what are the differences between North and the South leading to the Civil War???

Question

yeah that the question i have to do due tomorrow. and were learning this in 9th grade just a review. best answer gets full points.

Answer 1

SLAVERY WAS THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR. "State's rights" in the South were only important insofar as it involved the right to own slaves. Revisionist historians like to use "state's rights" as a way to defend the actions of secessionists, but outside of slavery secessionists cared very little about state's rights. If you go to the books, the newspapers, the magazines, and the speeches OF THE TIME, like I have for the last 30 years, and ignore all the dirivitive crap written 100-150 years after the war, you'll find that slavery was THE issue, in the North and in the South. What right did the South fight to protect? Slavery. What were the leaders of the North trying to stop slavery. The rest were minor differences. Go to the sources, and you'll see. Yes, they used the term "states rights" from time to time, because that was the polcitically correct terminology for saying they wanted to keep their slaves. What right were they almost exclusively talking about when talking about state's rights? Slavery. Sometimes it would be thrown in with "opression" and "economics" but it always came down to slavery.

No slavery - no war, period.

You had two very opposite groups involved in this conflict. The slave states were run largely by a group of secessionists, although they weren't publicly admitting that in the 1850's. They desperately wanted to maintian their hold on the power they currently enjoyed at that time - they had enough votes in congress to demand compromise after compromise and to control most legislation. They used that power to repeal the Missouri Compromise and allow the reintroduction of slavery into areas it had previously been prohibited. They are occasionally portrayed as the downtrodden oppressed, under the thumb of the terrible North, but nothing could be further from the truth. They were strong, and they wanted to keep that power, lest their ability to promote and maintain slavery be taken from them

Meanwhile the North was largely anti-slavery, that sentiment was growing almost daily, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was taken as a betrayal by most people of the North. While those who favored immediate abolition were not the majority, those who demanded the stop to the expansion of slavery were.

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Acts so enraged and worried the North that adversaries gathered together to form a new political party, the Republican Party, in 1854. They considered the repeal as a betrayal of trust and a surrender to the slave powers (see the notice at the end) To those who say that slavery wasn't the main issue, keep in mind that the platform of the Republican Party (formed by Whigs, free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, Free Democrats, and other parties that dissolved their past affiliations in order to form the Republican Party) was primarily to stop the spread of slavery immediately and to eliminate it from the coutry as quickly as possible - it's why the Party was formed, and the evidence that slavery was the issue in the North as well as the South is plain in the fact that the Republican Party won the Presidency and majority control of government just 6 years after it was formed!

This signaled a ticking clock to the secessionists, because they saw the anti-slavery senitment gaining strenth and the Republican Party gaining power throughout the 1850's. They new that in 1860 their hold on power would be gone, and they had to act. They knew as far back as 1857 that they would be taking these steps a few years later. On March 4, 1857 Jefferson Davis took the oath of the Senate, vowing to uphold the Union and the Constitution with his very life, meanwhile he and other secessionist leader continues their plans of rebellion.

During the late 1850's President Buchanan and the other secessionist leaders and slavery sympathizers worked their plan. Arms were sold to secessionists, forts in the South were emptied of arms and troops, the Army and Navy were spread thin and wide so they could not respond in an emergency. The propoganda campain to keep the southern people in fear of the North and unsettled continued.

Lincoln's election in 1860 was used by the secessionists to rally support of the people, and called "the last straw." The funny thing is that Lincoln, of all the possible Republicans, was the last person they had to fear, because Lincoln had already said many times over that he would not mess with slavery where it existed. But who the candidate was didn't matter - it was time for the secessionists to act before it was too late, so they portrayed Lincoln as a radical abolitionist and an enemy of the South. Truth is, it could have been anybody. The Confederacy was planned a loong time before anyone ever heard of Abraham Lincoln in the South.

When the North refused to accept secession, and the North wouldn't make the first agressive move, the Confederacy fired - on a fort manned mostly by musicians with few weapons.

So, was it possible to end slavery without War? I'm not saying there weren't ways, but first you have to know that there were people plotting treason and betraying their oaths for years prior to 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their goals.

The only thing that would have prevented war would be the acceptance of slavery by the United States and/or the surrender of the United States of all the states and territories it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that would not have ended slavery, then the answer is that there was no alternative but to have some kind of conflict, some kind of war.

Slavery was the issue, it was the reason. It was a calculated plan by those who chose to protect slavery by betraying their countrymen and turning traitor - to protect slavery, and not some mythical idea of "state's rights" because the only right they cared about was the right to enslave another race.

Answer 2

the north was full of cities and factories while the south was full of big farms.

There were a lot of wealthy people in the south, but all of their money came from the huge plantations and the free workers they had.

The cities of the north had a lot of available jobs for people and didn't think slavery was necessary or right, so they wanted to make it illegal.

the landowners in the south knew that without free labor, their farms wouldn't be successful. it would be too expensive to pay people to spend all day picking cotton. plus, it would be hard to find anybody who would want to pick cotton all day. these people in the south didn't like the idea that northerners would be making laws for them. southerners wanted each state to make their own decisions. Georgia would make laws for Georgia instead of New York. Because Georgia knows what's best for Georgia. This concept was called STATES RIGHTS.

The south fought for states' rights. The north wanted to make laws for the good of the country. both sides had an equal amount of states, so the balance in congress was even. Every time a new state wanted to join the country, there was a big deal because neither side wanted the other side to get more votes.

the argument between states rights was a big difference between the north and the south and eventually led to the south seceeding from the union. (Slavery was a big issue included in the states' rights issue, but there were a lot more)

the second major difference between the north and the south was the economies. the industrial economy of the northern cities was a major contribution to their victory. the farmers in the south had no factories to make guns, weapons, ammo, etc. After the northern navy blocked the southern ports, the south had no way of getting new supplies. The south could block the northern ports but there were so many factories up north that they could just make anything they needed.

Those were the main differences. Although if you have a text book, you should double check to make sure you're not leaving out anything important that was covered in class that i didn't cover here.

Answer 3

There are many differences, but there was never a civil war between 'north and south america'. There was a civil war in the USA, part of North America between the Northern and Southern states, however.

Answer 4

When Abe Lincoln was nominated to represent the Republican party in 1860, he was running against Democratic candidate John Breckinridge, a strong supporter of slavery. It was well known that Lincoln was strongly anti-slavery. Lincoln was seen as a threat to the values and ways of the southern states. During the election, the south stated "...if this man is elected president, the south will secede from the Union." Lincoln won the election, and the southern states made good on their promise. Had Lincoln loss the election, the Civil War may had never happened.

Answer 5

North didn't want slavery. Wanted to claim new states as non-slavery states. South wanted slavery. Wanted to claim new states as slave states. Abraham Lincoln was elected which set them off on the Civil War.

Answer 6

the north had an industral economy the souths was based mainly on agruculture, the souths needed slaves to work the fields

Answer 7

slavery
industrialization
culture: the north was more fast paced and buisness like, the south was more laid back and leisurely
more immigrants in the north
more trade with other countries in the north