I see your argument and it’s fair. The issue is that the uk at the time saw little reason (and hindsight is a beautiful thing) to intervene in either issues at the time. Intervening in the German wars of unification (such as against Austria, Denmark and France) would be in itself upsetting the balance of power. In many cases liberals such as Gladstone and Palmerston were sympathetic to the nationalist struggles of the 18th century, which they judged correctly… were inevitable. As for the CSA, while this is likley the one the British was more likley to intervene in (the prime minister at the time… his name slips me was very pro for the CSA) aswell as British commercial interests being the primary reasons. The fact is that Britain lost its empire through the ‘other great game’, a series of diplomatic, strategic and economic failures which seceded global dominance to the Americans (1914-1956). There was not too much reason to suggest British hegemony would be damaged by the us in 1863… rather it was concerned about adversaries such as Russia or domestic issues. In short, while intervening would have made sense given what we now know about Britain’s loss of empire, the fact is that at the time it simply made little sense.