what would have happen if the civil war happened earlier?
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.
328898
Well, for starters the War of 1812 would never have been fought.  England might have eventually sold us to pay off the war debt.  We might have ended up speaking French or Spanish, or something else!  So we wouldn't be speaking English and we wouldn't have a lot of the same culture.  We wouldn't have had any of our early presidents so our country might not have expanded in what they called "manifest destiny."  We could still occupy only New England and we wouldn't be the longest lasting republic in the world.  Our constitution would not have been written and the abolitionists might never had succeeded.  Rights in all parts of the world might never have evolved.  Many countries might still have monarchies today, including 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.
996
Yes, if Lincoln wouldn't have re-inforced Ft. Sumter.  The fort was being turned over to the Confederacy before he did that.  The North could have withdrawn.  Pre-Civil War the Constitution was concidered a Social Compact.  The South had some legitament reasons for leaving.  The Missouri Comprimise was not a comprimise, making the South feel more threatened.  \n\nDuring the Presidential Campaign Lincoln was the only talking about Civil War.  If the South wanted Civil War it would have start a few years earlier when John Brown tried to take over that armory in Virgina
149586
There is a new movie out right now about this: CSA.  It is a documentary about life in the US after the South wins, and defeats the North, so that the whole country is run by the South (rather than having two separate countries, a different scenario of a Southern victory.)\n\nThe premise of the movie is that the differences would be surprisingly small.\n\nIt is hard to know how things would be now.  Perhaps of the CSA had been a separate country, it would have faced an eventual and successful slave revolt (funded and supported by the remains of the Republican party in the North) and the CSA would be known as New Uhuru, or something.
333492
Well that is complex. But to start off before the war. The north and the south differed greatly. The south was a farming area(mostly very labor intensive products like cotton) hence the need for slavery in the south's eyes. Where the north was mostly industrial compared to the south. So more machines and less hand labor. The reason this is important is because a factory can be rebuild. But farm land takes a lot of money to redo and a lot of time to start producing again. Well after the war the South lost its way of life and it lost it way of surviving. After the war the south was pretty well destroyed.  The farms and there crops were gone burned, destroyed, or used by the union forces. Also after the war the south was occupied by northern troops for many years to come. But southern people at the time also believed they were right on the issue of slavery. That is part of the reason the civil war happened. But basically it all of this combined as to why I believe the south is still hung up on the civil war.
634837
During the Civil War.
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.
1171062
U.S Civil War? Do you know what century that was in?\n\nOf your choices, I would say it was the Cold War.
343553
Lincoln would have forgiven the South and let them back in the Union with enough for sight to heal the wounds of a fractured country. Andrew Johnson wanted the same but not enough of Lincolns power or influence to carry it through. Because Lincoln was assassinated bitterness and unforgiveness prevailed even to this day.
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.
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
325920
Well, it definately didnt work...if it did, we wouldnt have had a Civil War in 1861.  It attempted to keep Slavery restricted to the South(32 30 lat., Now the Missouri Kansas border) Anything Kansas and above were free states and everythign below were slave states.It ultimately failed because of the Dred Scott decision which said that slaves were property adn not people, so they could not be freed(case originated in Indiana) and declaring the Compromise of 1820 unconstituional. The South also wanted to expand, due to the new territory gained from the Mexican war in 1848.  With the new territories in, once granted statehood would jeopardize the South's representation in the government adn started to complain again. This lead to another compromise in 1850 which also failed because of an abused concept of Popular Sovereignty.\n\nPopular Sovereignty was the idea that the state would choose wheether it would allow Slavery or not.  The states in question at the time were Kansas and Nebraska. Nebraska was mainly populated by Northerners and less Southerners since the climate waspoor for farming their stales.  But Kansas presented a problem.  Citizens in Neighboring Missouri fled to Kansas and claimed to be citizens in that State so that they could vote in Slavery.  THis also caused violence known as Bleeding Kansas.  Although the majority of the population in Kansas were Northern anti slvery people, because of all the illegal voting from people from Missouri allowed an illeagl constitution and the sitting President, James BUchanan failed to act.  By 1860, tensions were high, a person who threattened the Southern way of life was elected into office adn S. Carolina Seceeded...and the forst shotw were fired the following April.
156508
<Andrew Jackson wasn't in the Civil War.He died in 1845 and the Civil War didn't start until 1861.
946613
That is when the civil war will start.
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