Poll: If You Fought In The American Civil War, Who Would You Fight For?

[Blatherscythe]

Oh, how different history might have been if the south had won their independence...

If that had happened, it would only have been a matter of time before the west declared themselves their own seperate country. The Union might choose to press a fight over it, if only to get gold. Nobody really bothers to make Hawaii or Alaska a state. Eventually Texas eats the rest of the south. We never really get around to building the Panama canal, and trade between the pacific and atlantic oceans remains low. On the plus side the stock exchange doesn't crash, but that doesn't really matter because the dustbowl still occurs, causing the central states to practically be abandoned. The Manhattan project is never started because the 'americans' lack the resources to pull off such an intensive project. Before the government in California even knows what is happening San Fransisco has been bombed by the japanese. The West States are conquered in 1942. The Union does send some aid to england, but lacking the resources most of that aid is sunk by german U-boats. Alone in the fight with no real allies to turn to, England surrenders in 1943. The Germans complete their atomic bomb in 1946 and use it on Boston. The Federal government puts up a valient fight, but by 1952 most of the northern states are a wasteland. A few of the southern states choose to ally with the north to help them fight off the germans, but many are over in texas trying to hold back the japanese advance. By 1960 japan develops their own atomic weapon and declares war on germany. The ensuing nuclear exchange drives the world into nuclear winter, and everyone loses.

Now, aren't you glad the north won?

You do realize that's all just speculation. You have no proof to back such a theory up.

 

[loppopoo]

I would probably fight for the south, and NOT because I believe in slavery. I hate slavery. I just hate the government stepping in and forcing things, completely ignoring states' rights.

 

[throumbas]

The English. We'd just wait for both sides to battle out and then kill the survivors.

I just now need to go a moustache to curl around my finger while laughing diabolically.

Definately this, let them destroy each other, expand the empire, hell to the yes.

 

[Blade Chunk]

North, cause the Republicans supported the end of slavery.

Guess who still wanted it?

 

[captainordo]

I don't know
I live in the North
But my family if from the south and they fought in the for the south
Tough choice
Sell to both sides
It always works

 

[Grand_Arcana]

I'd fight for the North because I'm black.

I wouldn't be allowed to fight for the South because "That's against everything the South stands for", to roughly quote some dead guy.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

Question for all you people spouting off about states' rights: Where were the Southerners complaining about states' rights being violated when the Dred Scott case was handed down?

 

[delet]

If I had to, North. Slavery is bad etc, etc. I'd more likely just go ahead and make my way to Canada though...

You are aware the north only abolished slavery for propaganda principles, to get more people to fight on the side of the north, as the rest of the world had abolished slavery decades ago, and saw America (the south in particular now) as archaic in principles.

They didn't exactly do it out of the kindness of their hearts. Then again, when has any country done something for that reason? ¬_¬

Yes, I am quite aware of that. The point has been addressed already.

 

[Icehearted]

North. I'm black, so it makes sense that I don't want to be relegated to living in a shed and eating the crap parts of most animals while I toil between whippings.

Edit:

North, cause the Republicans supported the end of slavery.

Guess who still wanted it?

You're totally right, but I guess things have changed. Now the red emails "Obama bucks" to each other and their rallies look like there should be a burning cross in the background.

WTH HAPPENED?!

 

[Kiju]

I'd pick...the British.

Why? Because they drink tea, and that is awesome.

Frankly...my reason holds just as much merit as the original poster's, so...yeah.

But, in all seriousness? I'd remain neutral; let people fight it out for all I care, if the African Americans want to let white people fight for rights that they themselves should be fighting for, then so be it.

 

[DSQ]

The south. Just because I live in England and quite frankly couldn't give two shits about the American civil war.

here here!

 

[Cmwissy]

The British - WE WILL RISE AGAIN.


[small]If the bloody French don't interfere [/small]

 

[Veacane]

North had taps and John Browns body, they had better songs.

 

[Licorice]

It really depends for me, personally. However, a lot of people in here have a lot of misconceptions about The Civil War. First of all, there is no definitive reason regarding the cause of the civil war. To this day, historians still argue about this.

North Carolina seceded the day Lincoln was elected. Lincoln didn't run on a platform of abolition. Though he did wish to contain Slavery, he did not wish to abolish it. Though many southerners fought for states rights, just as many fought for slavery. Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy, states that slavery is the natural position of blacks and that this disagreement between the south and the north is the reason for the Civil War. The Cornerstone Speech. The Emancipation Proclamation was intended to be a weapon to kill the southern economy. The states that sided with the north got to keep their slaves until the passing of the 13th and 14th amendments.

If I could be an aid of Robert E. Lee and not change histories course, the south. Maybe for Stonewall Jackson, or the same for the north if I got to aid Grant.

As a nameless soldier? The north.

 

[New York Patrick]

I was just wondering which side you good people would fight for. You have the Union fighting for the North. and you have the Confederacy fighting for the South.

I personally would fight for the south. why? well becuase im an Irish Republican and a catholic. and i don't like the idea of a government that forces beliefs and laws on states that don't agree with them. and a whole majority of people who fought for the Union were German anti-Catholic immigrants. but that's just me. so, people of the escapist... Time To Pick Sides!

Why is "Independent Republic of Tejanos" not an option...

 

[Agayek]

Well, it wasn't technically the North, they were southern states but they decided to join the North's side. In fear of harming the relationship with these "Boundary" States they couldn't free all slaves while protecting the war effort.

EDIT: The Boundary states were slave states who fought with the north and against the south.

Yea, I know. I just tend to use "North" and "South" as synonyms with "Union" and "Confederacy". Most people interpret it that way, so it makes life easy.

yeah but youd still be defending slavery

Not really. He'd only be defending the right of the individual to choose whether or not to participate in the practice.

I'd side with him, to be perfectly honest. That said, it wouldn't stop me from pulling some vigilante abolitionist hyjinks after the war.

 

[hittite]

How am I supposed to vote for the Central? The Central will rise again!

 

[thenoblegaunt]

Gotta support The North, can't back slavery.

Plus the Union had robots, since they wore blue.