WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MAIN REASONS THAt LEAD THE COUNTRY TO THE CIVIL WAR?

Question

how did they affect people

Answer 1

~Slavery was not - repeat NOT - a cause. Anyone who says otherwise simply knows nothing of American history, American constitutional law or the Civil War.

Lincoln himself had no problem with letting the southern plantation lords keep their slaves. For his views on the subject, look no further than his first inaugural address wherein he said, quoting himself from innumerable prior speeches:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Earlier, in Illinois, he said

"I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves."

He acknowledged repeatedly that, if it would end the war and preserve the union, he would endorse slavery. As late as August, 1862, he said

"My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." [He made no bones about his preference, either publicly or privately - he desired the second option.]

The constitution itself allows slavery and abolishment could only come by way of constitutional amendment. [see Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article IV, section 2, clause 3.] The abolitionists would not have the votes, if things continued on the course they were on before the war, to obtain such an amendment for at least another generation and the southern states knew it. They did not need a war to keep their slaves.

South Carolina jumped the gun at Fort Sumter. There is nothing in the constitution to prohibit secession. Instead of starting a war, the seceding states should have brought their case to the Supreme Court for a ruling, either as a state of the United States or as an independent nation after approving local Bills of Secession. Only after an adverse ruling would war have been necessary.

That northern states believed secession to be permissible is clear. West Virginia was allowed to secede from Virginia (itself an unconstitutional act: Article IV, section 3) and admitted (illegally) into the Union in 1863. New England states threatened secession when Jefferson asked for and Congress gave him the Embargo Act in 1807, and even more so when James Madison started his little war in 1812. The seeds of the Civil War were already sown in 1801 when John Adams appointed 58 judges as he left office to perpetuate Federalist power and Thomas Jefferson upon taking office a few days later, refused to give them their signed and sealed commissions. But for the brilliance and/or cowardice of John Marshall in his handling of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Federalist scheme to create a constitutional crisis the likes of which this country has never seen before or since may have resulted in the dissolution of the United States before its 15th birthday.

The Constitution, when written and ratified, was intended to maintain the integrity and significant autonomy to the several states, subject to a weak federal government with limited powers. The main functions of the federal government were to raise and maintain an army and navy, to centralize and regulate taxation for federal programs, to regulate bankruptcies, to regulate foreign affairs and trade, to promulgate science and the arts (chiefly by patent and copywrite laws) and to otherwise deal with those limited issues necessary to maintain the unity of a consortium of quasi-independent states. As the industrial and merchant states grew, both in population and number, the agrarian south, which had once been the seat of power in the land, lost more and more influence. The south found itself becoming a subservient vassal region subject to the whims and will of the north and west and the southern states were rapidly losing the autonomy the founding fathers and framers of the constitution had intended to maintain.

The war, from a southern prospective, was about states rights and freedom from the oppression of the tyranny of the majority, represented by the north and west. From a northern perspective, the war was defensive (South Carolina had attacked first) initially and was fought to preserve the union. The north was trying to preserve a "government of the people, by the people and for the people" by force of arms, the will of the people and desire of the people be damned.

Slavery was introduced as an issue well into the struggle as a propaganda tool to enlist troops and support in the north. The war was not going to end slavery - it couldn't. Only a constitutional Amendment could do that and the 13th Amendment did in 1865. Before the war, the Amendment could not have passed. There was insufficient support for ratification under constitutional strictures. Only by requiring approval of the Amendment were the states in rebellion allowed to rejoin the union and the carpetbagger state governments and carpetbagger congressmen were only too happy to vote for it. The legality of a constitutional amendment ratified under duress was never questioned.

The end of slavery was a product of the peace, not a cause of the war.

And I don't want to hear about the Emancipation Proclamation. First, it did nothing congress hadn't already done with the Second Confiscation Act of July, 1862 (which, under the Dred Scott case, was unconstitutional); second, it freed no slaves - it applied only to states that had seceded from the Union (over which Lincoln and the Federals had no control) leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states and it expressly exempted those parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control; third, it was unconstitutional - although Lincoln claimed he had the power to do it as commander-in-chief, the constitution afforded him no such authority and the constitution expressly prohibits the government from taking property (the slaves) without just compensation and due process of law. [It appears that Lincoln forgot what he said in his inaugural address about his authority and legal right] Finally, Lincoln told Wendell Phillips, the Boston abolitionist, that the Emancipation Proclamation was "the greatest folly of my life". Secretary of State William H. Seward said of the Proclamation "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

All reliable information from the period clearly establishes that the majority opinion prior to 1860 in the north as well as the south was opposed to emancipating the slaves. The northern Copperhead Democrats were vehemently opposed, more so than many southerners. Had Lincoln run on an anti-slavery platform in either of his elections, he'd have lost. No way was a war going to be fought over such an unpopular issue and only a fool (or one who simply knows no better) would believe otherwise.

Answer 2

I don't care what the history books say, the civil war started in 1793 with the invention of the cotton gin. At the time of the consitutional convention tobacco was the number one crop. With tobacco being grown in other countries, the tobacco prices went down making slavery more costly. It was felt at the time that slavery would phase out on it's own. With the cotton gin and stronger cotton, cotton became king. Cotton was very labor intensive and slavery became more lucrative. The civil war was about slavery, period.

Answer 3

the north and south were basically fighting about slavery and wether or not it should be abolished. when slavery was finally abolished, the south decided to separate from the north and have thier own government. which caused much violence, and finally lead to a war.

Answer 4

The Country?

as in US of ****** A?

Mostly confusion over slavery boundaries, and a bunch of uptight *****

Answer 5

what? um racism i suppose