What if the South had won the Civil War?
922092
They wanted each state to be a separate country like Europe is.\nThey felt that the North didn't understand the problems associated with the south.\nHad it happened we would have later seen a war between Oklahoma and Arkansas or Texas and South Carolina.\nBy having a federal government we have someone to settle issues for us that otherwise would end in war.\nIran and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon and Israel are smaller than are smaller states.  It is the same as if Road Island went to war with new york city.
773054
?  If you mean the Battle of Gettysburg it was because Gen. Lee under the direction of Southern President Jefferson Davis needed a victory in the North to try and persuade the people in the North to pressure President Lincoln to sue for peace with the south. It would also have given European countries better reason for dealing arms to the Southern States.\n\nIf you mean what caused the Civil War or war "Between the States" it was due to several issues. Most of the Southerners were in it for what they considered to be States Rights. However many wealthy officers in that war were fighting for the right to keep slavery alive. They made huge profits for buying and selling slaves. They also had many cotton and sugar plantations where they worked the slaves that they owned. But slavery was only one of the issues.
620938
Lincoln asked them to abolish slavery. The Southern Sates did not agree as that would mean losing their entire workforce which worked in their plantations and farms and were the source of their wealth and economy.\n\nFaced with no choice, the Southern States left, what followed was the Civil War.
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.
928460
No, it was not viable then nor is it now.  The overarching point of the Civil War was whether a state could decide not to do something, and if it didn't like what the rest of the Union was doing, whether it could just stop being in the Union.  The answer was no.  That was not the point of our constitutional democracy (as opposed to the system under the Articles of Confederation, where the states were basically autonomous units.)  \n\nOn a personal note, would I myself be happier if, perhaps, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana seceeded from the Union?  Perhaps.  Would the North have been economically better off if we had let the South go? Perhaps (save Texas and its oil, Florida and its tourism, and a few other resources). But we're all in this together.  The North would not have tackled the racial issues that sparked the civil war until much, much later.  The South probably would have imploded due to their lack of non-slave economy and innovation.  Certainly today a number of states could function as (much) less powerful independent states -- if Georgia (the former soviet republic) can do it, then Georgia (the state) can do it.  But once again, that's not the point.  America is great because of its bountiful natural resources and its diversity.  Once we fall into the trap of the Yugoslavias, the Iraqs, the "-stan" countries and fractionalize ourselves based on religion, poltiical belief, geography, etc., we become much much weaker.  The whole truly is greater than the sum of the parts in America, and we must keep it that way.
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.
395819
The disputed presidential election was thrown to Rutherford B. Hayes in return for his agreement to end Reconstruction in the south.  As far as the effects on politics today, I'm not sure.  It certainly opened the way for southern Democrats of the era to re-establish white supremacy in the south, with the help of the KKK.  The black struggle really began AFTER the Civil War, and continued for another 100 years.
214016
i went to school in the north and the south but i can tell you this most ppl do not really know what they were fighting over they fought for pride and sence of duty. slavery was an issue and in todays opinion the only one that matters or that was worth all the loss of life. the average person did not own slaves. it was about polics and trade. i have heard ppl from the south tout that they lost because they were out numberd and more yankees died the rebs. this is true however the south in most battles stood their ground as the north charged the battle field leaving them vulnerable during the attack
223621
In the 1840s things started heating up between North and South over general states' rights against the rights of the federal government. The issues adressed generally dealt immediatly with slaves. New states admitted to the Union had to be judged as "slave states" (slaves allowed) or "free states" (slavery prohibited). \n\nBoth sides wanted new states to be whichever side they favored because it would give them more legislative power in the US Congress. This led to bloodshed in many areas, particularly in Kansas, which became known as "Bloody Kansas". \n\nIn 1861, South Carolina seceded from the Union (said they werent part of the US any more) and started seizing federal property, including arms and munitions. \n\nOther states started seceding as well. Soon the seceded states formed what they called the "Confederate States of America", which came to be headed by Jefferson Davis as President. They attacked Fort Sumner in South Carolina and seized the fort, capturing it's inhabitants. This was treason.\n\nAbraham Lincoln (President of the US) immediatly called for 75,000 troops to put down the uprising. Then the Civil War started, eventually involving millions of troops. 600,000 men eventually died in the conflict, and the US was shattered for decades after the war. Remember, this war was fought to unite the Union, NOT for slavery. In fact, slavery was only addressed in 1862 when Lincoln set forth the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in the Confederate states. By 1863 there were armed black soldiers in Union armies, serving with distinction. In 1865 the CSA tried to use black troops, but they were destroyed before the plan could be implemented.\n\nIn 1865 the final Confederate forces surrendered (General Johnston was the last to surrender, but with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee the war was pretty much over). Richmond, VA, the Confederate capital, was seized. \n\nLincoln began steps to rebuild and reunite the US. He planned to be kind to the newly reunited South and not punish them for seceding. Before he could start, he was killed by a man named John Wilkes Booth. \n\nThe years following became years of anger and hate for Southerners. The North oppressed and punished Southern insurrection with high taxes and legal oversight. This period became known as Reconstruction, and it really only ended around the 1970s, one century after it started.\n\nHope I helped,\nThe Wise One\n\nP.S. For more information check out http://www.wikipedia.com\nThey are pretty good, but it's better to read books...however that takes more time than I think you want to spend.
511821
North and South. Union and Confederate, it was the war over abolishing slavery. The Confederates left the United States, and started the own government as rebels and traitors. The Confederacy had it's own money (currency) and President, although I can't remember what his name was. The North (Union) defeated the South in the Civil War, and reunited the United States. So look up the Civil War on the Web through "Ask Jeeves". Good Luck.
340780
Hey, I am from the South....and his response was widely known!  It was called The Civil War....the south raised taxes on its goods, ie cotton, tobacco.  Also, he had been misinformed on why the south seceded.
426718
Would you have stayed in the south if you were a slave?  No.  They were looking for jobs and racial tolerance by going north.
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.
1138591
The Great American Civil War.  It not only tore our country in two but we also had many political issues of the time (Civil Rights,  Internal Revenue Act of 1862, Legal Tender Act, Land Grant colleges and even the creation of the draft).  Also, it was as much as a home front war as it was abroad in a political sense.  England, France, Germany, and Ireland all contributed to the war efforts.  Either by sending troops, weapons, or ships- they all contributed.  \n\nGranted The revolution and the world wars shaped our country, but I feel the Civil War played the most important role.\n\nThe blacks could still be slaves, our country could be split in two which inevitably could create more wars here.  Our lives could be forever changed... France would of re-taken parts they lost in the Louisiana purchase. (After the civil war France was fought off from re-taking parts of Texas, they were in camped in Mexico)\n\nIt could be scary.  What about you?  What do you think was the most important thing in our nations history, that changed the course?
684196
they wanted to stop the expansion of slavery. this led 2 the confederacy 'cause the south "needed" their slaves. and that led 2 the Civil War. Lincoln did the Emancipation Proclamation to make this war officially about slavery. i have no internet sources about this, i'm just mad sick at history
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.
135230
the south wanted to secede from the union and pres lincoln just wasnt gunna have it