what was one cause for the civil war besides slavery and preserving the union?
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.
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.
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.
823748
maybe because the rebels declared war on the united states???   the civil war was one of the most important and awesome victories the UNITED STATES has ever had.... just think if the confedarcy had won....we would all be stupid bubbas watching nascar and bangin our sisters
728922
Civil War\nFreeing of the Slaves\nAssassination\nFirst telegraph ever sent\nFirst man from Illinois ever to be elected president
138565
The American Civil War?\n\nThe North and The South.\n\nI believe Kentucky and Mizzou were neutral.  I also think California was in the south (not sure).\n\nEDIT:\n\nThe American Civil war was NOT fought because the south wanted slavery and the North did not.  The American Civil War was fought because the South believed they were not getting a fair shake and decided to break away from the union.  Lincoln said that was illegal and we fought a war to keep our nation whole.\n\nAbolishing slavery was a really great side effect of the war.  BTW, the Emancipation Proclomation did not free all slaves.  It only freed the slaves in states rebelling against the North.  Therefore the slave states that did not secede and fight in the CSA still had legal slavery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
542857
Two sides with guns\n\nthe two were the North and the South\n\nThe two were at war in what was called the Civil War\nor\nThe War of Norhern Agression\ndepending on where you live...\n\nGeneral concensus says that the reason for the war was the issue of slavery,\nOr\nStates Rights depending on where you live.
669133
The union could not make people act certain ways to the African American population. It would have cost to much of the governments money to order troops to be stationed in every city in the CSA (Confederate States of America) to insure the equality of African Americans. Also on the other hand the US government tried to hard to give them equality such as giving African Americans land that was taken from former slave owners. This made the former slave owners mad because their land was being taken by force so that didn't help relations. In addition African Americans were us to working a farm no managing it making most of the African Americans to lose their farms due to bankruptcy and move out of the south.
555088
The Civil War was caused by a myriad of conflicting pressures, principles, and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences and pride, and set into motion by a most unlikely set of political events.\n\nAt the root of all of the problems was the institution of slavery, which had been introduced into North America in early colonial times. The American Revolution had been fought to validate the idea that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal in all of the thirteen colonies throughout the revolutionary period. Although it was largely gone from the northern states by 1787, it was still enshrined in the new Constitution of the United States, not only at the behest of the Southern ones, but also with the approval of many of the Northern delegates who saw that there was still much money to be made in the slave trade by the Yankee shipping industry. Eventually its existence came to color every aspect of American life.\n\nAt the Constitutional Convention there were arguments over slavery. Representatives of the Northern states claimed that if the Southern slaves were mere property, then they should not be counted toward voting representation in Congress. Southerners, placed in the difficult position of trying to argue, at least in this case, that the slaves were human beings, eventually came to accept the three-fifths compromise, by which five slaves counted as three free men toward that representation. By the end of the convention the institution of slavery itself, though never specifically mentioned, was well protected within the body of the Constitution.\n\nIt seemed to Thomas Jefferson and many others that slavery was on its way out, doomed to die a natural death. It was becoming increasingly expensive to keep slaves in the agrarian society of the south. Northern and Southern members of Congress voted together to abolish the importation of slaves from overseas in 1808, but the domestic slave trade continued to flourish. The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.\n\nBut even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice. Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, “It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.” There, in plain English, is the shrill, accusat
588568
I can't believe that someone is asking this question.  Are you American?  Have you never heard of that horrible thing called the "Civil War"?  It's a shame people are so uninterested in American history, especially history that reshaped our country.\nGet a book and read it.\nWhile you are reading that book, you might want to look at a dictionary so you can find the correct spelling of the word "what".  I know, it's a tough one.
675962
The main underlying cause for the Civil War was the freedom of states, and the rights of the states granted under the US Constitution, which by the way does not state that succession is illegal orr forbidden.  The powers of the Federal government are stated clearly in the Constitution, and any powers not specifically granted to the federal government are the responsibilities of the states.  Slavery did not become an issue until 1863 when the United States President Lincoln freed the slaves in a forgien country to keep France and Britian out of the war.  Odds are they would not have done anything to really help the South's war effort, but it was a good political move on Lincoln's behalf.
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.
670839
try:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War