The French would have gladly supported and used the Confederates if the British did likewise (which until the Emancipation Proclamation was quite likely) and considering their vested interest in Central America and Mexico the Confederate States make a logical counterweight to the United States and would basically run the French cotton industry with their exports until around 1890.
The British government had no intention of recognizing the Confederacy. France was not going to do so without the British. Even if one of them allied with the Confederacy, it would only be for the duration of the war.
None of these scenarios make sense but I'll just address them in order:
Real wars have started with less of a causus belli. Ever heard of Jenkins Ear?
1 -The slave trade was not finished by this point. Slave smugglers were caught by the Union during the Civil War.
2- The South was expansionist during the war as well. They tried, highly unsuccessfully to gain the northern tier of Mexican states during the war. Then there's their lonbgstanding desire for Cuba, which had more reasons than just the expansion of slavery.
"Indeed the Union can never enjoy repose, nor possess reliable security, as long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries. Its immediate acquisition by our government is of paramount importance, and we cannot doubt but that it is a consummation devoutly wished for by its inhabitants." - the Ostend Manifesto
And why do you persist in assuming that France would support the Confederacy, not just during, but after the war? They had enough problems just trying to hang on to Mexico.
3 - By their actions during the ACW, the Confederacy made it very clear that they considered all of the slaveholding states, the major ore-producing territories, and a route to the Pacific theirs by right. They'll be lucky to keep all of the 11 actual states that seceded. There will be revanchism over West Virginia and likely northern Virginia as well. There will be revanchism over Kentucky and Missouri. There will probably be revanchism over the loss of part or all of Tennessee and Arkansas to the Union.
I never said there would be revanchism against France, but Confederate expansionism is likely to put them into conflict with French Mexico. For that matter, French expansionism is likely to put them into conflict with the Confederacy. Even if they ally for the duration of the Civil War, which is very unlikely, that won't prevent them from coming into conflict any more than the French alliance during the Revolutionary War stopped the Quasi-War from happening.
Confederate revanchism against the Union or desire for expansion into Mexico, Central America, or the Caribbean could easily get them involved with one or more nations with a real navy. Letters of marque would be one way the Confederacy could try to make up for the material disadvantage.
And France actually has a navy and for the record the Confederacy probably wouldn't be stupid enough to not get one (not a good one, but they'd have one).
Yes, France has a navy, but it would be used to further French interests, not Confederate interests. Of course the Confederacy will build a navy, but their economic problems and lack of industry mean the Spanish Navy will outclass them until at least 1900.
Confederates were bad racists by the day and they may not have loved 'Latins' but they were at least civilized compared to blacks in their eyes. Cubans wouldn't be enslaved.
I never claimed that the Confederates would try to enslave the Cubans. I merely pointed out that the Cubans spent decades and hundreds of thousands of lives fighting for independence. They are not going to be any more accepting of Confederate rule than they were of Spanish rule. Even if Spain does nothing to oppose Confederate aquisition of Cuba, the Confederate will need decades to fully subdue Cuba.
Contrary to some whacky theories people throw around the Confederate leadership were actually fairly logical and sane individuals who didn't engage in war and slavery for shits and giggles. They weren't D&D style 'chaotic evil' overlords and certainly didn't do things just because.
This response has precisely nothing to do with anything I said. Confederate leaders were illogical enough to start a war with a larger, more industrialized nation simply because they lost an election. At the very least, some Confederate states will threaten secession if they don't get their way and some may attempt secession even if it seems illogical. The whole idea that any state can leave at any time for any reason is a recipe for balkanization.
The idea of a state seceeding over the slave trade is fantastic to say the least.
South Carolina nearly didn't join the Confederacy because it banned the international slave trade. If a radical like Rhett was to become governor, there is a distinct chance South Carolina would go its own way.
States are hardly going to just secede because there is union sentiment on the border, there was Confederate sentiment across some of those borders!
I did not say that either. Union sentiment in the Border States would make them more prone to leave the Confederacy, which combined with actions of the Confederate government that are unpopular in the Border States could lead to those states rejoining the Union. It would, as I previously noted, probably require a short war with little damage to the Border States.
[FONT="][/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]