when south left the union in the 1800's what happen?
340867
Greetings,\n\nThere are no pictures of the South leaving, because they didn't go anywhere.\n\nThe southern states that formed the confederacy remained where they were, and their inhabitants, for the most part, remained where they were as well.  There was no mass migration, rather an expuslsion of everyone loyal to the Union and a seizure of everything formally belonging to the Union.\n\nThere aren't many photographs of the early part of the Civil War because photography was still in it's infancy.  There are many lithographs of the time though.  Lithographs are an artists interpretation rather than a photo.\n\n-matt
246871
1861\nFort Sumpter\nThe less populous south detested the more populous north using its majority position to dictate policies regarding economics and slavery in ways that benefitted the north and appeared to harm the south.
371896
the Compromise of 1850, thereby repulsing Southern threats of secession while urging Northern support for a stronger law for the recovery of fugitive slaves.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
1007419
You're a blabbering idiot....try reading something instead of posting inane comments masquerading as questions..\n\nThe Proclamation was issued in two parts. The first part, issued on September 22, 1862, was a preliminary announcement outlining the intent of the second part, which officially went into effect January 3, 1863, during the second year of the American Civil War. It was Abraham Lincoln's declaration that all slaves would be emancipated in all states which had seceded from the Union and which had not returned to federal control by January 1, 1863. The ten affected states were individually named in the second part. Not included were the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. Specific exemptions were stated for 48 counties of Virginia designated to become the state of West Virginia, and also for New Orleans and several named parishes in Louisiana already under Union control. That is, areas under Union control on January 1, 1863 were not affected. Lincoln did not think he had legal authority over these areas under his Constitutional war powers.\n\nLincoln himself had declared he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. In addition, freeing slaves was still a risky political act, since there were still slave states loyal to the Union and the initial war aims were centered on preserving the Union rather than freeing slaves. As such, the proclamation was a military order issued by Lincoln in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress, or a constitutional amendment.
430221
Seven states seceded by March 1861:\n\nSouth Carolina (December 21 1860), \nMississippi (January 9 1861), \nFlorida (January 10 1861), \nAlabama (January 11 1861), \nGeorgia (January 19 1861), \nLouisiana (January 26 1861), \nTexas (February 1 1861). \nAfter Lincoln called for troops four more states seceeded:\n\nVirginia (April 17 1861), \nArkansas (May 6 1861), \nTennessee (May 7 1861).** \nNorth Carolina (May 20 1861)
1053318
The information on the website listed below, along with others, suggests a number of factors contributed to Florida's decision to secede from the Union.  First, Florida had a plantation economy which by necessity depended on slave labor; this allied them economically with the other states in the Deep South.  Second, politically many Floridians favored giving power to the states, as opposed to the federal government, a view which again allied them with the states of the Deep South, particularly South Carolina and Georgia.  Third, (and this is my own surmise) geography probably played a part in the decision: should Florida remain a part of the Union and war ensue, it would be cut off from the rest of the Union through land routes and might become a popular staging ground for attacks into the underbelly of the South, with Union troops arriving by sea.
686278
may 29,1790\n\n\n~thanx for the points~
1159248
Here goes!!!\nThe state was admitted to the Union on February 14, 1859.
294305
It started shortly after the civil war in one of the southern states that was opposed to blacks getting their freedoms. It was started by a bunch of Bigots who thought they were doing good by getting rid of freemen.
90053
There are entire books on this subject, so I'm not going to get too detailed.\n\nThe practice of slavery was an issue left up to individual states.  The states in the Southern region chose slavery because their economies were largely agrarian.  They produced raw goods like cotton.  The states in the Northern region were primarily industrial.  They produced finished goods, which meant they had less of a need for slave labor.\n\nWhen the country started spreading to the West, the Southern states assumed the new territories would be able to vote individually on the slavery issue.  The federal government, which tended to sympathize with the more developed Northern states, decided that it should be the one to assign 'slave' or 'non-slave' status as each new state was recognized.  The idea that individual states would no longer have the power to determine their own policies was objectionable to Southern representatives in Congress.  They voted to secede from the Union in order to preserve the rights of individual states.  The federal government desperately wanted to keep the supply states and the manufacturing states together for economic strength.\n\nIt's easy to portray the Southern cause as immoral, but in reality the number of large plantations with large slave populations was minimal.  The majority of Southerners were no more racist than Northerners.  The federal government eventually prevailed through superior firepower, not superior morality.
864608
I can certainly see from the answers you've gotten not many people know the history of our great nation,that is most unfortunate.\nThe South did not break away from the union based on slavery it was a greater issue one of economics one that had to do with 'states rights' and with how much tariffs they could charge.\nIt all really began to boil over in the Kansas debates of 1848,and spread even into N.Y. \nRead crack a book some of you folks sometime read the 'war of the republic' 50 volume set written/published by the United States war Dept. just after the war.\nThe Northern States also had slavery before during and even after  Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation.\nIn fact the Northern rich states and the U.S. Flag flew over more slavery than the the Confederate 'battle flag',and certainly more so than the poor mostly ag Southern states could ever dream of having.\nThe South won virtually every major,and minor battle-the South chose to up until the end remain in the South however the North was starving the South,and it had to go north which was the demise of the The Army of Virginia.
956215
Remember your 7th grade history....people were moving beyond the fall line and into Kentucky earlier than the 1840s. The land beyond the Miss. R. was given with the Homestead Act - 1862. See the following\n\nhttp://teacher.scholastic.com/lessonrepro/reproducibles/profbooks/histmap.pdf#search='frontier%201800%20map'\nhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~givensod/giv40ky.htm
673971
I've read that it was the South's continued practice of slavery that turned off the English.  The British had outlawed slavery and didn't much care to be associated with it anymore.  Had the Confederacy abandoned that institution, I think you might have seen a slightly different outcome, but then again, slavery was one of the reasons (not THE reason, but ONE of many reasons) for the conflict in the first place, so...
48705
It was mostly political, the abolition movement was very strong in the north, and obviouslty opposed in the south being it powered their mostly agricultural society...(there weren't a lot of farm Machines back then). Political force threatened to divide the country. Lincoln didn't want the country to divide the country on his watch...(wouldn't have looked too good in the history books). The abolition movement would never have lost steam, the industrial north had the upper hand so reasonably Lincoln sided with the north...that's just a practical view....But he also had a personal reasons for choosing the ending of slavery.
1027381
The soldiers of the North believed they were fighting to preserve the Union (which represented the whole of the United States as it existed at the time).  The soldiers of the South were fighting for the right of secession, and the freedom of self-determination, as they felt that the Federal Government had become to powerful and was over-stepping it's consitutional limits.  \n\nIn specific, the war was not originally over slavery, but over whether or not a man had the right to own property that he could do with as he chose without government interference.  Ever hear of a zoning ordinance?  They did not exist in the South before the Civil War - and the people of the South did not want them.  The reasoning is that if someone else can tell you how you can or can not use your property, then it is not yours - it's theirs, because (much like a king) THEY decide what is done with it.
540377
The south should be free. We have suffered too long under the tyranical united states government.
626719
No because the South was fighting for something we would now identify as individual nation states. If the South had won the war the country would have been divided and each and every southern state would have declared its Independence from everyone else.  The war was mostly about keeping the country together and was bolstered by the cause of freeing the slaves in the south.  Between the two the North had two very noble and just causes for victory over the South.