Were the Union's weapons technologically superior to that of the Confederacy?
543268
The Union Army had much more funding for developing repeating weapons such as leaver action rifles, the Gatling gun and the like.  By the late war their technological advantage was substantial.\n\nThe south acted as 13 different countries for accusations (each state bought stuff for their army) purposes while the north acted as one organization.
139255
Union:  at first, Winfield Scott led the forces, but "old fuss and feathers" was too old for the job...\nLincoln tried McClellan (and many others!!) but McClellan was nicknamed "tardy" for a reason--he didn't win decisively enough or pursue the Confederates\nUltimately, Lincoln gave the honors to Ulysses Hiram Simpson Grant\nfor the Confederacy---while there were many great generals (Johnston, for example) it was Robert E Lee who commanded (no pun intended) the greatest respect...and the one who surrendered for the CSA in April of 1865
618878
http://www.murphyenterprises.com/confederate.htm
500653
The Mexican military at its best would not have been a match for either the CSA or the USA and when the Civil War ended there would have been hell to pay.  The Mexican Army though very proud and brave was poorly armed throughout the 18th century and relied on obsolete tactics.  Though they outnumbered their foe in the Mexican War, the Americans made short brutal work of them and they really did not have the energy or resources to devote to another war with the US.  Add to this the fact that until 1910, Mexican governments still more or less fell into the old Spanish imperial style being undemocratic and opressive making popular support for any war a virtual impossibility.  Also during most of the period the mexicans were occupied fighting the French who sought to establish an empire for themselves there.
900877
To me, it goes back to the Civil War, when the Confederacy was red and the Union was blue. In other words, Republicans(today, even though roles were reversed back then) are in many ways still like the Confederacy, pretty much all the states that were in the Confederacy are still Republican.
218572
This is going to be just a quick summary...\nFor the most part, it was not all about slavery. The states North of the Mason-Dixon line were content with slavery in the South...the problem was the "Westward Expansion." The North wanted the new states to be free from slavery, whereas the South wanted those states to be open to slavery. There were a few compromises made years before the actual war began, however, those obviously did not work. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina announced it's leave from the Union...Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed. \nOn February 4th, 1861, the Confederate States of America was formed with Jefferson Davis as the president. A new constitution was drawn up. Key differences were:\n*The president and vice president were elected for six year terms whereas the North had only four years. \n*The protection of slavery in new territories was given. \n*No slave trade with Africa\n*President Davis could take a loan for $15 million for the creation of a military force of 100,000. \nPresident Davis was inaugurated February 18, 1861. \n\nPresident Lincoln for the Union said, "Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face and face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after seperation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old quesetions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it..." (Page 8)\nThe first shots of the Civil War were fired on April 12th, 1861 at Ft. Sumter, South Carolina. The fight lasted for thirty-four hours, and ended by the North surrendering. The war continued until April of 1865. \nAfter it was all said and done, most of the South was destroyed and the loss of lives on both ends, are up to this day, only an estimate (over 100,000). It is said, the number of Yanks and Rebels who died are greater than the loss of American lives in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietiman War...all combined.\n\nI hope this has been helpful to you. Here are some other books to check out if you are really interested in the Civil War:\n-"After the Civil War" by John S. Blay\n-"The Life of Johnny Reb" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"The Life of Billy Yank" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"Embattled Courage" by Gerald F. Linderman\n-"The Civil War: Strange & Fascinating Facts" by Burke Davis
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
1109324
It was a struggle between a strong central government vs a strong state government. States' Rights. Lincoln was afraid that if the South seceded from the Union, as a divided country, we would be open to invasion and take over by foreign nations. "United we stand; divided we fall,"  he said. So he wanted a Strong central government to keep a degree of unity and to keep us strong.\n\nDavis, on the other hand, had to argue that the power of government should remain basically in the hands of the states who were sovereign and who could overrule the federal government. That is how he justified slavery, namely, that slavery or no slavery was the job of each state to decide and not the federal government.\n\nLincoln won that debate via a Civil War, the argument still rages today--whether the states should have equal or more power than the federal government.\n\nI hope this helps.
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.
892295
...the term "better" is very subjective; no doubt each has its strengths and weaknesses.  Judging strictly by the calibre rounds used, I would suspect (not having fired either) that the AK-47 has more power and the AK-74 is more accurate.  \n\nAs far as durability goes though, it would probably be tough to beat the AK-47.  It's quite a feat that a weapon designed in 1947 is still the assault rifle of choice for the majority of the world.\n\nAlso, I'm not sure but I think the AK-74 might be classified as a submachinegun whereas the AK-47 is an assault rifle.  If that's true, the 74 was designed for close-quarters.
340780
Hey, I am from the South....and his response was widely known!  It was called The Civil War....the south raised taxes on its goods, ie cotton, tobacco.  Also, he had been misinformed on why the south seceded.
560996
There are several books on this subject.  Also, check out www.kennedytwins.com for all sorts of links and listings on the Confederacy.
477989
Arkansas had alot of troops to join the confederacy. Not alot happened in Arkansas but if it were not for the Confederacy it would not be a state. It was started by the confederacy. It was a territory before 1860.
165916
I did a report on Ulysses and he seemed to be a better general than a president. I can only assume FDR was better.
656474
The South would have won and seceded. It's impossible to know for sure.
642839
"The conduct of war changed as a result of three technological advances during the Civil War: the rifled musket, the electric telegraph, and the railroad."
65555
Federal government control vs. state's rights.  The North wanted a stronger federal government control, and the Southern states wanted to make their own laws.  Slavery was just one issue.