England and France took a "wait and see" approach, one that indirectly favored the Union (since doing nothing was exactly what the North wanted). The Confederate government sent two ambassadors to Europe, (John Slidell to France, and James Mason to England) to gain official recognition and/or set up trade agreements, but neither man's efforts came to anything. John Slidell was mostly ignored in Paris, and Mason did little better in England. Although the Confederates did manage to make some naval purchases in England, and outfit a few ships from their ports, this was the extent of British "help" you might say.

This response was indicative of the larger European attitude, which looked on the American Civil War as an internal struggle: one that didn't promise to pay any real dividends if a country got involved. Europe suffered through a famine in the early-1860s, so what they really needed from the U.S. was wheat, not cotton. Since the Union controlled the portions of the U.S. that produced wheat and grain, it was in Europe's best interest to keep shipments flowing east (rather than challenge the Union blockade like the South wanted/needed). Simply put, there was no real immediate benefit to a divided U.S., and nothing but headaches for any European nation looking to side against the Union.

And not that China really got involved in U.S. affairs in the mid-19th century, but even if they HAD wanted to, they were just getting over the Taiping Rebellion in 1864, and so had their hands full throughout most of the ACW. No one in Africa or Central/South America had the navy or standing armies to seriously contribute to the war effort, so they too stayed out of things.

[Sources: Bruce Catton, 'Mr. Lincoln's Army' & 'Glory Road'; Doris Kearns Goodwin, 'Team of Rivals'; James McPherson, 'Battle Cry of Freedom']

EDIT Spelling