What were the problems the north had before the civvil war?
412284
The North had military organizational issues. The Union Army could never really understand what it meant to fight as one unit. That is why the North went through several different Generals (supreme command of the army of the potomic). Another major problem was their assumption that the war was going to last a couple of months. After the Battle of Bull Run, the Union army finally realized they were in for a long war.
866921
The North's general attitude toward the South, from the tariff of abominations and and other laws designed to keep the south's markets isolated.   Slavery was only thrown into the mix to gain public support.  It was not the main issue.  It was the North with its industry trying to force the South to knuckle under to its demands.
198378
The importing of slaves was outlawed before the Civil War. Slaves were "home grown" by breeding slaves in the US.
619809
1) the North had a bigger population = more soldiers\n2) the North had more factories to make stuff in\n3) the North had more railroads = transportation\n4) the North had more money to spend on the war
396093
Check out this site: http://dehai.org/conflict/
937805
LET THEM SORT IT OUT..\n\nAMERICA HAD A CIVIL WAR..\n\nMANY COUNTRIES HAVE...\n\nTHEIR RELIGION-THEIR PEOPLE-LET THEM SETTLE ALLAH AND SUCH.
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.
281835
try "The Great War For Civilisation" by Robert Fisk.  You will need to go back further than 20 years too as the current problems are rooted in the decisions made after the first and second world wars.  This book covers other countries in the Middle East too.
327963
right from the factbook, learn a bit about politics and national stuff.\n\nfor the north\nhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html\n\nfor the south\nhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ks.html\n\nGood Lucky with your research.
665454
the only way you can prove it convincingly is by giving a lot of examples from the history.\n\ntalk about the fact that even the most advanced civilizations were destroyed as a result of conflict.\n\nconflict has never proved beneficial for human society.  it has only resulted in misery and suffering.
319865
which civil war?  north or south of what?
801385
Sounds like homework... \nProbably should do some of you own thinking here... but here are a few ideas to get started with...\n(a) What sort of state were the former Confiderate states in? Had they used their manpower and economic resources to better economies or to fight the war?  What was their infrastructure like? Were there roads, towns, etc. left after Sherman's March to the Sea?  \n(b) What was the South's economic system like? With slaves freed, how was the economy (which required lots of manual labor on large plantations) going to function?  How were the white and black citizens in the south going to live together / work together after one class of people were literally property?\n\n(2) You might find starting information on Johnson's reconstruction plans here:\n(This is wikipedia, so you need better sources, but it's a start)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction
432314
Poverty is the main problem. What follows is lack of education, utilities, medical care, food and all the other things we take for granted. It also opens the company up to dictators who, with a little money and power, can control the weakened population and keep them surpressed.\n\nThe Asian countries are great examples but Africa, Russia , Mexicon and Cuba also are models of what can happen when there are long histories of poverty and surpression. We have so much to protect and be thankful for in America.
861451
Politics control an area. Everything such as slavery, King Cotton, and the lack of industrialization in sourth influnced politics which in turn influenced the relationships. The north and south had become very different areas. If a new tariff or law that helped one area, always hurt the other area. All these were decided in Congress, especially the slave laws.
427737
How who thought to solve problems during which conflicts?
1128896
Southern Advantages (Northern Disadvantages)\n\nFighting a Defensive War\n\n    * To stand on the defensive meant that the North had to invade and carry the fight to the South. This allowed the South to prepare and receive the enemy, although Lee was not a passive man by any standards. \n\n    * The South did not have many advantages, but just like in the American Revolution, it's very difficult to conquer an area. Essentially the South only had to muster the will to keep fighting until the North felt like quitting. That didn't happen, but theoretically it could have. \n\n    * When Southerners said that they merely wanted to secede from the Union they gave themselves a military advantage. Thus the North had to attack. \n\n    * The geography of the South favored the defender over the attacker. In particular, most of the rivers in the South run east to west. Thus as Union forces attempted to move south they had to cross all the rivers and the Confederates could defend them. Also, the fact that the Cenfederacy was simply defending itself meant that the Northern forces had to invade and occupy virtually the entire South before they could claim victory. That was a monumental task. \n\nFighting Spirit\n\n    * The South had soldiers who were devoutly dedicated to preserving the Southland. \n\n    * The South were the ones who started this war, they want to finish it. They were the ones with a motive. The North just wants to put the country back together. \n\n    * The North included "border" states like Maryland which had large populations of Southern sympathizers. The North constantly had to fight to keep up popular support for the war. \n\n    * Motivation. The South was fighting to preserve their homes from an intruder. The North on the other hand was fighting to preserve the union. To abolish slavery was added later, and this was cold comfort to most Northerners who had never seen a slave before. \n\n    * The Southern population, at least the white population, were more united than that of the North. In the North there was always a substantial political sentiment, based on various reasons, for not fighting the war and letting the South go in peace. \n\n    * The North was the invader. When troops approached the end of their volunteer enlistment, they wanted to go home. The Southern troops were fighting for their style of life, so they hung in there. \n\nFighting on Their Own Soil\n\n    * They were fighting on mostly native territory, thus they were more familiar with the ground. \n\n    * The theater of war was primarily in the South which was its home territory. Obviously the theater of war was well known to the South. The North was in enemy territory and was unfamiliar with the terrain. \n\n    * Since the Southerners were defending their own soil they were intimately familiar with the territory while the Northerners had to rely on maps. \n\nMilitary Leadership\n\n    * The majority of the best leaders were Southern born. When the South left the Union, these soldiers went with their home states. \n\n    * Military leadership of the South consisted of many Mexican War veterans. The North had some experienced officers. However the North's leadership was inferior to the South. \n\n    * Throughout the Civil War, Lincoln was trying to find generals that could win. Many say Grant was the only good general the North had. \n\n    * Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, Forest, Stuart, the list could continue. The South was blessed with officers who knew how to fight and make the best of bad situations. \n\n    * A big portion of the Union's finer officers were from the South, and were more loyal to their home states when faced with the choice. Robert E. Lee is of course the most notable example, and would have been the first choice to command the Army of the Potomac if he had remained in the Union army. \n\nMilitary Aptitude\n\n    * The average Southerner had at some point in his life hunted for food. Thi
39311
Several things including Indian Removal, The Nullification crisis and introducing the "spoils system"\n\nFor more information, view the link below.