WHy did President Lincoln react as he did to the secession? What was so bad about a north and a south?
372052
That's a huge question.  You should do some research on causes of the Civil War - there are plenty of children's, students', and young adult books concerning the topic.\n\nTrying to be brief here... The Lincoln/Northern view was that the United States is a union first and a confederation second - in other words, once you're in the Union, you can't back out, otherwise the very strength of the Union, of the United States, is undermined.  If Lincoln had just said, "Oh, heck with it!  Good luck to you Southern states!", it would have made it difficult if not impossible to keep any other state from seceding for any reason whatsoever.  Lincoln and the North pressed the war in order to preserve the Union and establish the supremacy of nationhood over statehood.\n\nBesides, historians and economists in years since have speculated that, in time, the South and North would probably have reunited in some way anyway, as both regions would have had a mutual interest.
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.
325920
Well, it definately didnt work...if it did, we wouldnt have had a Civil War in 1861.  It attempted to keep Slavery restricted to the South(32 30 lat., Now the Missouri Kansas border) Anything Kansas and above were free states and everythign below were slave states.It ultimately failed because of the Dred Scott decision which said that slaves were property adn not people, so they could not be freed(case originated in Indiana) and declaring the Compromise of 1820 unconstituional. The South also wanted to expand, due to the new territory gained from the Mexican war in 1848.  With the new territories in, once granted statehood would jeopardize the South's representation in the government adn started to complain again. This lead to another compromise in 1850 which also failed because of an abused concept of Popular Sovereignty.\n\nPopular Sovereignty was the idea that the state would choose wheether it would allow Slavery or not.  The states in question at the time were Kansas and Nebraska. Nebraska was mainly populated by Northerners and less Southerners since the climate waspoor for farming their stales.  But Kansas presented a problem.  Citizens in Neighboring Missouri fled to Kansas and claimed to be citizens in that State so that they could vote in Slavery.  THis also caused violence known as Bleeding Kansas.  Although the majority of the population in Kansas were Northern anti slvery people, because of all the illegal voting from people from Missouri allowed an illeagl constitution and the sitting President, James BUchanan failed to act.  By 1860, tensions were high, a person who threattened the Southern way of life was elected into office adn S. Carolina Seceeded...and the forst shotw were fired the following April.
218572
This is going to be just a quick summary...\nFor the most part, it was not all about slavery. The states North of the Mason-Dixon line were content with slavery in the South...the problem was the "Westward Expansion." The North wanted the new states to be free from slavery, whereas the South wanted those states to be open to slavery. There were a few compromises made years before the actual war began, however, those obviously did not work. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina announced it's leave from the Union...Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed. \nOn February 4th, 1861, the Confederate States of America was formed with Jefferson Davis as the president. A new constitution was drawn up. Key differences were:\n*The president and vice president were elected for six year terms whereas the North had only four years. \n*The protection of slavery in new territories was given. \n*No slave trade with Africa\n*President Davis could take a loan for $15 million for the creation of a military force of 100,000. \nPresident Davis was inaugurated February 18, 1861. \n\nPresident Lincoln for the Union said, "Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face and face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after seperation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old quesetions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it..." (Page 8)\nThe first shots of the Civil War were fired on April 12th, 1861 at Ft. Sumter, South Carolina. The fight lasted for thirty-four hours, and ended by the North surrendering. The war continued until April of 1865. \nAfter it was all said and done, most of the South was destroyed and the loss of lives on both ends, are up to this day, only an estimate (over 100,000). It is said, the number of Yanks and Rebels who died are greater than the loss of American lives in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietiman War...all combined.\n\nI hope this has been helpful to you. Here are some other books to check out if you are really interested in the Civil War:\n-"After the Civil War" by John S. Blay\n-"The Life of Johnny Reb" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"The Life of Billy Yank" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"Embattled Courage" by Gerald F. Linderman\n-"The Civil War: Strange & Fascinating Facts" by Burke Davis
1142555
Lack of strong military leaders.  Lincoln did not have military experience, most of the strong military schools were in the south, and military leaders from the South were more loyal to their home states than the Union Federal Government.  General Lee was a prime example.  He was asked by Lincoln to lead the Union army but turned it down to stay loyal to Virginia.\n\nThey also had to fight an offensive war, while the south could fight a war of attrition or a defensive war.  If there was no fighting going on then the south was winning, as it was the Union's duty to fight and try to bring the south back.  If they don't do anything that isn't happening.
364677
during the civil war many of the stated split into two.  Half of the state joined the Union, and the other half the Confederacy.
646952
Some historians have said that the Southern states missed their best chance to win their independence by not seceding in 1850, when the North was less prepared to deal with a crisis of that magnitude.  By waiting until 1861 to try to leave the Union, the Southern states gave the North too much time to grow stronger, and their defeat was almost inevitable.
965457
Nothing.  We won't see until years later how good he was.  Abraham Lincoln was considered a bad president doing his time.  Now we love him.  The fact that people don't like him is they listen to the liberal news and the walk around repeating what the news told them, so they think they sound smart.  If these people were to research a little on their own, they would see what the President is doing is good.  Just take a look at this post, how many say bad things about the president.  Some don't even give reasons, the just use lame excuses and say bad things about the President of the United States.
186416
Much like G.W. Bush, Lincoln's election was a bit of a controversy. The South had in the past benefited from political division in the North but in this election the Democratic party (not the exact same as today's, but relatively similar) was split and thus Southern votes were split. Lincoln, a Republican (again, not the same as modern Republicans, but relatively similar), won because his opposition was not unified.
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.
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.
637173
A group of people living by our modern laws and morality might have been able to avoid the American Civil War.  I'm not sure that the people of the day could have come up with a solution.  The South wanted to secede because what the federal government was doing was going to destroy their economy.  It did, but a successful secession would have destroyed both economies.
773054
?  If you mean the Battle of Gettysburg it was because Gen. Lee under the direction of Southern President Jefferson Davis needed a victory in the North to try and persuade the people in the North to pressure President Lincoln to sue for peace with the south. It would also have given European countries better reason for dealing arms to the Southern States.\n\nIf you mean what caused the Civil War or war "Between the States" it was due to several issues. Most of the Southerners were in it for what they considered to be States Rights. However many wealthy officers in that war were fighting for the right to keep slavery alive. They made huge profits for buying and selling slaves. They also had many cotton and sugar plantations where they worked the slaves that they owned. But slavery was only one of the issues.
1109324
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.
513258
Lincoln took office in March of 1861. Back then , the new President took office in March of the year following the elections. Now it's January. \n  But even before he took office, South Carolina called a convention and delegates voted to secede from the Union. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed. Then eventually also Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.\n  At a convention of the CSA the next month, they elected Jefferson Davis their President and went on to establish a loose confederation of states. Notably, they added to their laws that Slavery would be legal in all of these States.
429703
It was one of the contributory causes. The North wanted to weaken the institution while the South wanted to preserve it. The South believed that President Lincoln intended to end it contributing to secession. \n\nLincoln initially declared his purpose to be the preservation of the Union, not emancipation. He had no wish to alienate the thousands of slaveholders in the Union border states, some of whom stayed loyal. The long war radicalised the Governments policy. With the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and put into effect four months later, Lincoln adopted the abolition of the Slave Power as a second mission—that is slaves owned by rebels had to be taken away from them and freed.
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