monroe Doctrine that denied any more European intervention in the Americas. If America had broken up into two countries, the political situation internationally would have been majority impacted, as the European countries could more easily reestablish their dominance in the Americas, by taking on the two Americas one at a time, both which probably would have been too weak from the war to successfully fight off the Europeans. The Northern victory in the ACW to reunite the Union also proved the strength of the American system of government that a country governed by its people could survive an internal war, as it all ready proved able to fight off external threats (seen in the War of 1812).

In response to what Pontius said, from what I have been taught, the citizens of the European countries were deeply influenced by the book Uncle Tom's Cabin and refused to support a war for a slavery driven country while the governments knew the advantages of having the U.S. split into two. However, poor crop harvests in Britain at the time had England dependent on the U.S.'s grain and corn exports to it, while at the same time it became less dependent on Southern cotton due to surpluses and increased production of cotton in Egypt and India making war with the U.S. to gain independence for the Confederacy and a divided America potentially more harmful then beneficial due to the possibility of an angered population overthrowing the government if corn and grain imports were halted.

[Sarmatian]

maybe you should post on a different forum.

Relax mate. The original question was how much attention is given to ACW in Europe and around the world in general, and Stig said that students in the Netherlands are generally uninterested in their own history, let alone the history of USA. It wasn't insulting to anyone and no need to tell him where he should post, even if you don't like his view.

[Geezer57]

Another American here, but one educated mostly in South America. From my experiences there, I'd have to agree with the majority of observations by previous posters here - not much attention given to the history of the ACW at all. Heck, modern American public school systems don't pay much attention to the ACW, why should schools overseas do any more?

99% of what I learned re: the American Civil War was due to my interest in wargaming, not school. I wouldn't expect much from any pre-college level school in this country, and probably not much more from most of the university history courses.

Long story short: not a big deal. And in many ways, that's too bad, as the period is fascinating. It shows a transition away from Napoleonic tactics, the genesis of industrialized warfare, the introduction of aerial observation, repeating firearms, Gatling guns, ironclad steamships, etc.

[Pontius Pilate]

Heck, modern American public school systems don't pay much attention to the ACW, why should schools overseas do any more?

Actually, American public schools do cover the subject of the ACW pretty well and go into the subject in depth. we learn many of the battles, commanders, the causes of the war, and the effects of the war in depth.

Then again, it depends on the school you go to in the US. but in general, I think the US does a pretty decent job of covering the ACW.

[Geezer57]

Actually, American public schools do cover the subject of the ACW pretty well and go into the subject in depth.
Obviously Pontius, you've never experienced the Wichita Public School System (USD259).
Glad schools in your neighborhood are better, wish they were equally as good around here... :no:

[Pontius Pilate]

Obviously Pontius, you've never experienced the Wichita Public School System (USD259).
Glad schools in your neighborhood are better, wish they were equally as good around here... :no:

yeah, alot of schools in the US are really bad and not funded very well, it just depends on where you go to I guess.

[Geezer57]

yeah, alot of schools in the US are really bad and not funded very well, it just depends on where you go to I guess.
Hmmm, I'm not too sure if funding is really the issue, as most school districts around here do have ample funds. Heck, they (the local district) had a $100 million plus surplus in their budget this year, and still had the gall to ask for (and get) a huge bond issue for "improvements" (most of which are targeted for school athletics and the like - nothing for academics).

I had the good fortune to attend private schools (living overseas, y'know) during my formative years. I'm really of the opinion that public (government) schools should be abolished - parents ought to get their education tax money credited to whatever private school they want their kids to attend. Lots less opportunity for brainwashing and indoctrination that way - kids really should grow up to be critical thinkers, not mindless followers. [RANT OFF]

Cheers!

[Pontius Pilate]

I'm really of the opinion that public (government) schools should be abolished - parents ought to get their education tax money credited to whatever private school they want their kids to attend. Lots less opportunity for brainwashing and indoctrination that way - kids really should grow up to be critical thinkers, not mindless followers. [RANT OFF]

Cheers!

I'm with you on this one.:yes:

[Cambyses]

yeah, most countries teach their own history ahead of even the most important international events. I was constantly frustrated at Uni with how much attention and emphasis was put into studying Roman Britain for example when really our island was the most irrelevant backwater throughout much of that period and far more interesting things were happening elsewhere.

So actually I can say that the History of the USA, China, Egypt, Persia etc are only ever really studied in specialist courses in this country - in mainstream education they are taught only so far as they relate to events in GB's own past.

[Yoyoma1910]

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.


I believe that was actually one of the major problems the Confederacy had during the war.