The North's general attitude toward the South, from the tariff of abominations and and other laws designed to keep the south's markets isolated. Slavery was only thrown into the mix to gain public support. It was not the main issue. It was the North with its industry trying to force the South to knuckle under to its demands.
2006-11-27 12:07:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by icynici 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Tariffs, and economic conditions. Tariffs on imports along with the international trade of the south caused southern states to pay the bulk of federal taxes, which were then spent on public works projects like railroads and canals in the North. Slavery was a major issue but slavery ended in almost every other country in the world without a civil war. Why would it alone have caused one here.
The seccession of southern states concerned Northern port cities because there was the threat that Ports in the south would be tariff free and wind up isolating the north from foreign trade.
2006-11-27 13:42:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Roadkill 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
heres a thought starter
The “wedges of separation” caused by slavery split large Protestant sects into Northern and Southern branches and dissolved the Whig party. Most Southern Whigs joined the Democratic party, one of the few remaining, if shaky, nationwide institutions. The new Republican party, heir to the Free-Soil party and to the Liberty party, was a strictly Northern phenomenon. The crucial point was reached in the presidential election of 1860, in which the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, defeated three opponents—Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democrat), John C. Breckinridge (Southern Democrat), and John Bell of the Constitutional Union party. Lincoln's victory was the signal for the secession of South Carolina (Dec. 20, 1860), and that state was followed out of the Union by six other states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Immediately the question of federal property in these states became important, especially the forts in the harbor of Charleston, S.C. The outgoing President, James Buchanan, a Northern Democrat who was either truckling to the Southern, proslavery wing of his party or sincerely attempting to avert war, pursued a vacillating course. At any rate the question of the forts was still unsettled when Lincoln was inaugurated, and meanwhile there had been several futile efforts to reunite the sections, notably the Crittenden Compromise offered by Sen. J. J. Crittenden. Lincoln resolved to hold Sumter. The new Confederate government under President Jefferson Davis and South Carolina were equally determined to oust the Federals.
2006-11-27 12:10:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ahem... The Civil War began when Mrs. O Leary's cow kicked over a lantern or something like that.
No, wait... I think that started the Peloponnesian War between Hawaii and Alaska.
Now I remember!!! The Civil War started when Archduke Ferdinand tired to assassinate the 27th US President Harry Garfield during a parade in Munich on March 7th 1823.
I love history!!!!
2006-11-27 12:13:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by johnny_zonker 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The South seceded for political and economic reasons, it was an issue of States Rights. The War started because the North chose not to let them go, they felt that the Federal government took precedence over state governments. The end result was that it was established in law that once a sovereign state joins the Union, it can never get back out.
2006-11-27 12:11:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by rich k 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The South was being taxed to death. by the feds. they wonted to leave the union just a few years after they joined the union. the north had slaves as well. it would have taken to much to make the Southerners. which comprised only five percent of the population.slave holders to free any slaves,they didnt have to leave to keep slaves.thats a fact. that wasn't the reason for the secession, Lincoln said he was going to colonize the blacks, send them ALL to south America. the war had very little to do with slavery, it was states rights.We didn't like associating with Yankees and still don't. mostly. we don't get along.and for people to think it was all about slavery or ignorant of the facts, they should actually study up on there history and not believe Yankee history books. the winners write the history books you know.with 5% of the Southerners having slaves, why would the 95% fight against the Yankee invasion.My people didnt have slaves.but they fought. it was for freedom. damn it.It was the second American revolution.Southerners did kill two Yankees for every one Southerner Killed.half a million people died. ennocent children, women, and men.they went into my peoples home. lit a fire and when my great great grandmother came out with her baby in a blanket, the Yankee took her blanket while her home burned, in Columbia S.C.Damn Yankees.
2006-11-27 12:22:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It was totally about States' Rights
the slavery issue was simply a central factor in THAT position !!
The South had built an enormous amount of its economic bedrock on the production levels that were only possible at that time with slave labor and they saw the attempt to restructure everything as an attempt by the North to desolve them economically into easily dominated satellites of the state !!!
2006-11-27 12:19:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Slavery was the big word of the day but there were other less publicized reasons. Other factors include states' rights, modernization, sectionalism, the nullification crisis and economic differences between the North and South.
Of course..money had a lot to do with it.
2006-11-27 12:10:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rich B 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
A bunch of dingbats running around in
crazy outfits killing everyone.Good times.
Sort of like the Dukes of hazard (without
the General Lee CAR) on acid with a lot
of blood.Plus I just can't afford the travel costs it's so expensive to attend and,..wait
a minute!
Oh I'm sorry,I thought this was the Civil War reenactment category! My bad!
2006-11-27 12:22:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by moebiusfox 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Four things....
1. Slavery
2. State's Rights
3. Sectionalism
4. Ecomomic Factors
2006-11-27 12:06:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by go_uva 3
·
1⤊
0⤋