Kansas and the Civil War?
95748
It was called bleeding Kansas for a reason.  A number of battles were fought to see if it would be a free state or slave state.  Some of the worst atrocities that occured during the civil war happened in and around Kansas. \n\nKansas entered the Union as the thirty-fourth state on January 29, 1861. Less than three months later, on April 12, Fort Sumter was attacked by Confederate troops and the Civil War began. In Washington rumors were afloat that President Abraham Lincoln was to be kidnapped or assassinated. James H. Lane, a senator from Kansas, recruited 120 Kansas men who were in the city and organized them into the "Frontier Guard." For nearly three weeks they were billeted in the White House to protect the President. \n\nMost Kansans strongly favored the cause of the Union. Governor Charles Robinson at once began recruiting troops for the Union armies, and Senator Lane returned from Washington to do the same. Before the war ended the federal government issued several calls for troops, asking Kansas for a total of 16,654. More than 20,000 "Jayhawkers" enlisted, however, and the state contributed 19 regiments and four batteries to the Union forces. Although many of these volunteer soldiers hailed from states other than Kansas, this was a remarkable showing for an infant state with only 30,000 men of military age. Kansas soldiers suffered nearly 8,500 casualties, and the state had the highest mortality rate of any in the Union.\n\nSeveral skirmishes with Confederate units took place along the Missouri border in 1861, but the first real action for Kansas troops came at the Battle of Wilson's Creek, near Springfield, Missouri, on August 10, 1861. Both the First and Second Kansas Volunteer Infantry regiments were engaged, but the First saw the most action and suffered heavy losses. During 1862 several Kansas units served in campaigns in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. In Arkansas a brigade commanded by James G. Blunt, the first Kansan to become a major-general, fought in Rhea's Mills, Cane Hill, and Prairie Grove. Kansas regiments, both white and black, were used in the Indian territory in 1862 and 1863. In 1863 Kansans also served under General U.S. Grant in the Vicksburg campaign, under General Rosencrans at Chickamauga, and against Morgan's Raiders in Indiana.\n...
570577
Vastly simplified: When Kansas was looking to become a state, a vote was held to determine if it was going to be a free state (slavery not allowed) or a slave state.  Many people from both sides travelled to Kansas to try to throw the vote either way.  Another anti-slave state could have put enough senators and representatives in congress to abolish slavery.  Another pro-slave state could more or less do the reverse.\n\nSlavery was a hot-button issue, even more so than abortion or the Iraq war is today.  People killed and died for it.  Bleeding Kansas was a big example of that.
1039999
I loved learning about the civil war, i was born in Atlanta and it is still to this day a big part of heritage in the south.  I think its great for ppl to learn to because most ppl believe that the whole war was based on slavery and that is totally not true it was just a minor detail.
501427
Here you go\nhttp://www.pbs.org/civilwar/
284848
I don't have the time to list them for you, but here is a site that might help some...\n\n      http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354/Civil_War.html#p53
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.
516813
Political problems of today can seem somewhat similar to the days prior to the civil war because they are similar issues (we're not talking race here either).  The Civil War was fought over states rights -and the more the federal government wanted to take over or make mandates that the states had to follow, then the more states rebelled - the same thing is happening today.  The federal goverernment is dictating and that is hindering the  states rights which are guaranteed in the constitution.  So the Civil War's legacy is not the cause of the problems today, but the problems today are very similar in nature.  Good observation of your  part.
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.
397421
There are 4 primary causes of the US civil war (I'm assuming this is the one you want).\n\n1.  federalism--favouring a strong centralized government as opposed to strong state governments.\n2.  slavery\n3. expansionism--extending control into new territory\n4.  sectionalism--blind focus on the interest of a section or region instead of the whole.
46052
It was well with in their rights to leave, the North kept making the South feel more isolated with the Missouri Comprimise.  It just came to the point that the States believed that they didn't have a choice.  \n\nWould I have voted for succession then no, but what I know about how strong the National Government became after the Civil War, a person has got to wonder what would have happened if the South would have won\n\nMost historians disaggree that slavery was the cause of the war.  Especially if you factor in that the underground railroad had to go all the way up to Canada (If the North really cared about slavery it would have ended at the Mason-Dixon Line) and the Draft riots in New York.\n\nThe Civil War never became about slavery until the Emansipation Prclamation.
149586
There is a new movie out right now about this: CSA.  It is a documentary about life in the US after the South wins, and defeats the North, so that the whole country is run by the South (rather than having two separate countries, a different scenario of a Southern victory.)\n\nThe premise of the movie is that the differences would be surprisingly small.\n\nIt is hard to know how things would be now.  Perhaps of the CSA had been a separate country, it would have faced an eventual and successful slave revolt (funded and supported by the remains of the Republican party in the North) and the CSA would be known as New Uhuru, or something.
34215
The North in the late 1850s had a highly developed (for the time) industrial economy.  The Southern states were primarily agrarian in makeup; they looked to the North for manufactured products of all kinds; the only large-scale industrial concern in the South at the time was the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia.\nMany historians think that the beginning of the end in 1859-60 was the inability to find a way to resolve the Missouri Compromise.  Keep in mind that "slavery" per se was not the issue; it was one of self-determination and states' rights.  The Compromise dictated that any new states north of Missouri would be free, while any south of Missouri could allow slavery.  When Kansas was admitted as a free state, Southerners were enraged.  Continuing agitation in the north to end slavery in the south also contributed to the general discontent in the south.  The presidential election of 1860 came down to the difference in the northern and southern concepts of states' rights.  Slavery did not become an important issue in the war until about halfway through it.  President Lincoln's primary desire was always to preserve the Union, not (at the start) to do away with slavery.
481246
During the American Civil war, Texas fought on the side of the Confederate States, The first units were cavalry and fought in northern Ok. and Kansas. They were engaged in winning the favour of, or fighting against Native American tribes depending on the Union treaties of the day. Eventually the Texan soldiers were fighting directly against Union troops through out the war.
555277
http://www.civil-war.net/
655116
If this was an easy question, you would not have asked it.  Well, here goes.\n\nIt was the 1st Kansas Colored Volunteer Regiment that fought at Sherwood, MO.  One report has it that there was a skirmish on May 18, 1863 at Sherwood and it was considered to be a Union defeat. \n\nOn May 18 a detachment of 40 Federals, most of whom were African-American troops of the 1st Kansas Colored Infantry Regiment, were foraging for corn at a farm near Sherwood, Missouri.  Without warning, they were suddenly surprised by Maj. Thomas Livingston and nearly 70 of his Jasper County partisans who burst from the nearby woods with guns blazing.  The Yanks were routed with 18 of their number killed.  The guerrillas had only two men wounded in the action and captured 5 wagons, 30 mules, and a good supply of guns and ammunition.  The next day, vengeful troops from the Union regiment’s camp arrived in the area with 300 infantrymen and at least 100 cavalrymen.  Livingston’s band eluded the force, but the village of Sherwood, a frequent base for the guerrilla forces, was put to the torch.  The community was completely destroyed and was never to be rebuilt.  Thus Sherwood was added to the growing list of Ozark communities that lay in ruins.  By now most of the Ozark region was essentially in a state of anarchy.  Destroyed homes and murdered citizens had become commonplace in the region.
347556
Although I am bothered by rhetorical questions, let's consider.  Hmm...\n\nThey are both Republicans who led their nation through a war.  Unfortunately, Lincoln's war had a purpose, which was fulfilled.  Then all the surviving troops went home.
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.