why was the civil war important to realism?
482397
How much more real could it be?
660227
The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery, politics, disagreements over the scope of States' rights, Manifest Destiny, sectionalism, economic competition, modernization, and competing nationalisms of the Antebellum period. Although there is little disagreement among historians on the details of the events that led to war, there is disagreement on exactly what caused what and the relative importance. There is no consensus on whether the war could have been avoided, or if it should have been avoided.
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
218356
Yes it was a justified war.  There were two incompatible ways of life fighting for control of the Nation.  The non-slave states were resentful of southerners disproportionate control of government and constant push to enforce slave-holding rights in the North. Although the concept of freeing southern slaves was not considered  until the war was begun, the northern peoples vehemence in the belief that there should be no expansion of slavery was very much a cause of the war.\n\n The South believed it had a superior economy and culture and feared that the Northern states would damage or destroy that life.\nThe Nation became Industrialized and Free of Slavery.\n\nIt also cemented the concept that the UNITED STATES was a single entity, and not a collection of States.
1165344
The South had fewer advantages, but it held several that would pose great threats to attempts by their Northern neighbors to end the rebellion. The South was able to fight on its home terrain, and it could win the war simply by continuing to exist after the hostilities ended later. The South also had a military tradition that encouraged young men to serve in the armed forces or attend a military school; many had served the U.S. military prior to the Civil War, only to resign and fight for their states and family. In addition, the South had the leadership of great commanders, including Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, and "Stonewall" Jackson.
133223
Slavery had little to do with the Civil War. The prime issue was balance of power between Federal and State. Slavery happened to be the issue that fell along this divide. Could also throw in north-south economic disparacy.
485183
Iraq is in a civil war.  The United States does not need to declare it for it to be true.
20036
I think I understand your question.  To engage in a civil war, it would take the participation of an enemy to the "conservatives" (e.g., the "liberals").  Fundamentalist right-wing ed conservative radicals are paid no more attention by educated liberals than the grasshoppers jumping from weed to weed in the sunny summertime, so the civil war isn't likely to transpire.
256054
This is not an apples and apples discussion.\n\n1.  Posterity always allows us to view history through rose colored glasses.  War is great in the past, horrible in the present is how we ususally think.\n\n2.  The Civil War was not about slavery.  It was about keeping the Union together.  We did not start the war to end slavery, rather the Emancipation Proclamation was a means to end the war more quickly.  It was a fine byproduct of the war, but not the justification for war at all (on either side)\n\n3.  Invading another independent country is trickier business.  In general, countries have the right to run their country how they see fit.  Iraq is not unique in its genocide or human rights problems.\n\nGiven your mentality, there would be many, many "just" wars ahead of us.
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.
1039999
I loved learning about the civil war, i was born in Atlanta and it is still to this day a big part of heritage in the south.  I think its great for ppl to learn to because most ppl believe that the whole war was based on slavery and that is totally not true it was just a minor detail.
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.
516813
Political problems of today can seem somewhat similar to the days prior to the civil war because they are similar issues (we're not talking race here either).  The Civil War was fought over states rights -and the more the federal government wanted to take over or make mandates that the states had to follow, then the more states rebelled - the same thing is happening today.  The federal goverernment is dictating and that is hindering the  states rights which are guaranteed in the constitution.  So the Civil War's legacy is not the cause of the problems today, but the problems today are very similar in nature.  Good observation of your  part.
931964
It led to the end of the Civil War by forcing the industrial might of the north to be aligned against the seccessionists.  It was the provocation needed to bring the south back into the union fold.  Without Sumter, the seccession would've continued for a longer period than the four or five years that it did.\n\nYah, i get the 10 points, everyone else commented how it started the war, and not how it led to the end of the war.
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.
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.
358974
Because the Victors (in the this case the Northern States) write the history books.  To that add another 146 years of revisioinist history ~ and the orgins etc get lost, to all but the true history buffs.\n\nBy definition it was NOT a civil war, for it to be a civil war, you would have to have one group trying to gain control of the government/nation from the other.  That is not what the South was attempting to do.  They did NOT want to seize control of the United States Government ~ they wanted to leave it ~ that is to say ~ succeed ~ and form a nation and a governmetn of their own.  \n\nAnoter mis-conception about the War Between The States is that it was fought over slawvery.  It wasn't.  It was fought over different opinoins about the Constitution and the interpetation of the same.  Its was fought over the same arguments that preceeded the actual war by decades, almost back to the foundation of the United States ~ which can be studied in the "Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers"  \n\nIf it had been at the time publically stated on either side, North or South, that the war was being fought over slavery, the average solider in the field on both sides would not have fought, this is evidenced in what historians refer to as "orginal documents" mainly lettters and such that were written by soliders on both sides of the conflict.  \n\nWhat the Northern solider was fighting for was to perserve the Union as it had exsisted prior to the succession of the Southern States, ~ they could care less about the slaves.  What the Southern solider was fighting for was to protect his "country" (The Confederate States of America) his home and family against a "foreign" invasion from another country.  They to, didn't care about the slaves ~ as you're average, typical Southerner didn't own slaves.  A very small percentage of the Southern population even owned a slave, with only about 1/10th of the Southern population owning 50 or more.\n\nWhat is left out of today's modern history books about the so-called "civil war" is that there were more than just a few "freed" Southern blacks, that owned other black slaves. And, they were not relatives ~ they were slaves, and were treated as slaves, and worked as slaves.  This is documented historial fact.