People often forget (or didn’t know) that England and France actually had more trade with the north than the south (even leaving aside the blockade). King Corn was bigger than King Cotton. So while London and Paris wanted to reopen trade with the south, it did not want to have its trade with the north closed. So their diplomatic policy was more a matter of trying to work with both sides rather than choosing one.
The United States declared war on Great Britain three years before Napoleon abdicated.
This history buff would love a cite.
ETA…about the French.
Neutral is not the right term. Refusing to recognize the CSA was a decidedly hostile position. If England and France had not traded extensively with the north OR the south, that would’ve been a neutral position. In reality, maintaining normal relations with the USA was absolutely a show of support, and the north would have been royally screwed without trade from Europe, much as the South turned out to be.
“Napoleon III of France leaned toward intervention, but was unwilling to take any action without British cooperation.”
James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom p. 384
It isn’t about specifically England and their commonwealths and France For example there were other powers too. We have 15 countries on the security council. Who would they be at that time. I assume the Qing Dynasty and Russian Empire even during their times must have been big enough to be on the security council. Would all these diverse groups of people been able to come up with some kind or consensus to intervene in the US Civil War had they been able to. Like we (the western powers) are imposing with UN resolution 1973 (the new no-fly zone one).
So basically if we took the 6 for the security council (we have added a lot of counties in the 20th century) of the biggest not just France and GB+Commonwealths and 4 of the other powers. Based on their 19th century political ideology who would the UN side with. The rebels (Grey) or the state that is sending in the troops (Blue).
I mean basically Libya is in Civil War right now as far as I am concerned.
Since the UN is located in New York, it would have been very difficult to support the South.
Thank you, I’ll be here all week.
I’d best find and reread the quote. 
Geez, didn’t know I would get that much flak. I will agree that part of it was luck. I think it was in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that they decided one of the key parts of a successful rebellion was timing.
Anyway, how has the UN handled civil wars in the past?
With what’s going on in Libya the “crimes against humanity” are against their own citizens. Most of the major powers had had slavery at some point; would they be quick to jump in due to that fact? If they hadn’t already been after the US for having slavery, I think they would have trouble justifying getting involved now.
In the end, though, they needed Northern grain more than Southern cotton. And IIRC, Egypt and India had unusually good cotton crops during the war, which took a lot of pressure off France and England.
In today’s climate the UN would almost surely side with the North; there is no way they would give legitimacy to a political system based largely on slavery. How much UN support did South Africa receive when it still had apartheid?
There had also been bumper crops in the late fifties which meant that most textile merchants had warehouses full of cotton.
None of which, of course, stopped the Southern states from thinking that Europe would side with them for the cotton, which was one of the things that emboldened them to secede in the first place.
Good call. Relying on someone to back you up isn’t the best strategy. Would the UN have cared if the CSA went crying to them saying “We decided to drop out of the US, can you give us some help?”