there is a new crisis due to the Kansas Nebraska law[11].
Nevertheless, in the South, the political crisis of 1820 gave rise to fears that a strong federal government could become a serious threat to slavery[12][13].
In the 1820s, the economic downturn hit South Carolina the hardest.
At that time, the United States pursued a policy of protectionism and high customs tariffs[14], which were unprofitable for a state interested in export import operations in connection with cotton sales on the foreign market.
In 1828, the state authorities declared that tariffs on its territory were being nullified as unconstitutional[15].
Nevertheless, in 1832, Congress again passed the law on high tariffs.
Then the most radical part of his opponents called for the withdrawal of South Carolina from the United States.
President Jackson regarded the actions of the state authorities as high treason and sent armed forces there.
The rest of the states, including the southern ones, did not support the rebels, and the authorities of South Carolina wavered.
Soon, a compromise was concluded between them and the federal government, which both sides presented as their victory.
The local authorities pointed to the fact that the tariff was still reduced, and the federal government pointed to the fact that the separation of the state was not allowed.
One of the prominent political figures of that time wrote:
It seems to me that tariffs are more an excuse than a real reason for the current unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The truth can no longer be hidden, the special situation of the southern states and the direction in which their production is developing puts them in opposition to the rest of the Union in respect of taxation and other issues, and the danger of this situation is that if there is no protection for them in the registration of state rights, this will eventually lead to rebellion or, if their interests are sacrificed, to colonization and other schemes that will plunge them and their children into complete squalor.
The original text (English)
I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things.
The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness.[16][17]
The problems of tariff policy kept society in suspense until the Civil War, again appearing on the surface of the political life of the South in 1842, 1857 and 1861.
The victory of the Democrats in the elections of 1856 allowed in 1857 to reduce tariffs to a record 17% (Tariff of 1857).
Even cheap clothes for slaves in the southern states became profitable to buy in Great Britain.
In September 1857, a financial panic began in New York.
A wave of bankruptcies and layoffs swept through the northern states.[18]
The key point of the Republican program in the elections in 1860 was the increase in tariffs.
After their victory and the withdrawal of the southern Democrats from the US Senate on March 2, 1861 (two days before Lincoln's inauguration), the average tariff level was increased from 15 to 37.5 %[19].
In 1831-36.
William Garrison and the American Society of Opponents of Slavery initiated a campaign of petitions to Congress demanding the abolition of slavery in the territory of the Federal District of Columbia and the rest of the territories (in the west) administered by the federal government.
Hundreds of thousands of such petitions have been submitted to Congress[20].
Finally, in May 1836, the House of Representatives passed a number of resolutions according to which Congress had no right to interfere in the policy of the states regarding the admission or prohibition of slavery on their territory and should not also make such decisions in other territories, including the District of Columbia.
In addition, Congress henceforth refused to consider any appeals regarding the abolition of slavery.
Many political figures, including former President John Quincy Adams, believed that this resolution contradicted the first Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits, in particular, restricting the rights of citizens to apply to Congress[21][22].
The restrictions generated a lot of controversy and were lifted only in 1844[23]
Economic development in the 50s of the XIX century[edit / edit wiki text]
The article or section contains contradictions and cannot be understood unambiguously.
These contradictions should be resolved by using more accurate authoritative sources or quoting them more correctly.
There should be details on the discussion page.
Since the beginning of the 50s of the XIX century, the industrial development of the United States has been very rapid.
By the end of the 50s, the United States ranked fourth in the world in the production of industrial products.
Steam engines, agricultural and other complex machines began to be manufactured on a significant scale.
By 1860, there were 1,700 factories in the textile industry, where the machines were driven by steam.
The length of the railway network increased in 1850-1860 from 14 thousand km to 48 thousand km.
During the same time, investment in industry doubled and reached $ 1 billion.
This was facilitated by the increased influx of capital from Europe and the discovery of rich gold deposits in California in 1848.
The transition to factory production was accompanied by the concentration of industry, the displacement of manufacturing and handicraft enterprises.
During the period 1850-1860, the number of workers employed in the manufacturing industry increased from 957 thousand to 1311 thousand people (including those employed in the factory, home industry, manufactory and craft).
However, despite the rapid growth, by the end of the 50s, American industry still could not meet the needs of its own country.
The need for rails, machines, machine tools and much more was largely covered by importation from England.
The number of US residents increased in ten years — from 1850 to 1860 from 23.1 million to 31.4 million.
The population of the northwestern states grew especially rapidly; in the decade preceding the Civil War, it increased by 67 %.
The population growth was associated with the development of new vast territories.
The rapid development of the northwest, accompanied by an increase in the marketability of farming, contributed to the growth of the domestic market for industrial products of the eastern states.
The economy of the southern states was of a different nature.
Here, the production of cotton for export became increasingly important: during the period from 1851 to 1859, cotton production increased from 2,799 thousand bales to 4508 thousand bales, that is, by 62 %.
The industry of the South was mainly limited to the primary processing of cotton, its cleaning and packaging.
The predominance of cotton growing gave the economy of the South a one sided character, hindered the development of industry.
The population of the southern states grew extremely slowly.
The slave owning economy was poorly connected with the domestic market, especially since the planters who exported cotton to Europe, mainly to England, preferred to buy the industrial goods they needed there.
As a result, the industrial products of the northeastern states hardly made their way to the markets of the South.
This prevented the formation of a nationwide US market.
The further development of American capitalism imperiously demanded the abolition of slavery, the complete triumph of free wage labor and the final colonization of the South by the North.
The pre war South[edit / edit wiki text]
Racism[edit / edit wiki text]
A famous photo from 1863: a slave beaten by an overseer.
The brutal repression of slaves was a popular topic in the literature of the abolitionists of the North.
Although only a small part of the population of the South owned slaves, the institution of slavery was defended by Southerners of all classes[24].
The social structure of the South was based on the use of slave labor on large plantations.
In 1850, the total free population of the southern states was about six million people, of which 350 thousand owned slaves.
Among the slave owners, 7 % owned the property rights to three quarters of the slaves.
The largest slave owners were the highest caste in the social hierarchy.
Their position depended on the areas occupied for plantations and the number of slaves who worked them.
By the 1850s, the big planters had recomputed the small farmers of the South, and they readily recognized the political leadership of the planters ' elite.
The development of new lands in the West gave them hopes of ever acquiring plantations and slaves themselves[25].
In addition, small farmers were often rabid racists[26].
The principle of the superiority of the white race was shared by all segments of the white population of the South, which gave slavery the appearance of a natural and legitimate social institution necessary in a civilized society.
Racism in the South was also supported by an official system of repression called the "slave code", which stipulated how slaves should talk and behave with whites.
For example, the white population organized "slave patrols" consisting of several people whose duty was to maintain discipline among the slaves.
Such patrols were legal in the South, and every free white male was required to participate in them.
Slaves caught without the written permission of the owner outside his possessions were returned to the owner, sometimes being punished for unauthorized absence.
Gather in large groups groups of slaves were also prohibited.
At times, the slaves fought back against armed patrols, who should always have been ready for this.
The service of patrolmen and overseers gave the whites the power to stop, search, beat and even kill any slave who found himself outside the possessions of his master.
Such behavior was considered prestigious, and maintaining control over slaves was an important work for the benefit of the entire southern society, which saw one of its foundations in maintaining the fear of breaking the law in slaves.
Economic and political cohesion[edit / edit wiki text]
An important factor in the consolidation of a racist society was the fact that many small farmers were economically dependent on their rich and influential neighbors[27].
They had to apply for agricultural machines, ask for help with the export of crops to the market, borrow money, livestock or feed.
The stable business of merchants also depended on wealthy clients.
This dependence made it impossible for any political activity directed against the rich planters or simply not approved by them.
There was no secret voting at that time (it spread to the United States only in the 1880s), and just the fact of casting a vote for the wrong candidate could make a person an outcast and an outcast.
Since immigration to the South from Europe was limited, kinship relations were common among white Southerners.
Fortunes were usually inherited in unequal shares, and the eldest son received most of the inheritance.
Poor farmers were often cousins or other relatives of their rich neighbors, with whom they maintained relations, including in the military service in the state militia, which also turned southern society into a single military and political force.
The abolitionist campaign in the Northern press, directed against slavery and the mores of southern society, was also an occasion for the latter to rally against a common enemy, and the economic dependence of the South on northern goods reinforced the willingness of Southerners to protect the interests of the South as a whole as their own.
The protection of the interests of slaveholders by the southerners was considered as a protection of the constitutional rights and freedoms of the white man.
The victory of the Republican candidate in the elections was regarded by them as a political defeat of the South and an excuse to protect their territory from the federal authorities, which were now dominated by outsiders.
The growth of the cotton industry required an increasing attraction of slave labor, and this also aggravated the situation in the South[28].
The accelerated population growth of the North was also regarded as a threat in the South.
Of the eight European immigrants, seven went to the North, because this was facilitated by the already established migration infrastructure (steamship lines from Europe, customs, migration legislation) and the North was considered more attractive for employment.
The migration of the population within the United States was also not in favor of the South: twice as many white people moved from the South to the North as from the North to the South.
Southern newspapers wrote that the North and the South are "...not just two different peoples, they are two hostile and rival peoples."
[29].
"We donot want a revolution…
We are not participating in a quixotic struggle for human rights…
We are conservatives.“[29]
The crisis of the plantation economy[edit / edit wiki text]
A handful of slave owning planters, who made up less than three percent of the population of 15 southern slave owning states, profited from the production of cotton, which brought huge profits.
Out of 12 million people.
about 4 million residents of the slave owning states were slaves.
This plantation system, based on slave labor, was experiencing a deep internal crisis; the Negro slaves resisted exploitation and fought against it with all their might.
Along with uprisings, escapes were a characteristic form of slave resistance.
Abolitionists came to the aid of the fugitives.
The labor productivity of the Negro slaves was extremely low; in order to force them to work, armed overseers followed their every step[source not specified 2432 days].
Due to the use of slave labor, the introduction of machinery, machines, and advanced agricultural methods slowed down.
Predatory exploitation depleted the land, making it necessary for the continuation of the economy to cultivate more and more new territories.
Therefore, the slaveholders sought to seize new lands in the west and expand the territory of slavery[source not specified 479 days].
This desire was met with resistance from the free population of the northern and northwestern states.
Interregional contradictions and the formation of mass politics[edit / edit wiki text]
The voice of the Free Man was raised not to expand the freedoms of the black man, but to protect the freedom of whites.
The original text (English)
The cry of Free Man was raised, not for the extension of liberty to the black man, but for the protection of the liberty of the white.
- Frederick Douglass
By the 1850s, the expansion of voting rights and the spread of mass politics led to the loosening of the former two party system, an unprecedented increase in the participation of the masses in political life and the transformation of politics into one of the most essential components of American mass culture, which is not comparable to modern times.
Politics of that time was one of the entertainment, political events were accompanied by parades, rallies, political leaders were bright personalities and focused on popular values, hopes and interests of the crowd.
In 1860, 84% of voters participated in the elections.
In addition to the Republican party, a number of other parties appeared in the mid 1850s, which soon disappeared: anti Nebraskians, fusionists, ignorant, knowing something, moderates, rum democrats, Hindus, etc.
By 1860, the Republicans controlled most of the states of the North, the Democrats were both in the North and in the South, besides them there were other parties and coalitions in the South, as a rule, supporting the party of constitutional unity.
The majority of the population of the southern states was inclined to secede from the United States, but public opinion, although it did not protest against the very idea of secession, did not allow secession without cooperation with other states, and the legislative assemblies of the southern states were dominated by unionists who voted against secession until 1860.
Some historians believe that one of the reasons for the war was the collusion of the financial elite of the industrial Northeast with the agrarian Midwest against the South.
However, others point out that the majority of small and medium sized businessmen of the North in 1860-61 were against the war[30][31][32].
While in the North in the XIX century the ideology of exploitation of freelance labor became predominant, in the South it was characterized as "dirty mechanics, vile operators, crooked farmers and crazy theorists" [33].
Southerners sharply criticized the laws on the distribution of free land in the West for farms, rightly believing that small farmers would be competitors of large landowners and slave owners[34], while southerners considered slaves and slave farms more civilized than farmers and farms[35].
Religious views on slavery in the North and in the South were diametrically opposed[36][37][38], although both sides based their arguments on the same text of the King James Bible.
Its content was interpreted as applicable directly to American reality, and not in the context of a historical period from which the United States was separated by thousands of years[36][36].
In this interpretation, it was believed that the Bible justifies slavery[36].
For example, the Patriarch Abraham had many slaves (Gen 12:5; 14:14; 24:35-36; 26:13-14, hereinafter, references to the king James Bible), and slavery was later legitimized by Moses (Lev 25:44-46).
Jesus never spoke out against slavery and even considered him a model of discipline (Mk 10:44).
The Apostle Paul supported slavery, and demanded that slaves obey their masters (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-25; 1 Tim 6:3; 1 Cor 7:20-24; Phlm 10-20).
The curse of ham, Noah racists believed the cause of the subordination of black descendants of ham (Gen 9:18-27), and abolitionists were accused of unbelief and rejection of biblical truths in favor of the secular ideology of the Enlightenment[39].
The Protestant churches of the United States, not finding unanimity on slavery, split: Methodists in 1844, Baptists in 1845 [40], Presbyterians in 1857[41].
The church schism is considered one of the precursors of the general schism of the nation"[42][43].
The tragedy of the civil war is considered the fact that the most authoritative theologians at that time were the generals of the North and South[44].
The abolitionists, in turn, relied on the movement for the reform of American society, called the Second Great Awakening, which gained strength in the United States in the 1830s 1840s, at the height of industrialization, and also had deep religious roots.
The word abolitionist itself had several meanings at that time.
In addition to radical abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, who demanded the immediate abolition of slavery, there were moderates who proposed the gradual emancipation of slaves.
Some politicians, including former President John Quincy Adams, opposed slavery, not joining any organized groups and societies.
In particular, in 1841, Adams represented the interests of slaves in the Supreme Court during the trial against the rebels on board the Spanish schooner Amistad and offered to consider them free.
[45].
On the eve of the war, the majority of the US population was considered abolitionists, which was represented by Abraham Lincoln, who protested against the spread of slavery in territories outside the southern states q .
In the South, there was no difference between these groups.
Anyway, they all believed that everyone is equal for God, black slaves have the same soul as whites, and the enslavement of some people by others is contrary to the will of the Almighty, even if it does not contradict the laws adopted by people[46].
Professing Protestant ideals of self improvement, enterprise and thrift, the Yankees accused slaveholders of depriving slaves of the right to choose their path in life and the fruits of their labor.
Capture of a runaway slave by a Southern patrol.
An engraving from the Almanac against Slavery (1839)
In addition, abolitionists believed that slavery posed a threat to the freedom of white Americans, restricting their movement and employment opportunities due to competition from slaves.
Even more, the contradictions between the North and the South after the adoption of the fugitive slave act (1850), allowed units of the southerners to pursue slaves in the Northern States, and also in the discussion Ostindische manifest (plan of annexation of Cuba as a slave state).
In the North, the patrols of the South also began to arrest and search the all blacks, believing that if they do not have written permission from his master to the absence from the estate, then it is a runaway slave liable to punishment and return to the South.
Many free African Americans were thus enslaved in the North.
In Boston, in 1851 and 1854, self defense detachments were even organized, forcibly preventing gangs of Southerners from grabbing blacks on the streets.
Similar detachments were organized in many other cities of the North.
At the same time, fears were growing in the North that the influx of runaway slaves from the southern states would create serious competition in the segment of low skilled labor for white workers and farmers.
As a result, discriminatory "Black Codes" were adopted here, restricting the rights of the black population or prohibiting its settlement altogether.
The settlement of the Midwest by Northerners, facilitated by the spread of steamboats, railways and telegraph, in the 1830s — 1840s led to a rapid growth of the population and economy of this region.
It was covered with small towns and farms, the inhabitants of which idealized small and medium sized businesses, which gave white settlers chances for a prosperous life, owning property and using the fruits of their labor.
They were close to the ideology of the free Land Party, which held moderate abolitionist views, and they did not want the appearance on their lands of both slaveholders with slaves, and free colored settlers, Chinese from California and blacks from the South.
The Free Land Party did not demand the liberation of the slaves of the South, but defended the territorial restriction of slavery by the southern states[source not specified 479 days].
The question of slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico[edit / edit wiki text]
Shortly after the outbreak of the Mexican American War, discussions began in the United States about the admission of slavery in the territories that could be annexed as a result of it.
They lasted for about four years, during which the Mormons settled in Utah, California was settled as a result of the gold rush, and the territories in the Rio Grande basin that Texas claimed were transferred to New Mexico.
Finally, in 1850, a new compromise was concluded between the North and the South.
Its terms provided for the prohibition of slavery in California, permission — in Texas and left the issue of slavery to the discretion of local authorities in the newly organized territories of Utah and New Mexico.
The Civil War in Kansas[edit / edit wiki text]
Main article: The Civil War in Kansas (1854-1858)
The government led by the Democratic Party supported the slave trade (although the latter was officially banned as early as 1808).
In the 50s, about 25 thousand slaves were imported to the United States annually[source not specified 2432 days] - more than before 1808.
The slave owners ' stay in power was accompanied by unbridled propaganda of slavery.
His supporters argued that slavery is the cornerstone of the US state building, the basis of the greatness and prosperity of the country.
The ideologists of slavery John Calhoun and others rejected the provision of the "Declaration of Independence" on the equality of all people.
The conflict between the interests of the northern and southern states escalated by 1850 in connection with the annexation of the territories conquered from Mexico.
The slaveholders agreed to the admission of California to the Union as a free state (that is, with the prohibition of slavery in it), but as compensation for this, they passed a law obliging the authorities of the northern states to detain fugitive slaves and return them to their owners.
In 1854, the conflict escalated again due to the formation of the new states of Kansas and Nebraska.
Congress left the issue of slavery on their territory to the discretion of the local population.
In fact, it was a victory for slavery, which meant the repeal of the Missouri compromise of 1820, which established the northern limit of the spread of slavery.
Politicians dissatisfied with the decision of the Congress, Henry Wilson, Horace Greeley, and others expressed their disappointment in the existing party system and called for the creation of a new party of Northerners.
It adopted the name Republican.
From the very beginning, there were disagreements in the Republican Party about its program.
The conservative wing only wanted a return to the Missouri compromise, while the radicals also demanded the repeal of the fugitive slave law and slavery as such.
Slaveholders and their supporters from neighboring Missouri and other slave owning states went to Kansas in large numbers to participate in the vote and introduce a slave owning constitution there.
However, many people also came from the northern states who wanted to divide the land of Kansas among themselves for small farms.
In 1855, armed conflicts began between the opposing groups.
Partisan detachments led by John Brown, James Montgomery and others defeated and put to flight their opponents.
Progressive forces throughout the country provided moral and material support to opponents of slavery in Kansas, while federal troops sent to the region systematically helped slave owners, which eventually forced Brown to leave Kansas.
In most armed conflicts, the subject of the confrontation was the distribution of land, and not any political or social problems, contradictions between the North and the South, or the issue of slavery.
Southerners considered Kansas their territory, which was illegally invaded by northerners who did not care about the legal registration of their property rights, and northerners accused large landowners of southerners that they were acquiring land without having the intention to settle on them.
But the activities of radical abolitionists, especially John Brown, gave this conflict an ideological orientation.
Brown considered the Northerners to be the instrument with which God would crush slavery.
In this form, the conflict was covered by the American press.
Both in the North and in the South, the armed conflict in Kansas was perceived as open aggression on the part of an ideological opponent, and the issue of slavery became the main one in the presidential elections of 1856.
Nevertheless, the Republican Party has not yet gathered enough supporters in its two years of existence, and the other parties either held moderate views or supported slavery.
As a result, the positions of the slaveholders in Congress and the federal government were still very strong, and in 1856 they achieved the election of their protege Buchanan to the post of president.
The positions of the slaveholders were also strong in the Supreme Court, where they owned the majority of votes.
In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of the Negro Dred Scott, who, having moved with his master to the North, that is, to the borders of the states where slavery was prohibited, on this basis demanded his release;
The Supreme Court, in favor of the slaveholders, ruled that the relocation of a slave to a free state does not entail his release.
However, in Kansas, the stubborn resistance of free farmers forced Congress to recognize the state as free from slavery by 1859.
The Uprising led by John Brown[edit / edit wiki text]
John Brown
In 1857, an active figure of the left wing of the abolitionists, John Brown, one of the leaders of the Civil war against slave owners in Kansas, began preparing a negro uprising.
Brown thoroughly prepared for the uprising; he studied military affairs, the experience of guerrilla warfare in the mountains, the liberation war of the Negroes of Haiti, went to Europe to get acquainted with the places of the Napoleonic battles.
In the summer of 1859, he moved his preparations to the slave owning state of Virginia.
In October 1859, Brown, at the head of a handful of brave men (among them were his three sons), captured the arsenal in the town of Harpers Ferry.
Brown's group held out in the arsenal building for two days.
His detachment consisted of 22 people whites and Negroes.
Brown expected massive support from the slaves, but they, being neither aware of the uprising nor organized, did not have time to join his detachment.
Brown and his supporters were surrounded by local militia forces and a detachment of Marines who arrived from Washington.
In an unequal battle, two of Brown's sons were killed, he himself was captured after being seriously wounded.
Of all the participants in the uprising, only a few managed to escape.
Brown's heroic behavior at the trial, the calm courage with which he met the verdict and accepted death on the gallows, made a strong impression on the broad strata of the American people.
Brown's last words became widely known: "I, John Brown, am now absolutely sure that only blood will wash away the great crime of this sinful country;
I had previously flattered myself in vain that this could be achieved without much bloodshed..."
The news of Brown's execution sparked a slave revolt in Missouri, which was brutally suppressed.
The abolitionists raised their voices in defense of Brown's memory.
The writer Henry Thoreau organized a crowded rally at which he declared that Brown and those who went to his death with him were the best of people.
Less than a year and a half later, hundreds of thousands of farmers and workers with the song "Brown's body is smoldering in the grave, his spirit is walking ahead of us" rose to war for the cause for which John Brown and his associates sacrificed their lives.
The election of Lincoln as president.
The rebellion of the slave states[edit / edit wiki text]
In the presidential elections of 1860, a fierce struggle unfolded.
The Republican Party demanded the restriction of the territory of slavery, the adoption of the homestead law (free allotment of Indian lands to settlers in the West), the introduction of a protectionist tariff.
Its program was supported by large financiers and industrialists, farmers, workers, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia.
Abraham Lincoln[edit / edit wiki text]
The Republican candidate, lawyer and publicist Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), who was very popular among the masses, was elected to the post of president.
Lincoln came from a poor farming family in Kentucky.
He experienced all the hardships and hardships of working life; he worked as a clerk, a carpenter's assistant, a railway worker, a cargo rafter, at one time owned a small shop, but soon went bankrupt and took the post of postmaster.
Lincoln's political activity began in 1834, when he became a member of the Illinois State Legislature.
In 1847, Lincoln was elected a member of Congress from the Whig party.
Even at that time, he was an opponent of Negro slavery, although he did not demand its immediate destruction.
Lincoln considered the main political task to preserve the unity of the United States and therefore opposed the separatist actions of the slave owners of the South.
The slaveholders responded to the election of Lincoln as president with an open rebellion, which they had been preparing for a long time.
On December 20, 1860, the state of South Carolina announced its withdrawal from the Union of States, followed by other slave owning states.
On February 4, 1861, at a convention in Montgomery, representatives of the six breakaway states formed the Southern Confederacy; a wealthy planter, Jefferson Davis, was elected its president.
The city of Richmond was declared the capital of the confederacy.
The constitution adopted by the slave owners in Montgomery was based on racist principles, the slavery of Negroes was proclaimed "the bulwark of civilization".
Notes[edit / edit wiki text]
↑ Elizabeth R. Varon, Bruce Levine, Marc Egnal, and Michael Holt at a plenary session of the organization of American Historians, March 17, 2011, reported by David A. Walsh "Highlights from the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians in Houston, Texas" HNN online ↑ David Potter, The Impending Crisis, pages 42-50 ↑ The border between "the" free "and" slave owning " states were the southern border of the state of Pennsylvania and the Ohio River F Fehrenbacher pp.
15-17.
Fehrenbacher wrote, «As a racial caste system, slavery was the most distinctive element in the southern social order.
The slave production of staple crops dominated southern agriculture and eminently suited the development of a national market economy.»
↑ Fehrenbacher pp.
16-18 ↑ Goldstone p. 13 ↑ McDougall p. 318 ↑ Forbes p. 4 ↑ Mason pp.
3-4 ↑ Freehling p.144-149.
↑ Missouri Compromise ↑ Forbes pp.
6-7 ↑ Mason p. 8 ↑ Remini, Andrew Jackson, v2 pp.
136—137.
Niven pg.
135—137.
Freehling, Prelude to Civil War pg 143 ↑ Craven pg.65.
Niven pg.
135—137.
Freehling, Prelude to Civil War pg 143 ↑ Ellis, Richard E.
The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States' Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (1987), page 193; Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816-1836. (1965)
, page 257 ↑ Ellis p. 193.
Ellis further notes that “Calhoun and the nullifiers were not the first southerners to link slavery with states’ rights.
At various points in their careers, John Taylor, John Randolph, and Nathaniel Macon had warned that giving too much power to the federal government, especially on such an open ended issue as internal improvement, could ultimately provide it with the power to emancipate slaves against their owners’ wishes.”
↑ A House Divided.
Dickinson College.
Verified on March 4, 2011.
Ла Latov, 2004 ↑ Varon (2008) p. 109.
Wilentz (2005) p. 451 ↑ Miller (1995) pp.
112, 144—146, pp.
209—210.
↑ Wilentz (2005) pp.
470—472 ↑ Miller, pp.
476, 479—481 ↑ Huston p.
41. Huston writes, «…on at least three matters southerners were united.
First, slaves were property.
Second, the sanctity of southerners' property rights in slaves was beyond the questioning of anyone inside or outside of the South.
Third, slavery was the only means of adjusting social relations properly between Europeans and Africans.»
↑ Brinkley Alan.
American History: A Survey.
— New York: McGraw Hill, 1986.
— P. 328.
↑ Moore Barrington.
Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.
— New York: Beacon Press, 1966.
— P. 117.
↑ North Douglas C.
The Economic Growth of the United States 1790-1860.
— Englewood Cliffs, 1961.
— P. 130.
↑ Elizabeth Fox Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese, Slavery in White and Black: Class and Race in the Southern Slaveholders' New World Order (2008) ↑ 1 2 James M. McPherson, "Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question, « Civil War History 29 (Sept. 1983) ↑ Woodworth, ed.
The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research (1996), 145 151 505 512 554 557 684; Richard Hofstadter, The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parrington (1969); for one dissenter see Marc Egnal.
„The Beards Were Right: Parties in the North, 1840—1860“.
Civil War History 47, no. 1. (2001): 30-56.
↑ Kenneth M. Stampp, The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Backg round of the Civil War (1981) p 198 ↑ Also from Kenneth M. Stampp, The Imperiled Union p 198
Most historians… now see no compelling reason why the divergent economies of the North and South should have led to disunion and civil war; rather, they find stronger practical reasons why the sections, whose economies neatly complemented one another, should have found it advantageous to remain united.
Beard oversimplified the controversies relating to federal economic policy, for neither section unanimously supported or opposed measures such as the protective tariff, appropriations for internal improvements, or the creation of a national banking system….
During the 1850s, Federal economic policy gave no substantial cause for southern disaffection, for policy was largely determined by pro Southern Congresses and administrations.
Finally, the characteristic posture of the conservative northeastern business community was far from anti Southern.
Most merchants, bankers, and manufacturers were outspoken in their hostility to antislavery agitation and eager for sectional compromise in order to maintain their profitable business connections with the South.
The conclusion seems inescapable that if economic differences, real though they were, had been all that troubled relations between North and South, there would be no substantial basis for the idea of an irrepressible conflict.
↑ James M. McPherson, Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question Civil War History — Volume 50, Number 4, December 2004, page 421 ↑ Richard Hofstadter, „The Tariff Issue on the Eve of the Civil War“, The American Historical Review Vol. 44, No. 1 (1938), pp.
50-55 full text in JSTOR ↑ John Calhoun, Slavery a Positive Good, February 6, 1837 ↑ 1 2 3 4 Noll Mark A. America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.
— Oxford University Press, 2002.
— P. 640.
↑ Noll Mark A.
The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.
— UNC Press, 2006.
— P. 216.
↑ Noll Mark A.
The US Civil War as a Theological War: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South.
— Oxford University Press, 2002.
— P. 640.
↑ Hull, William E. (February 2003).
«Learning the Lessons of Slavery».
Christian Ethics Today 9 (43).
Проверено 2007-12-19.
↑ en:Southern Baptists#Birth pains ↑ Gaustad Edwin S.
A Documentary History of Religion in America to the Civil War.
— Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.
— P. 491–502.
↑ Johnson Paul.
History of Christianity.
— Simon & Schuster, 1976.
— P. 438.
↑ Noll Mark A. America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.
— Oxford University Press, 2002.
— P. 399–400.
↑ Miller, Randall M.; Stout, Harry S.; Wilson, Charles Reagan, eds.
title=The Bible and Slavery // Religion and the American Civil War.
— Oxford University Press, 1998.
— P.
62. ↑ The Amistad Case.
National Portrait Gallery.
Проверено 16 октября 2007.
Архивировано из первоисточника 15 марта 2012.
↑ McPherson, Battle Cry p. 8; James Brewer Stewart, Holy Warriors: The Abolitionists and American Slavery (1976); Pressly, 270ff
Литература[править | править вики текст]
Латов Ю. В.
Новая экономическая история Гражданской войны в Америке и ликвидации плантационного рабства // Экономический вестник Ростовского государственного университета.
— 2004.
— Т. 2, вып.
1. — С. 97—116.
Craven, Avery.
The Coming of the Civil War (1942) ISBN 0-226-11894-0 Donald, David Herbert, Baker, Jean Harvey, and Holt, Michael F.
The Civil War and Reconstruction. (2001)
Ellis, Richard E.
The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States' Rights and the Nullification Crisis. (1987)
Fehrenbacher, Don E.
The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government’s Relations to Slavery. (2001)
ISBN 1-19-514177-6 Forbes, Robert Pierce.
The Missouri Compromise and ItAftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America. (2007)
ISBN 978-0-8078-3105-2 Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816—1836. (1965)
ISBN 0-19-507681-8 Freehling, William W.
The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776—1854. (1990)
ISBN 0-19-505814-3 Freehling, William W. and Craig M. Simpson, eds.
Secession Debated: Georgia’s Showdown in 1860 (1992), speeches Hesseltine; William B. ed.
The Tragic Conflict: The Civil War and Reconstruction (1962), primary documents Huston, James L. Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War. (2003)
ISBN 0-8078-2804-1 Mason, Matthew.
Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic. (2006)
ISBN 978-0-8078-3049-9 McDonald, Forrest.
States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776—1876. (2000)
McPherson, James M.
This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War. (2007)
Miller, William Lee.
Arguing About Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress. (1995)
ISBN 0-394-56922-9 Niven, John.
John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union (1988) ISBN 0-8071-1451-0 Perman, Michael, ed. Major Problems in Civil War & Reconstruction (2nd ed. 1998) primary and secondary sources.
Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822—1832,v2 (1981) ISBN 0-06-014844-6 Stampp, Kenneth, ed.
The Causes of the Civil War (3rd ed 1992), primary and secondary sources.
Varon, Elizabeth R. Disunion: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789—1859. (2008)
ISBN 978-0-8078-3232-5 Wakelyn; Jon L. ed.
Southern Pamphlets on Secession, November 1860 April 1861 (1996) Wilentz, Sean.
The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. (2005)
ISBN 0-393-05820-4
Для улучшения этой статьи желательно?
:  Викифицировать статью.
Найти и оформить в виде сносок ссылки на авторитетные источники, подтверждающие написанное.
Проставить для статьи более точные категории.
Источник — «https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Предпосылки Гражданской войны в США&oldid=76347787»
Категория: Гражданская война в США
Скрытые категории: Википедия:Статьи, содержащие противоречие Википедия:Нет источников с июля 2009 Википедия:Статьи с утверждениями без источников более 14 дней Википедия:Нет источников с ноября 2014 Википедия:Статьи к викификации Википедия:Статьи без ссылок на источники Википедия:Статьи для уточнения категорий
Навигация
Персональные инструменты
Вы не представились системе Обсуждение Вклад Создать учётную запись Войти
Пространства имён
Статья Обсуждение
Варианты
Просмотры
Читать Текущая версия Править Править вики текст История
Ещё
Поиск
Навигация
Заглавная страница Рубрикация Указатель А — Я Избранные статьи Случайная статья Текущие события
Участие
Сообщить об ошибке Портал сообщества Форум Свежие правки Новые страницы Справка Пожертвовать
Инструменты
Ссылки сюда Связанные правки Спецстраницы Постоянная ссылка Сведения о странице Элемент Викиданных Цитировать страницу
Печать/экспорт
Создать книгу Скачать как PDF Версия для печати
На других языках
العربية Беларуская English Español Français Hrvatski 日本語 한국어 Latviešu 中文
Править ссылки
Последнее изменение этой страницы: 07:27, 10 февраля 2016.
Текст доступен по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike; в отдельных случаях могут действовать дополнительные условия.
Подробнее см. Условия использования.
Wikipedia® — зарегистрированный товарный знак некоммерческой организации Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Свяжитесь с нами
Политика конфиденциальности Описание Википедии Отказ от ответственности Разработчики Соглашение о Cookie Мобильная версия
