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

Were there additional causes?

http://thomaslegion.net/causes.html

2007-07-17 17:47:53 · 8 answers · asked by . 6 in Arts & Humanities History

8 answers

The issue was "state's rights" verus the oversight and control of Federal law upon the states !!
There were numerous issues that continued to crop up between the individual states and the Federal government throughout the period leading up TO the Civil War -- the primary issue that "broke the camel's back" so to speak was the ending of slavery BY the Federal government -- which the "state's rights advocates" of the South saw as a Federal attempt to break them financially since the Fed knew that the South's economic base and production base was lended heavily on the use of slave labor for the mass production of their goods for sale on the world market !!! So, it was THIS one issue that finally was the absolute end of the South's even trying to "work it out" with the Federal government on any level whatsoever !!!
The main issue was "state's rights"
the ending "deal breaker" was the abolition OF slavery !!!

2007-07-17 18:05:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

I'm reading "History in the Making," by Kyle Ward right now. (shameless plug...!)

This book shows how history lessons have changed over time. There's a good section in here about the Civil War, and the causes as reported in different eras.

in 1856, one history book suggested that the reasons for the impending war was the forced dominion of the federal government over the rights of the state governments. Other reports usually site slavery, Lincoln's election, or the westward movement.

Another thing, which seemed to be the direct catalyst, was John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. Look that up -- there's a section on that, here, too.

My opinion is that each of these things are not necessarily the only cause of the war. But with all of them happening at once? Too much!

Good luck!

2007-07-17 17:56:14 · answer #2 · answered by sb1788 1 · 4 0

I consider that those are all individuals to the battle, however I nonetheless consider all battle is approximately cash and vigor (that's what so much cash is to humans). The North effectively had a larger monetary process- extra group , extra affluency. They have been extra city and synthetic by way of use of factories. The South used to be a rural discipline. They had plantations or sharecropping. They thrived on farming tobacco, cotton, and so on. This used to be now not a manufacturing facility centered process. The South's transportation process went east to west, now not north to south. Basically that used to be some of the explanations that they misplaced the battle. Slavery used to be an fundamental intent for the battle, nevertheless it might have fallen by way of the wayside besides finally. I consider the battle is relatively approximately the North short of to unfold their economic system , and the South seemed like a well position to broaden. More land, extra factories results in more cash and the vigor that money brings with it.

2016-09-05 15:46:28 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

'States Rights' and the fact that each State considered Itself to be sovereign Territory under the Constitution. America was still not really a unified nation consisting of States with equal rights, but rather was "These United States" as opposed to being "The United States of America". A subtle difference that marked the dis-similarity between the two periods of history before and after the Civil War.
Slavery had virtually nothing to do with the move for secession. It was simply a matter of people being of the opinion that They were being oppress by a 'National' Government that told Them what to do in Their Own State.
The fact that the very act of secession was in fact 'unlawful' was the true catalyst for the ensuing "War Between the States".

2007-07-17 17:58:04 · answer #4 · answered by Ashleigh 7 · 6 0

The Civil War really wasn't all about slavery; though some historians would lead you to believe so. It was more about economics and the south breaking away from the union and the south's trade relationships with France, England, etc. Those relationships really P'd off those in power in Washington.

2007-07-17 17:58:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

south carolina suceeded from the union and other states followed along

2007-07-17 17:51:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

cotton

2007-07-17 17:59:05 · answer #7 · answered by bdbbdb 3 · 0 4

they wanted slaves duh.

2007-07-17 17:55:52 · answer #8 · answered by rebeandphantom 5 · 0 6

fedest.com, questions and answers