after the civil war why did northeners headed south?
445054
so they could teach the southerners how to spell, i guess they didn't stay long
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
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.
806580
You are talking about the contraband they followed the armies throughout the South the problem was the armies had no way or motivation to care for them.  Read "The Uncivil War" the Yankees raped, hung and abused them great liberators.  That might have why most of them stayed loyal or may-be they did listen to the yankee lies!\n\nGod Bless You and The Southern People.
382206
They felt that the North was oppressing their point of veiw and not allowing them to keep slavery leagal. The Congress was practiaclly deadlocked for about 20 years before the civil war and nothing ever got done. When Lincoln got elected on the promise of freeing the slaves the South knew the tables had turned government wise and decided to fight it out.
542857
Two sides with guns\n\nthe two were the North and the South\n\nThe two were at war in what was called the Civil War\nor\nThe War of Norhern Agression\ndepending on where you live...\n\nGeneral concensus says that the reason for the war was the issue of slavery,\nOr\nStates Rights depending on where you live.
909895
The North considered it a victory because they defeated the confederate army in the field costing irreplaceable men and supplies.\n\nThe Confederate army considered it a victory because they thought they had fought to union army to a stand still since the union army did not follow them in their retreat back to the south.\n\nThe real reason the union army did not follow up, was because they had to split their forces after the battle.\n\nHalf the union army had to force march to New York City to put down pro-confederate riots and to keep New York from succeeding from the union.and pulling out of the war altogether
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.
635486
In a nutshell:  While the United States was fulfilling their belief in Manifest Destiny and expanding westward, arguments arose over whether slavery should be allowed or banned in new territories.  Southern states felt that it was a question of popular sovereignty -- literally that the people should decide.  When the decision was settled by compromises reached in Congress, tempers began to really flare.  Eventually, the southern states chose to secede, citing states' rights issues.
107564
Consider this- the North had the factories and the ability to ship goods produced by those factories for export, the South had plantations with a lot fewer ways of shipping the goods (cotton, etc.) to the factories where the cotton, etc. was made into other things(virtually no way to export goods).
931964
It led to the end of the Civil War by forcing the industrial might of the north to be aligned against the seccessionists.  It was the provocation needed to bring the south back into the union fold.  Without Sumter, the seccession would've continued for a longer period than the four or five years that it did.\n\nYah, i get the 10 points, everyone else commented how it started the war, and not how it led to the end of the war.
596848
The North was able to move their troops around fairly rapidly with the railroad's help.  The South was not able to reallly use rail service to much advantage.  Because of the lay of the land (mountains), much of the rail service in the South ran north and south.  If the War had taken place earlier the South would not have had this as a disavantage.\n\n\nThe South was at a disavantage by the North's manufacturing capacity at the time of the War.  If the North's manufacturing capacity hadn't had been as developed, the South would not have been at such a disavantage. . .if the War had taken place earlier.  \n\nI think slavery was a disavantage to the South during the Civil War and it would have remained so if the War had taken place earlier. \n\nSo.  If the war had taken place earlier, the results could have been different.  However, Lincoln's resolve would have had him just as steadfast.  Likely the end result would have been the same.  But if England or France had joined the Southern cause, the end result may have been different.  But it really is hard to tell if the South could have ever mustered the support of either country.
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.
1185273
TO KEEP THE BRITISH FROM TAKING THE SOUTHS SIDE IN THE WAR.THE SOUTH HAD WON SOME BATTLES AND ENGLAND WAS THINKING OF HELPING THEM SINCE THEY RELIED ON "KING COTTON" FOR THEIR TEXTILE MILLS.THE BRITISH HOWEVER HAD RECENTLY OUTLAWED SLAVERY AND JOINING THE SOUTH WOULD HAVE CREATED AN OUTCRY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY IN HELPING SLAVERS.
681614
As has been noted, the South used several strategies to attempt to convince the North that preserving the Union just wasn't worth the cost. The South made invasions attempting to draw the remaining slave-holding 'Border States' (ie-Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, the western territories). Later, after the offensive strategy had failed, the South attempted to use a primarily defensive strategy using interior lines of communication and trying to defend key areas. The Southern armies won many battles, but lost most of the campaigns because while their leaders had tactical brilliance they lacked overall strategic vision.\n\nThe Southern leadership constantly underestimated the Northern will to prosecute the war, and always overestimated their own ability to muddle through without a clear idea of how a nation is run. Yes, the South was starving but that was not because there was no food, it was because their money was no good (when General Sherman entered Georgia and General Sheridan entered the Shenandoah they not only found more food than they could eat, they found more food than they could BURN). They understood that their cotton monopoly was vital to the European economy, but then underestimated the European ability to find substitutes (subsidized cotton in Egypt, etc), while neglecting the overriding feelings against slavery throughout the world, so they allowed the blockade to become effective before they tried to export, and then their diplomacy was completely out of touch with world opinion.\n\nThe South had dashing generals, while the North had plodding but effective bureaucrats. The battle might have been won in the Sunken Road, but it was lost in the halls of power in Richmond.
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
358974
Because the Victors (in the this case the Northern States) write the history books.  To that add another 146 years of revisioinist history ~ and the orgins etc get lost, to all but the true history buffs.\n\nBy definition it was NOT a civil war, for it to be a civil war, you would have to have one group trying to gain control of the government/nation from the other.  That is not what the South was attempting to do.  They did NOT want to seize control of the United States Government ~ they wanted to leave it ~ that is to say ~ succeed ~ and form a nation and a governmetn of their own.  \n\nAnoter mis-conception about the War Between The States is that it was fought over slawvery.  It wasn't.  It was fought over different opinoins about the Constitution and the interpetation of the same.  Its was fought over the same arguments that preceeded the actual war by decades, almost back to the foundation of the United States ~ which can be studied in the "Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers"  \n\nIf it had been at the time publically stated on either side, North or South, that the war was being fought over slavery, the average solider in the field on both sides would not have fought, this is evidenced in what historians refer to as "orginal documents" mainly lettters and such that were written by soliders on both sides of the conflict.  \n\nWhat the Northern solider was fighting for was to perserve the Union as it had exsisted prior to the succession of the Southern States, ~ they could care less about the slaves.  What the Southern solider was fighting for was to protect his "country" (The Confederate States of America) his home and family against a "foreign" invasion from another country.  They to, didn't care about the slaves ~ as you're average, typical Southerner didn't own slaves.  A very small percentage of the Southern population even owned a slave, with only about 1/10th of the Southern population owning 50 or more.\n\nWhat is left out of today's modern history books about the so-called "civil war" is that there were more than just a few "freed" Southern blacks, that owned other black slaves. And, they were not relatives ~ they were slaves, and were treated as slaves, and worked as slaves.  This is documented historial fact.