Replies

Those are a very fine set of responses.

I would only add, per No. 3, that there was a vigorous debate in the UK over recognition of the Confederacy, and that the British did supply arms and naval vessels to the rebels.

And as for No. 13, I don't think you can omit a mention of the NYC draft riots, fueled by Democratic politicians and mobs of Irish immigrants. Classic “identity” politics, no so different from today.

I would only add, per No. 3, that there was a vigorous debate in the UK over recognition of the Confederacy

Absolutely right - until Antietam. After Antietam, Lord John Russell was the only man in the ministry vocally agitating for recognition. The rest of the Palmerston ministry was decidedly cool after that.

and that the British did supply arms and naval vessels to the rebels.

Purely on a private basis, with the Confederates resorting to deception. The UK did not officially permit the building of CSA vessels in the UK nor did they fund them. The ministry looked the other way while Confederate agents lied and said they were independent contractors for French or Dutch interests.

Well put, but it was obvious to both Washington and Richmond that these riots were the work of an unorganized rabble.

Lorenzo Wood was a bigger threat to the Union's integrity than the rioters.

Also, there were food riots in the South, draft resistance from northern Alabama to western North Carolina, and veiled threats of declarations of neutrality from Georgia and North Carolina, as well as an armed Unionist movement in eastern Tennessee. Internal dissent in the Union was nothing compared to the internal dissent in the Confederacy.