Alan, I have no need or desire to go argue with politcally charged zealots on news and views about modern politics thinly disguised as "Civil War" discussion.

It was here in this forum that you chose to state your dislike for the term "Union", and this latest explanation now reveals exactly why you prefer the term "federal"... it is so you can make your own political statement about the government of the United States, one colored by your opinions concerning modern political times.

"Pick up a newspaper today and you will read about activities of the Federal government, the same one that existed during the war."

Earlier you said:
" 'Federal' and 'Confederate' are correct for the two opposing armies, raised as they were by the Federal and Confederate governments."

The CSA and the USA were both systems of a "federal" government, (as men in Georgia and Texas militias found to their distaste, I might add) so the term "federal" , by your reasoning, should apply just as validly to troops of the CSA, since they were also a federal government. The troops raised in Georgia and Texas and elsewhere in the Confederacy became, against very stong objections by many, part of their own "federally" controlled army. The CSA asserted their own federal power over "states rights" through the draft and implied threats of force.

I need not comment any further. There is no official title or entity known as "The Federal States of America". "Federal" is no more than just a convenient adjective, similar to using "Northern" army, or "Secesh". The deliberate use of "Federal" now (and objection to the term "Union") appears to be an attempt to raise this modernly charged term to official status for political purposes.

The official government of England, during the rebellion, by the way, was the "United Kingdom of Great Britain", so their armed forces were shortened to "British" in common usage.