Why a democratic nation failed to address the crisis peacefully during the civil war?
90195
which democratic nation and civil war are you talking about??? \nedit your question and ill be more than happy to answer
402664
Poor countries want what wealthy countries have, even if it means taking it rather than earning it.  Inequality leads to conflict.  The only way many people know to solve conflict is through violence.  Learing to talk, use diplomacy, is the only hope we have.
641316
The Reconstruction era scarred the South (the results can still be seen today). It was a glaring example of why a one party system does not work, and how forcing reparation or reparation type laws on the losing side of a war will spark dissension and possibly future violence.\n\nBecause they completely lost their pride and their power, certain elements in the South radicalized. Their mistreatment of minorities (namely blacks) caused widespread debate, hatred, and racism.
936443
It takes longer to train leaders.\n\nBTW--NBC is the only one calling it a civil war.
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
804442
Countries should be democratic and try to solve their differences through diplomacy!
767731
There was no need for the Civil War, because in the end we were fighting ourselves. Our brothers in arms. The North and South were no different than each other, and they were just people with the same idea, but with different course of actions. It was the lack of leadership that caused the civil war. Something could have been worked out, as it says in the quote."it was the result of extremism and failures of leadership on both sides." Just means that everyone on both sides was so stuck up in their own ideas and were narrow minded to the other side, thinking they were the only one that was right. If they sat down and tried to compromise. Thats a big word in politics, COMPROMISE, the civil war would never have happened. \n\nLeadership is not on the ability to lead during crisis, its the ability to follow and have the ability to compromise as well. A good leader is a good follower and listener, and able to maintain his people in times of hardship and peace.
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
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.
264958
There once was a war that was pivital\nAnd somehow this war was called "civil"\nThey all fought alot\nAnd someone got shot\nIt's too bad when different sides quibble!
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.
648039
Because humankind has not grown up enough to resolve issues in a peaceful manner.
156048
The Civil War years were worse.  Lincoln was absolutely hated because of the draft, the fact that the war wasn't going well.  There were quite a few courtmartials because of what Union troops said after he was killed
425154
one thing is de-militarization delayed our eventual involvement in the war.  Even after we declared war, it took the US a wile to actually fight because there were too few soldiers and too little equipment.  They had to wait for it to be produced.
487798
The battle was also for control of the rich lands in the West. Who would control them, the industrial North or the agrarian South. Further, States' Rights was a huge issue as well. Like most wars, economics was at the root of Civil War.
937614
A lot of the reason why the United States did not intervene was because of how the situation in Somolia was handled.  The US was too scared to get involved in anothe African conflict.\n\nAlso, the US has a history of not intervening unless there is profit.  Just look at how long it took for the US to join in the war against Nazi Germany!!  And even then, it was only because we were directly attacked.
209302
During wartime many democratic rights are suspended.  That's part of the reason we are in a "war" today.  To give the people with power, more power.