How did the assination of Abraham Lincoln hurt the South more than the Civil War?
364743
Chiefly because Lincoln was poised to adopt a reconciliatory attitude towards the South after its defeat. His "Malice towards none" speech represented a belief that the South should be reabsorbed with little punishment for its seccession.\n\nInstead, Lincoln was assassinated and the Radical Republicans overrode his successor Andrew Johnson. As a result, the prostrate South was forced to deal with a harsh occupation, incompetent politicians (Black and white alike) who were the proxies of Northern occupation forces, and an absolute crippling of its economy. \n\nI don't think any rational or moral personal would argue in favor of slavery. It was an absolute evil. However, imagine the effect on the Southern economy once the slaves were freed. Add to that the total destruction of the South's infrastructure, the political corruption brought on by Reconstruction, and deaths of 500,000 of its finest men in the War, and you rapidly begin to understand the dimension of the region's calamity. \n\nWith this in mind, Lincoln's policies would have probably proven much more effective at reconstituting the South. As it stands, it took the region more than a century to recover from the War.
390017
the fact that the south was close to winning. The State of the Union and it being entact was more important than any other policy.  He would have much to preside over if he did lost the war.
675962
The main underlying cause for the Civil War was the freedom of states, and the rights of the states granted under the US Constitution, which by the way does not state that succession is illegal orr forbidden.  The powers of the Federal government are stated clearly in the Constitution, and any powers not specifically granted to the federal government are the responsibilities of the states.  Slavery did not become an issue until 1863 when the United States President Lincoln freed the slaves in a forgien country to keep France and Britian out of the war.  Odds are they would not have done anything to really help the South's war effort, but it was a good political move on Lincoln's behalf.
137893
My understanding was that the election directly caused the start of secession of states in the South from the union since Lincoln was known for his stand on slavery. The crisis was already at a boiling point by that time already due to non-handling/concessions on slavery of previous administrations.
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.
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.)
1033531
Strangely, there were some Blacks who were against Lincoln for various reasons, but they were in the minority (pun NOT intended).\n\nYou have to remember that Lincoln's original plans for freeing the slaves included sending them all to another country once they were free... he never intended for Black people to remain in the U.S. once they were emancipated.  Obviously, some of the Black people where would have been effected by this policy were against Lincoln's plans.\n\nYou also have to keep in mind that the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery, it was fought over STATE'S RIGHTS... the Emancipation Proclaimation was used by Lincoln in an attempt to scare the southern states back into the union... when it failed... he freed the Slaves.  It's only been the people who have re-written history who have made Slavery the primary reason for that terrible conflict but the historical record says differently.
1116350
Probably the good ol' confedrate states of america because they were a little pissed of aboud losing the slaves and the civil war
510708
Abraham Lincoln, "Second Inaugural Address," 4 March 1865\n\n\nFellow-Countrymen:\n\nAt this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.\n\nOn the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.\n\nOne-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."\n\nWith malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting
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.
133198
He was the president elected by the south during the civil war in 1860.
340780
Hey, I am from the South....and his response was widely known!  It was called The Civil War....the south raised taxes on its goods, ie cotton, tobacco.  Also, he had been misinformed on why the south seceded.
686801
The Civil War wasn't about immigration.
1072065
Good job! Evidently, you've done your homework! \n\nMany aren't aware that the American Civil War was "NOT" about slavery. Nor are many aware that slaves were still being held as private property in the North during that time. Abraham Lincoln owned a slave during the war, and Union General U.S. Grant owned 4. \n\nThe war was, from the Southern standpoint, over States Rights, i.e., a state had authority over the federal government within it's own borders. And also, to defend against an illegal military invasion from the North. \n\nBut it's always the victors in war that write the history, isn't it?
927359
This sounds like a homework question to me. Sorry, I won't help you. I feel you need to read BOTH and you come up with the answer. You need to know these things.\n\nI will tell you this. The North distorted the truth about the Civil War or War between the States.  The war was NOT fought because of slavery. The north had slaves too. They were fighting over textiles, cotton, land, resources it was all economic.
223621
In the 1840s things started heating up between North and South over general states' rights against the rights of the federal government. The issues adressed generally dealt immediatly with slaves. New states admitted to the Union had to be judged as "slave states" (slaves allowed) or "free states" (slavery prohibited). \n\nBoth sides wanted new states to be whichever side they favored because it would give them more legislative power in the US Congress. This led to bloodshed in many areas, particularly in Kansas, which became known as "Bloody Kansas". \n\nIn 1861, South Carolina seceded from the Union (said they werent part of the US any more) and started seizing federal property, including arms and munitions. \n\nOther states started seceding as well. Soon the seceded states formed what they called the "Confederate States of America", which came to be headed by Jefferson Davis as President. They attacked Fort Sumner in South Carolina and seized the fort, capturing it's inhabitants. This was treason.\n\nAbraham Lincoln (President of the US) immediatly called for 75,000 troops to put down the uprising. Then the Civil War started, eventually involving millions of troops. 600,000 men eventually died in the conflict, and the US was shattered for decades after the war. Remember, this war was fought to unite the Union, NOT for slavery. In fact, slavery was only addressed in 1862 when Lincoln set forth the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in the Confederate states. By 1863 there were armed black soldiers in Union armies, serving with distinction. In 1865 the CSA tried to use black troops, but they were destroyed before the plan could be implemented.\n\nIn 1865 the final Confederate forces surrendered (General Johnston was the last to surrender, but with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee the war was pretty much over). Richmond, VA, the Confederate capital, was seized. \n\nLincoln began steps to rebuild and reunite the US. He planned to be kind to the newly reunited South and not punish them for seceding. Before he could start, he was killed by a man named John Wilkes Booth. \n\nThe years following became years of anger and hate for Southerners. The North oppressed and punished Southern insurrection with high taxes and legal oversight. This period became known as Reconstruction, and it really only ended around the 1970s, one century after it started.\n\nHope I helped,\nThe Wise One\n\nP.S. For more information check out http://www.wikipedia.com\nThey are pretty good, but it's better to read books...however that takes more time than I think you want to spend.
763952
Well, one difference is that the U.S. Civil war began over the issue of State's rights.  The federal government wanted more control over what went on in the states and the southern states believed that the Federal government should have limited power (as outlined in the U.S. Constitution).  Although it is often thought of as a war over slavery, the real issue was whether or not the Feds could control the states.\n\nThe "civil war"  (not really offcially declared at this point) in Iraq has to do with groups of people who flat out don't like each other and don't want to live with each other.