list four disadvantages of teh north diring the civil war?
484944
Disadvantages to the North in the civil war?\n\nWell, the North had all the money and all the ammunition and all the factories. Their population was more than double that of the South. The North had highways, canals & railroads. The Union had a Navy.\n\nSo it was really the South that was in dire straights from the onset of the war.\n\nBut the South held a few advantages. They were able to fight on their home turf and it could win the war simply by continuing to exist after the hostilities ended. 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 and "Stonewall" Jackson.
561520
The Wheather Bureau has all the records you need. However you need to know what location you are describing.Than find out what the nuances of wheather where and what catastrophies occurred.\nThe Civil war Was fought in the South Hence a southern weather.The North had weather with snow in the winter and this south very  warm in the summer.\nThe real scenario where wheather was a key factor in a WAR was that of Napoleon's Army in Russia.The other USA army in Korea.And Valley forge in The Revolution against the Briths.
509566
The north put so many restrictions on the South, it was cruel\n\nGeneral Robert E. Lee said that if he had known what it would be like, then he would have kept fighting to the bitter end with his troops (I think through guerrilla warfare)\n\nbetter to die than to live in post-civil war 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
555277
http://www.civil-war.net/
60515
It has more disadvantages than advantages, but one of its advantages is the planning of the economy: A clear example of that are the examples of China and Mexico. In Mexico there is a democracy, so the discussion in congress stopped taking measures to attract investment. In China, the economy is centrally planned, so all the reforms needed to attract investment and create jobs were taken very fast, allowing the Chinese economy to grow at rates of 9% while Mexico was stuck.\n\nHowever consider the disadvantages of lack of freedom and that if an inneficient government get to power they can cause more damage.
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.
728922
Civil War\nFreeing of the Slaves\nAssassination\nFirst telegraph ever sent\nFirst man from Illinois ever to be elected president
586845
False. Civil War was not WITHIN Kansas, and the Missouri Compromise is more directly to blame for setting the stage for the Civil War.\n\nYou'd better do some research to back that up before you use it on your homework.
413239
What aspect of the Civil War do you want facts about? The causes, battles, leaders, industry? You should be a little more specific with your question.
681802
1)Ignorance\n2)Violence\n3)Intolerance
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.
916326
The US civil war was about states' rights and how the federal government trampled all over them.  The slavery issue was added by the Union to keep the British out of the war because they sided with the South.
511187
http://www.civilwar.com/\nhttp://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/\nhttp://americancivilwar.com/\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War\nhttp://www.us-civilwar.com/
646952
Some historians have said that the Southern states missed their best chance to win their independence by not seceding in 1850, when the North was less prepared to deal with a crisis of that magnitude.  By waiting until 1861 to try to leave the Union, the Southern states gave the North too much time to grow stronger, and their defeat was almost inevitable.
510063
Economics was the major reason for the Civil War. Slavery really was an economic issue, not a moral one. The southern plantation owners had paid much money for their slaves to work their plantations. If slavery were prohibited, they would have lost the means to survive because they could not have afforded to buy slaves and then later pay workers to run the plantations.\n\nAlso, remember, the North had an industrial economy and the South had an agrarian society. These clashed, and there was a big concern over who was going to control the rich and expansive lands in the West.
494039
The war would have ended with a long and bloody stalemate, meaning that both countries would have continued from there with huge and crippling defense budgets with an enormous fortified border. South would have almost definitely become a protectorate of England because their economy was based very heavily on agriculture for export only. The north would not have had the excess investment capital for railroads across the west and intense industrialization. \n\nIt would be a very bad history for both sides.