what's the deal with the civil war in marvel comics?
551368
It started as a result of a reality TV show that follows the superhero team New Warriors. They are a team of "B" list heroes who attacked some villains who were hiding out. Thinking only about ratings and ignoring the fact that the bad guys were more powerful than they were, they attacked them and during the fight one of the bad guys (I forget the name) caused an explosion that killed hundreds of children.\n\nAs a result of that carelessness, the government wants all heroes to register their real identities with the government so they can sanction them (or punish them if they act up). The heroes of the Marvel Universe are divided between those they are willing to comply with the government and those that aren't.\n\nIf you want to know more, you'll have to read the book!
429397
American Civil War, 1861-1865 \nAlgerian Civil War, 1991-2002 \nAustrian Civil War, February 12 to February 16, 1934 \nBoshin War (Japan), 1868-1869 \nChinese Civil War, 1928-1937, 1945-1949 \nCosta Rica Civil War, 1948 \nEnglish Civil War, 1642-1651 \nEthiopian Civil war, 1974-1991 \nFinnish Civil War, 1918 \nFirst English Civil War, 1642–1646 \nFrench Wars of Religion, 1562-1598 \nGenpei War (Japan), 1180-1185 \nGreek Civil War, 1946-1949 \nSalvadoran Civil War (El Salvador), 1979-1991 \nIndonesian Civil War, 1965-1966 \nIrish Civil War, 1922-1923 \nIrish Confederate Wars some parts of which were a civil war. \nKlang War; also known as Selangor Civil War, 1867 - 1874 \nKorean Civil War, 1950-1953 \nLebanese Civil War, 1975-1990 \nLiberian Civil War, 1990-1997 \nMozambican Civil War, see Rome General Peace Accords, 1975-1992 \nNigerian Civil War, 1967-1970 \nOnin War (Japan), 1467-1477 \nPakistan Civil War, 1971 \nParaguayan Civil War, 1947 \nRokosz of Zebrzydowski. 1606-1609 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth \nRoman Republican civil wars, List of Roman Republic and Empire Civil Wars \nRomania had a brief civil war in 1989, after the fall of Nicolae Ceauşescu, between Communists and those against the former regime. \nRussian Civil War, 1917-1921 \nScottish Civil War; 1644-1652 \nSecond English Civil War 1648–1649 \nSengoku Period (Japan), 1467-1615 \nSpanish Civil War, 1936-1939 \nTaiping Civil War (China), 1851-1864 \nThe Anarchy, 1135-1153 (refers to the disorder during the reign of King Stephen of England) \nThe Brothers' Civil War, 1067-1072 (The war between King Alfonso of Léon and King Sancho of Castille) \nThird English Civil War 1650–1651 \nVietnamese Civil War, 1930-1975 \nWarring States Period (China), 475 BCE-221 BCE (this is not universally considered a civil war, but rather an international conflict. However each of the combatant states nominally acknowledged the authority of the Zhou kings of China, thus bringing them into one kingdom. This ended in 256 BCE, however this was a mere 35 years before the end of conflict) \nEnglish Wars of the Roses, c. 1455-1485 \nWars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, Scotland) 1639-1651 involved a number of civil wars: \nZulu Civil War, 1817-1819
501427
Here you go\nhttp://www.pbs.org/civilwar/
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...
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!
248004
Seriously? The Civil War was a war between North and South. It started in 1861 and lasted years. The reasons for the war range from slavery to states rights. It is a very important part of American history and you really need to study up on it.
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.
372052
That's a huge question.  You should do some research on causes of the Civil War - there are plenty of children's, students', and young adult books concerning the topic.\n\nTrying to be brief here... The Lincoln/Northern view was that the United States is a union first and a confederation second - in other words, once you're in the Union, you can't back out, otherwise the very strength of the Union, of the United States, is undermined.  If Lincoln had just said, "Oh, heck with it!  Good luck to you Southern states!", it would have made it difficult if not impossible to keep any other state from seceding for any reason whatsoever.  Lincoln and the North pressed the war in order to preserve the Union and establish the supremacy of nationhood over statehood.\n\nBesides, historians and economists in years since have speculated that, in time, the South and North would probably have reunited in some way anyway, as both regions would have had a mutual interest.
491988
no one is still alive from the civil war. in my past life i was there, i was a southrener, hiding behind a stone wall. no, i'm studing it and i am not the kind of person who is interested in social studies/ history.
133223
Slavery had little to do with the Civil War. The prime issue was balance of power between Federal and State. Slavery happened to be the issue that fell along this divide. Could also throw in north-south economic disparacy.
574454
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).\n\nUltimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.\n\nWhat is generally agreed upon is that factors such as nationalism, religion, and ideology, played little role in pre-modern civil wars. While it is quite common for nationalists to read past revolts, such as those of Scotland against England as early stirrings of nationalism, this is a somewhat suspect notion. Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.\n\nCivil wars fought over religion have tended to occur more frequently in monotheistic societies than in polytheistic societies; this has been explained as being due to the fact that the latter tend to be more "flexible" in terms of dogma, to allow for some latitude in belief. In Europe through the Middle Ages, the Christianity of the great bulk of the population was influenced by pagan tradition. With the great majority of the population illiterate, access to the Bible was limited and led to a significant amount of syncretism between Christian and pagan elements. With religion so loosely applied, it was rare for people to feel particularly oppressed by it. There were periodic appearances of heresies, such as that of the Albigensians, which led to violence, but historians tend to view these to be the product of peasant revolts rather than themselves motivators of a civil war.\n\nAs religions tended to become more rigidly defined and understood by their followers, inter-religious tensions generally increased. The rise of Islam witnessed a rash of uprisings against non-Islamic rulers soon after its appearance. Subsequent Islamic history has been marked by repeated civil conflicts, mostly stemming out of the Shi'ite-Sunni divide. In Europe the Protestant Reformation had a similar effect, sparking years of both civil and international wars of religion. Civil wars between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism consumed France in the Wars of Religion, the Netherlands during the Eighty Years' War, Germany during the Thirty Years' War, and more recently, The Troubles of Northern Ireland. Religious disputes among Protestant sects also played an important role in the English Civil Wars, while official persecution of Catholics during the French Revolution spurred the Revolt in the Vendée.\n\n[edit]\nRevolutions\nA revolution is generally seen as a civil war fought over issues of ideology, over how power should be organized and distributed, not merely over which individuals hold it. The classic example of a revolution, and by some arguments the first is the French Revolution, which is seen to hav
836481
CIVIL WAR\n\n•  1860-61: Causes and Goals \n\nWhat caused the Civil War was hatred of slavery and disgust with abolitionism, anger at the power of slaveowners and fear of slave insurrections, plus southern nationalism and northern nationalism, plus a myriad of slights and insults, fears and forebodings. Historians still are trying to sort out all the causes. In order to understand the military strategies employed, it is necessary to see how the causes leaders perceived were tied to the war aims they pursued. Journalist Edmund Stedman revealed a common sentiment in the North:  more…..\n\nhttp://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/cw-1.htm\n\nFrom April 1861 to April 1865, a brutal civil war was fought between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America. The American Civil War is one of the most researched conflicts in modern history, yet many people still desire more knowledge about it.\n\nhttp://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/index.cfm\n\nLETTERS & DIARIES\n\nhttp://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/library/letters/index.cfm\n\nWEB SITES ON THE CIVIL WAR AND\nRECONSTRUCTION\n\nA comprehensive list of links for you to explore.\n\nhttp://www.cumbavac.org/Civil_War_and_Reconstruction.htm\n\nThe American Civil War Homepage \n\nhttp://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/warweb.html\n\nThe American Civil War Homepage gathers together in one place hypertext links to the most useful identified electronic files about the American Civil War (1861-1865). \n\nResearch/Informational Sites\n\nhttp://www.historyplace.com/civilwar/index.html\n\nhttp://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html\n\nhttp://edtech.kennesaw.edu/web/civwar.html\n\nhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilwar.htm\n\nhttp://www.civilwarhome.com/indexcivilwarinfo.htm\n\nhttp://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0173280-0&templatename=/article/article.html\n\nhttp://www.civil-war.net/\n\nhttp://members.aol.com/teachernet/\n\nhttp://www.refdesk.com/facthist.html\n\nTHE UNITED STATES COLORED TROOPS IN THE CIVIL WAR\n\nhttp://www.coax.net/people/lwf/usct.htm\n\nCivil War Links\n\nBattles\n\nhttp://www.civilwarhome.com/cwinfo2.htm#Battles\n\nLinks to Other Civil War Sites\n\nhttp://www.smplanet.com/civilwar/civilwar.html#Links\n\nFour score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.\n\nhttp://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm\n\nhttp://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/\n\nINTRODUCTION TO ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S GETTYSBURG ADDRESS.\n\nhttp://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/25.htm\n\nColored Troops in the American Civil War\n\n"Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S., let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship."\n\nhttp://www.americancivilwar.com/colored/colored_troops.html\n\nApproximately 180,000 African-Americans comprising 163 units served in the Union Army during the Civil War, and many more African-Americans served in the Union Navy. Both free Africans-Americans and runaway slaves joined the fight. On July 17, 1862, Congress passed two acts allowing the enlistment of African-Americans, but official enrollment occurred only after the September, 1862 issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation.\n\nhttp://www.americancivilwar.com/colored/histofcoloredtroops.html\n\nColored Troops Medal of Honor Winners\n\nWilliam Carney\nPowhatan Beaty\nAndrew Jackson Smith\nAlexander Kelly\nChristian Fleetwood\nThomas Hawkins\nJames Gardiner\n\nAbraham Lincoln (1809-1865) \n\nAbraham Lincoln was born Sunday, February 12, 1809, in a log cabin near Hodgenville, Kentucky. He was the son of Thomas and Nancy Hanks Lincoln, and he was named for his paternal grandfather. Thomas Lincoln was a carpenter and farmer. Both of Abraham's parents were members of a Baptist congregation
929332
Leaders do not have to die for it to be a civil war.  It IS a civil war because you have one faction within a country fighting another faction inside that same country for control.  I don't care what the White House wants to call it, those who decide not to be ignorant will recognize a civil war when they see one.
168524
No. \n\nWe can see certain current issues fictionalized and addressed in some of our comics (in "Ex Machina" the hero manages to save one of the twin towers), but I think that iconic heros should not be brought into this.\n\nWhat's the point of Batman v. Bin Laden? Obviously Batman will win, but it will be a hollow victory, as the real terrorist is still at large.\n\nI'd like to see a comic about radical islam, terrorists, or even one that painted a picture of what's going on from their point of view. However, to have our mythic do-gooders clash with real evildoers could leave us feeling empty.\n\nI fully realize that Captain America was originally out smashing Nazis, but times were simpler then. The enemy had a plan, wore uniforms, and were easy to single out from non-combatants.\n\nIf Batman actually went after Bin Laden, he'd probably have to spend a fair amount of time beating up innocents for information that they didn't have. Cap can just smack any guy with a swastika armband. There's certainly a difference.
90195
which democratic nation and civil war are you talking about??? \nedit your question and ill be more than happy to answer
239385
The info is on this page: http://www.civilwar.org/FAQS.htm
671734
There are two coming out next year. One is a prequel about Magneto and how he became who he is/ got even with the nazi's. The other is sopposed to be about Wolverine and his search for his past.