A northerner Republican in the White House, Kansas,Cotton, and and my grandma shooting loyalists for target practice.
2006-12-04 13:19:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Slow Poke 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that the four things that led up to the civil war are: the modernization of the north, the election of Lincoln, the secession of the southern states, and states rights and tied into all of them is the issue of slavery, because most of the political battles and struggles during the 1850s was about the expansion of slaver.The Civil War at first was not about ending slavery it was about preserving the Union, Lincoln didn't know if that Union was going to free or slave. It wasn't until 1863 that slavery became a major issue of the Civil War in the eyes of Lincoln.
During the decades leading up to the 1850s and 1860s the Northern states were busy with modernization. They were more focused on manufacturing (textiles and southern cotton) as well as shipping and exporting American goods than they were on agriculture. They had a relationship with the South that allowed them to not have to worry about growing their own crops to feed themselves, as well as a growing need for southern cotton. There was some agriculture in the north but not as much as in the south. The north was growning economically while the south remained the same. They remained dependent on their money making crops and the slaves that made it possible.
The election of Abraham Lincoln and the secession of the southern states go hand in hand. Secession was caused by the coexistence of a slave-owning South and an increasingly anti-slavery North. Lincoln did not propose federal laws making slavery unlawful where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, envisioned it as being set on "the course of ultimate extinction".
When Lincoln was elected the South saw their very livelihood in jeporday and their reaction was to seceede from the Union and form their own Confederacy where States Rights and Slavery were the two most important things.
States Rights: Southerners argued that the federal government was strictly limited and could not abridge the rights of states as reserved in Amendment X, and so had no power to prevent slaves from being carried into new territories. States' rights advocates also cited the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution to demand federal jurisdiction over slaves who escaped into the North. Anti-slavery forces took reversed stances on these issues.
2006-12-05 05:14:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kathleen Z 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think J&C H has it about summed up nicely. Slavery was actually legislated to end -- but not soon enough for the conservatives of the North. The North's economy was heavily invested in industry while the South's was still chiefly aggricultural and heavily dependent upon slave labor. By and large, the North was heavily regarded as conservative Republican, while the South was liberal Democrat. The federal government tried to mandate change to Southern states. The South was nowhere near ready to give over to industrialization or to federal government. You can see it still to this day. The South is still underdeveloped as compared to its Northern counterparts and still struggles economically and educationally. Still, everwhere you look, you will see a Rebel flag flying and here the Civil War termed as, "The War of Northern Aggression" and it's said with pride "The South shall rise again..."
2006-12-04 13:27:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Doc 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
1) The dissolution of the political parties (Whigs and Democrats) that had once united the people beyond sectional differences, such that in the election of 1860 the whigs did not put up a candidate, while the democrats ran both a southern democrat and northern democrat. Lincoln (a republican) won only because the free states outnumbered the slave states in the electoral election
2) The debate over whether the land acquired in the Mexican American war should be free soil (no slaves) or not
3) The failure of the Compromise of 1850
4) The South did not want to controled by Lincoln who had only been elected by the north and seceded after his election
2006-12-04 13:44:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
States rights,not having any type of Federal juristiction over independant states.Slavery of course and Tariffs to trade cotton to England instead of sending it to the northern mills.Damn I can only think of 3.Oh,yeah.The expantion of slavery to the West (Kansas Missouri ,and Calif.)
2006-12-04 14:13:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by AngelsFan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The economy, slavery, states rights and ego of the Northern Industrialists and Southern planters.
2006-12-04 13:07:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋