How did economics affect the civil war? What was the cause of the civil war?
494139
The Civil War was caused by a disagreement over state's rights. \n\nThe southern states thought that all states should decide taxation, slavery, and other things in the state. The northern states thought that all decisions should be made by the national government. \n\nThe south decided to leave the union, feeling that the centralized government was being given too much power against what the founding fathers had intended. The north decided that they could not secede and break up the union. \n\nThey fought a war, and due to many reasons (the north being more industrialized and richer is just one), the south lost the war.\n\nYes, economics affected the civil war because the north had more resources to call on to support the war effort and more connections with Europe to get support and help blockading the southern ports from them as well.
137893
My understanding was that the election directly caused the start of secession of states in the South from the union since Lincoln was known for his stand on slavery. The crisis was already at a boiling point by that time already due to non-handling/concessions on slavery of previous administrations.
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.
1072065
Good job! Evidently, you've done your homework! \n\nMany aren't aware that the American Civil War was "NOT" about slavery. Nor are many aware that slaves were still being held as private property in the North during that time. Abraham Lincoln owned a slave during the war, and Union General U.S. Grant owned 4. \n\nThe war was, from the Southern standpoint, over States Rights, i.e., a state had authority over the federal government within it's own borders. And also, to defend against an illegal military invasion from the North. \n\nBut it's always the victors in war that write the history, isn't it?
84091
As President Grant said in his memoirs, the South stopped working for compromise when they could no longer command political dominance of the country. Back in the early 1980's, the Commerce Department put out a series of books on the economic history of the United States, which brought up many aspects of early US history that are now forgotten.\n\nAfter the revolution, when the country was a bankrupted swath of states along the Atlantic Ocean, there seemed no way the country could survive economically. Then, the industrialization of the American Northeast was financed in large part by hard currency achieved through the export of cotton and tobacco. These were the only resources the US had in large quantities that had a monopoly throughout the world, and this was of course produced exclusively in the South. The grains produced in the Northeast and later in the Midwest were largely barred from European markets because of the British Corn Laws and other agricultural protective measures across the world.\n\nYou must remember, this was before the advent of sectionalism, and many across the country gave their political loyalty to the Whig Party, which represented Business both large and small. As a result, the South would reap huge profits on cotton (which thus became an industry only for those rich and powerful enough to hold large amounts of land and large numbers of slaves) and then invest those profits in the North to build industry. This also gave the South a certain amount of extra influence in how things were done across the country.\n\nAs the North began to also grow rich because of its expanding industrial base, leaders in the North began to also throw their political and economic weight around. In the 1830's, Northern and Midwestern sections brought about a very protective tariff against foreign manufactured goods and European luxuries (hence the name Sectionalism).\n\nAs we have seen all throughout our history, when a domestic industry is protected by increasing the price of foreign competition, rather than using the protection to increase their market share and long term health, American business will simply increase their prices to maximize their short term profits. This was the case here as well. The leaders in the North, because they needed semi-skilled labor which is not condusive to slavery, started to fund the political movement to abolish slavery which, when gold was discovered in California and people had to travel through Missouri and actually see the way slaves were treated, became an uncontrollably emotional issue. The South found themselves now having to pay higher prices for goods they could not produce themselves, even though they had made those goods possible, and found their peculiar institution which was the basis of their own wealth attacked as being immoral.\n\nThe two sections of the country had found themselves growing farther apart, and the differences were becoming too stark for the Southern leaders to deal with. While they defended African slavery as moral and humanitarian, they lived in mortal fear of becoming slaves themselves. The Whig Party began to unravel, with those in the North going to the Republicans and the South going to the Democrats. With the very idea of slavery being called into question, the South demanded a concession in the Compromise of 1850 that they felt would force the whole country to recognize the institution of slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act. This completely backfired on the South, because now to the people in the North, slavery was no longer just some bad thing that was happening far far away that you could pretend was someone else's problem (like Darfur today). The new law now required Northern communities to arrest and hold captive black people in their local jails with their local police for no other reason than because someone in the South said the black person was a runaway slave (there was no hearing, and no evidence allowed other than the statement of
22917
The union blockaded the south to prevent them from obtaining supplies to carry on the war.  The south had virtually no factories, they were almost all up north.  The blockade strategy was very successful because by wars end the south was unable to not only feed itself but it was unable to arm itself sufficiently to wage war.
1144887
If I remember correctly, wars generally have a positive affect on the stock market.\n\nThink about it-- take public money (yeah, OUR money), spend a boat-load of it on military equipment, supplies and salaries that are provided (more and more now) by private companies.\n\nThey hire people, make more money-- stock price goes up.\n\nthat's the theory anyway.  \n\nmarket is more worried about inflation and oil prices than the war.
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
664572
The immediate cause of the U.S. civil war was the attack on Fort Sumter by South Carolina. This action was all Abraham Lincoln needed in order to call for 75,000 men to help restore the Union.\n\nThe events leading up to the war all surround the institution of slavery. The northern states had abolished slavery, and were becoming more industrialized. The southern states, however, remained dependent on agriculture. Both sides were getting along fine until U.S. territories wanted to become states. The question of whether or not new states should be allowed to join the union as slave or non slave states became a heated debate. The northern states wanted all new states entering the union to be non slave, while the southern states thought they should be able to coose for themselves. \n\nMany people believe that the U.S. Civil War was nothing more than a war over slavery, but this is not true. The war was fought over state's rights. If the federal government could tell a state that it couldn't allow slavery, what else could they take away. The Constitution of the United States puts anything not expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights up to the state's to determine what is best for the state. It was not until 1863, two years into the war, until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Most people believe that this freed all the slaves, but again they are wrong. It only freed the slaves in the states who were fighting against the Union. It did nothing to free the slaves in the border states like Maryland or Missouri.
487798
The battle was also for control of the rich lands in the West. Who would control them, the industrial North or the agrarian South. Further, States' Rights was a huge issue as well. Like most wars, economics was at the root of Civil War.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1016325
The United States had evolved into a nation where different areas were stronger in different economic systems. The U.S. was also competing in the world - usually against the economic strengths of England and France - as it built up its economy. The North was developing from small farms into an industrial area where factories were producing goods to sell to the world. One of the raw materials used was cotton from the South.\nThe South was growing from an agricultural base. Cotton was the most important crop, and cotton was sold both to the North and to the world.\nThe West was growing into an agricultural base with grains and cattle the source of income.\nA tariff is a tax on imported goods. A low tariff is used to raise money for the government. It just skims a little of the price from an import, and the loss is made up by adding a bit to the sale price. The customer doesn't like this but buys it anyway. \nA high tariff adds much more to the price of an import, perhaps doubling the price. It is used to stop the import of a good, because the customer will not pay that much.\nThe North favored a high tariff against the import of textiles so that its textile producers could sell their goods. It was aimed at European textile manufacturers. But those manufacturers bought a lot of cotton from the South. So, the South was against the high tariff. \nThe West did not particularly like the high tariff because the goods from Northern manufacturers cost more than the goods from European manufactures. \nThe politics encouraged the South to move more people into the West so more states would be on the side of the South in the government and could defeat high tariff laws when they were proposed by a Northern state. \nThis economic and political situation was the fundamental cause of the Civil War.