You'll need better references than some anonymous chick on Y!A, though.|||They seceded from the Union, they did not succeed. If they succeeded they would be a different country right now.
Report Abuse
|||The South had no factories to produce guns or ammunition, and its railroads were small and not interconnected, meaning that it was hard for the South to move food, weapons and men quickly and over long distances.
he North, on the other hand, had enough food and enough factories to make weapons for all of its soldiers. It also had an extensive rail network that could transport men and weapons rapidly and cheaply.
From Shmoop|||Although slavery was the "Torch" that carried the argument of the day, it really had to do with the "rights" of the individual state governments to legislate their citizens how they wanted to irregardless of what the federal government had to say about it.
Interestingly enough this event of history closely "aped" a similar schism within the Methodist denomination that had already taken place.|||I seem to remember the South being a slave empire? Yeah, I remember reading that somewhere.
Also, I am so tired of hearing this states right crap. Would you scream "states rights!" as you charge into battle to die for a rich mans slave?|||Well the north had the advantage of:Capital (money), industry, and rail roads. The south had the advantages of:Generals, and they were fighting on their home land.|||Good heavens. Any book will tell you that. Do your own homework and look it up. You should know it without asking anyway.|||Here is a great website that answers you question, and it has comparison maps. http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/a鈥?/a>|||Well....the North wants to change the South's way of life since the South depends on slavery in order to revive their economy...But the North is an anti-slavery state and they are filled with whites who wants to conquer the South...it's all about conquering and expanding America and taking lands....you know
No comments:
Post a Comment