To what degree did Britain get involved in the Civil War?

Assess the importance of that degree of involvement to the North and to the South. Review key events involving the British (cotton trade, Trent affair, Alabama, and Laird rams).

Considering how much Britain could have become involved, with either side, the degree that it actually became involved was very small. Britain did not, however, take a completely neutral approach, as evinced by its shipbuilding. Repeatedly provoked by the North, it would have been simple for Britain to declared war, but few conditions other than political aggression were available for just cause. Perhaps the most significant reason behind the lack of support for the South, Britains main supplier of cotton for the antebellum period, was Britains large stockpile of cotton and the ability of Egypt and India to increase output to ease price increases. Because the South had been so fruitful, British factories had huge supplies of cotton, such that they could survive off for close to a year. Eventually, though, the supply ran dry and a clamoring was distantly heard to help the South to continue cotton manufacturing. Helping the South though, meant alienating the North, whose bountiful wheat and corn crops wee feeding hungry British nationals. With food valued more than wealth, Britain could find no economic reason to intervene in the blockading of Southern ports, which was the main chokehold on cotton production. Also important were the colonies of India and Egypt. Although their cotton output was nowhere near that of the South to begin with, they quickly ramped up production with Britons paying much higher rates than previously, when cotton was across the pond, and not around the world. Politically, Britain found itself pinned down by the North, who repeatedly had shown aggression. Most notably was the Trent Affair, in which a British mail sloop was deprived of

Confederate loyals. Almost causing war, Britain sent 11,000 men into Canada, in a display of power. However, neither side would have had a beneficial outcome, with grain and corn being the Americans biggest advantage, and Britain having a large army and powerful navy. However, in another test of tension, Britain manufactured many ships that were used for Confederate purposes, notably blockade runners and the warship Alabama. The Alabama cost the Union many merchant ships and would eventually force the Union to expend some of its more powerful warships in an effort to hunt it down. Britain maintained that it never created it as a warship, as it picked up weapons elsewhere, but ceased to continue production of like vessels. Later on, it was discovered that ship builders in Britain were created new boats out of metal that would be able to smash the hulls of the blockading wooden boats. Britain, under much pressure to avoid conflict, would eventually purchase the boats for its own navy. It was unfortunate then, to the South, that corn and wheat were Northern goods along with the money that poured so effortlessly from Union pockets into British coffers. Should the South have been able to win the affection of either Britain or France, it may have won the war much more easily, finding itself with a much higher industrial capacity and with capital pouring in from trade. In fact, the South depended on finding an ally, a dream that was never realized. Doubtful though, is that the South could have won the war with a different strategy, as it simply had too many inherent weaknesses compared to the North.