I'm doing a poll to see how many everyday U.S. citizens know the true reason of why the Civil War was fought. So please don't use other reasources like the web or books just off the top of your head... "What was the U.S. Civil War fought about?"
125640
States Rights vs. Federal Government Power
410981
My Dear Yankee Friend,\n\n  You are correct it is an interesting question but I am afraid my answer would not be as nearly as interesting, especially after seeing the answers you have all ready received.\n   I was unaware that Secession was or is against the law.  Even though one of the main things solved by the War was the question from the founding fathers and Lincoln whether or not the Republic would survive.  It did!\n\n    I cannot believe the answers about equality and the other nonsense but the War did end slavery with the 13 th amendment.  I wonder how many people realize that the 14 th amendment was never legally ratified?\n\n    The War decided that agriculture was to be replaced by manufacturing.\n\n    The War decided how far the Union –Northerners-Yankees would go to enforce their will on others; that the rights of the citizen; the Constitution meant and mean nothing.  It proved that they are willing to sacrifice the lives and properties of civilians, has anything changed?\n\nGod Bless You and The Southern People.
272958
Are the masses fighting or a few pot stirrers?  Are there gangs in America stirring the pot?  Do we call it civil war here?\n\nYes most would like power on either side.  At the moment many are more interested in the other not having it more than themselves having it.  It is set-up as a lose/lose situation.\n\nMaybe it will change to a win/win situation.
474420
“Who Freed the Slaves?,” thought-provoking article written by James M. McPherson, asks who or what was responsible for freeing slaves in the United States. Was it Lincoln as most people presume or the slaves themselves?  McPherson explores many theories in this article, including ____________ , _____ and ________. For each theory he observes, probes and calls into question their stability from all points of view.\n\nI would summarize his theories in the blanks above, the way you had it listed before didn't make any sense.\n\nWhat was the assignment, just to summarize what the article discussed? Was there a conclusion in the article? If so, you should discuss the conclusion.
487553
Not even close - the purpose of the morons shouting "Civil War!" is to continue their cut and run campaign.\n\nI just love it when supposedly influential and important newspapers, magazines, and columnists are caught out as they are with this "Civil War!" campaign.\n\nI love it even more that my boy George doesn't give a flying fuc! what those losers are screaming about today.  Unlike White Trash Billy, he keeps his eye on the ball instead of on the bobbing head!
137456
i think both, they had a great impact on wich side to take but i hve more feeling to thr revoloutionay war becaues that was the start of our country. the civil war was a war about taxes and thins like that, salvery came after the fact. it was to keep lincon presdent bucause that was the only thing he could have thought of. but the rev war was the satr of a new nation that broke away from one of the lagest navy and won its indepndance. i have more to say because i think of them later for some reason you can email me back for further questions: arcturus010@yahoo.com
656793
Lichtenstein.\n\nNo, only kidding. It's the United States. The country hasn't been so polarized since 1855. If there isn't another civil war in the US before the end of the century I'll be very surprised.
320981
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States - Thats the confederate picture I'll help with Union soon.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USA_Map_1864_including_Civil_War_Divisions.png - Thats for the entire United States but not labeled.
107575
was it states rights...that is one in the books..thats not it i think it had alot to do with a power struggle.The north wanting to keep the south in its proper place. Which wud be wrong...i admit i missed something on the subject,i can find out.The north had a little known desire to not let the south persue an industial base, which was growing a  bit before the war broke out.Cotten was king n they knew it,with a strong industry the south could,and would i belief become dominant in the power sruggle.
629737
It was a struggle between a strong central government vs a strong state government. States' Rights. Lincoln was afraid that if the South seceded from the Union, as a divided country, we would be open to invasion and take over by foreign nations. "United we stand; divided we fall,"  he said. So he wanted a Strong central government to keep a degree of unity and to keep us strong.\n\nDavis, on the other hand, had to argue that the power of government should remain basically in the hands of the states who were sovereign and who could overrule the federal government. That is how he justified slavery, namely, that slavery or no slavery was the job of each state to decide and not the federal government.\n\nLincoln won that debate via a Civil War, the argument still rages today--whether the states should have equal or more power than the federal government.\n\nI hope this helps.
339821
always that fear of civil war again. but as for disagreements, every country has them. can't make everybody happy. always the discontents. but this country has too much to offer, for it to break up. too many checks and balances.
392570
There was no need for the Civil War, because in the end we were fighting ourselves. Our brothers in arms. The North and South were no different than each other, and they were just people with the same idea, but with different course of actions. It was the lack of leadership that caused the civil war. Something could have been worked out, as it says in the quote."it was the result of extremism and failures of leadership on both sides." Just means that everyone on both sides was so stuck up in their own ideas and were narrow minded to the other side, thinking they were the only one that was right. If they sat down and tried to compromise. Thats a big word in politics, COMPROMISE, the civil war would never have happened. \n\nLeadership is not on the ability to lead during crisis, its the ability to follow and have the ability to compromise as well. A good leader is a good follower and listener, and able to maintain his people in times of hardship and peace.
105387
This is not an apples and apples discussion.\n\n1.  Posterity always allows us to view history through rose colored glasses.  War is great in the past, horrible in the present is how we ususally think.\n\n2.  The Civil War was not about slavery.  It was about keeping the Union together.  We did not start the war to end slavery, rather the Emancipation Proclamation was a means to end the war more quickly.  It was a fine byproduct of the war, but not the justification for war at all (on either side)\n\n3.  Invading another independent country is trickier business.  In general, countries have the right to run their country how they see fit.  Iraq is not unique in its genocide or human rights problems.\n\nGiven your mentality, there would be many, many "just" wars ahead of us.
154322
There were Loyalists in the American Revolution, maybe 20% of the population. The British also tried to recruit the Indians during the war and turn them against the Americans. That's the only thing that would suggest there was any kind of civil war during the revolution. More detail on this website...
604453
All you have to do is study the Civil War... and to see which US States were Union States and which states were Rebel States.  As to %, there is no figures to answer your question... as to the intentions of individuals... that is impossible to answer at this late date...
286553
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).\n\nUltimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.\n\nWhat is generally agreed upon is that factors such as nationalism, religion, and ideology, played little role in pre-modern civil wars. While it is quite common for nationalists to read past revolts, such as those of Scotland against England as early stirrings of nationalism, this is a somewhat suspect notion. Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.
581785
i would recommend this wikipedia site.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war\n\nhope this helps =)\n\n-unpredicktaboh-