i need a convincing argument for why we should allow segregation (just after civil war)-homework?
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
119650
Depends on the region of US.  The South was openly segregated through the '60's.  That's part of what the civil rights movement was about.
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
626719
No because the South was fighting for something we would now identify as individual nation states. If the South had won the war the country would have been divided and each and every southern state would have declared its Independence from everyone else.  The war was mostly about keeping the country together and was bolstered by the cause of freeing the slaves in the south.  Between the two the North had two very noble and just causes for victory over the South.
985692
First your description is really confusing, almost as if a lawyer wrote it. LOL.\n\nOK, what type of society?  I would hope that we would have a society that accepts everyone as equals regardless of sex, color, race, national origin, religion, sexual preference, gender presentation, etc.\n\nUnfortunately this is not so.  Many people, even in the US discriminate against one another for so many unjust reasons.  And there is no reason for it at all.  The quote, "Can't we all just get along" is so true as Dr. King's famous speech of "I Have a Dream."  The foundations of equality have been laid out on a piece of paper located in Washington DC, called the Declaration of Independence.  It is a crying shame that society cannot live by those immortal words.
397421
There are 4 primary causes of the US civil war (I'm assuming this is the one you want).\n\n1.  federalism--favouring a strong centralized government as opposed to strong state governments.\n2.  slavery\n3. expansionism--extending control into new territory\n4.  sectionalism--blind focus on the interest of a section or region instead of the whole.
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.
48705
It was mostly political, the abolition movement was very strong in the north, and obviouslty opposed in the south being it powered their mostly agricultural society...(there weren't a lot of farm Machines back then). Political force threatened to divide the country. Lincoln didn't want the country to divide the country on his watch...(wouldn't have looked too good in the history books). The abolition movement would never have lost steam, the industrial north had the upper hand so reasonably Lincoln sided with the north...that's just a practical view....But he also had a personal reasons for choosing the ending of slavery.
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.
966292
I agree segregate a society and it remains fractured and separated. This only further separates us rather than unites us.  America is supposed to a melting pot in which are differences are celebrated rather than criticized.  As long as people continue to look at our differences rather than our similarities, how are we to be united.
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.
569247
These are very common subjects. You may consider doing research or checking class notes. For lack of that,\nthere was a big burst of industry after the civil war. Things became more advanced. More people moved to the United States and of course, emancipation of slaves had a great effect on the diversity of the population. Maybe these facts can help you to understand what sort of development you're looking for?\n\nSorry I couldn't be more helpful!
705020
The assasination of the Austrian prince would be great for an essay - but a very long one. The assasination was more of a trigger on a gun, rather than the bullet, gun powder, and gun itself (as well as who was pointing it at whom) since there were a large variety of factors already staged for the beginning of World War I when this happened. The more I read about it, the more I realize what an expert one needs to be to explain it!\n\nHistorical questions are always complex, so I would shoot for something that appears as simple as possible - since it won't turn out that way, anyway. One example might be how slavery in our country caused the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Because of the distance of time between the events, the cause and effects are actually more sweeping and therefore, easier to see.
687156
It would lead only to more division in the society.Our govt. should go back from britishers divide and rule policy.It will only do harm to our country.
673971
I've read that it was the South's continued practice of slavery that turned off the English.  The British had outlawed slavery and didn't much care to be associated with it anymore.  Had the Confederacy abandoned that institution, I think you might have seen a slightly different outcome, but then again, slavery was one of the reasons (not THE reason, but ONE of many reasons) for the conflict in the first place, so...
641073
Today, we are told that exclusions and segregations are on an economic basis rather than a racial basis. That is why our schools and our nation are more segregated today than they were when the Supreme Court first acted.
521731
I disagree.  Slavery was over 100 years ago, and US wasn't the only country to do it.  Granted civil rights didn't occur until the '60s, but now in US there is "affirmative action" which is basically reverse discrimination.  Any minority in the US has more opportunities at their fingertips than any white person will ever have.  The minorities merely have to reach out for it, but spend way too much time blaming "whitey" because it's easier.  Anything worth having takes time and hard work.  If a minority applied for the same job as i did, that person would get it over me, even if I had more experience, so I don't feel that the legacy is on Western man(which is another way to say white people)....I should not be held responsible for something ancestors did(especially since I'm Irish/NativeAmerican/German and mine didn't own slaves)  I feel that if you were born in this country you are American...end of story, Celebrate our sameness and quit shouting about our differences.