Would our country be better off if the South had won the Civil War?
149586
There is a new movie out right now about this: CSA.  It is a documentary about life in the US after the South wins, and defeats the North, so that the whole country is run by the South (rather than having two separate countries, a different scenario of a Southern victory.)\n\nThe premise of the movie is that the differences would be surprisingly small.\n\nIt is hard to know how things would be now.  Perhaps of the CSA had been a separate country, it would have faced an eventual and successful slave revolt (funded and supported by the remains of the Republican party in the North) and the CSA would be known as New Uhuru, or something.
494139
The Civil War was caused by a disagreement over state's rights. \n\nThe southern states thought that all states should decide taxation, slavery, and other things in the state. The northern states thought that all decisions should be made by the national government. \n\nThe south decided to leave the union, feeling that the centralized government was being given too much power against what the founding fathers had intended. The north decided that they could not secede and break up the union. \n\nThey fought a war, and due to many reasons (the north being more industrialized and richer is just one), the south lost the war.\n\nYes, economics affected the civil war because the north had more resources to call on to support the war effort and more connections with Europe to get support and help blockading the southern ports from them as well.
928460
No, it was not viable then nor is it now.  The overarching point of the Civil War was whether a state could decide not to do something, and if it didn't like what the rest of the Union was doing, whether it could just stop being in the Union.  The answer was no.  That was not the point of our constitutional democracy (as opposed to the system under the Articles of Confederation, where the states were basically autonomous units.)  \n\nOn a personal note, would I myself be happier if, perhaps, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana seceeded from the Union?  Perhaps.  Would the North have been economically better off if we had let the South go? Perhaps (save Texas and its oil, Florida and its tourism, and a few other resources). But we're all in this together.  The North would not have tackled the racial issues that sparked the civil war until much, much later.  The South probably would have imploded due to their lack of non-slave economy and innovation.  Certainly today a number of states could function as (much) less powerful independent states -- if Georgia (the former soviet republic) can do it, then Georgia (the state) can do it.  But once again, that's not the point.  America is great because of its bountiful natural resources and its diversity.  Once we fall into the trap of the Yugoslavias, the Iraqs, the "-stan" countries and fractionalize ourselves based on religion, poltiical belief, geography, etc., we become much much weaker.  The whole truly is greater than the sum of the parts in America, and we must keep it that way.
333492
Well that is complex. But to start off before the war. The north and the south differed greatly. The south was a farming area(mostly very labor intensive products like cotton) hence the need for slavery in the south's eyes. Where the north was mostly industrial compared to the south. So more machines and less hand labor. The reason this is important is because a factory can be rebuild. But farm land takes a lot of money to redo and a lot of time to start producing again. Well after the war the South lost its way of life and it lost it way of surviving. After the war the south was pretty well destroyed.  The farms and there crops were gone burned, destroyed, or used by the union forces. Also after the war the south was occupied by northern troops for many years to come. But southern people at the time also believed they were right on the issue of slavery. That is part of the reason the civil war happened. But basically it all of this combined as to why I believe the south is still hung up on the civil war.
614072
Absolutely they should, the "Great Emancipator" Abraham Lincoln, would be better called the "great wholesale violator of the Constitution". What history ignores (the winner gets to write history) is that the civil war was NOT about freeing slaves, or anyone else, it was about the south (the Confederate States of America) refusing to pay outrageous taxes imposed by the north to foot the bill for the north's expansion of their industrial base. The simple fact that Lincoln declared war on them laid the groundwork for our current system of "do what we tell you or else" federal government- and is leading to the total and utter destruction of any pretense that the USA is a free nation- we are at the doorstep to a police state that will make all the preceding police states look rather benign (and yes that includes the Soviet police state and Hitlers little picnic). Americans obviously have no clue what this nation is supposed to be, proving the efficacy of the "education system" in this country. This nation has ceased to exist as a true nation because no one seems to care about the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) as long as they have their TV shows, beer, and junk food. \n Yes, states have the right to secede- but don't count on any of them doing it, let alone getting away with it.
767731
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.
370171
Of course.\n I think it is a terrible idea to trade off civil rights for an ILLUSION of security... no one in this country is even a tiny bit safer than we were before the so called Patriot Act, just more fearful.\n\nBesides that, if we surrender our freedom in an effort to thwart terrorists, they win without even trying.
709265
Ok homework question right?????c'mon dont lie.\nOk here it is in a nut shell,\nthe south and north were at odds with each other,some of this was on slavery but most of it was on the economical ideas on where Gov't should place the nations money and interests.\nThe north had more seats in congress at this time(per capita of how many voting persons per state there were living in them)since the north had more voting persons in them they held more congressional seats in the Gov't,while the sourthern part of the United States had fewer people(that could vote)in them giving them less representation in the senate and congress.So the the southerm states came up with an idea of using the number of slaves to get them more house seats but not representing them as a voting population(no rights etc)this was seen as an outrage by the north and the abolisionists in the northern states so the  resentments of north and south increased to a point of attack(Ft.Sumtner) in the south which was the start of the civil war.slavery only became an issue after the fact..but I believe this is what you should be skimming through in your history books and what your teacher is looking for
983258
Neither.  The older more conservative white rednecks in this country would sooner start a civil war than have that happen.
931964
It led to the end of the Civil War by forcing the industrial might of the north to be aligned against the seccessionists.  It was the provocation needed to bring the south back into the union fold.  Without Sumter, the seccession would've continued for a longer period than the four or five years that it did.\n\nYah, i get the 10 points, everyone else commented how it started the war, and not how it led to the end of the war.
620938
Lincoln asked them to abolish slavery. The Southern Sates did not agree as that would mean losing their entire workforce which worked in their plantations and farms and were the source of their wealth and economy.\n\nFaced with no choice, the Southern States left, what followed was the Civil War.
548110
It's kind of like that now. We've got those dang hillbillies holed up in the oval office. The South might as well have won.
1020531
No. Abe Lincoln goofed big time. I can't believe some consider him a great president. He should have sought compromises with the South. Sure the South was making a fortune on cotton trading to Europe, thus making the South wealthy, yet Lincoln was stubborned and ended getting us involved in a civil war, that should never have happened.\n\nYet, I agree with you about the lack of Democrats in the south. Once a bastion of democratic thought, now it's all Republicans. What a catastrophe for the Democratic party. It seems the only Democratic president that has a chance of getting elected has to be from the south like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.\n\nAs far as the race issue, it's a problem. Yet it could have been straighten out during Lincoln's time by requiring the southern plantation owners to pay for labor and to abolish slavery. That problem should have been worked on long ago instead of getting into a civil war. Nevertheless, the fact that the South was making all that money on cotton was a reason most forget that lead to a civil war.\n\nAnyway, things could change. The south could return to its democratic tendencies. At least I hope so for the sake of this country. By the way, I'm not from the south, I'm from a burb of NYC.
205487
Yes.  Lincoln understood that the nation was threaten to fracture beneath his feet and he did what had to be done.  Of course it is important to understand that the South never really left the Union--the Constitution doesn't give states the right to seceed, but they thought they did and he had to impel them to return (in their minds.)
973772
Hell no. Remember that during the segregation era, southern states hindered the advancement of equality by declaring they were "sovereign states" and didn't had to obey federal law. I support states rights to some limit and I think when states conflict with federal government then we are in trouble.
256054
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.
596848
The North was able to move their troops around fairly rapidly with the railroad's help.  The South was not able to reallly use rail service to much advantage.  Because of the lay of the land (mountains), much of the rail service in the South ran north and south.  If the War had taken place earlier the South would not have had this as a disavantage.\n\n\nThe South was at a disavantage by the North's manufacturing capacity at the time of the War.  If the North's manufacturing capacity hadn't had been as developed, the South would not have been at such a disavantage. . .if the War had taken place earlier.  \n\nI think slavery was a disavantage to the South during the Civil War and it would have remained so if the War had taken place earlier. \n\nSo.  If the war had taken place earlier, the results could have been different.  However, Lincoln's resolve would have had him just as steadfast.  Likely the end result would have been the same.  But if England or France had joined the Southern cause, the end result may have been different.  But it really is hard to tell if the South could have ever mustered the support of either country.