The extent we learn here in Australia is North fought South, North won. Plenty of other major and noteworthy wars between industrial powers occurred in the 19th century, and we covered them about as poorly. There wasn't really much exceptional about the US Civil War beyond its length, calling it the 'first industrial war' is a questionable claim I think largely due to the problem of at what point do you decide that the two sides are 'industrialised' enough and that the war is 'advanced enough' to count; it's simply arbitrary. The Crimean War for example used most of the technologies that the US Civil War did, various campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars was against sides that had industrialised, wars just after the US Civil War used more technologies and tactics. The I think the process of industrialisation and industrialised war is fluid enough that you either just need to count if the belligerents were industrialised, or go to the point where warfare itself became industrialised. I doubt that any of the military leaders in the rest of the world would have given it any particular special treatment in terms of researching how the war was conducted as well.
The Crimean war wasn't as big, the ships were wooden, and they didn't have automatic weapons. Still, I take your point, though the American Civil War was the forerunner to how the first World War was fought. It was also very influential in how the Japanese war machine industrialized.
- 3