what would have happened if mclellen would have won the election before the civil war?
436757
Above dates are true, but If McClellan had been elected during the war, he would have screwed things up, just like he screwed things up during battle. I do believe that he would have declared a truce, because he was always retreating rather than fighting, that is why the US Army kept replacing him.
222496
Apparently Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson and Johh Tyler, with Van Buren's family also owning them when he was a child.  Interestingly, of the first six presidents, four were from Virginia, and they were the slaveholders.  Of the next six, five were from the south (including 3 more Virginians).  One wonders if the history of slavery in the US would have been shorter had the White House been occupied by more northerners in its early years--or would the Civil War have come that much sooner?
773035
The American Civil War was worth fighting from all focal points. If it was not fought, African-Americans would still be under the evil of slavery. We also would not be the country that we are today; we would be split in two. North vs. South. Brother vs. Brother. Family vs. Family.\n\n   It has often been said that the Civil War was a turning point in America. In this great war, we Americans actually became Americans. We were not Northerners. We were not Southerners. We were Americans, and we still are today. And in the Civil War, people fought for what they believed, not because they were forced to, not for any reward, not for any kind of land, or money, or gain. They just fought for what they believed.\n\n\nP.S. Yoube72: LOL very funny! I'm a SW fan too.
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.
1153830
Lichtenstein.\n\nNo, only kidding. It's the United States. The country hasn't been so polarized since 1855. If there isn't another civil war in the US before the end of the century I'll be very surprised.
1116350
Probably the good ol' confedrate states of america because they were a little pissed of aboud losing the slaves and the civil war
715471
Presidential Reconstruction\n\na. the South was the main battleground of the Civil War\n\n  I.The War’s Aftermath\n\na. war had destroyed property, cities, men, morale, etc.\naa. 2/3 of southern shipping and 9,000 miles of railroad destroyed\nab. 1 out of every 5 white men in the South had been killed\nb. farmers and other poor whites returned home to find their farms in ruins, their livestock dead, no jobs available, and no way to make a living\nc. plantation owners lost slave labor worth about $3 billion\nca. many lost their plantations and all of their money\nd. newly freed slaves had to provide for their needs for the first time in their lives\nda. this was difficult in the South’s wrecked economy and climate of racial discrimination\ne. Federal government’s effort to repair the south and restore southern states to the Union was known as Reconstruction\nf. two issues lay at the heart of Reconstruction:\n1. the future of political & economic power for freed slaves\n2. the future of North-South political and economic relations\n\n  II.Two Reconstruction Plans\n\nLincoln’s Plan\na. Prodigal Son Plan/Ten Percent Plan\naa. tone of forgiveness\n1. offered a pardon to any Confederate who would take an oath of allegiance to the Union & accept federal policy on slavery\n2. denied pardons to Confederates who had killed black war prisoners\n3. allowed each state to hold a constitutional convention only after 10% of the voters who voted in 1860 had sworn allegiance to the Union\n4. states could then hold elections and resume full participation in the Union\nb. Radical Republicans in Congress saw Lincoln’s plan as a threat to their authority\nba. wanted to punish the south\nbb. offered their own plan called the Wade-Davis Bill\nbc. required southern states to repudiate Confederate debt\nbd. required ex-Confederates to take an oath of loyalty\nJohnson’s Plan\na. Andrew Johnson somewhat followed Lincoln’s plan\n1. pardoned southerners who swore allegiance to the Union\n2. allowed each state to hold a constitutional convention\n3. states were required to void secession, abolish slavery, and ratify the 13th Amendment\n4. states could then hold elections and resume full participation in the Union\nb. Johnson’s plan made it possible for former high ranking Confederate officials to hold positions of power in reconstructed southern governments\n\nIII.The Taste of Freedom\n\na. to help the black southerners, Congress created the Freedmen’s Bureau\nb. gave out clothing, medical supplies, and meals to black and white war refugees\nc. built schools and helped provide education for freedmen\n\n\nChapter 13 Section 2 [p.p. 385-390]  Congressional Reconstruction\n\n  I.Black Codes\n\na. southern legislatures passed laws restricting the rights of blacks\nb. North saw black codes as evidence the South sought to keep freedmen in a legally inferior and economically dependent status\n\n II.Turning Point: Fourteenth Amendment\n\na. Radical Republicans in Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 outlawing black codes and giving black men “full and equal benefit of all laws”\naa. Pres. Johnson saw the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as an instrument to provoke racial disharmony\nab. Johnson vetoed it\nb. Radical Republicans began to take over Reconstruction\nc. June 1866, Congress passed 14th Amendment\nca. gave citizenship to blacks\n\nIII.Radical Reconstruction\n\na. moderate and radical Republicans began to form an alliance against Johnson after his vetoes of the Civil Rights Act and the Freedmen’s Bureau bill\nb. Radical Republicans like Charles Sumner believed the Confed. states had ceased to exist as states and must be treated as conquered territory\nc. Congress passed Reconstruction Act of 1867\nca. divided the South into 5 districts\ncb. placed the South under military rule\ncc. ordered southern states to create new constitutions\ncd. gave blacks in the South the right to vote (universal manhood suffrage)\nce. temporarily prohibi
194774
You know, if the liberals would have had their way, they would have not gone to war and eventually we would have had WMD used on us. Then these same liberals would have wondered why we did nothing and blamed the Republicans.
343553
Lincoln would have forgiven the South and let them back in the Union with enough for sight to heal the wounds of a fractured country. Andrew Johnson wanted the same but not enough of Lincolns power or influence to carry it through. Because Lincoln was assassinated bitterness and unforgiveness prevailed even to this day.
809780
i would think not.  the lawn jockey was used to show run away slaves that the owner of the house would hide them duing the civil war
274050
I do not think an independent Southern Republic (ie: Confederate States of America) would be easy going or even terribly stable. I think it would be a continuing problem to the peace and prosperity of the Western Hemisphere.\n\nThe antebellum leaders of the American South were extremely expansionist, looking to add at least Cuba and Nicauragua as new slave states. The fast-profit method of cotton cultivation in the south was so wasteful and inefficient that the ariable land available would have diminished very quickly with the requirement for even more of Latin America to be seized. Because of the growing worldwide trend against Negro slavery, the traditional supply sources would have been unavailable. This would have inevitably required the extension of slavery to the indiginous Indian populations.\n\nThe Southern economy, again because of the quick-profit mentality, was dependent on outside sources for capital and for manufacturing. As a one-product economy, the CSA would have been the victim of the fluctuations of the foreign market for cotton. The federal blockade during the Civil War forced Europe to develop other sources of cotton (Egypt and South America) and this would have made those fluctuations even more traumatic. Transportation and Energy production in the South would have continued to lag with obsolete technology, again because of the quick profit mentality - and small government thinking. Public investment would have continued to be discouraged.\n\nEmancipation would never have happened, and the flight of runaway slaves to the USA would have increased. As a separate and unfriendly nation, the CSA would have very little influence on US policy. The USA would never condone the return of runaways to slavery and probable torture (although George W was born in Connecticut). This would have led to the requirement of a long and fortified border between the two countries, a further drag on both country's economies.\n\nThere is a definite possibility that the two countries would have fought on different sides in WWI (South with England, North with Germany). Imagine trench warfare along the Tennessee River. Regardless of outcome, South would probably have become a partial protectorate of England, certainly would depend on the Royal Navy for protection.\n\nNo, this would have been a bad thing.
268468
Technically he died before the hostilities were over, however it has long been considered that when the Confederate Army of Virginia under General Robert E. Lee surrenderred to U.S. Grant on April 9, 1865 that the war was over.  The final Confederate Army surrenderred in late May in the Deep South.  However in April we had siezed the Southern Capital At Richmond, Va. and sent the government running so the war was really considered over with that occurance, Hostilities ended about 6 weeks later.\n\nWhen you study the Civil War you can see that the Northern Forces had many setbacks during the first few years of the war and it looked as if the South were going to win the war.  However with Lincoln's resolve to reunite the Union he kept changing Generals until he found one that was up to the task.  The first major setback for the South was at Gettysburg, Pa. when the South's invasion of the North was turned back and Lee's Army retreated back too Virgina suffering many losses along the way.  With General Grant being placed in charge of the Union Army the tide of the war turned to favor the Union Forces.\n\nThe Civil War was fought over States Rights, each state was sovereign from each other and could pass their own laws and the Southern States wanted that right to be placed before the Federal Governments Rights.  The Southern States wanted strong state government and the North wanted a strong Federal Government.  140 years later and this sometimes is still questioned by people all over the country as to how much right's a state does indeed have.  The freeing of the Slaves became a part of it when in 1862 to obtain political advantage over the South Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which went into effect January 1, 1863.  This was done to keep European Nations from recognizing the South as a free and Independent country.  Slavery by the 1860's had been all but eliminated by the rest of the world and from a humun right's standpoint this made it difficult for any other Nation to give aid to the South by recognizing them as free and Independent of the Northern States.  Only one country had Slavery longer the the U.S. and that was Brazil and they also did away with it in the 1860's.
1122960
That was in 1865.  The Civil War was over, but the South had not yet been readmitted to the Union.
1165344
The South had fewer advantages, but it held several that would pose great threats to attempts by their Northern neighbors to end the rebellion. The South was able to fight on its home terrain, and it could win the war simply by continuing to exist after the hostilities ended later. 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, Joseph Johnston, and "Stonewall" Jackson.
925864
None. This is a proven fact as he failed in every business he tried before going in to politics. Although perhaps he would be excellent running a demolition company.
116381
Not much.  He lost most of the battles he fought, and got relieved of duty after the Battle of Chattanooga.  Probably the most important thing he did was to command the troops who traveled with Jefferson Davis as bodyguards after the fall of Richmond, before Davis surrendered.
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.