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

This question has been asked here before, I would like those who want to get the points to do your research and give me complete well thoughtout answers.

2007-03-16 10:07:46 · 5 answers · asked by john_kiethmichaek 3 in Arts & Humanities History

5 answers

YES

If you doubt this answer, then ask yourself what would have happened had slavery not been the issue.

States Rights verse Federal Government? That issue has been progressing since the days of Adams and Jefferson, in fact that was the point of conflict between the two. How would the issue of states rights brought about the succession?

Slavery was the issue, look at the progressive history of the subject back to the forming of the Mason Dixon line in 1781, the Missouri Compromise, Wilmot Proviso, Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, Dred Scott v. Sandford, John Brown. Slavery was the issue. You can revise it all you want, slavery was the issue. The right for the southern states to have slaves. It was not the price of cotton, trade with Europe, farming, industry, banking, it was slavery. The south held a fortune in the institution of slavery and did not intend to give it up.

2007-03-17 03:29:08 · answer #1 · answered by DeSaxe 6 · 1 0

Most historians agree that the Civil War was a long time brewing--since colonial days, as a matter of course. Slavery was naturally one of the prime points of contention, but sectionalism--the traditional animosity between the New England and South Atlantic states (the Carolinas and Virginia)--played a major part. Many Southern leaders felt that the states should hold primary power in the future of the nation, but New England held for a strong central/federalist government. Look at the arguments surrounding the rise and fall of the Bank of the United States--opposed by many Southern leaders (and finally destroyed by southerner Andrew Jackson) but supported by the North. The rise of industrialization also played into the split between the regions, with the agrarian South falling behind the rapidly industrializing (and expanding) North. There was an interesting study done some years ago concerning the role of the large planter class and the war--many of the planters banked in the North and kept their funds there, rather than in southern banks, and many also sent their sons overseas to sit out the war, which they thought was a lost cause (of course, not all members of the class followed suit). In a nutshell, slavery was the hotbutton topic (like gay marriage or abortion today), but a number of interrelated variables were the "causes."

2007-03-16 10:22:17 · answer #2 · answered by Tony 5 · 0 0

No it wasn't. It was actually a fight over state rights. Many states believed that they had superior rights over the national government. Abraham Lincoln's stand against slavery threatened the Southern states and their livelihood if he actually abolished slavery. So when he was elected president, one by one the Southern states ceded so that they could be independent from a government that would destroy their way of life. Lincoln believed that the nation should stay as one, thus the Civil War began.

2007-03-16 10:47:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Not at first, then Lincoln made it a issue because Britain was thinking of supporting the South, however Britain then refused even though the South was winning until Gettysburg.

2007-03-16 10:19:52 · answer #4 · answered by Boogerman 6 · 0 2

primarily. there were economic differences between the north and the south and neither side was able to please the other and when the south started seceeding the north decided it was time for war.

2007-03-16 11:51:52 · answer #5 · answered by babygirl 4 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers