No foreign government either recognized or supported the Confederacy.
I am not an expert but I am interested in this discussion.
The UK was neutral but relations were initially soured when Lincoln declared the Southern Ports blockaded.
As I understand it, this was a mistaken act by the new and inexperienced administration dealing with a crisis. Britain (and France I believe) then conferred upon the Confederacy a recognition of them as belligerants. This wasn't diplomatic recognition of the South as a State by any state of affairs but a diplomatic nicety. Had Lincoln instead declared the South in rebellion and as the "owning power" the US declared the ports "closed" because of the rebellion, then that would have been a policing action and not led to the limited recognition.
Some UK industrial concerns supported the South for economic reasons, realistically to keep the supply of cotton rolling in. Some Aristocratic individuals saw the planter aristocracy as more congenial than the Yankee factory owners. William Gladstone, as big a humbug as has ever played politics in the Houses of Parliament, DESPITE his Liberal credentials made supportive noises. No doubt some politicians entertained fantasies of revenge for Yorktown, but generally people in the UK who took a position were anti slavery and supported the Union.
The UK was, and is, itself a union of states so would not politically be supportive of declarations of independence, although a number of observers commented ironically on the successors of the Signatories to the Declaration of Independence from the British Crown refusing to recognise states seeking to go down the same path.
British politicians (and Prince Albert) generally reacted rather more cautiously when the Trent Incident occurred than did Palmerston, the PM. He was the product of much earlier times and had made "gunboat diplomacy" his keynote in the 1840s and 50s. The UK had expended much treasure and effort in suppressing the slave trade and actually assigned RN units to enforce international law. We can be cynical about that now, but don't forget the framers of the Constitution agreed a black man in the Southern states was for tax and representation 2/3rds of a human being. The UK had actually harmed her own interests somewhat in ending slavery in 1839, (incidentally, an act that might not have occurred had the US not won her freedom 50 years before!) Thus there was not a lot of sympathy for slave holding in Britain at the time.
Generally, she sought to promote peaceful trade at this time, and war was always a nuisance and interruption.
However, it is worth remembering that the UK was THE Superpower of the day. How would a current US administration approach dealing with an incident whereby an official US flagged ship was detained by a foreign power and persons under its protection dragged off? I suspect not much differently.
Also, how would the US approach a major civil war in part of the world where she felt her commercial interests were threatened? Possibly by looking to cauterise the wou d and limit damage to her influence, citizens, prestige and economy, as the UK did in the 1860s.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your interesting post. As a minor correction, a black man was considered 3/5 of a person. The UK was willing to reimburse slaveholders for part of the value of the slaves. Neither side in the US was. The blockade allowed foreign ships to leave peacefully. Some in the Lincoln administration wanted a war with England. At one time, Edmund Seward thought the Confederates states would rejoin the Union in that event. Lincoln was smart enough to cool off the hotheads. I have always been impressed that cotton mill workers who were thrown out of work by the lack of cotton continued to support the Union side of the conflict.
I find the argument that some British supported the Confederacy unconvincing. Arms manufacturers sold to both sides. Some individuals supported the South. Currently, some Americans have joined the Taliban, which does not mean the US supports it.