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

2006-12-04 14:38:13 · 10 answers · asked by Water's Away 3 in Politics & Government Military

10 answers

It was the second major opportunity for Americans to go to war of primarily two sides and fight for what they believe in. Don't forget that Blacks fought in the Revolutionary War as well, so abolition of slavery was not the point.

There were plenty of other smaller wars too because Goodness Knows, Americans like to kill.

2006-12-04 14:42:51 · answer #1 · answered by Reba K 6 · 1 1

To Southerners, the North was an oppressive power, much like the King of England before the American Revolution. And it wasn't all about slavery. There were economic issues that strongly influenced the war. Down here, it's sometimes called the "War of Northern Aggression" by the elder folk.

2006-12-04 14:41:02 · answer #2 · answered by SomeoneUdunno 3 · 2 0

I am glad to see this question being asked. As you may be able to tell, the feeling of resentment in the southern states still exists, those are "the South as the victims, we fought against oppression" types. The Second Revolution was not the southern states seceding from the Union, it was Lincoln, the Republican Party, and the American people struggling to change a social order and to create one that included liberty for all (including the over 3 million slaves), as well as maintain the Union so it would have been safe from any threats by England, France or Mexico.
See The Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson.

2006-12-04 16:56:35 · answer #3 · answered by WMD 7 · 1 1

It was/is considered a revolution because it tested the system that was in place at the time, and what resulted from the war was a country that is stronger now than it was before the war. We changed from a country that viewed itself in terms of actual borders in terms of the Mason-Dixon line to a different perspective. It cemented the power of the federal government because during the Civil War the military consisted mainly of states contributing soldiers and states setting military policies.

2006-12-04 18:15:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Easy because the Confederate States of America was fighting for its independence from who they percieved as an oppressive Majority, and well they may have been right the North committed many war crimes during the Civil War, and eliminated Southern culture and social structure, but in reality this was necessary to subdue the south, it is more commonly called the " War of Northern Aggression" or the " War for Southern Independence."

2006-12-04 15:05:32 · answer #5 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 1 0

In the American Revolution, America broke free from the reign of England, and the South tried to break free from the Union in the civil war.
Draw your similarities.

2006-12-04 14:40:45 · answer #6 · answered by polevaulter1000 3 · 2 0

Because it redefined how the states and national government related to each other.

Before the Civil War, many people thought that the states are just a loose confederation of states that any member can quit at any time (hence they called themselves the "confederate" states of America.) Afterward, no one thinks that.

The level of involvement of the nation government in state affairs was also set after the war. Civil rights enforcement, interpretation of the First Amendment in all states are two examples which were not considered before the war.

There were also subtle changes to the language. Before the Civil War, a sentence might say "The United States are....". After the war, we say "The United States is...". We became a singular nation.

2006-12-04 14:48:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

In short. The first war was about having your vote count "no taxation without representation" and about the establishment of certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [property].

The 2nd Revolution effected those same unalienable rights despite the official reason being the preservation of the Union.

Hope that helps.

2006-12-04 14:41:54 · answer #8 · answered by Big Blair 4 · 2 1

Who ever called it that was probably referring to the south trying to claim their independence from the north. Just as we claimed our independence from Great Britan a hundred years earlier. Not really relavent since the south lost. It would be relavent had they won.

2006-12-04 14:43:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

talking revolution ???
i'll throw you in Guantánamo to do a bit of this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abu_Ghraib_53.jpg

HEIL BUSH !!

2006-12-04 14:47:25 · answer #10 · answered by George W Bush 1 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers