I see. Well, besides the point on slavery, given the North, for all its slave ownership, had the abolitionists anyway. I think having the CSA not push Britain and France too far with export cuts on cotton might have kept them from simply changing sources (and hence cost the CSA any actual support). That, and the US blockade, might piss off the Europeans to send more support. Still not sure it'll lead to war, especially since Britain had Canada to fret about.
Actually, Britain thinks (thanks to Seward) that the US is going to try to annex Canada anyway, because Seward has been telling them - sometimes in so many words.
"She [Canada] cannot refuse if you tender her annexation on just terms, with indemnity for the struggle she may expect with Great Britain" (Seward, 31 January 1856)
"Hitherto, in common with most of my countrymen, as I suppose I have thought Canada — or, to speak more properly, British America — a mere strip lying north of the United States, easily detachable from the parent State, but incapable of sustaining itself, and therefore ultimately, nay, right soon, to be taken into the Federal Union, without materially changing or affecting its condition or development. (Seward, Albany Journal, 1857)
"Now that the confederacy is about to be shorn of more than half its strength in territory, and more than a third of its population, it is necessary to repair the loss, else we would sink to a third or forth-rate power. By peaceable means or force, therefore, Canada must be annexed... such is the decree of manifest destiny, and such the programme of William H Seward premier of the President Elect"- New York Herald, February 1861
"What, then, is the American Government to do with the immense fighting mass which will be left on its hands when the Southern war is over?... Cuba and Canada must be annexed at one blow to the United States." New York Herald, January 1862
Trent is the standard issue flashpoint - and taken seriously. Via Robcraufurd:
In 1860 Seward had informed the Duke of Newcastle at a public function that as soon as he got into office he would insult England. In April 1861, he issued a memorandum urging Lincoln to foment a foreign war as a means of reuniting North and South against a common enemy- a suggestion that was rapidly picked up by the New York Herald, at the time the most widely circulated paper in the world. When the Trent is boarded, both official and popular opinion in Britain believes that this is the final act in a long succession of American insults. These insults have been deliberately orchestrated to spark a war, with the purpose of either persuading the South to come back into the fold or to give Lincoln's administration the excuse of abandoning a civil war which it knows it can't win, in the hope of picking up territory in Canada by way of compensation. The whole point of the British military response to the Trent is to make it clear to the Union that they will not back down before a threat of war, and that such a war is not an easy way out of the Union's predicament.
“From the outset of the crisis some cabinet members had believed war to be inevitable. They admitted that Lincoln and Seward might not have authorized the Trent incident but reasoned that the ‘mob’ would not permit them to disavow it… the ‘only chance’ of avoiding a collision was for reports of British war preparations to reach Washington before Russell’s despatch could be rejected.” (Brian Jenkins, Britain and the War for the Union, p. 214)
“The ‘refined’ bishop’s [Charles McIlvaine] influential friends and the tone of the press convinced him that the commissioners had to be released if war was to be averted.” (Britain and the War for the Union, p.222)
“He [Mercier] went of his own accord to see the secretary [Seward]. Compliance with the demands or war were the choices open to the United States, he insisted.” (Britain and the War for the Union, p. 225)
“the chances for England’s accepting arbitration would have been minimal at best… Palmerston and Russell staunchly refused to permit another nation to pass judgement on their government’s behaviour.” (Howard Jones, Union in Peril, p. 91)
"Although public opinion was unquestionably largely behind the Palmerston government's ultimatum that Mason and Slidell be returned or a rupture would take place, it is impossible to tell whether or not an offer of arbitration from the Union would have been accepted in Britain." (DA Campbell, English Public Opinion and the American Civil War, p. 85)
“They resolved to leave the drafting of the letter to Russell. He was to state the facts of the case, and demand the restoration of the Commissioners along with an apology for the outrage. Failure to do so within seven days of receiving the letter would mean the immediate departure of Lord Lyons to Canada and war between the two nations.” (Amanda Foreman, A World on Fire, p.178)
"Russell wanted him to be tactful but unequivocal: the release of the prisoners would negate the need for atonement, but no words or species of apology would appease Britain's anger if the prisoners were retained." (A World on Fire, p. 180)
"Seward let him speak without interruption and then asked to know the truth: what would happen if the government refused or requested further discussion? 'I told him that my instructions were positive and left me no discretion,' reported Lyons." (A World on Fire, p. 190)
American public opinion will "make it impossible for Lincoln and Seward to grant our demands, and we must therefore look forward to war as the probable result" (Palmerston to Russell, 6 December 1861).
"Lord John Russell was put to work drafting an ultimatum for presentation to the United States. Its terms were simple: either an abject apology, including surrender of the seized Confederate emissaries, or war." (Shelby Foote, Fort Sumter to Perryville, p. 157)
"Had we no ground for thinking that it was very doubtful whether our demand would be complied with? And will any man tell me who remembers the indignant feeling that prevailed throughout the whole country at the insult and outrage which had been committed that the people of Great Britain would tamely have submitted to a refusal? Well, then, if that refusal came, we should have been bound to extort by the usual means, as far as we were able to do so, that compliance which had been refused to a courteous application." (Lord Palmerston, HC Deb 17 February 1862 vol 165 cc390-1)
Paging TFSmith ...
Please don't, he's rather prone to call me a racist and I'd rather we keep this relatively civil.