Quite alright. You just keep up the good work at your own pace.
Never Setting Sun (Redux): A "Western British Empire" Timeline
- Thread starter Coyote Knight
- Start date
Quite alright. You just keep up the good work at your own pace.
American Civil War (1851-1861): The 'Border Bout War' Begins
Hey y'all, I'm back. I've finally kicked the flu and felt energetic enough to finish the final edit for this section. Once again, sorry for letting this get a little bit buried. Additionally, this is one of the most challenging parts of the TL for me as I'm not American so I've had to do a lot of cursory research to find certain individuals and sentiments of the time, and what would make sense or be different in the context of this new TL. In any case, I hope you'll enjoy this long-overdue update!
----------
Part 2: The 'Border Bout War' Begins
Though the occupation of the unfinished Fort Sumter in South Carolina was technically the first military action of the American Civil War, the first real battle between the armies of the USA and CSA was the Battle of Big Bethel. With Virginia's defection, they sent troops to the Virginia peninsula in order to deter any Union (US) designs on the new capital of Richmond from their base at Fort Monroe. The battle was bungled by a lack of Union leadership, resulting in an early and morale-boosting victory for the nascent CSA.
General-in-Chief Winfield Scott had earlier devised a plan for a Union blockade of Southern ports, followed by a campaign down the Mississippi to cut the South in two. Many Union generals challenged this plan, as they wanted a more direct and vigorous war. Such cries only worsened after the embarrassing loss at Big Bethel. Some even derided it as an anaconda, slowly suffocating its prey. This earned Scott's plan the nickname of "The Anaconda Plan."
Portrait of Winfield Scott, Lieutenant-General and commander of the Union Army
Dated 1855
To Scott's credit, he was looking at the big picture and looking at the long-term result. The strategy could not be implemented immediately as the USA was still recovering from the Pan American War, with a decimated US Navy being unable to effectively blockade the entire South. A good chunk of industrial production had been lost in D.C. and New York state, and no warships suitable for the proposed Mississippi campaign existed as of yet. It would take time to gather and train the forces needed to carry out the Mississippi thrust, time that the critics of the plan were initially unwilling to concede.
Scott and his allies continued to argue that going for quick big battles could result in a needless loss of troops and morale. They knew that the North still had the advantage in terms of industry and manpower, but they would need time and patience to bring it to bear effectively. In the meantime, the border slave states of Missouri and Kentucky would be the deciding factor of the war for now. Though slave states, Missouri and Kentucky did not secede from the Union nor did they send militia against their southron neighbours. Nevertheless, the war would find its way into both of these states.
For the Confederacy, Missouri and Kentucky helped to secure natural river boundaries and control over the lower Mississippi River. It would also give them the hope of taking Ohio and severing the Union in half. The hope would be to then sue for peace and leave take a good chunk of the western territory with them. For the Union, holding onto Missouri and Kentucky would keep the South on their toes, widen the front, and give them a strategic access point to the Mississippi River with which to execute a part of General Scott's 'Anaconda Plan'.
Political Cartoon of Scott's 'Great Snake', an allegory for his plan to slowly squeeze the South to defeat
Missouri would be the biggest battleground. Though a slave state, it held a great deal of Union supporters. Its official neutrality was soon eroded with the emergence of Confederate-supporting militias in the south around Springfield. Northern supporters soon emerged to fight them in turn and Missouri soon found itself as a key battleground in the civil war, itself experience a miniature civil war. A key event in the Union's favour however was the early securing of the federal arsenals in St. Louis [1]. This would provide the Union with more ammunition and firearms early on. However, there was still the issue of bringing men and materiel to the front.
In Kentucky, there was a strong desire to remain neutral in the conflict. Unfortunately for Kentuckians, their state proved too strategically valuable to give up for either side. It did not take long for a Confederate Kentucky 'shadow government' to be established and for militias to be raised in defense of Kentucky. The internal conflicts in Kentucky and Missouri, as well as Union and Confederate attempts to interfere, would come to be known as the 'Border Bout War' and would be crucial to deciding which side would win the Civil War.
----------
[1] In OTL, the Confederates grabbed one of the two main arsenals. In this TL, they don't.
----------
Part 2: The 'Border Bout War' Begins
Though the occupation of the unfinished Fort Sumter in South Carolina was technically the first military action of the American Civil War, the first real battle between the armies of the USA and CSA was the Battle of Big Bethel. With Virginia's defection, they sent troops to the Virginia peninsula in order to deter any Union (US) designs on the new capital of Richmond from their base at Fort Monroe. The battle was bungled by a lack of Union leadership, resulting in an early and morale-boosting victory for the nascent CSA.
General-in-Chief Winfield Scott had earlier devised a plan for a Union blockade of Southern ports, followed by a campaign down the Mississippi to cut the South in two. Many Union generals challenged this plan, as they wanted a more direct and vigorous war. Such cries only worsened after the embarrassing loss at Big Bethel. Some even derided it as an anaconda, slowly suffocating its prey. This earned Scott's plan the nickname of "The Anaconda Plan."
Portrait of Winfield Scott, Lieutenant-General and commander of the Union Army
Dated 1855
To Scott's credit, he was looking at the big picture and looking at the long-term result. The strategy could not be implemented immediately as the USA was still recovering from the Pan American War, with a decimated US Navy being unable to effectively blockade the entire South. A good chunk of industrial production had been lost in D.C. and New York state, and no warships suitable for the proposed Mississippi campaign existed as of yet. It would take time to gather and train the forces needed to carry out the Mississippi thrust, time that the critics of the plan were initially unwilling to concede.
Scott and his allies continued to argue that going for quick big battles could result in a needless loss of troops and morale. They knew that the North still had the advantage in terms of industry and manpower, but they would need time and patience to bring it to bear effectively. In the meantime, the border slave states of Missouri and Kentucky would be the deciding factor of the war for now. Though slave states, Missouri and Kentucky did not secede from the Union nor did they send militia against their southron neighbours. Nevertheless, the war would find its way into both of these states.
For the Confederacy, Missouri and Kentucky helped to secure natural river boundaries and control over the lower Mississippi River. It would also give them the hope of taking Ohio and severing the Union in half. The hope would be to then sue for peace and leave take a good chunk of the western territory with them. For the Union, holding onto Missouri and Kentucky would keep the South on their toes, widen the front, and give them a strategic access point to the Mississippi River with which to execute a part of General Scott's 'Anaconda Plan'.
Political Cartoon of Scott's 'Great Snake', an allegory for his plan to slowly squeeze the South to defeat
Missouri would be the biggest battleground. Though a slave state, it held a great deal of Union supporters. Its official neutrality was soon eroded with the emergence of Confederate-supporting militias in the south around Springfield. Northern supporters soon emerged to fight them in turn and Missouri soon found itself as a key battleground in the civil war, itself experience a miniature civil war. A key event in the Union's favour however was the early securing of the federal arsenals in St. Louis [1]. This would provide the Union with more ammunition and firearms early on. However, there was still the issue of bringing men and materiel to the front.
In Kentucky, there was a strong desire to remain neutral in the conflict. Unfortunately for Kentuckians, their state proved too strategically valuable to give up for either side. It did not take long for a Confederate Kentucky 'shadow government' to be established and for militias to be raised in defense of Kentucky. The internal conflicts in Kentucky and Missouri, as well as Union and Confederate attempts to interfere, would come to be known as the 'Border Bout War' and would be crucial to deciding which side would win the Civil War.
----------
[1] In OTL, the Confederates grabbed one of the two main arsenals. In this TL, they don't.
I like it. The earlier war (and the drubbing from the Pan American War) puts this whole alt-Civil War at a much greater challenge for the poor little United States.
Pax Brittania! May the Empire rule from sea to sea!
Fantastic TL, Coyote Knight! It's really an intriguing piece of work! Are you going to update it soon?
Fantastic TL, Coyote Knight! It's really an intriguing piece of work! Are you going to update it soon?
Given that Necromancy has just happened. And I had a question that I would have linked to your page anyway.
What's going to happen to Australia and New Zealand. Especially with this focus on Canada.
I personally would have expected that with the Greater Pacific border that Canada now has colonising Australia and New Zealand would be easier to handle and would infact have an Empire more linked up than even OTL.
But maybe I am wrong. I would love to hear back.
What's going to happen to Australia and New Zealand. Especially with this focus on Canada.
I personally would have expected that with the Greater Pacific border that Canada now has colonising Australia and New Zealand would be easier to handle and would infact have an Empire more linked up than even OTL.
But maybe I am wrong. I would love to hear back.
Sorry lads, but I'm basically in India with no solid internet on a laptop that doesn't have the files ready to be uploaded back in Canada. That's why I've been absent. Sorry. :/
Once I get back to North America, I'll be posting more regularly, to the point where we'll be reaching WWI relatively soon, unless I'm called overseas again.
Once I get back to North America, I'll be posting more regularly, to the point where we'll be reaching WWI relatively soon, unless I'm called overseas again.
Hey, as long as you come back ok, we'll wait. BTW, if it's not too personal, why overseas?
American Civil War (1851-1861): Ohio saves the Union
Hey, sorry for the WAY TOO LONG hiatus from this TL that is near and dear to my heart. A LOT has happened this past year, and not a lot of it good. I can't even really afford to type these days but it's one of the few things that has kept me sane. So with that bit of darkness out of the way, let's get on with the darkness of the this TL's American Civil War.
----------
Part 3: Ohio saves the Union
With the 'Border Bout War' kicking off, the Union needed lots of troops in Kentucky, and fast. There were no railroads connecting Ohio to the Atlantic states, but Ohio had the most extensive and sophisticated rail system for miles around. It would be up to the brave men of Ohio to help deliver a crucial victory for President Taylor and the Union.
Reuben Wood, Governor of Ohio
Ohio was a state that was full of the right people and the right infrastructure at the right time. Ohio had some of the earliest railroads in America, with lines connecting Cleveland, Sandusky, and Columbus to Cincinnati in the south of the state. And though the world didn’t know it yet, Ohio was home to what would be key figures in the Union Army. The governor of Ohio, one Reuben Wood, was an anti-slavery Democrat who rather immediately took up President Taylor’s call to arms. However, he needed a commander for Ohio’s militia and could think of no better candidate than George B. McClellan.
George B. McClellan, Commander of the Ohio Militia
McClellan was a graduate of West Point and had served honourably in the Pan-American War in the Mexican theatre. He was also something of a railroad and technology enthusiast, having just published a manual on bayonet tactics he had translated from French. His knowledge of “big war science” and his experience with railroads suggested that he would excel at military logistics and be just the man Ohio needed. McClellan accepted and immediately set to work.
On April 27, 1852, just four days after assuming command in Ohio, McClellan wrote a letter to General Scott that presented the first proposal for a strategy for the war. It contained two alternatives, each envisioning a prominent role for himself as commander. The first would use 80,000 men to invade Virginia through the Kanawha Valley toward Richmond. The second would use the same force to drive south instead, crossing the Ohio River into Kentucky and Tennessee. Scott had initially rejected both plans as logistically unfeasible, preferring instead to use the troops on a river-based expedition to control the Mississippi River and split the Confederacy. However, he came under immense pressure from his fellow generals and even President Taylor who were eager for a win after the embarrassment at Big Bethel. Scott ultimately acquiesced to the latter plan, which could still be further enacted upon as a way of controlling the Mississippi. With fresh soldiers from training camps across the state funneled into Cincinnati, McClellan made ready to cross into Kentucky.
Cincinnati, Ohio as seen from Covington, Kentucky in 1852
The aim of the newly minted “Cincinnati Expedition” was to completely secure Kentucky for the Union by occupying and fortifying the ‘heart’ of the State; Lexington, the Capital Frankfort, and Louisville which sat on the banks of the Ohio River. The aim was also to capture the railroad currently in development between Lexington and Louisville. Victory here would be a major strategic and political success for the Union.
Local Confederate militia commanders in Covington, Kentucky had expected a Union assault and had built and fortified defensive positions. However, they were woefully unprepared for the sheer number of Union troops that had amassed so quickly. Though reinforcements from Lexington and the east were on their way, they were not close enough to stop the Union’s easy victory in the Battle of Covington. The real battle would take between McClellan’s forces and Confederate reinforcements at the Battle of Williamstown. Again, the Confederates were not prepared for the sheer numerical advantage that the Union had and how quickly they had amassed it; it would clearly illustrate the importance of railroads in the war.
A sign of the changing times, and of things to come
As a result of the decisive Battle of Williamstown, Confederate forces could not withstand the onslaught. Kentucky already had many Unionists, especially in Louisville. This expedition from Ohio, which also brought tens of thousands of troops to keep Kentucky Unionist and to threaten Tennessee, had secured an incredibly important victory for the USA early on the war and propelled General McClellan to national fame. Though resistance would continue in the east and south, Kentucky would remain firmly with the Union until the end of the war.
----------
Part 3: Ohio saves the Union
With the 'Border Bout War' kicking off, the Union needed lots of troops in Kentucky, and fast. There were no railroads connecting Ohio to the Atlantic states, but Ohio had the most extensive and sophisticated rail system for miles around. It would be up to the brave men of Ohio to help deliver a crucial victory for President Taylor and the Union.
Reuben Wood, Governor of Ohio
Ohio was a state that was full of the right people and the right infrastructure at the right time. Ohio had some of the earliest railroads in America, with lines connecting Cleveland, Sandusky, and Columbus to Cincinnati in the south of the state. And though the world didn’t know it yet, Ohio was home to what would be key figures in the Union Army. The governor of Ohio, one Reuben Wood, was an anti-slavery Democrat who rather immediately took up President Taylor’s call to arms. However, he needed a commander for Ohio’s militia and could think of no better candidate than George B. McClellan.
George B. McClellan, Commander of the Ohio Militia
McClellan was a graduate of West Point and had served honourably in the Pan-American War in the Mexican theatre. He was also something of a railroad and technology enthusiast, having just published a manual on bayonet tactics he had translated from French. His knowledge of “big war science” and his experience with railroads suggested that he would excel at military logistics and be just the man Ohio needed. McClellan accepted and immediately set to work.
On April 27, 1852, just four days after assuming command in Ohio, McClellan wrote a letter to General Scott that presented the first proposal for a strategy for the war. It contained two alternatives, each envisioning a prominent role for himself as commander. The first would use 80,000 men to invade Virginia through the Kanawha Valley toward Richmond. The second would use the same force to drive south instead, crossing the Ohio River into Kentucky and Tennessee. Scott had initially rejected both plans as logistically unfeasible, preferring instead to use the troops on a river-based expedition to control the Mississippi River and split the Confederacy. However, he came under immense pressure from his fellow generals and even President Taylor who were eager for a win after the embarrassment at Big Bethel. Scott ultimately acquiesced to the latter plan, which could still be further enacted upon as a way of controlling the Mississippi. With fresh soldiers from training camps across the state funneled into Cincinnati, McClellan made ready to cross into Kentucky.
Cincinnati, Ohio as seen from Covington, Kentucky in 1852
The aim of the newly minted “Cincinnati Expedition” was to completely secure Kentucky for the Union by occupying and fortifying the ‘heart’ of the State; Lexington, the Capital Frankfort, and Louisville which sat on the banks of the Ohio River. The aim was also to capture the railroad currently in development between Lexington and Louisville. Victory here would be a major strategic and political success for the Union.
Local Confederate militia commanders in Covington, Kentucky had expected a Union assault and had built and fortified defensive positions. However, they were woefully unprepared for the sheer number of Union troops that had amassed so quickly. Though reinforcements from Lexington and the east were on their way, they were not close enough to stop the Union’s easy victory in the Battle of Covington. The real battle would take between McClellan’s forces and Confederate reinforcements at the Battle of Williamstown. Again, the Confederates were not prepared for the sheer numerical advantage that the Union had and how quickly they had amassed it; it would clearly illustrate the importance of railroads in the war.
A sign of the changing times, and of things to come
As a result of the decisive Battle of Williamstown, Confederate forces could not withstand the onslaught. Kentucky already had many Unionists, especially in Louisville. This expedition from Ohio, which also brought tens of thousands of troops to keep Kentucky Unionist and to threaten Tennessee, had secured an incredibly important victory for the USA early on the war and propelled General McClellan to national fame. Though resistance would continue in the east and south, Kentucky would remain firmly with the Union until the end of the war.
This timeline is interesting I am looking forward to how this will affect the British Asia and Oceania colonies and later British Africa, likely to be overall positive effect in development and size. Britain already had started to colonise Australia and New Zealand and controlled a large part of India by the end of Napoleonic War, and their will likely be an event like the scramble for Africa.
Yeah, there will be a fair degree of similarities to OTL but also some jarring differences. There is going to be a scramble for Africa, but it's actually going to happen a lot differently now compared to OTL, and largely because of changes ITTL. After the Civil War section is done, there will be a section from post-civil war to TTL's Berlin Conference of 1884.
I assuming the Union of BNA will probably get the investment that OTL USA got from the British Empire.
Also did the Crimea war happen in this timeline, if so was Alaska taken
Yes, the Crimean War happens and it and other developments will be addressed in the section after the US civil war.
Well. The confederates are down, but not out. They might win startling victories similar to OTL here though.
In either case, with the Pan-American war making allies jumping into wars unexpectedly a thing in the new world, both sides of this civil war might look for external allies. I am at a loss as to whom the confederacy would ally with. Britain would be interested in weakening the union further, but probably not if this means officially endorsing slavery.
The union is better off in terms of potential allies. One would think that, given one of the reasons Texas rebelled being the not-realized-ITTL territorial claims/ambitions, Mexico would be a natural ally for the USA in exchange for officially relinquishing permanently all territorial ambitions westwards. Britain, France or perhaps Brazil might potentially be willing to blockade the Confederacy for trade concessions or suchlike. Aid during the war would reduce the potential bad blood the last war's results would leave in Anglo-Yankee relations.
In either case, with the Pan-American war making allies jumping into wars unexpectedly a thing in the new world, both sides of this civil war might look for external allies. I am at a loss as to whom the confederacy would ally with. Britain would be interested in weakening the union further, but probably not if this means officially endorsing slavery.
The union is better off in terms of potential allies. One would think that, given one of the reasons Texas rebelled being the not-realized-ITTL territorial claims/ambitions, Mexico would be a natural ally for the USA in exchange for officially relinquishing permanently all territorial ambitions westwards. Britain, France or perhaps Brazil might potentially be willing to blockade the Confederacy for trade concessions or suchlike. Aid during the war would reduce the potential bad blood the last war's results would leave in Anglo-Yankee relations.
Hoo boy, are you gonna be thrown a curve ball in the next chapter.
American Civil War (1851-1861): Quebec save the Union
Part 4: Quebec saves the Union
With the securing of Kentucky, the strategic edge definitively shifted in the Union’s favour for the time being. They now controlled more of Ohio River, and could begin making preparations for a Mississippi River campaign. Ohio may have saved the Union domestically, but there were still international threats. Chief among these threats was Great Britain and the British Empire.
The Pan-American War had barely ended when the American Civil War began, so tensions were high and many in the British Empire watched with glee as America suffered. There were also those in the British establishment that saw a dark opportunity. When Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina joined the Confederacy, more and more members of the British political establishment began to openly muse about recognizing the Confederacy in order to help break American power and influence in the New World, as well as provide a natural political ally for Canada and the other British colonies.
Lord Aberdeen, British Prime Minister
On the one hand, recognizing and assisting the Confederacy could help cement a new British ally which would indirectly help secure the Commonwealth of Canada. It would also open up a new market for British goods and would certainly stop any American ambitions to rival Great Britain. On the other hand, the Confederacy supported slavery, something which the British had actively suppressed in their ventures over the past twenty years. There was also the fact that victory for the CSA was not guaranteed and might risk further American aggression toward Canada and other British territories in the Americas. It also didn’t help that many nations in the Americas were just coming out of the fairly costly Pan-American War.
In the Commonwealth of Canada, opinions were divided. Some saw an opportunity to prevent dangerous American meddling once and for all, and others saw another costly war of the British that Canada would feel the effects of. This latter sentiment was felt most of all in Quebec. By this point in time, French-Canadians were getting sick and tired of Americans crossing into their land and burning their fields and cities. In the cases of some citizens, they had seen the War of 1812, the Pan-American War, and now a new threat of war with America within their lifetimes. For many, enough was enough.
Wolfred Nelson, former rebel leader and Canadian politician
Sensing perhaps fresh support for their radical ideals, old faces of Canadian rebellion resurfaced to condemn the British and Canadian musings that put their land in danger. Old politicians and leaders of the failed Lower Canada Rebellion made their presence felt once more. Wolfred Nelson and Louis-Joseph Papineau, both now sitting members of the Quebec legislature, began raising hell against the thought of a third war with the United States of America.
Though not backed up by any concrete evidence, both men used their platform and influence to suggest that Quebec would rise up in arms and separate from the Commonwealth to avoid another war. Nelson very much insisted that Canada must not be a “plaything of passing British interests.” Papineau, for his part, also drew on the history of the rebellions and why they happened; direly pointing out that if Britain once again did not listen to Canadians, then Canadians would force them to listen to the sound of musket fire.
Louis-Joseph Papineau, former rebel leader and Canadian politician
While Papineau and Nelson were the most vocal and passionate on the subject, many Canadians of both the French and English variety were just coming out from a war and were eager to see peace. They did not want a revolution, but neither did they want yet another incursion into the region. The Quebec City Riot of 1853 didn’t help matters, and prompted the British to feel that the threat of Canadian insurrection was a real one, and would negatively impact British war plans if the two main ports of North America - Quebec and Halifax respectively - fell into enemy hands.
As a result of public pressure, the Quebec Riot of 1853, the looming theatre of war in the Crimea, and a lack of guaranteed victory should Britain decide to recognize the CSA and risk another war with the United States, the British shelved any further serious discussion about political recognition of the CSA. America could not fully appreciate it, but some French-Canadians and former rebel leaders helped them to avert yet another devastating war in North America.
With the securing of Kentucky, the strategic edge definitively shifted in the Union’s favour for the time being. They now controlled more of Ohio River, and could begin making preparations for a Mississippi River campaign. Ohio may have saved the Union domestically, but there were still international threats. Chief among these threats was Great Britain and the British Empire.
The Pan-American War had barely ended when the American Civil War began, so tensions were high and many in the British Empire watched with glee as America suffered. There were also those in the British establishment that saw a dark opportunity. When Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina joined the Confederacy, more and more members of the British political establishment began to openly muse about recognizing the Confederacy in order to help break American power and influence in the New World, as well as provide a natural political ally for Canada and the other British colonies.
Lord Aberdeen, British Prime Minister
On the one hand, recognizing and assisting the Confederacy could help cement a new British ally which would indirectly help secure the Commonwealth of Canada. It would also open up a new market for British goods and would certainly stop any American ambitions to rival Great Britain. On the other hand, the Confederacy supported slavery, something which the British had actively suppressed in their ventures over the past twenty years. There was also the fact that victory for the CSA was not guaranteed and might risk further American aggression toward Canada and other British territories in the Americas. It also didn’t help that many nations in the Americas were just coming out of the fairly costly Pan-American War.
In the Commonwealth of Canada, opinions were divided. Some saw an opportunity to prevent dangerous American meddling once and for all, and others saw another costly war of the British that Canada would feel the effects of. This latter sentiment was felt most of all in Quebec. By this point in time, French-Canadians were getting sick and tired of Americans crossing into their land and burning their fields and cities. In the cases of some citizens, they had seen the War of 1812, the Pan-American War, and now a new threat of war with America within their lifetimes. For many, enough was enough.
Wolfred Nelson, former rebel leader and Canadian politician
Sensing perhaps fresh support for their radical ideals, old faces of Canadian rebellion resurfaced to condemn the British and Canadian musings that put their land in danger. Old politicians and leaders of the failed Lower Canada Rebellion made their presence felt once more. Wolfred Nelson and Louis-Joseph Papineau, both now sitting members of the Quebec legislature, began raising hell against the thought of a third war with the United States of America.
Though not backed up by any concrete evidence, both men used their platform and influence to suggest that Quebec would rise up in arms and separate from the Commonwealth to avoid another war. Nelson very much insisted that Canada must not be a “plaything of passing British interests.” Papineau, for his part, also drew on the history of the rebellions and why they happened; direly pointing out that if Britain once again did not listen to Canadians, then Canadians would force them to listen to the sound of musket fire.
Louis-Joseph Papineau, former rebel leader and Canadian politician
While Papineau and Nelson were the most vocal and passionate on the subject, many Canadians of both the French and English variety were just coming out from a war and were eager to see peace. They did not want a revolution, but neither did they want yet another incursion into the region. The Quebec City Riot of 1853 didn’t help matters, and prompted the British to feel that the threat of Canadian insurrection was a real one, and would negatively impact British war plans if the two main ports of North America - Quebec and Halifax respectively - fell into enemy hands.
As a result of public pressure, the Quebec Riot of 1853, the looming theatre of war in the Crimea, and a lack of guaranteed victory should Britain decide to recognize the CSA and risk another war with the United States, the British shelved any further serious discussion about political recognition of the CSA. America could not fully appreciate it, but some French-Canadians and former rebel leaders helped them to avert yet another devastating war in North America.
Well yeah, I mean, there's nothing much that changes here compared to OTL (especially in one way which will be revealed later) and when I sat down to try and plan this part of history out, I thought about the realities on the ground at that time. Even accounting for changes from OTL, it still meant that it would be an internal affair that wouldn't draw much involvement from any major powers in the world. It's still gonna be north vs. south.
The other 'best treatment' of the CSA was in Saphy's (now banned) TL 'If they will not meet us on Open Sea': The Trent Affair blows up, UK/USA war. The UK destroying the USA's blockade fleet/moves on the Canadian border results in a peace treaty, CSA gets it's independence.
Then a black RN sailor gets kidnapped in Charleston, his crew kidnaps him back (along with the other occupants of the Slave barracks he'd been stashed in, along with any other slaves they happen to come across on the way.) Some idiot gets a CSA fort to fire on a RN vessel, and suddenly the British occupy Charleston until the CSA (and the State government) say they're very very sorry.
The Union reaction is somewhere between utter shock and cackles.