The Other Great Game: Britain vs The United States, 1846-1914 (Documentary)
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 11. 2022
- Between 1846 and 1914, Britain and the United States went from rivals to tenuous allies. The process was long and fraught with danger however. This video aims to be a short documentary looking at Anglo-American relations in this area, focusing on the era from the end of Polk's Presidency, through the Civil War, and to the beginning of WW1. It is the Second Part of a series. Part 1 can be found above or on the Channel.
Sources:
Modern British Foreign Policy, Paul Hayes,
The Empire Project, John Darwin
From Colony to Superpower, George Herring
Splendid Isolation?, John Charmley
#History, #BritishEmpire, #United States
when you think about it , the Pax Britannia was basically just the Cold War for Britain except instead of communism it was rising superpowers
Yeah I've always thought of Britains role in the post Napoleonic era as being simaler to America in the 50s
Britain trying to keep the empires behind the door, and they’re breaking holes through it and grabbing her
@@TacitusKilgore165 It was and there's terms for both, Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, respectively.
They were both really the number 1 superpower during those times, and maybe even considered hyper powers. I’d argue the only times America was a hyper power was the couple of years when they were the only ones with a nuke, and right after the cold war
@@kaiden9415 The fact that other nations went on to develop nuclear bombs, and one of which would become a mega rival for decades to come, would suggest that they were not a hyper power at all, not even briefly. I mean, what is power that cannot be exerted? Pax Brittanica had influence. It could exert its will. It could stop nations developing strong naval fleets. But if the US were a hyper power, then with what was achieved from this power? Nothing that I can see.
From a realist point of view, the obvious reason why Britain did not object to the American naval expansion was that it did not threaten Britain with invasion, whereas Germany's expansion did. Doubtless, however, cultural, ethnic, economic, and ideological bonds also softened the Anglo - American relationship.
Also the fact that there would be basically nothing that Britain could do to prevent American naval expansion so objecting would be pointless and merely highlight their weakness. It's one thing to roll up on Rostok or Hamburg or wherever to make an issue out of German naval aspirations, it's a whole other thing to try to blockade or menace the entire eastern seaboard of one of the largest independent countries in the world.
@@CedarHunt I've always thought of the US having the same strategic strengths of the UK had in the past but on steroids; surrounded by an ocean that acts as a moat.
@@CedarHunt Britain could have prevented American naval expansion up until the end of the 19th century, but why would they? As this video demonstrates, there were few points of conflict and the ones that existed were minor.
@@CedarHunt
Britain could’ve definitely prevented America’s rise. Saying otherwise is completely ridiculous.
“It’s a whole other thing to try to blockade or menace the whole eastern seaboard of one of the largest… [blah blah blah]”
Just gonna stop you right there. Britain did blockade your entire eastern seaboard in the war of 1812 and in the revolution.
It seems you’re utterly and totally unaware of how virtually impossible it is to go to war with the navally supreme nation in the world before you’ve had a chance to build a navy of your own.
Your manufacturing capabilities are completely pointless if Britain’s already existing massive fleet systematically destroys or renders all your shipyards obsolete.
And if you think this is out of the question, you haven’t been paying attention. This is basically how Britain fought and dominated almost every war after the mid eighteenth century.
If you think the USA would be some sort of magical exception to this rule, despite it twice being proven before that you aren’t, there’s nothing left to say to you.
@@pgf289 Britain literally wouldn't have been able to stop American naval expansion in any way for the entire 19th century. It would have been physically impossible.
'We expect the French to hate us, but the Americans? No.' That's a profound historical relic steeped in ambiguity
We just expect the Brits to envy us in perpetuity. while laughing at their delusion that we still belong to them. Bunch of deluded 🤡🤡🤡🤡s....🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱
Whilst I would agree that the American people do not hate us you ignore the fact that all International economic activity is warfare!
Correction: West Virginia was not part of the Confederacy. Apologies, very stupid mistake.
I hope you enjoy the second part in this series on Anglo-American relations. Part 3, which I have penciled in as dealing with the years 1914-1941, will be out at some point soon as well hopefully. Any feedback appreciated as usual. Thank you very much for watching.
It was a very good video, thank u :):)
To be fair, West Virginia began the war part of Virginia so you are in fact correct.
@@kinginprussia1870 You're correct. West Virginia seceded from the Confederacy to join the Union. Does that make them doubly rebellious?
@@deanstuart8012 maybe being doubly rebellious counts as loyalty?
Another correction, you pronounced Roosevelt wrong, it's Ros - e - velt
The formation of Germany pretty much prevented the European GPs from really getting involved that much in the Western Hemisphere. Especially as China and Africa were getting carved up.
its rather funny. the US expands over the horizon and its accepted but Germany forms as the last european nation a state and gets pressed by every major power on the continent due to economic success.
Wow, I never heard of Britain holding back the other Powers during the Spanish-American war.
Thats very interesting! Learn something new every day.
yeah, Britain was America's friend then and still are today
@@theawesomeman9821 They held the other powers back for geopolitical reasons not for friendship. Remember what Palmerston [mentioned in the video] said about Britain's ideals of friendship when he was Prime Minister at the height of the second British Empire.
@@paulohagan3309 Americans still appreciate the favor even if the friendship was requited in nature
@@theawesomeman9821 Yeah, they appreciated the favor so much, they made sure the Brits lost their empire after 1945.
@@paulohagan3309 America played neutral during the fall of the British
Britain's interests in Egypt increased beyond the Suez Canal increased too as Egyptian cotton became the main substitute for Confederate cotton.
Amazing video.
Really. Out of the many under appreciated areas of International relations in the 19th century.
The relationship between America and Europe over the Americas is definitely the most ignored. With only local nations who are affected by this "great game" paying their due affection to this period.
I'm so happy to find someone talking about this aspect of the time period that often gets overlooked!
It's interesting that Seward was so anti British. During the Antebellum era Abolitonists were often accused of being traitors and pawns of the Brits. Something I learned from Chernow's biography of US Grant was that Seward wanted to use the Alabama claims as a way to annex all or parts of Canada as compensation, and was furious that Grant agreed to a mere monetary settlement.
In 1862, the UK declared Belize (British Honduras) to be a British Crown Colony after decades of it being only under their administration. Not a major event but conveniently coincidental to the Civil War.
God this channel is such a hidden gem, im so glad I found it, Ive learned so much about stuff I thought I already knew, keep up the great work!!
This channel always has great historical analysis. Please keep making videos
A thoroughly excellent series. I love your animation style! It allows a mental anchor I can reference as events are described. Hearing the motivations behind actions gives such valuable context and your editing for it is on point.
Another great video. Loving this channel
Love how concise your videos are, not a bit of waffle and v informed! Thanks!
Yes, another video. Keep them coming, please.
Hey, great channel. Glad I found it.
This video was great! I really like learning about diplomatic relations throughout history! Quite fascinating indeed!
I also like how objective and respectful this video was, never really showing favor to either or but rather simply state the facts.
I look forward to the next parts!
Another great episode can’t wait to see what’s next.
Great video!
Favorite channel at the moment
LOVING this content! ❤️
New Video! Now I can’t sleep until I’ve finished it.
Real cool, thanks for sharing big dog
Very good video! We did an alt history video concerning UK-US relations in the 19th century a couple of weeks ago.
As an American, I enjoy learning about British history and our past relations. Thanks for posting these.
Me too
I've said it before and I'll say it again, your channel is awesome
The Oregon dispute wasn’t completely solved until 1872. A small archipelago known as the San Juan Islands was held in dispute between 1848 (when the Treaty of Oregon was signed) and 1872 (when the Germans mediated the dispute and set the boundary at the Haro Strait).
It was discussed briefly in the previous video, but was a minor issue that didn't merit any mention in an introduction.
You got that from Oversimplifed, I 100% call you got that from Oversimplifed.
@@Randomdude112 Ok. I’ve made up my mind. *Ahem*
You’re an idiot [Lyman Cutlar].
You’re an idiot [Whatcom County tax collector].
You’re an idiot [Sheriff Barnes].
You’re an idiot [Governor Douglass].
You’re an idiot [Charles Griffin].
You guys are fine [Captain Hornby and Admiral Baynes].
And YOU TWO [General Harney and Captain Pickett], are the most MIND-NUMBINGLY brain-dead DING DONGS I’ve ever met in ALL MY LIFE, and I’ll SEE YOU IN MY OFFICE!
@@jwil4286 ALRIGHT YOU PSYCHOPATH I WAITED YEARS FOR THIS!
*screaming*
I HATE YOU, IVE ALWAYS HATED YO-
@@chickenfishhybrid44i second this, having been
I love your videos bro you definitely deserve more subscribers
Fantastic video!
cool video man
I love your videos! I watched everyone
This was a really good overview. Think you could make a video on Australia?
Great video, entertaining and filled with important info as always. Just a note though; it should be reminded that back then Russo-American relations were extremely good. Unlike many European powers like France and Britain that were more sympathetic to the Confederacy, or Spain and Austria who were looking to exploit America's incapability to protect its interests in Latin America, Russia actually supported the Union and remained diplomatically close to her throughout the war. The Alaska purchase is another example of how the two countries trusted each other.
Trust is the wrong word here, but I guess you're right,
A lot of that was fallout from the Crimean War. Russia, obviously, was not friendly with Great Britain and France because of the war. With the US having friction with those two during the Civil War, it made sense that the US and Russia would grow somewhat closer.
Every country that helped America only helped America because they hated Britain. The same as why Russia China are helping every enemies of America, or do you really think they are all good friends?
Great vid
Im a developer for the HOI4 Mod End of a New Beginning Redux, and you have no idea how excited i was right before you said "Clayton Bulwer Treaty" XD
That was my first real addition to the mod years back. And im expanding on that now. This is inordinately interesting to me, great vid! Im surprised the pig war didnt make an appearance.
I wish HoI4 was better. It’ll never match 3 or Darkest Hour.. 😢
Brilliant stuff
A rootin' tootin' good video!
Finally thank you
I know it's a cliche for people to comment on videos that "this channel is criminally underrated", but for once that claim is actually true.
well done. US history from Britain's perspective. incredibly interesting
William Walker is one of my favorite characters in history. I just get a good chuckle every time I hear his story.
You're teaching me quite a lot mate! We don't learn anything about the British reaction to US policy in the states.
I had no idea about the Spanish American War stuff!
Great as always. Could you do a video on the role of Britain in the war of Paraguay of 1866? I think there a lot of lies surrounding that one.
Maybe include the USA as well in that video. Apparently Rutherford B Hayes is very popular in Paraguay, whereas he is mostly forgotten here in the USA, and when he is remembered it is mostly for ending Reconstruction.
@@jackbharucha1475 that is because he saved Paraguay as an independent country, against the wishes of Brazil.
FIRST BROTHER! I know this will be good!
This one is particularly good
No1 top channel
3:21 Tariffs can never be too high! Protectionism through and through!
Your very detailed videos are amazing. I would love to see a detailed video on the jefforsonian and jacksonian era's in the early days of the USA, such as the Democratic-Republicans and Federalist parties.
VERY good
They allowed Dewey’s fleet to coal in Hong Kong prior the battle of Manila.
why do you have great salt lake as a feature on the map, but not Lake Nipigon? I literally spent ages trying to figure out why there was a hole in the US out west
Interesting
Some minor nitpicks, first west Virginia was not part of the CSA, and Lincoln didn't initially take a position on slavery because the original goal was just reunion
Ah yes you’re right. Apologies that’s an idiotic mistake on my part - I thought there was something off about the map I was using as a reference. Will add a correction.
West Virginia was part of the Confederacy until 1863, when delegates in Wheeling declared secession and the Union recognized West Virginia as the legitimate government of all of Virginia. So his map isn't technically wrong.
@@trupizza671 So that is a bit of a grey area because West Virginia as a part of Virginia supported the Union and would send soldiers to it. The break was more of a formality than a cause for a split
While we're at it, why is Suriname shaded with Guyana? It most certainly was a Dutch colony at the time.
8:20
It was even earlier when france began to back out.
After the civil war, the US began giving weapons to the Mexicans, and even gave a soft threat to france in the form of placing a fair amount of troops.
It should be noted that at this time, the US, it could be argued, had the most experienced army in the world, having dealt with 4 years of extremely heavy fighting.
France was in no condition to face off against the US, even after the US began to get rid of ships at a rate that would make Admiral Fisher blush.
Before your videos I had no idea the Monroe doctrine was initially just empty words. A mere mantra to chant.
It was only once the Americans got much stronger that it became legitimate enforced military-political policy.
Apologies is someone already said this, but you have incorrectly coloured part of Dutch Guyana, and left out a part of British Guyana.
What map making tool do you use to make your maps?
Is there a reason for not including Costa Rica in the map when referring to Central America? An interesting sidenote about Walker is that in CR we are taught that he invaded us and there was a war in Central America where Central American countries fought William Walker, with weapons and I think training given by the British. Although take it with a grain of salt as this is what I remember
Haha, I think it must not have been on the map I was using as a reference. I can promise I have no secret animosity towards Costa Ricans lol. Very interesting, honestly I don't know a lot about Walker, I kept fairly rigidly to my source in my description of him, so cant really comment.
Jaja thanks for the reply dude, Walker is forgotten by most of the world, rightly so the guy was a scumbag, but here in CR the war against him and Nicaragua is super important, mostly because that's the only mayor war my country has been in. Also in 1948 we abolished the army and are one of the few nations without an army, the money was spent on furthering education. Tbh one of the best decisions ever done here jaja
@@OldBritannia Walker (and the American Filibusters overall) are an absolutely fascinating topic, best understood in the context of both US and Latin American domestic politics. The absolutely confounding network of interstate factional alliances and subterfuge (not very concerned for legality, sovereignty, or state, but pragmatism, advantage, personal loyalty) really shows how unlike Europe the 19th century Americas could be
I didn't know Gary neville narrated history documentaries!
One thing you should've mentioned is the reciprocity treaty between the UK and US in 1854
Great!
I appreciate the effort on condensing such a long period of time into a short video, but the overall tone of the video, and the notion that the British held the imitative in the Anglo-American Rapprochement, just isn't supported by the primary sources. (I wrote my thesis on the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 and the Anglo-American Rapprochement).
In the case of the isthmian canal (which was focused on Nicaragua, not Panama) US Secretaries of State had repeatedly attempted to revise the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty to no avail, largely due to lack of interest domestically and the fact that 6 men had held the office in a single decade preceding the tenure of John Hay (Hay would eventually sign the titular Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 to amend the Clayton-Bulwer treaty). Hay was compelled by Congress to seek an amendment to the 1850 treaty to allow for the legal construction of a canal through the isthmus. If Hay didn't achieve a new treaty, Congress was content to abrogate the old treaty and commission the construction of a canal anyway. This was motivated by a perception that the British government had already violated the terms of Clayton-Bulwer, therefore relieving the US of its obligations.
The British side, for their part, didn't believe Clayton-Bulwer needed to be amended and Parliament explicitly denounced American attempts to legislate for the construction of a canal. It was only after this increasing pressure and overtures from Hay and McKinley that negotiations on a new settlement were opened. Even then, it was the US Department of State that drafted the initial terms, which the British accepted without modification.
The negotiated Convention of February 5 presupposes your statement that the US viewed itself as a junior partner in the Anglo-American military relationship. Indeed, part of the reason the British even entered into negotiations was that they were aware the Americans could outproduce British shipbuilders and easily create a fleet that could challenge, if not defeat outright, the Royal Navy. Britain knew it could not hold Canada in the event of a war, and it could not hope to contain American seapower either. The terms of the Convention support this, as the American side agreed not to fortify the prospective canal with troops or defensive structures, and the canal would be neutral. Hay agreed to this explicitly because the American side believed its naval power was enough to defend the canal and block access to hostile powers. Congress, contrary to your statement at 12:10, was willing to provoke a military conflict with the UK in order to get what it wanted.
This is just one episode, but it's reflected in other such instances of contention between the British and Americans during the period.
The American and British primary sources are likely to both be biased in their own ways. He drew from British sources whilst I assume you drew from American ones.
@@MsPaintMr I drew from both, including primary sources from the British Library, US National Archives, and the Library of Congress. American scholars haven't written much about this period in a long time (~50 years). All of the recent scholarship is British and dominates the discourse.
FUCK YEAH LETS GO! NEW VIDEO!
Your map shows West Virginia as part of the Confederacy. Didn’t it secede from Virginia at the start of the Civil War?
Pls do a video about the filibuster war
You put West Virginia in there as part of the Confederacy. Small error, but just letting you know.
Wait why wasn't Oklahoma shaded grey? Is this a mistake?
There’s a lot of mistakes in this video
Oklahoma was divided
Britain could have easily kept up the industrial pace by setting up industrial production in India (which was relegated to mere supplier of raw materials status) which they pretty much controlled in entirety. Their refusal to treat the country any better cost them dearly in the world wars where their industrial output was not enough and had to heavily rely on the United States. Britain paid its last due to the US in 2006.
2:50
That is a peculiar map.
Looks like the eastern USA without Florida and eestern Canada
interesting
Declaring war on England, France, and Spain because you feel like is a little insane but it would have also made for really interesting alternate history.
Happy but also sad that we never got the great clash off Bermuda between the Grand Fleet and whatever the US could muster at the time. Britain had a window there where they could have essentially shelled the major cities of America with impunity but what good does that do you in a real world environment.
Fun fact: Benjamin Disraeli was born Jewish but his Father had a dispute at the Synagogue and left. The family converted to The Church Of England when he was 12.
Your voice sounds like Paul Joseph Watson, sort of.
At first I thought this was British propaganda, but I think it's just history from a British point of view
Britain should have supported the Confederates for the sole purpose of dividing the US in two and having two smaller powers to deal with. That would have preserved British hegemony for the 20th century. The British Navy had a golden opportunity to remove the US Navy from the Atlantic completely with the excuse of maintaining free trade and lifting the blockade, gaining a huge market for weapons in the South, siphoning away the wealth amassed in the South, possibly creating a long indebtedness and even a land lease situation, such as ceding Florida or New Orleans. A Northern loss or even a bankrupt North might even have ceded some of the Oregon territory or other important parts such as territories around the Great Lakes or Maine o to Britain in the aftermath of the war and an economic collapse (similar to how Russia sold Alaska after the Crimean war). If not in continental US, Alaska and Hawaii would have been up for grabs ... and also a British conquest in Panama would have definitely cemented Britain as the sole global naval power even in the Western Hemisphere. The mirror image in both world wars was certainly used in these exact ways by the US against Britain, creating huge debts and taking land away for military help, degrading Britain to become a second rate power in the shadow of the US.
Taft was well known for his expansiveness
When I think of cosmic domination I think what is big business to artificial intelligence?
Hard to imagine what Britain ultimately succeeded in accomplishing considering America expanded from the Atlantic to the Pacific while even Canada today is more closely aligned culturally and economically and resembles America with some parts probably getting absorbed by the American Union in the future along with parts of northern Mexico and the Caribbean islands as the USA has most likely not stopped expanding.
Nothing lasts forever. Canada lasted an extra century at least, possibly more. Saying "what did they accomplish, it's all temporary" is something that only gets applied to modern situations. No one says Aurelian accomplished little as Rome fell two centuries after his death.
We exist at the twilight of Britain. America is at it's zenith. While I believe the world would have been a better place had Lord North and George III not precipitated so acrimonious a split with the colonies, part of the reason we're speaking to one another in English, and not German or French, is because the US and Britain did not waste the 19th and 20th century tearing each other to shreds. It has never been an ideal relationship, and I personally feel Britain has come of the worse of it (not least because of the bouts of Anglophobia certain US statesmen are capable of), but is it not the way of the world for the mother to sacrifice for her son?
The only expanding the US will be doing is maybe incorporating its existing little territories as states.
I don't know which is worse: having an ally that grew bigger and powerful or an enemy that grew bigger and more powerful. Had Britain chose to support the CSA, they created a scenario of an angry US that has no qualms about invading Canada and other British colonies near it and becoming a geopolitical threat in the World while playing on the idea of Britain being a perpetual enemy of what the US stood for. Having a hostile United States has enormous knockon effects in history as Britain's survival in WW1 and WW2 for example was due considerably to American economic contributions. Imagine a WW1 and WW2 scenario where instead of the US Government sending aid to Britain to bolster its forces, it actively fought British forces. Imagine Irish Republican forces having US material aid in its fight against British rule. Imagine the amount of resources Britain has to expend defending Canada...
@@demondelaplace5161 Perfectly said
There were two options for Britain. Either accept inevitable American domination, or try to kill the United States in its infancy. The latter had always seemed like too daunting a task. I believe it would have been possible, but that ship has long sailed. The era of British global power is over so long as the United States is around, as it has all the advantages and fulfils all the roles that Britain once had, but better. The future of Britain is either as an American protectorate, or as part of a greater purpose with a united Europe.
Beautiful video from a beautiful man with a beautiful way of finding proper wording
I was just reading about the mosquito coast half an hour ago lol
Old Britannia just does not miss.
Isn't that Dutch Suriname? I think you got the Guayanas confused.
British Savings and Investments really fueled the American Economy at that time
When the countries recognized they needed each other the rivalry (heavily one sided) shifted to an alliance.
Love your videos. Love to learn.
Also.
Canada, has, and always will, exists at our pleasure.
babe wake up old britannia just uploaded
Its really nice to see when GB realized the US was better as a friendly great power than a hostile one, really smart on their part.
I wonder if China follow that path
Perhaps the greatest masterpiece in diplomatic endeavors by the British was maintaining a friendly coexistence with the U.S during its zenith of power.
The British navy could have easily lockdown all ports in the eastern part of the U.S and made it submit to its will. But this type of behavior will have left a bitter taste on the Americans and will have kept them in absolute neutrality during the later world wars.
American power kept the british relevance in Europe,
Germans down in military dominance and Russians influence in check.
All because of British ingenuity.
Becoming the world's only superpower like "are you proud dad"?
Certainly not comparable to a father and son
3:18 What is that? A dogmatic view of free trade isn't always being the best thing, whilst a rising power that pursues protectionist measures ends up growing to rival the dogmatic status quo power? Sounds like it's ripped straight from the headlines of 2023.
Who would have thought a country splitting off from the UK and fighting battles with the Europeans would one day become more powerful then all of Europe 😅
Imagine Britain complaining about another country having expansionist ambitions
Imagine america complaining about britain being imperialist
@@Chips-Dubbo we learned from the best 😘
I just learned something that made me think differently about US-China relations in the 21st century. If the US has been following a free trade policy while China has been protectionist, won't China surpass the US as the US surpassed the UK? It seems the US and UK had a similar economic relationship in the 19th century as the US-China have today.
Exactly. China is ripping off America in the same way America ripped off Britain until it was too late.
It's a very different situation, with the similarities only at the surface level. The Chinese demographics, for one thing. The power of China will shortly peak and will decline over the next 50 years as their population collapses.
@@deadpan_delivry7476
Isn't that a thing for most developed countries too? Including USA
Bermuda ?
3:39
8:50
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🇬🇧🇬🇧
AUKUS formalizes the Anglo-American global hegemonic relationship.
Although Canada and New Zealand are not members, we can assume their inclusion.
The fact that the US and UK have the greatest naval traditions of all nations
means that no other country or alliance of countries can rival the global power projection of AUKUS.
Seems to me that AUKUS is more profound alliance than presented.
It appears to me to be more than an anti-China alliance.