Explain why the Civil War was fought?
90053
There are entire books on this subject, so I'm not going to get too detailed.\n\nThe practice of slavery was an issue left up to individual states.  The states in the Southern region chose slavery because their economies were largely agrarian.  They produced raw goods like cotton.  The states in the Northern region were primarily industrial.  They produced finished goods, which meant they had less of a need for slave labor.\n\nWhen the country started spreading to the West, the Southern states assumed the new territories would be able to vote individually on the slavery issue.  The federal government, which tended to sympathize with the more developed Northern states, decided that it should be the one to assign 'slave' or 'non-slave' status as each new state was recognized.  The idea that individual states would no longer have the power to determine their own policies was objectionable to Southern representatives in Congress.  They voted to secede from the Union in order to preserve the rights of individual states.  The federal government desperately wanted to keep the supply states and the manufacturing states together for economic strength.\n\nIt's easy to portray the Southern cause as immoral, but in reality the number of large plantations with large slave populations was minimal.  The majority of Southerners were no more racist than Northerners.  The federal government eventually prevailed through superior firepower, not superior morality.
781154
It depends on how you view a civil war.  Websters dictionary defines civil war as followed; " a war between factions or regions of a country".\n\nSo with that said, I think it is unreasonable to say anything other than what the clear and easy to see reality in that country is; it's in a civil war.  Sadly and tragically.  Bush and Rumsfeld screwed up something that was near and dear to my heart, and that was the liberation of the Iraqi people from the hands of a brutal dictator, and I could tell you things about that screw up that would make your hair curl.
929332
Leaders do not have to die for it to be a civil war.  It IS a civil war because you have one faction within a country fighting another faction inside that same country for control.  I don't care what the White House wants to call it, those who decide not to be ignorant will recognize a civil war when they see one.
580764
a) A larger army \n\nBecause the people in the South were united to defend their land from an invader. They didnt attack they just defended.
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
527282
if u go to www.unitedstreaming.com, then get an account, sign in,  then where it says "search" type in civil war and you'll get a bunch of stuff on the civil war \nits really helpful\ni just had a test on it
764353
You can get information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_%281849-1865%29 for the information you are looking for.  I wont do your homework - but I will help you out (what kind of a history teacher would be then - lol)\n\nGood Luck!!!
158038
I would like to tell Lincoln not to deliberately start the civil war by senting a resupply ship to Ft. Sumter, because he knew this would provoke the South to  fire on Ft. Sumter. this would have saved 600,000 lives, then to use his negotiating skills to work out a solution to the problems of the time.The south would be alot better off today, because if you live in the south, black or white ,you have suffered ever since the civil war, the federal government not sending the funds to the southern schools, for example in 1867, two years after the civil war, the state of georgia reciieved like 13000 in federal funds and the state of michigan recieved like 18 million.What the south has today, is what the South has built itself. the federal government did not help rebuild the south like it did Germany and Japan after world war 2. this is why the southern states are like 30 to 40 years behind the their northern counterparts. the south suffered the most damage from the war (Atlanta burned to the ground,etc.) and recieved nothing to help rebuild it. So Black or White , if you live in the south ,you are still paying for that war that happened over 140 years ago.
235055
If it is the US civil war, indeed slavery was one reason, but tensions between Northern and Southern politicians is another problem as they couldn't effectively compromise over how to deal with slavery and 1850 Compromise, Missouri Compromise etcetra were not effective. Also, Lincoln's election as President is a cause as well as he was suspected to be against slavery as he was a Republican:  as the Southern states succeeded in response to Lincoln's election, the North wanted the South to return = war. Also, arguments over who owned Fort Sumter is another cause. Other causes such as the break down of the two party system can be also claimed to have caused the civil war.
1018941
The battle of Chicamauga in the Civil War.\n\nhttp://ngeorgia.com/history/chickam.html\n\nBy the way, if you didn't have time to look it up yourself, then how did you have time to ask this question, and then wait for an answer for it.  Sounds like someone needs to get their priorities straightened out.
484944
Disadvantages to the North in the civil war?\n\nWell, the North had all the money and all the ammunition and all the factories. Their population was more than double that of the South. The North had highways, canals & railroads. The Union had a Navy.\n\nSo it was really the South that was in dire straights from the onset of the war.\n\nBut the South held a few advantages. They were able to fight on their home turf and it could win the war simply by continuing to exist after the hostilities ended. The South also had a military tradition that encouraged young men to serve in the armed forces or attend a military school; many had served the U.S. military prior to the Civil War, only to resign and fight for their states and family. In addition, the South had the leadership of great commanders, including Robert E Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson.
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
156508
<Andrew Jackson wasn't in the Civil War.He died in 1845 and the Civil War didn't start until 1861.
916326
The US civil war was about states' rights and how the federal government trampled all over them.  The slavery issue was added by the Union to keep the British out of the war because they sided with the South.
1030326
i would recommend this wikipedia site.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war\n\nhope this helps =)\n\n-unpredicktaboh-
138565
The American Civil War?\n\nThe North and The South.\n\nI believe Kentucky and Mizzou were neutral.  I also think California was in the south (not sure).\n\nEDIT:\n\nThe American Civil war was NOT fought because the south wanted slavery and the North did not.  The American Civil War was fought because the South believed they were not getting a fair shake and decided to break away from the union.  Lincoln said that was illegal and we fought a war to keep our nation whole.\n\nAbolishing slavery was a really great side effect of the war.  BTW, the Emancipation Proclomation did not free all slaves.  It only freed the slaves in states rebelling against the North.  Therefore the slave states that did not secede and fight in the CSA still had legal slavery.
786092
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. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criteria is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.