Originally Posted by George

Britain & France came close to recognizing the Confederate Govt., & Britain almost declared War on the US over the Trent Incident, but that was it.

The British reinforced Canada by sending 5000 troops as a threatening warning to Washington. Washington responded by putting more troops along the northern border in states like Vermont, troops that could have been sent south to join the Army of the Potomac.

They also allowed confederate raiders to launch attacks from Canada such as the St Albans Raid.

Britian also looked the other way at Laird Yards constructing a couple commerce raiders .

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Britian also looked the other way at Laird Yards constructing a couple commerce raiders .

Except for the Alabama, the ships were impounded. The Stonewall was sold to Denmark, and Denmark sold it to the Confederates after a war Denmark was involved in ended. There's a museum ship in Chile that looks like it may have been built for the Confederacy.

Canada's biggest concern was to stay out of the war and they had a very strong fear of American adventurism. Remember that America invaded in 1776 (Quebec Expedition led by Benedict Arnold, Daniel Morgan, et al) and the failed invasion of The War of 1812. Hence the influx of British troops to Canada.

Originally Posted by Gary of CA

Canada's biggest concern was to stay out of the war and they had a very strong fear of American adventurism. Remember that America invaded in 1776 (Quebec Expedition led by Benedict Arnold, Daniel Morgan, et al) and the failed invasion of The War of 1812. Hence the influx of British troops to Canada.

Your 1776/1812 info is correct, but mmarsh is correct, the troops were sent in case Britian decided to declare war, most likely the beginnings of an eventual offensive force.

Do you think if the war lasted longer Britain may have declared war?

This is an interesting post. I was not aware that significant numbers of Canadians or Britons served in the Civil War on either side.
I do know that the U.S. was concerned about an invasion of the northern states during the war and feverishly fortified the northern border.
In one humorous episode in that project, a brick masonry fort was constructed on the Richelieu River near the north end of Lake Champlain. After construction was well advanced, it was discovered that the fort was actually on the Canadian side of the border. It had to be torn down and moved south.
There was real concern about Britain's intention in supporting the Confederacy. British textile mills needed cotton until an alternative source was developed in Egypt. Britain would like to have seen the U.S. broken up and supplied arms and built blockage runner ships and even raiders like the C.S.S. Alabama.
Britain withdrew it's support from the Confederacy when they saw that it was politically unacceptable to support the cause of slavery and when they saw that the South was going to lose.

Britain had decided to stop the slave trade long before America did. After Parliament had banned the slave trade they actively set about to stop it and intercept any ship that was slaving and released the slaves. As many of these ships stopped were American this in turn was causing friction in some quarters of the USA and this is what helped bring the whole slavery issue to fore in America.

After the U.S. Mexican War vast new areas were opened in the West and Southwest for settlement. Texas became a state in 1845. When Texas had been part of Mexico slavery was illegal. Now that it was part of the southern U.S. slavery became widespread. Slave owners wanted to introduce slavery into much of the newly acquired areas and this set off a conflict between the southern slave holding states and the free states of the north initially resolved through various political compromises, finally resulting in armed conflict. In my view, this conflict was inevitable. The economy of the south depended upon a plantation system that required slave labor. Interesting, some southern states didn't care for slavery. In the northwestern part of the the old state of Virginia, the people were poor white farmers who didn't own slaves and had no desire to fight for the cause of slavery. The present state of West Virginia actually seceded from the state of Virginia after Virginia had seceded from the federal union. It can truly be said that the American Civil War, or War Between The States as it is called in the south set brother against brother. This topic is still emotional and controversial in the U.S. and I would be surprised if my comments set forth in this posting went unchallenged.

Originally Posted by Remington 1858

After the U.S. Mexican War vast new areas were opened in the West and Southwest for settlement. Texas became a state in 1845. When Texas had been part of Mexico slavery was illegal. Now that it was part of the southern U.S. slavery became widespread. Slave owners wanted to introduce slavery into much of the newly acquired areas and this set off a conflict between the southern slave holding states and the free states of the north initially resolved through various political compromises, finally resulting in armed conflict. In my view, this conflict was inevitable. The economy of the south depended upon a plantation system that required slave labor. Interesting, some southern states didn't care for slavery. In the northwestern part of the the old state of Virginia, the people were poor white farmers who didn't own slaves and had no desire to fight for the cause of slavery. The present state of West Virginia actually seceded from the state of Virginia after Virginia had seceded from the federal union. It can truly be said that the American Civil War, or War Between The States as it is called in the south set brother against brother. This topic is still emotional and controversial in the U.S. and I would be surprised if my comments set forth in this posting went unchallenged.

Texas was technically not a Slave State, only allowing Indentured Servants. The official position of the US Govt was the Southern States didn't legally secede(Then why did they have to be re-admitted after the War?) So...the creation of W.V. was at best on shakey legal ground, if not out right illegal. The Constitution says the Fed. Govt. can't create a State from an existing State with out the permission of the State losing the area. Where the Govt. of Virginia wasn't going to give permission, the Fed. Govt. created a "Va. State Govt. in exile" out of thin air to give "Permission" to the Fed. Govt. that created it to create the State of W. Va. Seems like out right fraud.