As for plans to recognize the CSA, I can't say I know of any.

Britain did however sell warships and trade with the CSA (mainly in cotton and foodstuffs) that's why the union was so eager to isolate the CSA with the Anaconda plan. Britain issued an apology for after the war for selling armed vessels to the CSA

Lincoln was sharp to make the war about slavery, when he issued his Gettysburg address, because from that point forward Britain cut off a lot of contact with the CSA, as they'd abolished slavery in 18(33?), and supporting the CSA reflected poorly on them, plus, they didn't really need the cotton given India.

International recognition and even possible support were incredibly important motivators for both the CSA and the USA during the American Civil War. Britain and France did not have contingency plans to recognize the CSA AFTER the war, they were constantly observing the events in the United States and determining their stances based on who was most likely going to be victorious.

Both the United States and the Confederacy send envoys to Europe to influence countries and sway them to either actively support their cause or to turn a blind eye to trade and other corporate ventures supporting either the CSA or the USA.

The importance of international support was so great that it influenced campaigns as both countries went searching for victories on the battlefield before large diplomatic talks. These motives influenced Grant's actions in the western theatre and Lee pushing north in the west. Diplomacy was more important than territory.

Lincoln's government maintained that secession was illegal and a recognition by the international community of the CSA would have undermined them immensely. The confederacy on the other hand relied heavily on imports to support their war effort and recognition by Britain or France would have made it possible for them to continue longer than they did.

There were large debates in European countries on what to do. It was widely believed that Europeans were superior in general and that the United States as an independent country was an anomaly that would implode sooner or later. The civil war was seen as a confirmation of this statement. However, factions existed who supported the USA, the CSA or favoured European intervention or a deliberate neutrality.

For instance in 1862, in the British House of Commons, Mr Lindsay says "Though few hon. Members would be prepared to deny that the Confederate States had shown determination and ability to support their independence, there might be a difference as to the propriety of our offering mediation." This action would have acknowledged the CSA as an independent nation, a victory for the Confederacy.

In the House of Lords in 1864 however, The Earl of Derby questioned the construction of the CSS Alabama by British shipyard Laird (Liverpool). It was known the ship was being build, but not halted or officially condoned. This was in 1864, when a Confederate victory seemed much farther away.

International recognition of the Confederacy was therefore not something European nations did not desire but had to plan for, but a possibility that would have had immense results that all parties were aware of during the conflict.

(Sources: various academic literature including McPherson, Catton, Wilson and McFeely. The House of Commons and Lords information is directly taken from Hansard)

To piggyback on this question a bit, I've heard a lot about British involvement in the Civil War, but what were the other European powers involvement?