American War of Northern Aggression

[MODU]

I always thought it was an interesting case that the Brits were tempted to support the South rather than the North in the early years of the war.  The value of cotton was more important to them than the value of slaves (which they abolished just a few decades before the civil war).  Of course, that conflict of interest is what kept them from getting involved, which helped the North win the war.  Imagine what the world would be like today if they had sided with the South and supplied troops/arms?

[Akno21]

I always thought it was an interesting case that the Brits were tempted to support the South rather than the North in the early years of the war.  The value of cotton was more important to them than the value of slaves (which they abolished just a few decades before the civil war).  Of course, that conflict of interest is what kept them from getting involved, which helped the North win the war. 

I think the Brits were going to get involved if the South had won the Battle of Antietam, but the Union victory, weak as it was, allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and Great Britain wasn't going to intervene when the war became more about the right to own slaves, as they had just abolished slavery themselves.

[many's the long night I've dreamed of cheese]

The Brits would never have gotten involved on the Southern side, for the simple reason that British popular opinion was overwhelmingly pro-Northern.

[Sibboleth]

I always thought it was an interesting case that the Brits were tempted to support the South rather than the North in the early years of the war.

The Government was (for several reasons) but the public wouldn't have been happy about that at all. Most people weren't allowed vote yet o/c.

Imagine what the world would be like today if they had sided with the South and supplied troops/arms?

No idea. But if it had happend, there would have almost certainly have either been a very serious revolt, or the collapse of the economy due to strikes. Probably both.
That intervening on the side of the C.S.A was even considered speaks volumes about how out of touch the political elite had become by the 1860's.

[© intelligent life as an evolutionary error]

I wouldn't have been willing to die for it, but I'd have supported the union.  The only war of the USA that I may have been willing to die for was WWII.

[Frodo]

I probably would have fought for the Confederacy.

[Thursday Side of the Street]

Union of course.

How was it "Northern Aggression", when the Confederacy started it when they attacked Ft. Sumter?

[Old Europe]

None, actually. The U.S., if forced to choose.

[MasterJedi]

I would have fought for the Union and then after the war for the execution of all confederate leaders and officers.

[Wakie]

Being from the North I probably would have fought for the Union.  That being said, although I agree that the South initially had a solid legal case for disunion, when they attacked the North (Ft Sumter) they initiated the War.

Imagine if Massachusetts suddenly decided it didn't want to be part of the Union and launched an attack on Otis Air Force Base.

[phknrocket1k]

Union

[StatesRights]

I always thought it was an interesting case that the Brits were tempted to support the South rather than the North in the early years of the war.  The value of cotton was more important to them than the value of slaves (which they abolished just a few decades before the civil war).  Of course, that conflict of interest is what kept them from getting involved, which helped the North win the war.  Imagine what the world would be like today if they had sided with the South and supplied troops/arms?

The British were supplying seamen, ships, rifles and cannon from 1862-1864.

[StatesRights]

Being from the North I probably would have fought for the Union.  That being said, although I agree that the South initially had a solid legal case for disunion, when they attacked the North (Ft Sumter) they initiated the War.

Imagine if Massachusetts suddenly decided it didn't want to be part of the Union and launched an attack on Otis Air Force Base.

The concept of "federal property" was not quite the same as it is today. A state government felt (as is its' right) it could reposses property it loaned to the military.

[Wakie]

Being from the North I probably would have fought for the Union.  That being said, although I agree that the South initially had a solid legal case for disunion, when they attacked the North (Ft Sumter) they initiated the War.

Imagine if Massachusetts suddenly decided it didn't want to be part of the Union and launched an attack on Otis Air Force Base.

The concept of "federal property" was not quite the same as it is today. A state government felt (as is its' right) it could reposses property it loaned to the military.

Not only did South Carolina want to reposses the land on which Sumter was built, they also demanded the munitions and building be surrendered to it WITHOUT compensation.

Imagine you build a shed at the edge of your property.  You fill it with tools.  You make it nice.  One day your neighbor measures the property line and determines that the shed is on his property.  Not only does he demand that you stay out of "HIS SHED" but he insists that the tools therein now belong to him as well.  To be sure of it and comes after you with a baseball bat.  According to you and Confederacy defenders your neighbor is in the right.

Sumter was an even worse situation.  States cannot arbitrarily reposses federal property.

[MaC]

If I was who I am at the time (with no hidsight): Union

If I knew what a cockfag Lincoln was: Confederacy