A thought I've been having: in OTL, the Roebuck motion (the last serious attempt at moving toward British and French recognition of the CSA) was
introduced June 30, and the debate on the motion began that day; while Britain would certainly have known of the invasion contextualizing the debate, the key event moving the events leading to this motion (backdoor diplomacy with Napoleon, etc) was the Confederate victory at Chancellorsville. However, the resumption of the debate was put off by the Palmerson government for several days, before, on July 10 (when Britain had could not yet have received word of the outcome at Gettysburg) moved to adjourn without finishing the debate on the motion.
I've been gleaming the
notes on the Parliament debate, and it seems the invasion did in fact play a major role in keeping the motion from coming to a vote. Ferguson, who introduced the adjourning motion, remarked "
The war, which up to the present time had been a defensive one on the part of the Southern States, now appeared to hare received the character of an expedition of the South against the North". And the Prime Minister explained it outright: "
Events of the utmost importance are about to take place in America, and we may hear in the course of a few hours of results commensurate with the importance of those events—evidently, then, the present is not a proper moment to ask the Government to prejudice itself with respect to its free action."
My conclusion from this: if the Battle of Chancellorsville had not been followed up with the "Gettysburg Invasion", then events leading to the introduction of the Roebuck motion would still happen, only the motion would now be allowed to move forward. (I
think that means it comes to a vote, but not 100% sure about Parliamentary procedure here.) What are your thoughts?