Civil war is the inevitable result of the conflict between the south and the north.
The root of the contradiction between the north and the south in the United States lies in the south's efforts to shelter slavery. This contradiction existed as early as the colonial period. After the independence of the United States, the north and the south embarked on two different development paths: capitalist wage labor system and slave plantation economy. The coexistence and development of these two different systems in a country has produced many contradictions and conflicts, which are highlighted in slaves, tariffs, western land, and the proportion of representatives in Congress.
On the issue of tariffs, in order to protect national industry and commerce, the north hopes to raise tariffs and oppose free trade; The south, on the other hand, is less dependent on the domestic market because it exports a large number of products in exchange for manufactured goods, so it is just the opposite of what the north advocates. On the issue of land competition in the west, on the one hand, due to the primitive and backward management mode of slave plantations, cotton planting consumes a lot of land and needs to buy new land constantly; On the other hand, whether the newly developed western region joined the union as a free state or a slave-holding state is directly related to the number of seats in the Senate between the north and the south and the struggle for federal power, so the land in the west naturally became the object of their coveting. Tariffs, land, and the proportion of representatives in congress are intertwined, but they all stem from slavery. The development of these contradictions and conflicts inevitably boils down to one of the most sensitive issues-the struggle for federal power. In this case, the issue of slavery is closely linked to the political future of federalism.
When there was a dispute between the north and the south, the south repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the union; The northern part, on the other hand, focused on the overall situation of federal unification and made concessions again and again in an effort to preserve the Federation. From the following main north-south confrontation, we can clearly see a clue that contradictions intensify and eventually lead to war:
1823 Missouri compromise: after the founding of the United States, free States and slave-holding States joined the union alternately. After Alabama joined the Union in 18 19, there were 1 1 states in the north and south, which were equally powerful in the Senate, but in the House of Representatives, there were 65,438 states in the north. The south is unwilling to lag behind, and strives to compete with the north for the Senate seat. The appearance of Missouri problem provides it with a rare opportunity. Missouri is part of Louisiana Purchase Land purchased by the United States from France in 1803. 18 19, Missouri, with a population of 66,000, applied to Congress to establish a new state and join the union. However, for the area west of the Mississippi River, the federal government has no clear regulations on the preservation or abolition of slavery. Around Missouri's accession status, the long-standing contradiction between North and South has rapidly intensified. Finally, the Missouri compromise was passed in 1823, which stipulated that Missouri should join the union as a slave-holding state, and Maine should be set aside as a free state in the north to maintain the balance in the number of senators between the north and the south. However, in the rest of the land purchased by Louisiana, slavery is prohibited forever north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes north latitude. This compromise case is the first major event that the conflict between the two social systems in the North and the South has become clear and sharp, and the issue of slavery has attracted national attention. Of course, the Missouri compromise did not fundamentally solve the crisis, but only delayed it. Since then, while competing with the North for other parts of Louisiana's land purchase, the South has also targeted Cuba and Central America south of 36 degrees and 30 minutes north latitude, trying to establish a slave empire in the Caribbean.
The compromise case of 1850: By 1848, there will be 15 states in the north and south. At that time, several territories, such as California, New Mexico and Utah, were successively developed on the land acquired by the United States in the US-Mexico War, demanding to join the Federation. After fierce competition, the North and the South finally passed a series of bills, collectively known as 1850 compromise. Its content is: 1, California joined the Federation as a free state; 2. When New Mexico and Utah joined the Union, the residents decided whether to abolish slavery and implement "people's sovereignty" (which can also be translated as "residents' self-determination"); 3. Slavery is prohibited in the District of Columbia; 4. The federal government should assist in the pursuit of runaway slaves. It can be seen that Articles 1 and 3 are beneficial to the north and Article 4 protects the south. But it is worth noting that the principle of "civilian sovereignty" has set a dangerous precedent. From then on, whether to keep or abolish slavery can be decided by local residents without going through the federal legislature. In this way, once NSW residents choose slavery, the federal government cannot intervene, which is equivalent to changing slavery from a local system in the south to a national system.
Kansas-nebraska act 1854: The territory of Nebraska, located in the north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude purchased by Louisiana, should be established as a free state. However, in kansas-nebraska act proposed by Democratic Senator Douglas, the principle of "civilian sovereignty" was reaffirmed. This is tantamount to denying the Missouri compromise.
Several compromises before the civil war delayed the full-scale outbreak of the North-South contradiction, but did not fundamentally solve the problem. By the early 1960s, contradictions and conflicts had almost reached a fever pitch. It has become an open secret that the South tried to secede from the Union, and it has recruited soldiers and entered the substantive preparation stage of the civil war. In this situation, it is urgent for the north to solve not only the problem of slavery, but also the realistic separatist threat in the south.
The essence of maintaining the political power of the southern countries is to deny the supreme authority of the Federation.
In the process of showdown with the north, the south has always been under the banner of safeguarding national rights. In other words, the state power is the theoretical basis for the South to secede from the Federation and launch a civil war.
In American history, the concept of state power is deeply rooted. The concepts of state power and local autonomy are often mutually beneficial and have certain positive significance, which can be said to be one of the forms of exerting local enthusiasm within the framework of dual federalism. But in the southern separatists, state power has become their amulet to split the Federation. The formation of his theory has a development process. 1787 the constitution itself is the product of compromise between state power and centralization. It inevitably leaves some vague wording on the relationship and boundary between federal power and state power, which will bring hidden dangers in the future. As early as 1798, the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia drafted a resolution, which was passed by the legislatures of these two States, declaring that the then Congress had no right to pass the Aliens and Rebellion Act and other four laws, and its contents also violated the US Constitution, so it was invalid. There are some factors of different political views, but it sets a precedent for a state to interpret the federal constitution and use state power to deny federal legislation. Thirty years later, john calhoun, a famous politician in South Carolina, further developed this theory and formally put forward "the invalidation of federal laws" to protest the so-called "hateful tax rate" in the Tariff and Consumption Tax Act 1828 passed by Congress. He claimed that any state has the right to declare a legal act of the federal parliament invalid and prohibit it from being implemented in that state, on the grounds that under federalism, sovereignty belongs to the state. In this regard, then President Jackson showed no weakness. On the one hand, he announced the whole country and attacked the practice of South Carolina; On the other hand, the signing of the law on the use of military force forced South Carolina to reopen Congress and revoked the announcement of abolishing the federal law. In his advice to the people of South Carolina, he hit the nail on the head and pointed out the nature of this clumsy trick. After another 30 years, under the leadership of South Carolina, the separatists once again raised the banner of state rights. The challenges of these three state powers to the federal constitution have an inherent progressive inheritance relationship, but they also have differences in degree and nature. For the first time, I only verbally said that the federal law was unconstitutional; The second time, it developed into a suspension of the implementation of unconstitutional federal laws; The third time, it was further developed to be able to withdraw from the Federation. The logic of South Carolina separatists is that since the state power itself has been recognized by the Constitution, the "right of separation" belongs to the proper meaning of the state power, so separation is also constitutional. However, the federal constitution is, after all, the fundamental law of the country. The federal constitution recognizes that States retain certain powers, and the federal government cannot interfere with these powers at will, but these powers are non-sovereign. The power of the Federation comes from all the people, not from a certain state. The southern separatists reiterated the idea of "having the right to abolish federal laws" and extended state power to sovereignty, which fundamentally violated the federal constitution.
Today, when talking about the theoretical basis of the South's secession from the Union, there are still a few scholars who plausibly claim that before the Civil War, most Americans believed in the principle affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, that is, the power of the government came from the consent of the governed. Therefore, forcing the south to stay in the Federation is autocratic and immoral. In fact, this is a disguised excuse and defense for the principle of the supremacy of power in the southern countries, so as to deny the legitimacy and justice of the civil war. In fact, the state power advertised by the south has undergone a qualitative change and has become a tool to challenge the supreme authority of the Federation and launch a civil war.
The Lincoln administration regarded the maintenance of federal unity as the primary goal of the civil war.
The presidential election of 1860 was the trigger of the civil war. Abraham lincoln, the US Republican presidential candidate, is gentle, but soft and firm. His political attitude is very clear, and his position of safeguarding federal unity and supreme authority is unambiguous.
Lincoln's election made southern separatists on pins and needles. South Carolina was the first to make a fuss. On February 20th, 1860, 1860 announced its withdrawal from the Union, arrogantly declaring: "South Carolina will resume its position in the world." Then, six southern states, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Texas, withdrew at the beginning of 186 165438 10, and on February 4th, ConfederateStatesofAmerica was established to elect interim president and vice president. Later, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina joined after the Civil War. In this way, among the 15 states in the south at that time, 1 1 states left the federation and joined the "Southern Alliance" to compete with the federation. Only Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri (West Virginia became a new state from Virginia in 65,438+0863), which are located on the north-south border, have not seceded from the Union.
The south did not hesitate to take risks and split the federal state that its predecessors and northern compatriots exchanged their blood and lives for. Of course, it was driven by the huge economic benefits of slavery, but at the same time they also had a misunderstanding that the North would not use force easily. Because cotton was the main export agricultural product in the south at that time, accounting for 57% of the total export value of the country. In a sense, there would be no cotton without slavery; Without cotton, the northern textile industry stopped immediately. In fact, the Lincoln administration did make concessions. Lincoln showed great tolerance and restraint in his inaugural speech. However, this attitude was regarded as a compromise by the South, so they brazenly took aim at Fort Sumter in South Carolina on April 186 12, and fired the first shot of the civil war.
History has proved that the southern separatist forces underestimated Lincoln's determination to strive for the integrity of the Federation. Facing the reality of the division between the North and the South, Lincoln finally decided to defend the Union with war.
Although Lincoln explicitly attacked the moral basis of slavery, he was very cautious in his practical actions. At the beginning of the civil war, he never took action to liberate slaves. Lincoln believed that the main purpose of war was to protect the union, not to eliminate slavery. Slavery should be abolished, but it should be carried out within the framework of constitutionalism. Slavery is only a local system, and should not be extended to federal territories and newly established States indefinitely. However, the Federation should safeguard the private property rights of slave owners in southern States, implement a gradual redemption policy for slave owners by means of democracy and the rule of law, and gradually abolish compensated slavery. Judging from the situation at that time, Lincoln had some scruples: first, the US Constitution prohibited the government from depriving citizens of their property without due process of law. Lincoln had no intention or right to interfere with the so-called "property" owned by southern slave owners as defined by the law at that time. The original intention of the large-scale use of troops in the north was to safeguard national unity and suppress the rebellion in the south, which had nothing to do with the liberation of slaves. This is repeatedly emphasized by the Lincoln administration. Secondly, although some people in the north hate inhuman slavery, they have not seriously considered liberating slaves, and they are even more unwilling to pay a high price for it. As for some people in the north who have close economic ties with the south, their attitudes are even more ambiguous. Third, intervention in slavery will split the political alliance in the north. The Republican Party is a temporary political alliance of various anti-slavery political forces in the north. Although these forces opposed the spread of slavery, they did not demand the immediate abolition of slavery. Fourth, the attitudes of the four border States that have not yet left the European Union are also very important. Lincoln certainly didn't want them to fall into the hands of the Confederacy.
However, according to the flexible clause that Congress has the right to pass all "necessary and appropriate" (Article 1, paragraph 8, of the American Constitution), Lincoln sized up the situation and successfully implemented a series of major measures to mobilize and unite the vast majority of the American people, so that this just war could be carried out smoothly and ended in victory in the North. This includes the promulgation of the The Emancipation Proclamation in the form of presidential wartime measures, which liberated 4 million slaves in rebel states, making this war of maintaining federal unity more noble and revolutionary.
Judging from the situation at that time and the measures taken by the Lincoln administration, the American Civil War was mainly a political contest of unity and division, and when and how to solve the slavery problem was subject to this overall goal. 1The American Civil War, which ended on May 26th, 865, reaffirmed the supreme authority of federal sovereignty and stimulated the integrated development of the national economy. On this basis, the principle that all American citizens are national citizens of the United States first, and then citizens of each state is established. The loose federation has become a truly unified and powerful country. The American Civil War also solved the problem of slavery that has plagued the whole country since 1776. During the civil war, slaves were liberated, and after the war, slavery was formally abolished through the amendment to Article 13 of the Constitution. In the post-war reconstruction of the south, everything cut with a knife and gun during the war was confirmed by legal means. Southern States adopted new state constitutions, confirmed the supreme authority of the Federation, and then were readmitted and returned to the Federation. The civil war also tested the ability of the American federal government to maintain national unity and democratic system in an extraordinary period, and strengthened the authority and influence of the federal government.
However, this war, which lasted more than four years, was unprecedentedly tragic. In all, 620,000 people died on the battlefield, more than all previous wars in the United States combined. The south was hit hard in the war: a quarter of white youths were killed, two fifths of livestock were killed, agricultural machinery, factories and railways were damaged by half, and property losses were nearly two thirds, totaling $5 billion. As for the political and psychological costs caused by war, it is difficult to measure them accurately. The war of secession triggered by slave owners' obstinacy in the southern United States not only left a deep wound for the United States, but also left a profound lesson for all mankind.