How did the abolitionist movement contribute to outgoing conflict between the North and South?
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!
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.
511821
North and South. Union and Confederate, it was the war over abolishing slavery. The Confederates left the United States, and started the own government as rebels and traitors. The Confederacy had it's own money (currency) and President, although I can't remember what his name was. The North (Union) defeated the South in the Civil War, and reunited the United States. So look up the Civil War on the Web through "Ask Jeeves". Good Luck.
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
1072065
Good job! Evidently, you've done your homework! \n\nMany aren't aware that the American Civil War was "NOT" about slavery. Nor are many aware that slaves were still being held as private property in the North during that time. Abraham Lincoln owned a slave during the war, and Union General U.S. Grant owned 4. \n\nThe war was, from the Southern standpoint, over States Rights, i.e., a state had authority over the federal government within it's own borders. And also, to defend against an illegal military invasion from the North. \n\nBut it's always the victors in war that write the history, isn't it?
195010
See, I am in Third Grade and I love writing about the history of people that have helped me and my family see my dad was born into slavery and he also escaped to the North with Harriet Tubman. Sorry to get off track but here is a part of my report from my studies I learned that Harriet Tubman first escaped to the north by her self then she realized that if she only helped herself she would be selfish and so she made nineteen trips to the south and helped over three hundred people escape from slavery. Again sorry for getting off track but she was against slavery because she said that we should not be judged by the color of our skin and that it is very unfair for white people to own black people.My dad got some slave laws and here they are. \n\nSlave Laws\n1. No one was allowed to teach slaves how to read or write nor were they to be given books or pamphlets.\n\n2. Slaves were not allowed to buy or consume liquor without the written consent of their masters.\n\n3. Slave owners were required to feed and clothe their slaves and take care of their sick and elderly slaves. Failure to do so could result in a fine to the master.\n\n4. Slaves were not allowed to preach, except to their masters' slaves on their own plantation and in presence of white people.\n\n5. Any child who had one free parent and one slave parent was only free if the mother was the free parent.\n\n6. Slaves could not conduct business without a permit or own any personal prperty.\n\n7. Slaves were not allowed to own or have their possession weapons of any kind.\n\n8. The testimony of slaves in court was disallowed exept in those cases involving other slaves.\n\n9. It was illegal to mistreat or kill a slave unless the slave resisted punishment.\n\n10. SLaves were not allowed to strike white men or to insult them in any way.\n\n11. Slaves were never allowed to enter into any kind of legal binding contract, including contracts of marriage.\n\n12. A slave who traveled away from his own plantation had to have a pass to show as a means of identification to any white man who challenged him.\n\n13. Slaves were not allowed to swear, smoke or walk with a cane in public.\n\n14. Slaves had to step aside when whites passed them on a public street.\n\n15. It was illegal for mare than five slaves to gather together away from their own homes unless in the presence of white people.\n\n16. Slaves were not allowed to own their own animals, nor could they grow their own cotton; however, theey could have thier own gardens if thier masters allowed.\n\n17. It was illegal for a master to work his slave in the field on Sundays exept as punishment or unless he paid them for their work.\n\nI hope all the above information helps you an your school project. E-mail me and tell me if this info works or not. My e-mail address is a-maknojia@sbcglobal.net.
874750
Traditionally states north of the Mason-Dixon line had been free and those south of it had slavery.  With California coming in as a free state this was broken, and the balance tipped against the slave states.  However, Missouri was admitted as a slave state despite being north of the line.  This preserved the balance, and kept the southern states from doing anything drastic.  At the same time, the Supreme Court issued the Dredd Scott decision which allowed slaveowners to pursue escaped slaves even in free states, and ruled the Northwest Territorial Ordinance which established the outline for creating states unconstitutional because it obligated states north of the line to be free.  The point was states could chose on their own, not by Congressional fiat.  All this made the South very happy and quieted some of the agitation, although the abolitionists were very unhappy, but their political influence at this point was not all that great.  By delaying the crisis for a decade the North improved its lead in population and manufacturing, with the result that despite some of the most inept military leaders the world has ever seen, the North won the war.
684196
they wanted to stop the expansion of slavery. this led 2 the confederacy 'cause the south "needed" their slaves. and that led 2 the Civil War. Lincoln did the Emancipation Proclamation to make this war officially about slavery. i have no internet sources about this, i'm just mad sick at history
471515
reconstruction in the south
510063
Economics was the major reason for the Civil War. Slavery really was an economic issue, not a moral one. The southern plantation owners had paid much money for their slaves to work their plantations. If slavery were prohibited, they would have lost the means to survive because they could not have afforded to buy slaves and then later pay workers to run the plantations.\n\nAlso, remember, the North had an industrial economy and the South had an agrarian society. These clashed, and there was a big concern over who was going to control the rich and expansive lands in the West.
866921
The North's general attitude toward the South, from the tariff of abominations and and other laws designed to keep the south's markets isolated.   Slavery was only thrown into the mix to gain public support.  It was not the main issue.  It was the North with its industry trying to force the South to knuckle under to its demands.
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.
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.
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
48705
It was mostly political, the abolition movement was very strong in the north, and obviouslty opposed in the south being it powered their mostly agricultural society...(there weren't a lot of farm Machines back then). Political force threatened to divide the country. Lincoln didn't want the country to divide the country on his watch...(wouldn't have looked too good in the history books). The abolition movement would never have lost steam, the industrial north had the upper hand so reasonably Lincoln sided with the north...that's just a practical view....But he also had a personal reasons for choosing the ending of slavery.
494139
The Civil War was caused by a disagreement over state's rights. \n\nThe southern states thought that all states should decide taxation, slavery, and other things in the state. The northern states thought that all decisions should be made by the national government. \n\nThe south decided to leave the union, feeling that the centralized government was being given too much power against what the founding fathers had intended. The north decided that they could not secede and break up the union. \n\nThey fought a war, and due to many reasons (the north being more industrialized and richer is just one), the south lost the war.\n\nYes, economics affected the civil war because the north had more resources to call on to support the war effort and more connections with Europe to get support and help blockading the southern ports from them as well.
317777
kentucky was a slave state but it did not succede to the south in the civil war