I think you’re not recognizing the effects of inertia on human relations. It’s one thing to hate something, but to accept current conditions. so, yes, the working class in Great Britain could hate slavery, but still accept the United States as a slaveholding nation, and run their mills with cotton grown by slaves, as this did not really drive any great effort on their part. The difference was in 1861, when the Confederacy asked to be recognized as a country explicitly formed to protect and continue slavery. This is where they drew the line, because their actions would have essentially meant they approved of slavery. This, I believe, was a major reason they did not recognize the Confederacy, although, as I said previously, Lee’s loss at Antietam had a lot to do with it as well.
“The Confederacy asked to be recognized as a country explicitly formed to protect and continue slavery. This is where they drew the line, because their actions would have essentially meant they approved of slavery. This, I believe, was a major reason they did not recognize the Confederacy.”
There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Please show me the evidence that Parliament refused to recognize CSA because of slavery as the major reason Great Britain did not recognize CSA. Hell, just point me to the official document that cited slavery as any reason Parliament did not recognize CSA.
Britain continued to trade with CSA after secession (though the trade was limited because of the Yankee blockade of Southern ports), and even sent military observers to embed with Southern forces (they embedded with Northern forces, as well). Britain held off on formally recognizing CSA as an independent, sovereign nation because Great Britain was waiting to see how the war would turn out. After 1863 Great Britain saw how the war would eventually resolve and by then it made no sense at all to recognize CSA. But I guarantee you, if the CSA had been successful Great Britain would have recognized it. The commerce was too lucrative not to.