why were white southerners willing to wreck the union their grandfathes had puttogther withsomuch love&labor?
458316
Because they were divided on the issue of slavery and believed in their cause.  It was sad when brother fought against brother in the war, but it happened.
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.
599746
you can say that southern economy depends on slaves. and without the south's raw goods, the north is nowhere. for example, the cotton from the south was used in factories in the north to make clothes, etc \nand you can be a real pig by saying they are lower than white ppl and blah blah blah all that silly stuff the southerners thought
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.
123499
The reasons for this "Great Migration," as it came to be called, are complex. Thousands of African-Americans left the South to escape sharecropping, worsening economic conditions, and the lynch mob. They sought higher wages, better homes, and political rights
464243
The Confederacy---most believe believe they stood for slavery, when in fact the common soldiers could  not even afford to own slaves, only the rich Southerners. They would not be willing to die for something they'd never even be able to have.  The everyday commoners fought for state's rights, which  is a better form of government in my opinion than a strong federal government because it is more localized and small scale.  Think about it....people in rural South Carolina have, on average, totally different beliefs and ways of life than people in Los Angeles or NYC.  We would've been much better off.
386096
because we southerners believe we where right ( at least some still do)..as for the term Yankee, it is used for anyone from the north, so don't feel insulted, they are just still alittle sensitive about the north winning..........the only part of the south i thought was really wrong was slavery !!! no man should own another............
948995
Many of the upper class Northerners abhored it, particularly the Religious ones.  They viewed it as being something too common, something that the ignorant southerners did.  Many of the lower classes felt the same way as many of them were either former slaves or friends of former slaves.  The exception to this being of course the northerners who lost jobs to the free blacks who were up there.  The south's opinions varied wildly from the norths. Upper class southerners relied on slaves in order to keep their plantations going.  Without slaves their agricultural society would fail.  The middle classes also relied some on slaves but would typically only have one or two to help with the fields and none in the house.  THe lower classes typically did not own slaves and some were for it and some against it.\n\nTo me what is facinating is the views of it in the boarderlands, like Kentucky.  Kentucky did not succeed from the union but was allowed to keep it's slaves.  This proves that the war was not just about equality for the blacks in the views of the Northern law makers but more about control.
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
528943
When the Native Americans were here in the land we now call United States they did not "own" the land, they shared it. But the "white man" came to steal their land with lies and promises and all hell broke loose. \n\nGREED is the word!
313435
Actually, Abolitionism was a major political force before the Civil War, primarily in the North but some in the South (where it was extremely dangerous because of lynching, etc). And, slave labor in the South was not free, there were huge costs entailed in housing and disciplining the slaves. There was also the huge moral and psychological cost of keeping slaves, as there is always at least some implied violence in the Peculiar Institution. In fact, because at the founding of the country there were so many people in the South who unilaterally freed their slaves, most Southern states placed huge financial disincentives against emancipation.\n\nAnyways, to finally get to the question at hand. Abolitionism got most of its support because it advocated the emancipation of slaves because of religious and moral reasons, and as such they tried to take the moral high ground from the Southern slave holders. People in the South tended to believe the propaganda that blacks could not take care of themselves, could not live in society, and would never be amenable to Christianity if not forced to live as slaves. This attitude from the Abolitionists to portray slavery as an indefensible and amoral evil practice made many people on both sides of the debate feel there was no room for argument. The radical fringe of Abolitionists also wanted to end the idea of governmental emancipation with federal compensation to owners and colonization of the freed slaves either to Haiti (with disastrous results) and Liberia (not much better). With absolutely no common ground from which to seek compromise, the two sides grew farther and farther apart until conflict was almost inevitable. In fact, when the Southern states were discussing secession, the congressional delegations from several Northern states suggested that a compromise could be reached if the Southern states would agree to even a rudimentary hearing to determine if black people seized as Runaway Slaves under the federal act were actually slaves at all, but because of the hard feelings the suggestion that a Southern gentleman could actually be mistaken about who was and was not a slave simply made the Southerners even more angry.\n\nMany people, myself included, see a corollary between Abolitionism and the tactics of the Pro-Life movement, who portray all abortions as indefensible murders of innocent children, thus allowing no meaningful debate on the issue at all.
639041
Southern states there is inbreeding which makes for mental defect, we in the north are working, honest people that know that the Repuglicans are no more moral or upright then the democrats, but the repuglicans favor big business in every legislation, the tax cut for the very rich being an example. The democrats tend to want to help the poor and middle class. Like raising the minimum wages and such.
851254
It is simple, the democratic party did it. They all were into cotton plantations with much to gain. If labor was lost then their profits would fall. So there you have the story, contraries to history that is written.
580764
a) A larger army \n\nBecause the people in the South were united to defend their land from an invader. They didnt attack they just defended.
1116350
Probably the good ol' confedrate states of america because they were a little pissed of aboud losing the slaves and the civil war
884988
Thinking like that is the reason we are losing, you have to understand your enemy.  It is also the reason why we could never win the war.  They think their death gets them into Heaven so they are glad to die, we would have to kill EVERY Muslin in the world for us to win.  Their actions you claim are crazy are going to be what wins them the war.  Their children and grand children can quote what happened during each Crusade can you name us anything about the Civil War? As to your questions as for what do you remember 9/11??  Because there is a war going on and they know that through sacrifice they will win and again our youth are too busy on MTV exactly why they do not want Western influences.  Too bad!   God Bless The Southern People.
481179
Actually, Lincoln said while he felt whites were superior to blacks (this sounds awful now, but remember that even as late as Harry Truman this was considered a legitimate statement), this did not give any justification for blacks to be slaves to whites. He said there was no justification to keep a black man from enjoying the fruits of his own labor. Further, he felt that black slavery was a burden that stifled free labor, which led into one of his more famous sayings was that "A house divided cannot long stand," meaning that the two separate systems could not be at peace because slave labor was a constant threat to free labor, just as we are seeing today when jobs that used to be done by Americans are now being done by Chinese political prisoners, or how employers here are luring illegal workers because they will then be at the mercy of whatever the employer wants to pay.\n\nAt his inauguration, Lincoln had said that he wanted the end of slavery, but that he wanted to preserve the Union even more. "If I could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves, I would. If I could save the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that."\n\nThe Emancipation was certainly a generous act, and took a great deal of courage, but it was also politically calculated. He had intended to issue it for a while, but waited for a fairly successful battle (Antietam) to announce it. Because of the growing intolerance of slavery in Europe, emancipation combined with a federal victory would make it impractical for England or France to lend material assistance to the Confederate cause.