Site search
Custom search
Go to the Main page
Modern journalism Novel " Constellation of Gemini"
Sketches of the past and present
Library History of Europe and America of the XIX XX centuries How we made this site
M. V. Guminenko
The War of the North and South of the United States 1861-1865.
Reasons
Disagreements between the Northern and Southern states have existed since the time when the future US states were only colonies of Great Britain.
To understand the essence of the conflict that took place between the North and the South in 1861-1865, it is necessary to go back to an earlier period.
The basis for the division of the United States into two separate states was laid by the very specifics of the colonists ' development of the American continent.
Why was there no unity among the US colonies
Initially, the United States was an association of thirteen colonies, in which people of different ethnicities lived.
By the 1770s, most of the population of the Southern States was of Celtic origin: the settlers came from the western regions of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. [11]
For contemporaries of the events, this seemed obvious.
Even our Russian I. S. Aksakov, who has never been to America and watched the war between the North and the South from the Old World, formulates his opinion about the Southerners in this way: "The southern States of America, without a doubt, are distinguished by the special character of their inhabitants, most of them are not of Anglo Saxon, but of Roman origin, Latins by faith and with aristocratic traditions.
This circumstance is one of the main springs of this internecine strife." [4]
Unlike the southerners, the settlers of the Northern states were mostly of English, German and Dutch origin.
Such a division is quite natural, because people of the same culture and the same belief will tend to settle next to each other.
No Catholic will settle among Protestants if there is an opportunity to settle among Catholics like him.
And on the territory of the future United States, it was easy to choose a place for settlement, according to their origin, language, customs and faith.
It so happened that the South was chosen by people close in faith and mentality.
Just as the North united people who were close to each other and far from the mentality of the South. [11]
Both northerners and southerners stood for freedom, but this word meant different concepts for them.
For understanding freedom from the point of view of the North, the opinion of the Russian publicist and public figure of the XIX century I. S. Aksakov (1823 - 1886) is very suitable, who writes: "the most diverse and diverse rabble, formed, on the basis of a mutual agreement, into a civil society, alien to all hitherto known laws of civil and social formation, all European class social strata, and set itself a banner: unlimited freedom of the individual!
The principle of personal freedom, devoid of moral content, turned out to be put out of purely material motives, turned only into a means to achieve personal material well being... " [4]
Unlike the northerners, for the southerners, freedom meant not only unlimited personal opportunities, but also voluntary cooperation, the ability not to infringe on the freedom and interests of others.
This principle was guided not only by individuals.
It became fundamental for the unification of the Southern States.
According to the concept of the South, there should have been ties between individual states based on honor, mutual trust and mutual assistance, but at the same time each state should have remained an independent unit, with its own rules and its own government (unlike the North, where the central government sought to dictate its conditions and its will to the states subject to it).
That is, the Union according to the concept of the South should have existed as a union of states united by obligations to help each other when it is necessary and to recognize each other's freedom and independence.
The South was guided in its worldview by such thinkers as John S. Calhoun (John Caldwell Calhoun - a leading political scientist of South Carolina, the seventh vice president of the United States, 1782 - 1850).
Calhoun considered the union as "a kind of association in which sovereign states were united by high considerations of honest intentions; by the exchange of justice and politeness; by the noble sights of the social system; with enthusiasm and sympathy they shared with the authorities a common fate, honor and glory." [11]
The patriarchal, agricultural South was very different from the industrial, business North, not only in its understanding of the essence of the union and individual freedom.
The very way of life of the South and the North was based on different principles.
Southern planters built beautiful stone houses following the example of European mansions and settled on land that they hoped to pass on to their descendants, turn into a patrimonial inheritance.
It was the land that was the main material value and a symbol of well being.
Southerners spent their time managing their farms, which alternated with receptions, hunts and balls.
To some extent, the southerners copied the life of the European aristocracy of the earlier, XVIII century.
And the generous land and its thoughtful use gave the southerners cotton, sugar cane, tobacco and other agricultural crops, which were sold to northern factories and factories.
The life of the South was more measured and dependent on seasonal work on the land, in contrast to the life of the North, focused on the year round operation of processing industry enterprises.
It was in the South that the concepts of "honor" and "duty", close attachment to the family and the state, were developed as moral values that support the spirit of southerners in the most difficult moments of history for them.
While in the North, the business approach prevailed, and the unifying factors were not the family, or even the state, but material income and money.
In other words, in the South, it was possible to have respect even in poverty, if a person is honest and respects his dignity, if he is a patriot and stands for his country.
And in the North, the basis for respect was material wealth.
If there is no money , there is no respect.
If a person cannot earn money, it means that he is unworthy of respect.
Both approaches to life have their advantages and disadvantages.
But the main thing is a fundamentally different approach, which reliably delimited the North from the South.
Thus, the difference in mentality initially divided the US population into northerners and southerners.
The United States existed as a union of two separate states, but the central government sat precisely in the North of the United States, and supported, first of all, the pragmatic and business interests of the northerners, and not the more aristocratic ideals of the South.
Why did the North turn out to be the leading political force in the United States?
A serious factor that led to the imbalance and the preponderance of the political course of the North was the uneven increase in the population of the States.
By the time the Constitution was ratified (1790s), the population of the North and the South was approximately equal and, accordingly, there were approximately equal numbers of northerners and southerners in the House of Representatives of the Senate.
Over the next 70 years, the total population of the United States increased by 800%.
For example, the population of the state of New York increased due to the influx of immigrants by 1140% and became two and a half times more than the entire population of the state of Virginia. [11]
This phenomenon is easy to explain: agricultural land is limited, it is impossible to buy land indefinitely.
Free land is running out, it takes a certain number of people to cultivate it, and new settlers need to look for other places if they want to work on the land.
And the population of industrial cities, where new factories and factories are being built every now and then and workers are needed, can grow faster.
The industrial North could accept many more emigrants than the agricultural South.
Due to the rapid population growth, the North received more and more votes in the House of Representatives.
And the North sought to maintain this superiority, sometimes even to the detriment of the territorial interests of the state.
For example, in 1836, when the question arose about the annexation of the Republic of Texas to the United States, the North openly opposed the annexation and refused the Texas government, fearing that the Texas representatives in the Senate would support the southerners.
Reference: The Republic of Texas was formed as a result of separation from Mexico, existed as an independent state recognized by the world community for 9 years, from 1836 to 1845.
The Texans had objective reasons to seek an alliance with the United States.
The Mexican government, led by President General Santa Anna, systematically made attempts to regain the territory of Texas.
A small Texan population (by 1836 - about 30,000 people) it had neither monetary nor human resources to independently fight against Mexico and its large army (the population of Mexico by the 1830s was more than one and a half million people). [13]
It cannot be said that the State government was not interested in increasing its territory.
With the annexation of Texas, the States received access to the Gulf of Mexico.
At one time, State presidents several times proposed to the government of Mexico to buy the territory of East Texas.
In the early 1800s, this was done by President Thomas Jefferson, in 1822 - James Monroe, in 1825 - John Quincy Adams, in 1830 - Andrew Jackson [10].
Many Texans from the very moment of separation from Mexico also advocated joining the United States.
But now, in 1836, they were refused.
This happened, first of all, due to the fact that Texas was already an independent state, determined in its own political and economic preferences.
Therefore, one of the serious reasons for the delay in the annexation of Texas was the reluctance of the northern government to strengthen the representation of the South in the Senate. [13]
The number of foreigners in the armies of the North and South during the war also shows how much more actively the northern states were settled.
By 1861, about 4 million people of foreign birth who had recently arrived in the country lived in the northern states.
And only a quarter of a million residents of the Southern states were born outside the territory of the South.
About one out of every four or five soldiers of the army of the North was of foreign origin, while in the South this ratio was 1 to 20 or even 25.
Only the soldiers of German origin who made up the German regiments in the army of the North were at least 200,000.
About 150,000 were of Irish descent, born in Ireland, and at least 50,000 were English speaking Canadians.
Of the 583 northern generals, 45 were of foreign origin.
In the Confederate army, only 15 to 20 thousand soldiers were Irish, and out of 425 generals, only 9 were of foreign origin. [11]
By 1860, there were already 36 states in the Union.
25 of them supported the northern government.
Only 11 Southern states stood against them.
This ensured the full advantage of the North in the Senate.
Reference: Northern States: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Oiho, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
Southern States: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina.
Kentucky and Missouri - the so called "border states" - were claimed by both the Union and the Confederacy.
West Virginia and Nevada received the status of states and joined the Union after the outbreak of the war (in 1863 and 1864, respectively).
So, gradually, the North gained the majority of seats in the US government.
The resulting imbalance allowed the northern government to impose unfair tariffs on industrial goods that the North sold to the South.
This was facilitated by the very high customs duties imposed by the North on goods imported from Europe.
The situation was as follows: European goods due to high customs duties became very expensive, it became economically unprofitable to buy them.
The same manufactured goods that the North supplied to the South were slightly cheaper, but often of lower quality.
Southerners had to choose: either quality at a very high price, or a reasonable price and low quality.
At the same time, it cannot be said that northern goods were so cheap that it was more profitable to buy them.
Imagine a situation: you need to buy a shovel for your economic purposes.
An imported shovel costs 100 rubles, and it is of good quality, and the domestic one costs 80 rubles, but it is made of cheap, soft steel.
Imported can last a year, domestic half a year.
If you buy two domestic ones for a year, you will have to pay 160 rubles, while if you buy an imported one, you will get 60 rubles of savings.
Most likely, if you have 100 rubles in your pocket, you will choose an imported shovel.
But in order for the domestic industry not to suffer a loss, the government doubles the tax levies on imported shovels, and the seller, in order not to go broke, is forced to double the price.
Now an imported shovel costs not 100, but 200 rubles.
This allows the domestic manufacturer to slightly raise the price of their bad shovels, for example, from 80 rubles to 100 rubles, because a person who can not immediately give 200 rubles will have to buy a domestic one for 100.
If the Southerners bought industrial goods in Europe, bypassing high customs duties, they could purchase the necessary industrial goods cheaper and of better quality.
But they were deprived of such an opportunity.
There is a curious parallel here.
Let's go back to the time of the War of Independence of the American colonies, which the colonists waged with the troops of Great Britain (1775-1783).
Since the second half of the XVIII century, the British government, led by King George III, issued a series of parliamentary acts to curb foreign trade in the American colonies.
The Parliament of England forbade the colonies to trade freely with other maritime powers and to develop a manufacturing industry.
Even earlier, since the middle of the XVIII century, the English Parliament issued several so called "Navigation Acts", according to which all trade was to be carried out only on British ships and through Great Britain.[14]
For the American colonists, such rules were inconvenient.
The use of only English ships significantly increased the delivery time of goods.
The Americans already had their own fleet, but by law they had no right to use it.
They were forced to suspend trade and wait with their goods when the English ship arrived.
The "Navigation acts" were adopted by the English Parliament so that England could fully control trade and taxes.
In the same way, now, in the first half of the XIX century, the northerners acted in relation to the South, not allowing the southerners to trade with Europe independently and freely buy European goods.
In fact, the government of the North of the United States pursued the same policy towards the Southern states that the English metropolis once pursued in relation to all the American colonies of Great Britain.
The Southerners were not allowed to trade directly with other powers with what the South produced, and at the same time they were forced to buy ready made industrial goods only from the North, and not from Europe.
As an example of the consequences of the introduction of unfair taxes and tariffs imposed by the North, we can cite the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, when the Southern States tried to limit the effect of tariffs imposed by the North in 1828 and harming the economy of the South.
Three decades before the North South war, this crisis showed that the South was ready to secede.
Residents of South Carolina rebelled against unfair tariffs on imported goods, which increased by 45-50 percent. [11]
South Carolina announced the nullification of tariffs imposed by the North.
Other southern states were ready to support her initiative.
During the crisis, on March 2, 1833, Congress, on the proposal of President Jackson, adopted the Force Bill.
Under this bill, the president could use military force to collect customs duties on the territory of any state.
General W.'s troops were sent to South Carolina.
Scott.
In the same year, to calm the conflict, Congress, on the proposal of Henry Clay, decided to gradually reduce tariffs over 10 years.
This compromise made it possible to preserve the Union, from which some Southern states were already ready to withdraw.[5]
Thus, the North and the South, which were completely different from each other, were in very unequal political and economic conditions.
The North could dictate its political will, and the South was forced to obey, even if the demands of the North were unfair and the North by the middle of the XIX century behaved towards the South in much the same way as Great Britain behaved towards its American colonies on the eve of the War of Independence.
What can not be called the reasons for the separation of North and South
Most often, textbooks and reference books recognize the causes of the war between the North and the South:
- the necessity of the emancipation of the Negroes and the abolition of slavery;
- the desire of the South to settle the Western lands in order to increase the area for cotton crops, which was hindered by the North;
- the backwardness of the agricultural South, which hindered the development of the industrial revolution.
Let's focus on these three positions and consider each one separately.
At the beginning of the war between the North and the South of the United States, Europe sympathized with the South, because the unfair and illegal policy of the North towards the southern states was obvious to a European observer, just as during the American Revolution, most European countries (with the exception of Great Britain itself) sympathized with the American settlers who stood up for their freedom.
Our Russian publicist and public figure I. S. Aksakov also wrote about this: "Negroes do not constitute a real reason for war.
If it were a question of Negroes alone, then with their emancipation the matter would have to end.
Their emancipation is inevitable for the Southern States; but even if this emancipation were accomplished, the Northern states would also not allow a break.
It is known that some states in which there is no slavery wanted to postpone, but the Federalist army forced them to turn to the Union [Most likely, we are talking about the state of Maryland.
Note by M. G.].
The point, therefore, is to preserve the political organization itself.
But even if the Southern States submit, it will no longer be the old, but a new political organization with the principle of violence and coercion, an organization of the union, nourished, so to speak, by internecine discord, baptized in fraternal blood! " [4]
Reference: The history of the state of Maryland is remarkable.
This state, which has not actually been a slave owning state since the 1840s, also wanted to join the Confederacy, but was kept in the Union by force: Federation troops were introduced into its territory.
By order of Lincoln, the American artillery was located directly on the Capitol Hill of Baltimore (the state capital) and was aimed at the city.
Under the threat of shelling, the election of a new governor and the legislature was held.
Lincoln sent to prison all the supporters of the South in the previous state government, including the mayor of Baltimore, George William Brown.
The constitutionality of these actions of Lincoln is still being discussed. [9]
However, the fact itself is quite eloquent and hardly needs special discussions.
Imagine that the Russian government invades its troops, for example, in Bashkiria, removes the government at gunpoint and imprisons its own.
Such an action would clearly indicate a dictate and the imposition of its will on another republic by Russia.
However, the actions of the Lincoln government are recognized as only ambiguous.
One can argue as much as one likes whether Lincoln's actions were or were not constitutional, but the fact remains that troops were sent to Maryland on his orders, and the new state government was chosen at the threat of using weapons.
The Proclamation issued by Lincoln on the Emancipation of slaves was, first of all, to increase the political rating of Lincoln himself and the entire North in the eyes of the world community.
And indeed, after the release of the Proclamation, Europe was forced to support the North.
Lincoln seemed to point to slavery as a problem, and declared the struggle for the freedom of the black population an important mission of the northerners.
From that moment on, it became politically inconvenient to show your sympathy for the "slave owners".
However, initially, the Lincoln government did not have the idea of urgently ending slavery.
The proclamation on the emancipation of slaves appeared only on January 1, 1863, and the war began in April 1861. [2]
The text of the Proclamation itself does not speak about the complete emancipation of slaves, but only about the measure of suppression of the "revolt" of the Southern states.
Quotes from the Proclamation:
"...all persons held as slaves in the territory of any state or a certain part of the state, the population of which is in a state of rebellion against the United States, are henceforth and forever declared free... " [2]
"...on the specified day of the first of January, the executive authorities will determine by a special proclamation the states and, if there are any, parts of the states whose population is in a state of rebellion against the United States... " [2]
As we can see, the text of the Proclamation explicitly states that slaves are freed only on the territory of states that are defined as being in a state of "actual armed rebellion".
If the abolition of slavery was really so important, why does the text of the Proclamation not indicate that since January 1, 1863, all slaves in the United States are declared free?
Why didnot the North, which had the majority of votes in the Senate, abolish slavery earlier, even before the war?
The text of the Proclamation indicates that the "liberation" itself was a measure aimed primarily at pacifying the South.
Slaves were used only as a convenient means of influence.
Three slave owning states have never expressed a desire to secede from the United States: Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri.
The Lincoln Proclamation did not apply to these states.
Missouri and West Virginia (separated from Virginia in 1863) abolished slavery in their territories during the war.
In Kentucky and Delaware, slaves were freed only when the XIII Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, abolishing slavery throughout the United States.
This happened only in December 1865, eight months after the April surrender of the Confederate army and the end of the war. [15]
Why did the Lincoln government finally decide to abolish slavery?
After Lincoln became famous all over the world for his Proclamation and gained popularity thanks to this document, it was no longer profitable for him or the ruling cabinet of the North to retreat.
The work of freeing the slaves had to be brought to an end.
Otherwise, the political image of the Lincoln government would have suffered, which declared itself as fighters for the freedom of Negroes - and did not fulfill its promises.
So, slavery as such was not decisive for the separation of the South from the North and the emergence of a military conflict.
Moreover, pragmatic northerners, who put their own well being and material benefits at the forefront, would not fight for the sake of freeing other people's slaves.
The black population of the United States was used to raise the political rating of the Lincoln government, as well as in the hope that blacks would side with the North and join the ranks of the armed forces of the Federation.
About the "desire of the South" to seize Western lands
When historians say that the southern planters were interested in" seizing " Western lands, they cite as an argument the need to increase the area for cotton crops, which allegedly cannot be grown for a long time in the same place.
In particular, we can cite a literal quote by A. Bushkov: "cotton growing exhausted the soil like hell. "[6].
Let's deal with this issue.
1. Cotton is an agricultural crop that, unlike many others, depletes the land very little.
Quote from the Agronomist website: "Cotton can be grown in one place for a long time" [8].
The opinion of plant growers differs in this case from the opinion of historians, and to the exact opposite.
2. It is much easier and cheaper to fertilize the soil than to abandon everything that has already been done, mastered and built on your land, and go to the West, conquer new lands, where you need to start everything from scratch and everything else will have to fight with aggressive Indians of the western territories.
Before the war of 1861, planters in the South bought good land in good places, built solid stone houses with columns, cut alleys and planted ornamental gardens, giving their possessions the appearance of European estates.
They were just the most disinterested in leaving a well equipped, settled place somewhere to the West, where the soil is worse, the areas are drier, and there are more dangers.
In fact, there were serious disagreements between the North and the South on the development of new lands.
But they were political in nature and stemmed precisely from the desire of both northerners and southerners to have more political influence.
The territory of the United States continued to be developed, and the question arose in the US Congress whether to allow the new states to decide for themselves whether slavery would be legalized on their territory, or whether slavery should be banned immediately.
It depended on whether the new state would be closer to the South or to the North in terms of lifestyle and method of production. [11]
Because of disagreements on the issue of the rights of the new states, conflicts have flared up many times.
An example is the Missouri Compromise of 1820 [12].
It was about the prohibition of slavery in the territories of the developing states of Kansas and Nebraska.
On May 30, 1854, a bill was passed that provided the population of the future states of Kansas and Nebraska, upon joining the United States, to independently decide on the admission or prohibition of slavery.
As a result of this "compromise", both northerners and southerners hastily tried to send settlers to the territories of the two disputed states who would politically support their side, which led to a number of armed clashes.
The Southerners were interested in the new states taking their side, because politically this could strengthen the very weak influence of the South in the US Senate.
But in the same way, the northerners sought to establish their influence on the territories of the new states and not allow the position of the South to strengthen in the Senate.
The aspirations of the North and the South in this matter were the same.
About the" backward economy " of the South
In historical studies of the Soviet period, it is customary to say that the South was "backward" in comparison with the industrially developed North.
For example, in the textbook edited by A.V. Ado, we read: "At the same time, the South of the country continued to be an extremely backward area, where slavery prevailed." [7]
However, in fact, the economically developed North was very much dependent on the" backward " South.
By the 1850s, most of the gross national product was produced in the Southern States.
The main part was made up of cotton, tobacco and sugar.
By 1860, 3/4 of the entire federal budget was made up of southern agricultural products. [11]
Reference: The gross national product (GNP) reflects the total value of final goods and services created not only within the country, but also abroad.
Southern raw materials went to the North to support the industrial revolution.
The North was very much dependent on the South.
Almost all the cotton produced in the South was exported from the United States to Europe not directly from the Southern States, but through the North and at a price set by the North.
The dependence of the North on the southern economy can be illustrated by the economic crisis of the 1850s in the United States.
In 1857, due to various financial machinations of the North related to land speculation and railways, there was a threat of economic collapse.
A big scandal occurred due to the theft of a huge amount of money in the largest banks in Ohio and their branches in other states.
This led to a severe economic shock in the North.
Banks began to refuse to issue loans.
More than 800 banks in the Northern states went bankrupt due to all the problems and frauds that arose.
To top it all off, on September 12, 1857, a steamer carrying more than 15 tons of gold from California on its way through Central America was caught in a hurricane and sank near South Carolina. [11]
At the same time, thanks to the end of the Crimean War, Russia sent a large amount of wheat to the European market, and this greatly cut off the supply of American grain, since it was at a higher price than Russian.
The demand for American wheat fell just at a time when the North was in great need of money to pay off its debts.
British investors began to remove their deposits from American banks, as they considered them unreliable.
The agricultural areas of the Northern United States suffered: wheat was grown in the northern states.
Due to the fall in grain prices, the northerners lost one of the main income items.
This led to the fact that the countryside stopped buying industrial goods, and they began to accumulate uselessly in the warehouses of enterprises.
Accordingly, wages were no longer issued to workers, and enterprises went bankrupt due to the inability to recoup production costs.
The crisis has affected all segments of the population of the North.
The panic turned into a national depression.
Northern politicians used this panic to raise tariffs on the sale of southern cotton and tobacco, as this remained the most reliable security.
Both cotton and tobacco of the South were actively bought by Europe and Russia.
When, as a result of the war between the North and the South, cotton supplies to Russia stopped, I. S. Aksakov wrote: "...the North American question turns into a cotton question.
The American civil strife has had a particularly painful effect not only on the manufacturers, but also on the peasants of our Suzdal land - Vladimir, part of the Kostroma, Yaroslavl and Nizhny Novgorod provinces, and in general our entire industrial manufacturing district." [4]
The South did not depend on the financial crisis of the North.
And at a time when the Northern industry was failing, the South was flourishing.
The South did not suffer decline, because the fertile land gave cotton, which brought material prosperity.
Therefore, cotton producers in the South could not fail to understand that if they managed to get rid of the tariffs imposed on them, forcing them to sell cotton to the North, and not export it to Europe on their own, they would be able to trade directly with European countries and thereby further boost their economy.
The so called "economically backward" South in the late 1850s saved the North by providing the northerners with a huge amount of cotton, and this helped to avoid the final collapse.
Cotton turned out to be more reliable than any currency.
This allowed Senator James Hammond of South Carolina to say: "When the abuse of loans was disclosed... when thousands of trading houses in the world went bankrupt and hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared in the air, when you entered a dead end, and the threat of revolution loomed, what saved you?
Fortunately, the cotton season has started for you, and we poured 1,600,000 bales of cotton on you just in time of crisis to save you from death." [11]
So, the southern cotton was able to pull the US out of the crisis.
All the cotton went to the northern factories, and only from there, already at the price of the North and under an agreement with northern businessmen, the cotton was sent to Europe.
The South received the minimum price for its cotton, which was set not by itself, but by the North, due to the fact that the majority of votes in the Senate supported exactly those tariffs that were beneficial to the North.
As mentioned above, at the same time, the northern factories sold their industrial products to the South at very high prices.
It is difficult to understand how it was possible to bring the prosperous agricultural South to the point that even very rich planters were in debt to the North.
To do this, you need to imagine how cheap the North took cotton and how expensive it gave the finished products.
The South understood that if it was not possible to achieve a reduction in tariffs, or the opportunity to trade directly with Europe, the South could suffer very much economically and politically.
Conversations about the separation of the South from the North were very active in the Southern states.
This seemed to the Southerners the only way to support the economy of the South and politically achieve equality.
The South demanded independent trade with Europe, demanded permission to build a Southern railway from the Mississippi through El Paso to the Pacific Ocean, which would expand the market.
Cotton remained the most reliable of currencies, and it was possible to believe that if the South had the opportunity to set prices and trade cotton freely, it would be the South that would rule on the North American continent.
But the South could not achieve anything by legislative means.
After all, the majority of votes in the Senate belonged to the North.
The northerners did not want the "King Cotton" to take away their political influence.
Thus, it is economical The North dominated the South, pursuing an unfair policy of prices, customs duties and tariffs.
By unfair laws and the threat of using weapons, the northerners forced the South to completely depend on the North.
The same thing was done at the time by the government of George III in relation to the American colonists.
Relations were established between the North and the South, similar to the relations between Great Britain and its American colonies at the end of the XVIII century.
Southerners viewed the centralized federal government as a kind of dictator, unfairly suppressing the interests of the South.
Therefore, in the early 1860s, the southerners decided to separate from their northern neighbors.
Unconstitutional rebellion
When adopting the Constitution at the end of the XVIII century (this process lasted for 13 former British colonies from 1787 to 1790), the residents of each state firmly believed that since they voluntarily joined the Union, they had every right to withdraw from the Union at any time.
Each state was to remain a separate legal entity and preserve its sovereignty. [1]
The American Constitution, however, did not contain a provision on the self determination of the states.
In many ways, the Constitution strengthened the Union and prohibited individual states from independently solving external problems.
In section 10 of the US Constitution, it is written in particular that none of the states can join any other unions or confederations.
And on this basis, the withdrawal of the Southern States from the Union in 1861 and the formation of a Confederation by them was perceived by the North as an unconstitutional rebellion.
But the question is: do some people have the right to impose their will on others?
Especially considering that the Northerners themselves have always stood for unlimited personal freedom?
The population of the states that separated from the Union did not want to be under the rule of the union government, which they no longer trusted.
And no Constitution could have kept the United States from disintegrating into two separate powers.
Is it possible to blame the Southerners for the so - called "unconstitutional rebellion"?
Man is an imperfect creation, and therefore any creation of human hands or human mind should be subjected to critical reflection.
Nothing generated by the human mind can be an absolute and immutable truth.
It can only approach the relative truth, which is more or less likely to be suitable for a given historical moment.
The cumification of the American Constitution is a negative phenomenon, like the cumification of any work of human hands in general.
Therefore, it is impossible to recognize as an argument that the Southern States did not have the right to secede from the Union, because the Constitution prohibits it.
The American Constitution was created with specific goals and at a specific historical moment, when its elaboration was necessary to solve specific tasks of protection from external dangers and solving economic problems.
England recognized the freedom of the United States, but the British could be outraged if the Union they recognized collapsed into separate states.
The English government would have every reason to say: "We concluded a treaty with the Union, and not with individual colonies."
And then a new military threat could arise for the former colonies of Great Britain.
At that moment, the Constitution was necessary to seal the Alliance against Great Britain.
But several decades have passed - and the circumstances have changed.
This does not mean that it is necessary to rebel against any law adopted more than six months ago.
This only means that you need to be critical of any act of human hands and mind and approach it from the point of view of necessity, justice and many other factors.
The very fact that the Confederate States did not have the right to secede from the United States under the Constitution cannot be recognized as an argument " for " or "against", because at the time of the secession of the Southern States, the Constitution was adopted more than 60 years ago, in a completely different political, economic and historical situation.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution, adopted two years after the ratification of the Constitution, read: "The powers that are not delegated by this Constitution of the United States, and the use of which is not prohibited by it to individual states, are reserved to the states or to the people" [1].
This amendment was the basis of the doctrine of states ' rights, which became a slogan for the Southern states who wanted to limit the ever growing powers of the federal government.
However, while the Southern states were part of the United States, they failed to achieve justice.
Therefore, the moment came when, in 1861, eleven Southern states separated from the United States and formed their own Confederate state based on the principles of the unification of independent states.
The KSA united the following states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina.
Not only 11 southern states wanted to secede from the Union.
Two territories that do not yet have the right of states also applied for membership in the KSHA: Arizona and New Mexico.
Also, the KSHA was supported by five "civilized" tribes from the Indian territory: Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creeks and Seminoles.
The American Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776, provides as self evident truths that all people are created equal and are endowed with the inalienable rights to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
And in order to ensure these rights, people unite and " create governments whose just power is based on the consent of the governed."
If any government does not fulfill its most important purpose and takes away from its subjects what are their main and inalienable rights, then the people have the right to change or abolish the existing system, and establish a new one that can "best ensure the security and welfare of the people". [3]
After leaving the United States, the Southern States were guided by the principles of the Declaration, wishing to change the government that does not fulfill its purpose in relation to its subjects of the Southern States.
When the South seceded from the United States and was attacked by the North, the southerners considered the conflict as the second American revolution.
The seal of the Confederacy depicted George Washington the inspirer and prominent figure of the first American Revolution, who led the Continental Army and repulsed the British troops.
The Lincoln government did not want to give the South the opportunity to live independently.
I. S. Aksakov gave an interesting and very precise definition for the northerners, which characterizes their aspirations: "Federalists or unionists, that is, advocates of a violent union of the Northern and Southern states..."
He also said: "The war waged by the northern states with the southern states for the preservation of the integrity of the union shows that violence is now an essential element of the union.
Therefore, this is no longer a natural and voluntary, but a forced and artificial union."
From this point of view, the separation of the South is understandable and understandable.
Residents of the Southern States rightly believed that they voluntarily entered the Union and had the right to withdraw from it.
Southerners believed that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed by their ancestors during the first American Revolution was fair for them, and the desire for freedom and happiness was their inalienable right.
"The Federation, which, by its very meaning, is based on voluntary consent, a free union, puts forward the beginning of coercion and violence..." - as I. S. Aksakov said, analyzing the events on the American continent.
A sense of patriotism and a desire to protect themselves and their loved ones have become decisive for southerners.
And this patriotism almost unanimously raised the people of the Southern States to defend their freedom and statehood.
Conclusion
So, what were the reasons for the war between the North and the South of the United States?
1. The contradiction between the mentality, way of life, moral and political ideals of the population of the northern and southern states, which did not allow northerners and southerners to become a single people.
2. The political dependence of the South on the North.
The increase in the population of the Northern states allowed the northerners to take a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and dictate their will to the population of the southern states by passing laws that infringe on the southerners in political and economic terms.
3. The desire of the South, which has a developed agricultural base, not to depend on the tariffs imposed by the North.
Having an absolute superiority in the raw material base, the South was forced to be in debt to the North due to the fact that the raw materials of the South were sold to the North at a very cheap price, and the industrial goods of the North were sold very expensive in the South.
From the point of view of the southerners, they had every right to part with dependence on the North and build their lives according to their principles and ideals.
For the North, the secession of several Southern colonies from the United States meant not only economic, but also political problems.
The power of the northerners could be shaken if they allowed the southern states to secede from the Union.
After all, some northern states might want the same thing.
Therefore, the North could not help but start a war, motivating it with the desire to preserve the Union.
The government of Abraham Lincoln preferred to preserve the United States by violent methods, ruining and destroying the South, preferred to temporarily destroy the raw material base at all, but not allow the southerners to secede into an independent state.
Not wanting to pay a fair price for the same cotton, the northerners preferred to temporarily lose it altogether.
They preserved the Union, paying a huge price for it with human lives.
The war of the North and the South is still considered the bloodiest and most destructive of all wars, that were conducted on the American continent.
Used literature:
Documents and regulations
1.
The Constitution of the United States of America // http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/cnstUS.htm
2.
Emancipation Proclamation // http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=39&subjectID=3
3.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America // http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Sources and research
4.
Aksakov I. S.
About the lack of spiritual content in the American nationality // http://dugward.ru/library/aksakovy/iaksakov ob otsutstvii.html
5.
Alentyeva T. V.
The reaction of American society to the nullification crisis of 1828-1833.
/ / http://www.rusus.ru/?act=read&id=18
6.
Bushkov A. The Unknown War.
The Secret history of the United States
7.
The new history of the countries of Europe and America: The first period: (Studies for universities on spec. "History" / G. L. Arsh, V. S. Bondarchuk, L. I. Golman, etc.); Edited by A.V. Ado.
- M.: Higher School, 1986
8.
Cotton / / http://agrofuture.ru/xlopchatnik.html
9.
Abraham Lincoln and Maryland // http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=108&CRLI=156; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland
10.
Hard Road to Texas.
Texas Annexation 1836-1845 // http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/index.html
11.
McNeill John K.
A Southern View of History.
The War for Southern Independence.
"The Other Side of the Coin" // http://www.scv674.org/SH Table.htm
12.
Missouri Compromise // http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=841
13.
Rodriguez J. La Crisis de Mexico en el siglo XIX // http://www.iih.unam.mx/moderna/ehmc/ehmc10/124.html
14.
The American Revolution: Causes of Conflict // http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americanrevolution/a/amrevcauses.htm
15.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave and free states
Author: M. V. Guminenko
© M. V. Guminenko.
two thousand eleven
If you have any questions about the use of the site materials, please contact: Kippari2007@rambler.ru
