In American Revolution, how did the war in the South differ from the fighting in the other colonies?
924027
There wasn't much population in the south then.  Most of the battles were in the north, from Virginia to New York to Connecticut and Massachusetts, mainly.
28568
i'm not quite sure what you mean, but america had the revolutionary war to break away from england. because england was basicaly trying to control them and make them pay so many different taxes that they hardly had enough money left for them selfes. also there was a law passed by england that said that they cant settle west of the applaction mouintains. and they had gained alot of land there by defeating the french in a war years before.
944484
Check out 'The War for American Independence' by Samuel Griffith II, a former USMC Brigadier General, he writes a readable informative accurate account examining opinions on both sides of the Atlantic.    One 'ugly secret' that The Republicans wish you would ignore is that America's founding Fathers (and Mothers) were -  - - LIBERALS.   \n(Yikes)  Many Englishmen/women then and now view the American Revolutionary War  as an extension of The English struggle for Liberty - - - radical notions such as a majority of the citizens having a voice in Parliament, a say on matters such as taxation, tariffs, how to conduct War and when and against who, etc.   Many Englishmen then saw a Strong Independent America as a better ally to Britain than a weak colony, a view vindicated by America's air during World War One & Two.\n\nPeace...
44541
no but i read your answer to the revolutionary war question and north and south, yeah that was the civil war, not the american revolutionary war
370967
America started from a pretty bland group of Protestents who came here to get away from discrimanation in England or were shipped here as slaves (endentured servents and people from debter's prisons). Hessions who stayed after serving as mercs in the revolutionary war only reinforced this make up. Then came the aquisition of French and Spanish lands as well as large imigrations of Jewish and Catholic settlers. Before these people groups like the Dutch were minorities and suffered the same treatment that the Irish, Italians, freed slaves, and so on suffered when they first broke into American society. \n\nSo the "old blood" money formed a WASP type social structure to keep out unwanted Catholics, Jews and other ethnic groups. This formed the base group which ironically forms the core today of the "liberal" leadership. \n\nThe so called conservitive movement started as a sort of Farmer's rebellion against the corruption and lack of rural representation found in the Gov around the time of the cival war. It was born of the same problems which caused the South a mostly rural area to suceed from the union. Sorry slavery was a minor issue in the cival war. Abe Lincoln was the first Republican elected president. The Whig party disapeered almost overnight. Many of them becoming either democrats or republicans. \n\nNew money had arisen during the intervening years. The railroad barons, Catholics and Jews who had struck it rich, often initially with ilegal enterprises, imigrants from other nations who came here with money. They lived a work ethic and it became the "American dream" while the Democrats remains a party of the old blood and Whites in the South who hated the Republican party for winning the cival war and dozens of other issues. \n\nThis is pretty much where things sat for most of 50 years. The Democrats eventually lured over labor to it's party. Certain ethnic groups like the Irish and Jews who worked the docks and other interests found themselves lined up with teh Democrats who's old money leadership was trying to strike down the new money. By accident alot of good things happened in the process of the two sides fighting this war. Better wages and workplace safety being a couple of those things. \n\nToday it's still a battle between old blood and new blood money. Added to it are quite a few special interests. Big corps and small biz tends to be "conservitive". The WASP churches found affinity with Republicans while the Catholic church found affinity with the Democrats. However down the road the Democrats catered to many other groups almost forcing the Catholic church into Republican boundries with an anti-Christian flavor that took hold in the 60s. \n\nSo theologically the so called "liberals" denounce religion officially but strongly favor anti-Christian religions or the lack of religion. Part of this was the failure of the US comunist party and the movement of Comunists into the Democratic party. Comunists as a fundemental plank are athiests. Comunism officially sees religion as a form of oppression. An Opiate of the masses to quote Marx. The adoption of the Democratic party and large scale conversion to Islam by many Blacks furthor added to this. \n\nRepublicans got a swelling of Christian support as a result and suddenly they became charged with protecting Christianity, especially Protestent Christianity. Republicans welcomed the Christian factions then and still do today though they are smarting from the actions of some televangilists and some of the extreme views found in the more fanatical Christian churches. \n\nAs for values. That is not a thought in the head of either party. They will run up slogans but these are purely to satisfy various factions within their party. Both liberal and conservitive have lost all sight of the meaning of the constitution. Both pretend to fight for upholding various sections of the US Constitution. For example in issu
1182981
Actually it's the Revolutionary war.\n\n1. We hated the English. Mostly because the taxed us without representation.\n\n2. We signed the declaration of independence.\n\n3. We kicked their butts.\n\n4. They surrendered in Yorktown, VA.\n\n5. We kissed and made up and now we are friends.\n\nThat's about it.\n\nHint: look up revolutionary war or american revolution and you will find more stuff than you could ever use.
7703
The steps leading up to the war and their consequences are as follows:\n1. Proclomation of 1763 which prohibited the colonist from living west of the Appalachian Mts.-made the colonist mad and many disregarded the proclomation.\n2. Britain raising taxes on the colonist to help defray the costs of the French and Indian War-the colonist protested and refused to pay the taxes.\n3. Boston Massacre in 1770 which was used as American propoganda against the British when in fact it was a large crowd threatening a small group of British soldiers who either fired accidently or out of fear for their lives\n4. Quartering of British soldiers in colonists homes-caused great resentment against the British.\n5. Boston Tea Party in which colonist threw tea into Boston Harbor to protest the monopoly given the British East India Trading Company causing the British to pass the Coercive Acts which severly punished Boston.\n6.  To show support for the Mass. colony all of the colonies except one met at the first Continental Congress and authorized colonies to raise militias, and to boycott British tea.\n7. Lexington and Concord April 1775-British troops attempted to capture Sam Adams and a store of arms and powder at Concord, Mass.  The British were met at Lexington, Mass. on April 19th by a small group of "minute men", resulting in the death of several colonist.\n8. Second Continental Congress-creates an army and names George Washington as commander.\n9. Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
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.
776406
You will find all your answers or links to your answers here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War - now do your homework yourself please.\n\nGood Luck!!!
543268
The Union Army had much more funding for developing repeating weapons such as leaver action rifles, the Gatling gun and the like.  By the late war their technological advantage was substantial.\n\nThe south acted as 13 different countries for accusations (each state bought stuff for their army) purposes while the north acted as one organization.
248004
Seriously? The Civil War was a war between North and South. It started in 1861 and lasted years. The reasons for the war range from slavery to states rights. It is a very important part of American history and you really need to study up on it.
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.
412972
What colonial empire are you specifically referring too? Their empire was so vast that each inidividual colony had distinct differences. Big differences between India vs. America colonies for example. Different cultures, different climates, etc.\n\nAs for the American colonies, the effects were mostly negative for the American people, that is why the Revolutionary War began. High taxes upon the people, limited land expansion for Americans, subjected to English law, etc. \nThe ONLY positive effect the British had on American soil was perhaps the modernization of the country. The British introduced many modern conveniences that were foreign to Americans at the time.\n\nBritish rule in India was much different. The Indian people were treated as slaves. Their lives were torn apart by British rule. However, modern medicine was introduced to India by way of British rule and therefore many lives were saved.
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
784846
Northern? Southern? The distinction is difficult to make for many states because they are generally categorized by their affiliations during the Civil War, not so much as to their geographical location. That makes it tough.\nGenerally being a southern state meant being located south of the Mason-Dixon line (which Maryland is). The Mason-Dixon line is actually the common east to west border of Pennsylvania and Maryland. Interestingly, if one were to extend the line to the east it would go through the southern part of NewJersey. Hm? We should all be glad, northern or southern, that we live in the \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
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.
218572
This is going to be just a quick summary...\nFor the most part, it was not all about slavery. The states North of the Mason-Dixon line were content with slavery in the South...the problem was the "Westward Expansion." The North wanted the new states to be free from slavery, whereas the South wanted those states to be open to slavery. There were a few compromises made years before the actual war began, however, those obviously did not work. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina announced it's leave from the Union...Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed. \nOn February 4th, 1861, the Confederate States of America was formed with Jefferson Davis as the president. A new constitution was drawn up. Key differences were:\n*The president and vice president were elected for six year terms whereas the North had only four years. \n*The protection of slavery in new territories was given. \n*No slave trade with Africa\n*President Davis could take a loan for $15 million for the creation of a military force of 100,000. \nPresident Davis was inaugurated February 18, 1861. \n\nPresident Lincoln for the Union said, "Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face and face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after seperation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old quesetions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it..." (Page 8)\nThe first shots of the Civil War were fired on April 12th, 1861 at Ft. Sumter, South Carolina. The fight lasted for thirty-four hours, and ended by the North surrendering. The war continued until April of 1865. \nAfter it was all said and done, most of the South was destroyed and the loss of lives on both ends, are up to this day, only an estimate (over 100,000). It is said, the number of Yanks and Rebels who died are greater than the loss of American lives in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietiman War...all combined.\n\nI hope this has been helpful to you. Here are some other books to check out if you are really interested in the Civil War:\n-"After the Civil War" by John S. Blay\n-"The Life of Johnny Reb" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"The Life of Billy Yank" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"Embattled Courage" by Gerald F. Linderman\n-"The Civil War: Strange & Fascinating Facts" by Burke Davis