From what I originally understood from Duuk's post was that this would be MP specific, in other words that the people running France and Britain wouldn't necessarily have the same thoughts as their historical predecessors. I definitely see this as a probablye occurence, as players in 2003 we have the hindsight that the U.S. after the Civil War would become the predomiant industrial power by the end of the 19th century. How better to stop the juggernaut by heavily aiding an agrarian South seceed and possibly stall western expansion? I think any forward looking Britain or French player would seriously consider supporting the Rebs to give the U.S. a harder time in re-uniting (or maybe not) the U.S.
If the Confederates are victorious (whether played by a human or not in MP) in the first phase of the Civil War in MP, with every year that goes by it is less likely that the U.S. will ever re-unite the country. As more time passes the Confederacy will conciously or subconciously become recognized by European players, and its removal would be seen as an imbalance of power in the system.
If, for example the Confederacy survives until 1880, and the Union sees an opportunity to strike, British and French players would use the opportunity to teach the U.S. a lesson, effectively neutralizing it for the rest of the game. However, on the same note, British and French intervention would take them away from possible assets in the ROTW, which would probably pull at their attention and evenutally get them to abandon the Confederacy.
Thinking about it some more some probable scenarios come to mind:
1860-Ai Confederacy forms in a game of human US, British, French, and Prussian players.
1. French and British support Confed
2. Only British or only French support Confed
3. British or French support Confed, British or French support Union
4. Nobody supports Confed
In 1 and 2 Confed has a good chance of survival, 3 depends on players, and 4 is an almost definite Union victory.
1. Over time Confed comes to peace with Union. British and French look towards colonization, but are drawn back into the Americas in, say, 1880, when Union declares war. Both nations can support Confed again, resulting in similar experience as above, or one nation could drop out, and concentrate on colonial game. One nation's removal would probably precipate another's removal, as they would see their chances at colonization decrease if they concentrated on Civil War.
2. The nation that supports Confed gradually falls behind in the colonial game and is eventually at a power deficit in Europe. This also probably results in an abandonment of Confed.
3. Second round the supporter of Union will probably drop out, as the Union couldn't overrun Confed first time, and concentrate on colonies. Second nation is faced with dilemma in 1 and 2, and will probably drop out.
4. If by some chance the Union can't win against a sole Confed the first time, it is unlikely that European players will care the second time around. The power in Washington is obviously not a threat to anyone.
Of course Prussia throws another kink in the works, being a future colonial power. If both Britain and France are embroiled in American conflict Prussia (and the Dutch and Belgians also), can grab open areas in the ROTW. Prussia may also support the industrial North (as they are simlar in economy), or possibly the South (depending on the player), in order to bog down an enemy France or Britain.
This situation will probably result in many an interesting AAR, witrh possible rammifications for the power structure in Old Europe and the colonizing game. Not only France and Britain, but almost all of the colonial nations could have a hand in the outcome of the American Civil War in MP. A smart Union playey will try to get Europe to ignore America, while a smart Confederate player will try his hardest to get Europe to intervene. Just my thoughts.
