Was the Civil War and 20th Century Wars a turning point for growth of civil rights??
358673
The civil War and the wars of the twentieth century are definetly turning points in the growth of civil rights. For example the end of the civil war along with the 13TH amendment bring cahanges in America. During reconstruction blacks are protected by the Freedmens Bureau which helps them out toget their voting rights. During reconstruction thanks to this bureau and both carpetbaggers and scalawags the 14th and 15th amendments are passed which define citizenship and male suffrage.With the hayes-tilden election comes the crime of 77 which allows the KKK to take power in the south but not for long because president Grant enforces  a force bill which ends the klan, but not forever. Then in ww2 there were many riots because blacks weren't allowed to be mixed with whites. This created the civil rights movement with all kinds of awr taking place like the korean and vietnam. Sit ins and freedom riders would help the movement.
902113
Absolutely and inequitably yes.  History continues to prove this, even when were were less people on the earth; the more people, the more demand for land, resources, power, etc.  There will always be war, unless we had one all powerful world dictatorship type of government, and even then civil wars would inevitably break out to reinstate liberties and freedoms suppressed by the Glorious Leader of the one government, and one subscribed way of thinking.
18891
As I recall, when I was a kid (I'm 31 now) we had a civil defense plan in place but it was in the event of a nuclear war. Now that the threat of nuclear war has significantly diminished, I'm guessing the need for Civil Defense faded as well.
916326
The US civil war was about states' rights and how the federal government trampled all over them.  The slavery issue was added by the Union to keep the British out of the war because they sided with the South.
116165
Since the closing of the 20th Century, the 1920s has drawn close associations with the 1990s,especially in the United States. This due to the fact both decades were considered very economically prosperous times, and a prosperity which lasted throughout almost the entire decade following a tremendous event at the closing of the previous decade (World War I and Spanish flu in the late 1910s, and the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s). In the United States, this decade was known as the Roaring Twenties.\n\nDespite the comparisons, however, there were a number of differences. First of all, Weimar Republic Germany, like many other European countries, had to face a severe economic downturn in the opening years of the decade, due to the enormous debt caused by the war as well as the one-sided Treaty of Versailles. Such a crisis would culminate with a devaluation of the Mark in 1923, eventually leading to economic prosperity during the remainder of the period.\n\nSecond, the decade was characterized by the rise of radical political movements, especially in regions that were once part of empires. Communism began attracting large numbers of followers following the success of the October Revolution and the Bolsheviks' determination to win the subsequent Russian Civil War. The Bolsheviks would eventually adopt semi-capitalist policies-- New Economic Policy-- from 1921 to 1928. The 1920s also experienced the rise of the far-right in Europe and elsewhere, starting with Fascism in Italy, and were perceived by some in the Western world as an antidote to Communism.
145971
The impact of the 1966 Chicago Freedom Movement on the decade’s civil rights struggles was as significant as any other campaign of that era. By bringing the freedom struggle to Chicago, where the Democratic Party machine was closely linked to the national party and the White House of President Lyndon Johnson, the movement raised the bar and gave the struggle for equality a national focus.\n\nIt was a time when thousands were on the move. Calling for an end to Jim Crow in public accommodations, they boycotted the city bus system in Montgomery, Alabama. They sat in at lunch counters across the South, demanding service.\n\nNational guardsmen and federal troops were protecting children who were breaking down the walls of segregated schools. Black and white teams of youth had gone south to challenge poll taxes and organize voter registration drives. “Whites Only” signs were being torn down.\n\nPeople from all walks of life were getting involved in the struggle to eliminate the legacies of slavery. Although the struggle took on many forms and covered diverse areas of the South, it came to be called simply the “movement.” To say someone or some organization was “part of the movement” was to say it all.\n\nMade up of many diverse groups, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), founded by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy in the mid-1950s, sparked the imagination of civil rights supporters everywhere.\n\nAs its prestige grew far beyond its numbers, the SCLC and its leaders became the spark plug that ignited mass protests across the South, bringing the demands of the movement to the attention of the nation as scenes of snarling police dogs flashed on screens television.\n\nKing and Abernathy decided to bring the movement “up south” and the search for a place to begin brought them to Chicago. There they found the ingredients they were seeking: a substantial base of support among both white and Black ministers, a base of Black and white activists, steeled in struggles against racist hiring practices, police brutality and racial discrimination in housing and education.\n\nAs important as any other consideration, the struggle for equality enjoyed the support of important sections of organized labor – Region 4 of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the Packinghouse Union, both led by African Americans.\n\nIn addition, many individual leaders and rank-and-file activists had long been associated with the civil rights movement. SCLC planners noted that Walter Reuther, the UAW president, walked arm in arm with King at the 1963 March on Washington. King and other SCLC leaders saw these as the essential elements of a successful campaign.\n\nThus was born the Chicago Freedom Movement (CFM), with King and Al Raby, a leader of Chicago’s Coordinating Committee of Community Organizations (CCCO), its co-chairs. CFM activities and policies were determined by an committee made up of representatives of the city’s diverse civil rights organizations.\n\nSCLC dispatched field staff to help lay the groundwork. In the spring of 1966, King, his wife and their children moved into an apartment on the west side of Chicago and the campaign of the summer of 1966, with its demand to end slums, began in earnest.\n\nRichard J. Daley, Chicago’s “shoot -to-kill” mayor, made known his displeasure that “outside troublemakers” were coming to “his” city and told all who would listen there were no slums in Chicago. He also declared that he would not meet with King, thus drawing a line in the sand.\n\nFor those who were to lead the summer campaign, these statements were ominous. The nation and the world were to soon learn what they already knew – that the likes of “Bull” Connor, Lester Maddox and George Wallace had their counterparts in the Richard J. Daleys of Chicago and other northern cities.\n\nDuring the summer of 1966 the movement staged a number of marches in white communities protesting housi
745029
The U.S. Civil War was the eventual impact of States Rights on the North and South.\n\nThe South claimed that slavery was a State rights issue, although the war was more about States rights than slavery.  The South seceded due to State rights.
382206
They felt that the North was oppressing their point of veiw and not allowing them to keep slavery leagal. The Congress was practiaclly deadlocked for about 20 years before the civil war and nothing ever got done. When Lincoln got elected on the promise of freeing the slaves the South knew the tables had turned government wise and decided to fight it out.
324316
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
422526
1. World War II\n2. Civil Rights\n3. Technological Revolution
46052
It was well with in their rights to leave, the North kept making the South feel more isolated with the Missouri Comprimise.  It just came to the point that the States believed that they didn't have a choice.  \n\nWould I have voted for succession then no, but what I know about how strong the National Government became after the Civil War, a person has got to wonder what would have happened if the South would have won\n\nMost historians disaggree that slavery was the cause of the war.  Especially if you factor in that the underground railroad had to go all the way up to Canada (If the North really cared about slavery it would have ended at the Mason-Dixon Line) and the Draft riots in New York.\n\nThe Civil War never became about slavery until the Emansipation Prclamation.
1024817
More differences between people in the North and The South. Formation of KKK. Decrease in racism and the end of slavery. It caused an increase in U.S. Pride and power.
1053842
Tough question....\nMuch of Europe, particularly in the north, was growing rapidly though industrialization.  This was an era of urbanization and more overland trade, as the railroads allowed for transport across the country, rather than just coastal towns shipping oversea.\nGermany was brought together for the first time as a unified entity, rather than just a collection of disparate principalities, setting the stage for big conflict in the 20th Century.\nIn southern and eastern Europe, the Ottoman Empire was in great decline, as was the Austro-Hungarian.  Both were supplanted by the growing influence and wealth of the English and French colonial empires, with resources from abrouad fueling finance and manufacturing at home.
439686
The main one I can think of is industrialization. Following the Civil War, we witnessed the birth of corporate America and the making of Getty and Rockefeller. Fortunes were made in Oil and Steel.
120566
There are so many. The signing of the Constitution of course, but if the Union hadn't won the Civil War, things would definitely be different. Those are the ones I thought of right away.
394888
The Ameroica Civil war was about state rights
499589
An American historian, discussing why southern histories of the Civil War emphasize 'the Lost Cause' rather than slavery in their writing, said that the only thing worse than losing a war is losing a war that was fought for a bad cause. If you lose a war to defend slavery, or to defend overbearing corporate interests as the Japanese did in invading China and then creating the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, then you have to change the story. Because the United States and the Japanese governments have gone to such great lengths to recreate the sort of economic structure in Japan that existed before WWII, in order for it to be legitimate the story must be changed to show the war was actually started for good reasons.\n\nFor another example, just look at our History Channel and the portrayal of the Vietnam War. I have always said that the men and women who fought in Vietnam have gotten a raw deal and I am glad that the focus is now changing, but the History Channel is becoming ridiculous. The focus is now on only those engagements that the US won and completely ignoring the reasons why American support began to decline, which is complete disinformation to make people believe that protesters were actively collaborating with the Communists to hurt America, with absolutely no legitimate grounds for protesting anything. In another five years, the way things are going, we will start to believe we actually won the Vietnam War.\n\nWhat the Japanese government is doing is certainly outrageous, but it is sadly not unique.