what was vermont's (or any northern state) role in the civil war?
962966
the northern states wanted to defeat the southern states so as to keep the states together. they won (obviously) and therefore kept the US as a whole. And there's this website to help you:\n\nwww.vermontcivilwar.org
1150432
The National Guard is what used to be the old States Militia (i.e., the 22nd Maine Regiment, the 16th Pennsylvania, the 15th Indiana, yada, yada, yada) during the Civil War. Up until the Civil War, a large, Federal, full time Army was something that was feared. So, when the nation needed troops, the States Militia (now referred to as the National Guard) were drafted into the Army and they went forth to fight the war.\n\nAfter the Civil War, as the United States became more and more involved in world affairs, the need for a full time, professional Army and Navy was realized. So, the Federal government increased the size of it's Army and Navy and didn't rely as heavily on the National Guard as they had in the past. However, the States retained their individual rights to maintain their own militias as the "California National Guard" or the "Indiana National Guard", etc., etc. etc.\n\nAlso, after the Civil War, in 1878, the "Posse Comitatus Act" was passed by Congress which made it illegal for the federal or state governments ti use the FEDERAL Army to enforce civilian law. President Clinton attempted to have the act repealed during his presidency, but Congress dissented and the act still stands. This means that the governor of each respective state can only utilize the National Guard in that State to enforce civil law. The Federal Army can be used ONLY where constitutional and specifically authorized by the Congress.
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.
410518
You could just try looking the information up, instead of relying on the faulty memories here in Yahoo! Answers.  \n\nBut, just to try and help you out...New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Illinois, etc.  Pretty much every state North of the Mason Dixon Line were non-slave holding states.  Missouri was one that was in contention as it was North of the line, but when it achieved statehood, it was granted the right to be a slave state in 1851, if I remember my history correctly.
1128896
Southern Advantages (Northern Disadvantages)\n\nFighting a Defensive War\n\n    * To stand on the defensive meant that the North had to invade and carry the fight to the South. This allowed the South to prepare and receive the enemy, although Lee was not a passive man by any standards. \n\n    * The South did not have many advantages, but just like in the American Revolution, it's very difficult to conquer an area. Essentially the South only had to muster the will to keep fighting until the North felt like quitting. That didn't happen, but theoretically it could have. \n\n    * When Southerners said that they merely wanted to secede from the Union they gave themselves a military advantage. Thus the North had to attack. \n\n    * The geography of the South favored the defender over the attacker. In particular, most of the rivers in the South run east to west. Thus as Union forces attempted to move south they had to cross all the rivers and the Confederates could defend them. Also, the fact that the Cenfederacy was simply defending itself meant that the Northern forces had to invade and occupy virtually the entire South before they could claim victory. That was a monumental task. \n\nFighting Spirit\n\n    * The South had soldiers who were devoutly dedicated to preserving the Southland. \n\n    * The South were the ones who started this war, they want to finish it. They were the ones with a motive. The North just wants to put the country back together. \n\n    * The North included "border" states like Maryland which had large populations of Southern sympathizers. The North constantly had to fight to keep up popular support for the war. \n\n    * Motivation. The South was fighting to preserve their homes from an intruder. The North on the other hand was fighting to preserve the union. To abolish slavery was added later, and this was cold comfort to most Northerners who had never seen a slave before. \n\n    * The Southern population, at least the white population, were more united than that of the North. In the North there was always a substantial political sentiment, based on various reasons, for not fighting the war and letting the South go in peace. \n\n    * The North was the invader. When troops approached the end of their volunteer enlistment, they wanted to go home. The Southern troops were fighting for their style of life, so they hung in there. \n\nFighting on Their Own Soil\n\n    * They were fighting on mostly native territory, thus they were more familiar with the ground. \n\n    * The theater of war was primarily in the South which was its home territory. Obviously the theater of war was well known to the South. The North was in enemy territory and was unfamiliar with the terrain. \n\n    * Since the Southerners were defending their own soil they were intimately familiar with the territory while the Northerners had to rely on maps. \n\nMilitary Leadership\n\n    * The majority of the best leaders were Southern born. When the South left the Union, these soldiers went with their home states. \n\n    * Military leadership of the South consisted of many Mexican War veterans. The North had some experienced officers. However the North's leadership was inferior to the South. \n\n    * Throughout the Civil War, Lincoln was trying to find generals that could win. Many say Grant was the only good general the North had. \n\n    * Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, Forest, Stuart, the list could continue. The South was blessed with officers who knew how to fight and make the best of bad situations. \n\n    * A big portion of the Union's finer officers were from the South, and were more loyal to their home states when faced with the choice. Robert E. Lee is of course the most notable example, and would have been the first choice to command the Army of the Potomac if he had remained in the Union army. \n\nMilitary Aptitude\n\n    * The average Southerner had at some point in his life hunted for food. Thi
602003
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).\n\nUltimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.\n\nWhat is generally agreed upon is that factors such as nationalism, religion, and ideology, played little role in pre-modern civil wars. While it is quite common for nationalists to read past revolts, such as those of Scotland against England as early stirrings of nationalism, this is a somewhat suspect notion. Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.
65555
Federal government control vs. state's rights.  The North wanted a stronger federal government control, and the Southern states wanted to make their own laws.  Slavery was just one issue.
608816
Trick question.  Virginia split into Virginia and WEST Virginia at the time, when Virginia joined the confederacy, and West Virginia remained in the Union.
629609
The Confederacy (Virgina) bordered DC across the Potomac, so it had to be defended from attack. Abe Lincoln went to observe the fighting, and became the only sitting President to come under enemy fire.
222496
Apparently Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson and Johh Tyler, with Van Buren's family also owning them when he was a child.  Interestingly, of the first six presidents, four were from Virginia, and they were the slaveholders.  Of the next six, five were from the south (including 3 more Virginians).  One wonders if the history of slavery in the US would have been shorter had the White House been occupied by more northerners in its early years--or would the Civil War have come that much sooner?
443559
I wont give you a Paragraph but I will get you started,\n\nIn the 1850's and early 1860's abolitionists who had the dream of ending slavery angered many southerners who wanted to keep their lasting traditions.  Many historians believe that the abolistionist movement in the north, along with the book "Uncle Toms Cabin" were major contributing factors to the Civil war.\n\n\nGood Luck!
364677
during the civil war many of the stated split into two.  Half of the state joined the Union, and the other half the Confederacy.
1094086
North Carolina is the biggest state in the union.
586001
www.usa-civil-war.com
574454
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).\n\nUltimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.\n\nWhat is generally agreed upon is that factors such as nationalism, religion, and ideology, played little role in pre-modern civil wars. While it is quite common for nationalists to read past revolts, such as those of Scotland against England as early stirrings of nationalism, this is a somewhat suspect notion. Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.\n\nCivil wars fought over religion have tended to occur more frequently in monotheistic societies than in polytheistic societies; this has been explained as being due to the fact that the latter tend to be more "flexible" in terms of dogma, to allow for some latitude in belief. In Europe through the Middle Ages, the Christianity of the great bulk of the population was influenced by pagan tradition. With the great majority of the population illiterate, access to the Bible was limited and led to a significant amount of syncretism between Christian and pagan elements. With religion so loosely applied, it was rare for people to feel particularly oppressed by it. There were periodic appearances of heresies, such as that of the Albigensians, which led to violence, but historians tend to view these to be the product of peasant revolts rather than themselves motivators of a civil war.\n\nAs religions tended to become more rigidly defined and understood by their followers, inter-religious tensions generally increased. The rise of Islam witnessed a rash of uprisings against non-Islamic rulers soon after its appearance. Subsequent Islamic history has been marked by repeated civil conflicts, mostly stemming out of the Shi'ite-Sunni divide. In Europe the Protestant Reformation had a similar effect, sparking years of both civil and international wars of religion. Civil wars between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism consumed France in the Wars of Religion, the Netherlands during the Eighty Years' War, Germany during the Thirty Years' War, and more recently, The Troubles of Northern Ireland. Religious disputes among Protestant sects also played an important role in the English Civil Wars, while official persecution of Catholics during the French Revolution spurred the Revolt in the Vendée.\n\n[edit]\nRevolutions\nA revolution is generally seen as a civil war fought over issues of ideology, over how power should be organized and distributed, not merely over which individuals hold it. The classic example of a revolution, and by some arguments the first is the French Revolution, which is seen to hav
437119
The Union Reconstructed\n\nThe United States in April 1865, a time of crisis\n\n—Union faced a const. Crisis—what to do with 11 former confed. States?\n\nLincoln’s position—they were “out of their proper relation” with the US\n\nLincoln opponents maintained they were now conquered provinces.\n\n—Executive branch had assumed broad powers during the war.\n\n—Politically, Republicans supreme.\n\n—Opposition virtually nonexistent.\n\nPost-war economics\n\n—stark contrast between north and south.\n\n--South in ruins, physically and economically. plantations\nNational Reconstruction Politics\n\nPresidential Reconstruction\n\n5/29/1865 Johnson outlines two Reconstruction policies. Based on idea the South had never left the Union.\n1) Swear allegiance to the Const. And the Union. Would get amnesty and pardon and propertyrights back.\n\n2) Next proc. Set up way in which state govts. Could be reestablished. First, pres. Appointed a loyal governor. Then a state convention called of persons loyal to the union. Must ratify 13th amend. Void secession, repudiate confederate debt, elect new officials to congress.\nProblem-southern states send former confederates to congress.\n\nCongressional Reconstruction:\n—Split develops between C. and Pres.\n—14th Amendment\nWhy did Congress Amend the Constitution?\nSouthern attempts to regain economic and civil control\nBlack codes\nRacism, alive and well in north and south.\nCongressional Reconstruction Triumphant\n--at the end of the day it was clear president’s plan not working.\n1867---Congress outlines plan\nThe President Impeached\n—Congress restricted the presidents powers by passing the Tenure of Office Act\nBuilding an African-American community\n--FAMILY\n--Reunion\n--Privacy\n--SEPARATE CHURCHES\n--POLITICS\nEmancipation and the Nation\n1. Expanded Rights\n--1866 Civil Rights Act\n--14th Amendment, 1866\n2. Expanded Govt Power\n--Federal Level\n--Freedmen's Bureau\n--State level\nE. Retreat from Reform\n1. Southern Causes\n--Racial Violence\n--"Redemption"\n2. Northern Causes\n--Supreme Court\n--Panic of 1873\n--Election of 1876/Compromise of 1877
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!!!