English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

guess what it wasnt it was over taxes most of th south let the slaves go free while the north kept their slaves

2006-08-25 12:14:33 · 16 answers · asked by dixie_791 1 in Politics & Government Politics

16 answers

Ok,...first off the lady from Tennessee who said the Civil War ended slavery needs to look at the situation closer. It ended legalized slavery in the sense that one person could be held in ownership by another, BUT the practice continued. Instead of food and shelter (what little or much was given) former slaves had to work for very low wages, OR pretty much just to keep thier homes they lived in prior to being freed. The railroad company is a prime example of this practice. So this whole daydream life was great because the war freed everybody did not always ring true. Life was just as hard after the Civil War for many former slaves.

The girl who contrasted the Revolutionary War and the Civil War was WAY OFF also. They were pretty much fought over the same principles BOTH including slavery. Slavery was fathered in to the country back in that day, so don't even try to defend that era..

In general the War was about a lot of things. More over it was a sense of invaision felt as a massive army marched into your homeland and disturbed your way of life. Imagine if a tank rolled into your front yard on the way to battle tearing up everything you have with no sense of remorse. People sided with thier homeland because that was what was at stake. The war ended slavery, but that was a political move on the side of Americia's morals more than the true to the heart care for any race.

2006-08-27 15:39:20 · answer #1 · answered by j615 4 · 0 0

You mean the War of Northern Aggression? Slavery was an excuse. States rights was a reason. Plus economic. I'll guarantee that 95% of the solders on the Confederate side didn't own any slaves (I know that the slaves that fought didn't). The North had few if any slaves at that time, they mistreated blacks in other ways. It really wasn't a simple black & white (no pun intended) issue. But we are (more or less) united now as one country, which is a good thing.

2006-08-25 12:56:14 · answer #2 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 1 2

The U.S. Civil War was over other things than slavery. The socioeconomic realities of the time brought about a true division in American society, where for a time it did seem there were 2 separate countries. Slavery would have eventually died out as the South progressed industrially and economically if there had been no war.

2006-08-25 12:25:12 · answer #3 · answered by Modest intellect 4 · 1 1

Confederate War? You must mean the American Civil War. Indeed, it was never truly about slavery, since the state of New York was the last state in the Union to abolish slavery, after the war. It was about cheap resources, and not paying the tarrifs due to those states to whom the resources belonged, in addition to the right of the States to secede from the Union. If the Union was truly free, wouldn't a member have the right to leave from the agreement? Abraham Lincoln said, basically, that the US had a manifest destiny to rule from one side of the North American continent to the other, and that the states and territories who left the Union impeded that destiny.

2006-08-25 12:24:23 · answer #4 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 1 1

Essentially the Civil War was over two issues: competing economies and state's rights.

The North was fearful of the growing economy in the South. The South was becoming powerful, and the economic and political power was shifting to the southern states.

Also, the North wanted a stronger Federal government, while the South wanted stronger State governments.

Don't interpret this as approval of slavery. It's not. But slavery as the cause of the Civil War is what we teach in elementary school, because it's easier to grasp than complex political and economic philosophies.

2006-08-25 12:23:29 · answer #5 · answered by KO 3 · 2 2

Absolutely not over slavery. It was about slavery issues; but it was about business and profit.

Business at the dawn of the industrial revolution wanted Irish labor and not slave labor.

Laws governing slave ownership were strict. The slave owner had to feed cloth and house slaves. They were also responsible for health care.

Irish immigrants worked for less money than the cost of owning slaves. This created skyrocketing profits for industry.

Free the slaves give them 40 acres of weeds and stickers and a broken down Mule and business was free to hire Irish immigrants for

Go big Red Go

2006-08-25 12:33:46 · answer #6 · answered by 43 5 · 2 1

why ask a question only to answer it? no, the whole war wasn't just about slavery. and no, not all northerners kept their slaves. i have old pamphlets and fliers my family saved from back in the day. they lived in the north and there were plenty of people who wanted them to have their freedom. just as there were people in the south who felt the same way.

but really who cares what it was about? :P i can only imagine how much more impoverished the south would be if we'd won that war. and hey, in case you haven't heard.. it DID end slavery.

2006-08-25 12:21:05 · answer #7 · answered by LstCaress 2 · 1 1

No it was not over slavery. In fact, the south let African Americans fight in the war and bear arms 4 years before the north did. There were black confederate soldiers

2006-08-25 12:23:00 · answer #8 · answered by little_ms_scareall 2 · 1 2

NO!!! It was about State's Rights. The North didn't have slaves. Read your American History some more!!

2006-08-25 12:22:28 · answer #9 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1 1

It was over federalism -- the role of the federal government.

The confederates didn't realize the need for a strong federal govt to keep this country unified and safe. Fortunately, most of the southern states have come to their senses over the past century and rallied behind the Republican party in its pursuit of a strong, unified federal govt.

It's the north that has become fractured and lost their way, supporting the Democratic party with their scattered approach to politics.

2006-08-25 12:17:27 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5 2

fedest.com, questions and answers