Preconditions for the war.

The great crisis of 1929-1932 generated profound social and psychological transformations in Europe and beyond. The value disorientation of many social groups led to their alienation from the basic principles of the form of political consciousness that was established on the continent as a result of the Great French Revolution. As a result, democracy was no longer perceived as the optimal way of political organization of society, and the authoritarian and even totalitarian type of government became more and more popular. In a number of countries, the trend towards radical and violent methods of solving domestic and foreign policy problems (racism, terror, military aggression) has increased. Grouping fascist states(Japan, Germany, Italy) launched a struggle for the redivision of the world. In the post-crisis conditions, the powers that dominated the world political scene after the First World War (USA, Great Britain, France) were unable to adequately respond to this challenge.

In 1931 there was a military hearth in Far East when Japan, a country with a long tradition of militarism, began open hostilities against China. On September 18, 1931, its troops invaded and occupied Manchuria (Northeast China); on the occupied territory, the puppet state of Manchukuo was created. Japan's attempt to continue its aggression in a southern direction (Shanghai) provoked a resolute protest from the United States (January 7, 1932). On February 24, 1933, the League of Nations demanded that Japan withdraw its troops from Manchuria. In response, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations, on December 13, 1934, it denounced the Washington Agreement of 1922, which regulated the size of the naval forces of the great powers and guaranteed the inviolability of China's territory.

Another hotbed of aggression arose in Europe. On January 30, 1933, the National Socialist Party (NSDAP), headed by A. Hitler, came to power in Germany; the Nazis liquidated the Weimar Republic, established a totalitarian regime and embarked on a course of accelerated preparation for war in order to destroy the Versailles system. On October 14, 1933, Germany left the League of Nations and refused to participate in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. On July 24, 1934, she made an attempt to annex Austria by organizing an anti-government putsch in Vienna, but was forced to abandon her plans because of the sharply negative position of the Italian dictator B. Mussolini, who moved his troops to the Austrian border. On March 16, 1935, the Nazis passed a law on universal conscription, thereby violating a key clause of the Versailles Treaty. This prompted France to intensify efforts to create a system of alliances with the participation of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Italy and even the USSR to prevent the German threat (Mediterranean Locarno, Balkan Entente). At a conference in Stresa on April 11-14, 1935, France, Great Britain and Italy joined forces in defense of the Treaty of Versailles and in support of Austrian independence. On May 2, 1935, a Soviet-French agreement on mutual assistance was concluded. But on June 18, 1935, the British government of S. Baldwin agreed to sign an agreement with Germany on naval armaments, which allowed the latter to significantly increase its navy.

In 1935 Italy passed over to the policy of open military expansion. She attacked Ethiopia on October 3, 1935 and captured it by May 1936. In this conflict, Britain and France have taken an inconsistent position. On the one hand, the capture of Ethiopia threatened their strategic interests in the Red Sea region, and they supported the decision of the League of Nations to impose economic sanctions on Italy. On the other hand, in an effort to preserve the unity of the anti-German "front of Stresa", Great Britain and France tried to reach a compromise with Mussolini on the Ethiopian issue (the Hor-Laval agreement on December 9, 1935), but this attempt ended in complete failure.

The deterioration of relations with the Western powers pushed Italy towards a rapprochement with Germany. In January 1936, Mussolini agreed in principle to the annexation of Austria by the Germans, provided they refuse to expand on the Adriatic. Having found an ally, Hitler decided to violate the Locarno Treaty of 1925 and send troops into the demilitarized Rhineland (March 7, 1936). Great Britain and France did not offer him effective resistance, limiting themselves to a formal protest.

On February 16, 1936, the Popular Front (left-wing republicans, socialists, communists) won the elections in Spain, but on July 18 conservative forces (generals, monarchists, clerics), led by General F. Franco, rebelled against the new regime. Germany and Italy provided the rebels with active support, the USSR sided with the Popular Front. The Western powers, not interested in the victory of either side, chose a policy of non-intervention in the civil war in Spain (agreement September 9, 1936).

October 25, 1936 Germany and Italy signed an agreement on the delimitation of spheres of influence in Central and South-Eastern Europe ("Axis Berlin - Rome"). On November 25, the German-Japanese "Anti-Comintern Pact" was signed on a joint struggle against Bolshevism. On July 7, 1937, Japan launched an invasion of Central China (Sino-Japanese War 1937-1945). On November 6, Italy joined the Anti-Comintern Pact.

By the end of 1937, Germany completed its rearmament program and, under the cover of the slogan of the return of all German-inhabited territories to Germany, went over to open aggression. On March 12, 1938, she annexed Austria (Anschluss). Great Britain and France, hoping with partial concessions to satisfy Hitler's appetites (“appeasement” policy), did not hinder the Anschluss. September 29-30, 1938 N. Chamberlain, E. Daladier, B. Mussolini and A. Hitler signed Munich Agreement on the transfer of Germany from Czechoslovakia to the German-speaking Sudetenland. Hungary joined the fascist powers: on November 2, 1938, it captured part of Slovakia and Transcarpathian Ukraine, and on February 24, 1939, it officially joined the Anti-Comintern Pact.

On March 13, 1939, Germany provoked the separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic; a puppet "Slovak State" was created. On March 15, dropping the slogan of the reunification of all Germans, Germany occupied the Czech Republic and turned it into a "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia". Thus, the Western policy of "appeasement" of the aggressor has suffered a complete collapse.

In late March, the Spanish Civil War ended in defeat for the Republicans; On March 27, the Franco regime joined the Anti-Comintern Pact. Appearance on southern border France, the state allied to Hitler, sharply worsened strategic position Western powers, which forced Britain and France to return to plans to create an anti-German bloc. On March 21, they entered into negotiations with the USSR on mutual assistance against aggression.

Meanwhile, the Italian-German expansion was expanding: on March 21, Germany presented an ultimatum to Poland demanding to cede Gdansk (Danzig) to her, on March 22, she seized the Lithuanian port of Klaipeda; On April 7, Italy annexed Albania; On April 28, Germany denounced the 1934 Polish-German non-aggression pact. For their part, the Western powers on April 13 pledged Greece and Romania to provide them with assistance in the event of German aggression; On May 19, France entered into a military alliance with Poland, which Great Britain joined on August 25.

In the context of the aggravation of the conflict between the Anglo-French and German-Italian blocs, the position of the USSR acquired key importance. On August 11, negotiations between the military missions of the USSR, Great Britain and France began in Moscow, but on August 21 they were interrupted. The Soviet leadership decided not to enter into an alliance with the Western powers in order to avoid participation in the rapidly approaching war. On August 21, it signed a non-aggression pact with Germany; in a secret supplement to it, Germany recognized Finland, the Baltic countries, Western Belarus, Western Ukraine and Bessarabia as a Soviet sphere of influence. Providing the rear in the east, Germany attacked Poland on September 1, 1939. The Second World War began.

Hatred and deep enmity, fierce, bloody wars - such was the situation in which relations between England and the United States first took shape. The mutual bitterness was all the stronger because the armed struggle that began in 1775 between England and its 13 colonial provinces in America was in the nature of a civil war. The population of the North American colony of England declared the rule of King George III of England overthrown, proclaimed a republic and announced in the Declaration of July 4. 1776 on the creation of a new sovereign state. In this revolutionary war of independence, England at first did not want to further recognize the rights of the belligerent for the American "rebels".

The forces of the belligerents were far from equal. The rebellious colony numbered only about 2.6 million. Its territory was equal to one fifth of the modern territory of the United States. North America then it still had almost no industry. The population of Great Britain together with Ireland was 12 million people. She possessed a significant industry at that time, the largest navy in comparison with other powers, extensive colonies (in addition to the revolted 13 provinces of North America). England was already a great power at that time.

The economic reasons for the uprising consisted in the fact that British industrial and commercial capital in every possible way hindered the development of industry and trade in the North American colonies. Many of the best lands in America were seized by the English aristocracy, which aroused the discontent of the peasantry. The British government squeezed high taxes from the population and charged high customs duties. By introducing the so-called "stamp duty", the British government in the 60s tried to further increase taxation and intensify the exploitation of the North American colonies. The colonial population responded by declaring a boycott of British goods, and England was forced to abolish the new "stamp duty". But then new duties were introduced on a number of goods, which again caused a boycott of British goods. The British government abolished duties on all British goods, with the exception of tea, but dissatisfaction with British rule and the resulting constraints on trade and industry, for the development of agriculture, could no longer be eliminated. There were incidents and clashes that led to the emergence of an insurrectionary movement in all the colonies and to their unification in the struggle against British rule.

The course and outcome of the outbreak of war between the rebellious Americans and the troops of King George III was greatly influenced by the contradictions between the major colonial powers of that time. In February 1778, France recognized the United States, signed an alliance treaty with them, and entered the war with England. Spain also opposed England, and then Holland. All these were the old enemies of England, who more than once fought with her for colonies, for domination of the seas, for trade advantages.

King George III turned in 1775 to the Empress of Russia Catherine II with a request to send 20 thousand Russian soldiers to suppress the uprising in the American colonies. In 1779, he asked Catherine to use naval forces against his enemies, or at least hold a "demonstration" of the fleet. The English king referred to the fact that his enemies are striving, they say, to disrupt the "equilibrium" system and turn everything "upside down". Russia staged a "naval demonstration", but not in support of England, but against it. K At the initiative of Russia, a number of northern European countries have declared armed neutrality. The Russian fleet was sent to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea.

In 1780, Russia, Holland, Denmark, Sweden declared that they would use armed force to defend the right to free sea trade with England's opponents. This sharply weakened the international position of England.

Subsequently, Prussia, Austria, Portugal, Sicily joined the countries that declared armed neutrality. In 1782, Holland, one of the countries participating in armed neutrality, entered the war with England.

Against so many enemies, England was unable to wage a successful war. In North America, military operations continued with varying success for 8 years, but after the defeat and surrender of the British troops in October 1781 at Yorktown, it became obvious that the Americans had won the war. In 1782 England entered into negotiations with the US representatives in Paris for the conclusion of peace. The Americans negotiated secretly from their ally France, since they knew that monarchist France, for its own benefit, was not averse to sacrificing the interests of the young American republic. One of the members of the American peace delegation, Jay, received information that France was ready to agree to the division of the American west between England and Spain. Separate negotiations between the American plenipotentiaries and England ended with the signing in September 1783 of the Versailles Anglo-American Peace Treaty. Under this treaty, Great Britain recognized the independence of its colony. The border of the United States to the west was the Mississippi River. The territory of all 13 states at that time was only 892 thousand square meters. miles (2,309 thousand sq. km).

Lenin in 1918, in a letter to the American workers, positively assessed the tactics that the American people followed in foreign policy during the decisive years of the war of liberation. When the American people “fought their great war of liberation against the oppressors of the British,” wrote Lenin, “they were also opposed by the oppressors, the French and the Spaniards, who owned part of the present United States of North America. In their difficult war of liberation, the American people also made "agreements" with some oppressors against others, in the interests of weakening the oppressors and strengthening those who revolutionary struggle against oppression, in the interests of the oppressed masses. The American people used the strife between the French, the Spaniards and the British, they even sometimes fought together with the troops of the oppressors of the French and the Spaniards against the oppressors of the British ... ".

Through heroic efforts and sacrifices, the masses of North America freed themselves from colonial oppression British empire... The formation of an independent republic was undoubtedly a positive fact. However, the bourgeoisie took advantage of the fruits of the people's struggle, brutally enslaving the people and even preserving slavery in the new state.

In the first Anglo-American war, the United States operated an army of 230 thousand regular troops and 160 thousand militia. The British army numbered about 150 thousand people. US military expenditures amounted to about 350 million dollars. As a result of this war, England was forced to return some territories to France and Spain.

The United States at that time did not have any positions in the Pacific Ocean. All 13 provinces that formed the United States of America were located on the Atlantic coast. Nearly three-quarters of the modern continental United States were Indian tribes. These areas then lay outside the United States, which did not have access to the Pacific Ocean.

The interests of the British capitalists in the Pacific were still quite insignificant. But it was during this period that England, striving for world domination, began to expand its expansion into the Pacific Ocean.

Anglo-American War of 1775-1783 for a long time left a deep imprint on all further Anglo-American relations.

The revolutionary uprising of the North American colonies, their separation from England and the formation of an independent state were major historical events, in particular in the history of England. Lenin called the American War of Liberation one of the "first and greatest truly liberation" wars in the history of mankind.

The deep imprint that the American War of Liberation left on Anglo-American relations is described in the Encyclopedia Britannica as follows. “The tragedy of the birth of the United States,” it says, “was for both England and the United States in the fact that not only the Anglo-American war, but also its consequences remained heavy and dark ... These memories then poisoned its poison is the relationship between the two branches of the Anglo-American race. "

The same. American historians and publicists also assess the impact of the war of liberation on US-British relations. Albert Viton, in a book published in 1943, wrote: “The separation from England was accompanied by great troubles; during the Revolutionary War, an anti-British tradition was created that had a profound influence on American foreign policy right up to last day» .

Three decades later, new memories of the second Anglo-American war, which broke out in 1812 and lasted two and a half years, were added to the dark memories of the British and Americans of the first war between them. Even before that, during the Napoleonic wars, in connection with the British declaration of a blockade of France and other European countries that were at that time under French rule, sharp friction arose between England and the United States. British warships inspected American ships and checked their crews in search of British deserted sailors. At the same time, English commanders considered as deserters everyone who had an Irish pronunciation or who seemed suitable for service in the English fleet, which at that time was in dire need of personnel. But especially great dissatisfaction in the United States was caused by the obstacles that Britain created for the young state in trade with Europe, which became extremely profitable during the war. The Republican Party led by Jefferson, which at that time represented the progressive elements of the bourgeoisie, demanded in the 90s that the United States enter the war against England on the side of revolutionary France. Federalists - large landowners and part of the merchants associated with British capital, headed by Hamilton, insisted, on the contrary, on armed intervention on the side of England. At that time, up to 90% of all US imports were British goods. Anglo-American relations in the 1890s and the first decade of the 19th century. sometimes they escalated so much that it seemed to statesmen that a war was about to break out.

During this period, in conditions of constrained international trade and an increase in demand for various goods (especially in the years when the United States declared an embargo on its exports in response to the Anglo-French mutual blockade measures), its own industry began to noticeably develop in the United States. Capital from the sphere of trade rushed into industry. The number of spindles in spinning mills in the United States increased from 4,500 in 1805 to 87,000 in 1810 and more than 130,000 in 1815. By 1810, the population of the United States had almost tripled compared with the time of the revolution and exceeded 7 , 2 million people.

American capital tried in every possible way to activate itself in the field of trade, finding here the easiest opportunities for initial accumulation. Since 1790, US exports have increased from $ 20 million to $ 71 million in 1800. However, further growth in exports as a result of the continental blockade announced by Britain has stalled. US exports in 1810 amounted to only 67 million dollars. The blockade therefore caused sharp discontent among the Americans.

Nevertheless, the blockade was not the main reason for the war that the United States declared to England on June 18, 1812. During this period, England's difficulties in the war with Napoleon intensified; french empire reached the zenith of her power. Among the American bourgeoisie, chauvinistic, expansionist sentiments intensified. She sought to take advantage of England's plight, Chauvinist groups wanted to take over Canada, which was weakly defended.

Having won the congressional elections in the fall of 1811, these circles (mainly from the ranks of the Republican Party), through their representatives in the congress, led matters to war. The number of British troops in Canada at that time did not exceed 7 thousand people, but the regular US army at the beginning of the war was only 6,700 people. Until the summer of 1814, the Americans made three attempts to invade Canada. In the spring of 1813, they occupied part of West Florida. Having achieved initially small successes, the American armed forces not only failed to inflict a decisive defeat on the British, but were soon forced to cede part of their territory to the British troops. Even if the British were defeated in Canada then, this would not at all determine the outcome of the war.

At this time in Europe, Napoleon, defeated by the Russian army under the command of Kutuzov and the partisans, was on his way to final defeat. After the death of the empire of Napoleon I, the armed forces of England, freed from the theaters of the war against France, were concentrated against the United States. In the summer of 1814, the initiative in the Anglo-American War passed into the hands of the British. A group of British troops struck in the direction of the capital of the United States. Washington fell. British troops burned all government buildings in the US capital. At sea, the British navy inflicted great damage on US shipping.

The American federalists, whose influence predominated in the states of New England, kept some of the troops in the rear, even helped the British troops by supplying them with food, and created various obstacles to the success of American weapons. From the side of Canada, the Anglo-Canadian troops penetrated deeper and deeper into the territory of the United States. But as the onslaught of the British grew, the resistance of the American people, who now saw that as a result of the war unleashed by the American expansionists, they were threatened with the loss of independence. On the other hand, England was already severely exhausted in the long wars with Napoleon.

After two and a half years of hostilities, on December 24, 1814, a peace treaty was signed between the United States and England in Ghent. Canada remained the possession of England. The peace treaty did not say anything about the fact that Britain would no longer have the right to blockade or the right to inspect American ships and check crews.

At the beginning of the negotiations in Ghent, England even put forward a demand for the annexation of a significant territory of the United States to Canada and the creation, in addition, of a "buffer" Indian state, formed from the Indian tribes of North America. This meant for the United States the loss of about one third of its territory. The conclusion of peace on the condition of restoring the situation that existed before the war was helped by American diplomats by the victory of American troops who defeated the British at Lake Champlain, which delayed the British invasion of New York State and demonstrated the growth of American resistance.

During the Second Anglo-American War, the belligerents continued to ruthlessly exterminate the Indians, using them as a weapon in their struggle. The brutal destruction of the original inhabitants of North America by the English and American ruling classes went down in history as one of its blackest pages. This dark page is filled with extraordinary atrocities, unimaginable treachery and the most inhuman crimes.

Based on various data, it can be assumed that the number of North American Indians at the time of the appearance of Europeans on the continent of North America was several million people. Numerous tribes inhabited the entire territory of the continent. Moving to America, the British seized the lands of the Indian tribes by force, depriving them of their livelihood, spread infectious diseases among them, drank alcohol, and incited wars between tribes. But the main means for the destruction of the Indians was the extermination of entire clans and tribes, including women and children, with the help of weapons. At the same time, the English invaders widely used scalping of killed or wounded Indians - men, women and children. Marx notes on this point that the New England Legislature in 1703 decided “to issue a premium of £ 40. Art. for every Indian scalp and for every red-skinned prisoner; in 1720 the premium for each scalp was raised to £ 100. Art., in 1744, after Massachusetts Bay declared one tribe rebellious, the following prices were set: for the scalp of a man 12 years old and above, 100 p. Art. in new currency, for a male prisoner 105 p. Art., for a captive woman or child 55 p. Art., for the scalp of a woman or child £ 50. Art.! " ...

Even the apologists of the American and British bourgeoisie cannot hide the incredible atrocities and crimes that were committed during the "development" of America. One of them, Woodward, admits: “It rarely happened that the Indians met the white settlers with hostility. Their attitude changed when they became convinced that the aliens were cruel and impudent. "

The same author writes that the whites seized the lands of the Indians without any remuneration or took possession of them for an absolutely insignificant payment; there were many cases when, for a few bottles of alcoholic beverages, English landowners took all their property from the Indians, turned them into beggars, and then into their slaves. The so-called Indian wars even in early period in fact, they boiled down to the brutal beating of the Indians, since the Anglo-Americans, armed with firearms, attacked the enemy who possessed only tomahawks and spears or, at best, a limited number of firearms with a very meager supply of gunpowder and bullets. The Indians could get weapons only from the British and Americans themselves and only through smuggling, since the law strictly prohibited the sale of weapons to the Indians. Weapons fell into their hands mainly during the wars of the British with the French and the British with the Americans, when the belligerents used the Indians as cannon fodder.

In such conditions, neither the attempts of the Indians to live peacefully with the invaders who invaded their country, nor the desperate bravery shown by them in battles, did not save them from destruction. American robbers soon exterminated the entire native population in the areas adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, displacing the remnants of the Indian tribes inland. They followed the Indians, bringing death and devastation with them. Agreements were concluded with Indian tribes only in order to violate them in the most treacherous way in a year or two. It was in its relations with the Indians that the American bourgeoisie turned into a custom, into a tradition, the dastardly violation of the concluded treaties and agreements. Not surprisingly, in its relations with European and all other states, the American government also became known for its treachery and habit of violating international treaties.

American bourgeois historians, flaunting the "exploits" of their ancestors, without a shadow of shame describe their treachery in advancing the invaders inland, to the Pacific coast. “The settlers,” notes, for example, in the book of Nevins and Kommager, “constantly occupied the lands of the Indians, in spite of all the agreements concluded; many of them killed every red-skinned person who caught their eye. When the Indians tried to defend themselves, there was a war. "

The unparalleled brutal destruction of a large people, defenseless against incomparably better armed American aggressors, the systematic extermination of the original population of America took place both before the formation of the United States of America and in even more brutal forms at the end of the 18th and 19th centuries.

* * *

The Second Anglo-American War, which was an expression of the struggle of the British and American bourgeoisie for the North American continent, further exacerbated the enmity between the British and American ruling classes. When the US Congress was considering the restoration of government buildings in Washington, one of the members of Congress proposed to preserve the ruins of the buildings burned by the British as a keepsake and put a plaque with the words: "We swear eternal hatred of England." The British bourgeoisie, for its part, did not call the Americans otherwise than the "damned Yankees."

Anglo-American War of 1812-1814 was conducted on the territory of North America adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, and on this ocean. To a small extent, hostilities also spread to the Pacific Ocean.

The British navy, which dominated the Pacific, forced American merchant ships to take refuge in ports. In the spring of 1813, circumnavigating South America, the American frigate Essex appeared for the first time in the Pacific Ocean. The Essex began to smash English whaling ships and fisheries. The frigate commander, Captain Porter, later claimed that he had seized or destroyed more than $ 2.5 million worth of British property.

Then Porter, having occupied the island of Nukahiva in the group of the Marquesas Islands and named it Madison Island (after the then President of the United States), turned it into his stronghold; On November 19, 1813, he declared the island annexed by the United States. Leaving a group of sailors on Madison Island, the Essex headed for Valparaiso. In March 1814 he met with two English ships and surrendered after the battle. A group of sailors left by Captain Porter on the island of Nukahiwa (Madison) were subsequently taken prisoner by the British.

Due to the unsuccessful outcome of the war, the American government did not confirm the annexation of the island of Nukahiva by any official act. This island never really became US possession. But the captain of the Essex's capture of the island of Nukahiwa should be marked as one of the first attempts by American military aggression and territorial expansion in the Pacific Ocean.

Events that were significant for further Anglo-American relations played out during the war on the Pacific coast of North America, at the mouth of the Columbia River, within the current state of Oregon.

According to American historians, the mouth of this river was discovered by the captain of the small American merchant ship Columbia, Robert Gray, in 1792. Gray gave the river the name of his ship. In 1811, Johann Jacob (John Jacob) Astor, the largest merchant in furs and alcohol, organizer of the smuggling trade in arms and other goods, founded a trading station near the mouth of Columbia, calling it Astoria. The trading post was also to become Astor's stronghold for trade with China and other Pacific countries.

Fearing that the trading post would be captured by the British, Astor sold it in 1813 to the Canadian Northwest Company for $ 58,000. The English flag was raised over the trading post. The captain of the then arriving English warship renamed the trading post to Fort George.

At the conclusion of peace with England, American President Madison insisted, however, on the recognition of American sovereignty over Fort George.

(1) See History of Diplomacy, vol. I, 1941, p. 310.

(2) See A. V. Efimov, Europe and North America, p. 43.

(3) V.I. Lenin, Soch., Vol. 28, p. 50.

(4) V.I. Lenin, Soch., Vol. 29, p. 32.

(5) A. Viton, American Empire in Asia? New York 1943, p. 25.

(6) K. Marx, Capital, vol. I, 1951, p. 756.

(7) W. Woodward, New American Histery, London 1949, p. 33, 37.

(8) A, Nevins and H, Commager, America .. The. Story of a Free People, Boston 1943, p. 196.

(9) Johann Jacob Astor, a native of the village of Walldorf near Heidelberg (Germany), emigrated to the United States in 1783. This German adventurer was the founder of the Astor dynasties of American-English multimillionaires. One of the great-grandsons of Johann Astor, Wilhelm (William Walldorf), moved to England in 1890 and became closely associated with the Conservative Party, achieved the title of Lord by 1917. The wife of his eldest son is the notorious Lady Astor. A group of leading British Conservatives gathered at the Astor Castle in the 1930s, pursuing a policy of cooperation with Hitler and encouraging the German fascists. This group, to which the Astors, Chamberlain, Samuel Hoare and others belonged, received the name of the "Cleveden clique."

Mikhelson A.M.America vs England (Rivalry between the merchant fleets of England and the North American United States) [article] // Modern notes. 1920. Book. II. WITH. 178 – 199.

P. 178

AMERICA VS ENGLAND

(Rivalry between the merchant fleets of England and the North American United States).

The time has not yet come for scientifically based assessments and formulations of the economic and financial consequences of the world war. World economic and political ties, destroyed by the war, are barely beginning to be restored before our very eyes, the recovery process is proceeding slowly and is accompanied by a number of painful phenomena, especially in the states most severely affected by the world war. Eastern Europe still engulfed in the flames of a revolutionary conflagration. The new states that have emerged on the ruins of the former state formations are barely just beginning to live an independent life, painfully in most cases going through these first years of their independent existence. Peaceful treatises, designed to outline and regulate the political and economic life of Europe, are either completely overturned by life, or require further adjustments, additions, often completely distorting their original meaning.

In this atmosphere of political, economic and social instability, the crystallization of new political and economic relations created by the war, which has just begun, there is still no room for the formulation of broad economic generalizations and for the scientific substantiation of the trend of the future.

Nevertheless, a number of facts and phenomena of modern economic reality are already giving extraordinary

P. 179

but valuable material for judging the structure of future world economic groupings.

This area of ​​economic facts should include those changes that have experienced the distribution of world tonnage under the influence of great war.

We single out, first of all, the problem of world tonnage in view of the exceptional importance that the merchant fleet has both for the entire world economy and for National economy individual states.

The presence of a powerful merchant fleet is an absolute prerequisite for industrial countries aspiring to play a global role. Not to mention the military-political significance of the merchant fleet, without which a colonial policy of a more or less wide scale is absolutely impossible, the experience of modern war has shown that without the merchant fleet, the national economy cannot be provided with the raw materials and food items it needs. Active participation in world trade, the struggle for world markets, the implementation of export policy - all these tasks require a sufficiently strong merchant fleet for their implementation.

But, in addition to these political and economic factors, the influence of the merchant fleet also affects the financial situation of the country. Freight payments, if necessary, to resort to the services of a foreign flag to import goods from abroad, aggravate the country's balance of payments; and vice versa, the presence of a large merchant fleet allows the country not only to carry out a significant part of its transportations on its own ships, but, as is the case, for example, in England, Holland, Norway, and other states, to carry out transportations at the expense of other states, and in this latter case, freight charges are included in the country's balance sheet with a plus sign, constituting what the French call the invisible export of the state.

We will try to examine the problem of the distribution of world tonnage mainly in the plane of the emerging world-wide struggle for economic supremacy between S.-A. C. States and Great Britain; struggle, which the world war gave a particularly sharp impetus and which it filled with its own special content.

P. 180

UNITED KINGDOM COMMERCIAL FLEET *)

By the time of the European war, the British merchant fleet, accounting for 40% of the total world tonnage, consisted of ships of the most modern design, had an excellent technical and commercial organization throughout the world and, relying on a rationally deliberate system of coal stations, was a powerful factor of British world influence.

The table below gives the distribution of the world tonnage before the war (only ships with a displacement of over 1,600 tons are taken into account).

	Tonnage (net)
United Kingdom
English colonies
Germany
United States
Norway
Holland
Other countries

Before the war, British merchant ships were of two main types: the so-called liners, high-speed passenger ships that maintain regular mail and goods and passenger services between individual ports, and tramp's ships not connected by regular flights, which could be chartered to travel to any port. the globe.

The dominant position of the British merchant fleet in the world economy, established before the war, is, in addition to purely historical reasons, due to the special conditions in which the British Empire was. A huge state, scattered all over the world, with well-equipped ports and a close network of coal stations. The need to get the sea for almost two

––––––––

*) Look : Reports of the Shipping and Shippbuilding Industries after the War (First, Second and Final Report).

P. 181

a third of the total amount of food products and raw materials needed by the population of the islands for the British industry. The exceptional development of English trade, so that for a number of products, such as wool, jute, tea, etc., the English market played the role of the main distribution center for all world trade; a highly developed English industry, which had its customers in all corners of the world; all this provided an enormous amount of work for the British merchant fleet. To this must be added the exceptional position which England occupied in the world supply of coal, which also greatly strengthened her sea power. The latter fact has somehow been little emphasized in the economic literature, yet its significance is enormous. Due to the fact that the English cardif coal had a secure sale in almost all corners of the globe and that the demand for it existed equally in the ports of the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, in Russian ports Baltic Sea, in the ports of South America and Africa - thanks to this, the English merchant fleet was almost always provided with direct freight. This latter helped to strengthen the system of tramp's in England, which could be chartered for transportation to any port on almost always unbeatable terms, because usually the direct flight of these “trams” to the place of chartering served to transport coal to points along the way. Thanks to this provision of goods in the direct direction, English freight for the "Trump" always turned out to be so cheap that no state before the war could compete with them in this respect. This last circumstance, in addition to tremendous support for the British merchant fleet, brought exceptional benefits to the British coal industry, in particular, the export of British coal, which could withstand competition in the world market thanks to extremely cheap freight for its transportation (the cost of freight is included in the price of coal as a cheap bulk cargo rather high%). These latter advantages were less applicable to the group of "liners", and therefore in this respect the British merchant fleet had to experience quite strong competition in the last decade before the war, especially from the German merchant fleet; but, we repeat, with regard to the "Trump", which before the war accounted for almost 60% of the English fleet, the position of England was out of competition. Let us note in passing that the "trumpets" served for transportation mainly de-

P. 182

neck bulk cargo; so, for example, almost all export of grain cargo from Russia, especially from its southern ports, was carried out on the British "trumpets".

The result of these exceptionally favorable conditions in which the English merchant fleet was located was the predominant participation of the English flag in world shipping. Thus, in 1912, the total value of international maritime trade reached 85 billion francs, of which more than half accounted for transportation under the English flag. *)

Goods transported between:	In millions of francs:
a) Great Britain and its colonies
b) various English colonies
c) Great Britain and other countries
d) English colonies and abroad
e) between foreign states

Thus, in general, 52% of the world trade took place under the English flag.

Great Britain occupied the same dominant position in the field of shipbuilding. The attached table shows the figures for the tonnage built at the British shipyards as a percentage of the world shipbuilding.

In thousands of tons (gross).

	British empire		Other countries		Proportion of English. shipbuilder

We see, therefore, that the share of Great Britain's participation in world shipbuilding in the last five years before the war was expressed in the figure of 62% **). Selling value

––––––––––

*) A .Aron. La Crise économique en Angleterre (1919-1920), p . 55.

**) Reports of the Shipbuilding industries, with. 22.

P. 183

ships launched from British shipyards in the last years before the war averaged 52 million. lb. sterling. per year, and almost 20% of these ships were sold by England abroad. It should be noted that the ships sold abroad were usually of old types, and the newly built ones supplemented the tonnage of the British fleet.

It should also be noted that the exceptionally favorable position in which the British shipbuilding was, according to the data cited by the Shipbuilding Committee, is explained by the fact that almost 43% of the steel used for the construction of ships, England received from abroad, mainly from Germany and Austria. , at prices significantly lower than the prices that stood inside these states. This dumping policy, practiced by the German cartels, contributed to the development and strengthening of English shipbuilding and, by lowering the cost of ships produced from British shipyards, made England a supplier of merchant ships for a significant number of foreign countries.

Thus, summarizing, we can say that, both in terms of its displacement and participation in world shipments, and in terms of shipbuilding, the British merchant fleet occupied a dominant position in the world economy before the war.

But already before the war, competition began to appear with the British merchant fleet, especially from Germany. The slogan proclaimed by Emperor Wilhelm, "our future at sea" was embodied in a whole complex of measures of German economic policy aimed at creating a powerful merchant fleet. Everything was put into operation for this, bonuses were established, explicit and hidden, for the maintenance of regular lines, special combined rail-steamship tariffs were introduced, which artificially directed passengers (especially emigrants) and cargo bypassing the shortest route to German ports, from where they were transported to ships of the German fleet. The system of free harbors, which made large international distribution centers out of Hamburg and Bremen, was also promoted in this direction, where goods, especially colonial products, were sent from all over the world, and from where they were then distributed among consumer countries.

All this provided an enormous amount of work for the German merchant fleet. But, we repeat, despite the outlined formidable

P. 184

competition from Germany, a number of exceptional advantages, which we indicated above, provided the British merchant fleet with a dominant position before the war.

The Great War significantly changed this situation. The merciless submarine war disabled the merchant fleets of the Concord powers and neutral states in total about 14 million tons, sunk or completely spoiled. England, of course, suffered the most, for, on the one hand, she had to spend the greatest efforts to ensure the sea transport of the Allies, and on the other, to withstand the most fierce onslaught from the German submarine war. Indeed, the losses of the British merchant fleet during the war reached 9 million tons. This state of affairs forced the British government to take a number of completely exceptional measures to compensate in the shortest possible time for the losses of the British merchant fleet. The proposed program for enhanced shipbuilding was formulated as follows in a speech delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty s ir E. Geddes to the House of Commons on December 13, 1917. "*)

1) Expansion of all existing shipyards and their best and most rational use in terms of production (construction of ships in series of standard types).

2) Construction of new shipyards at the expense of the state.

3) Priority provision of shipyards, along with other enterprises working for defense, with the necessary raw materials, fuel and labor.

All these measures were carried out in full successively. The entire shipbuilding industry was placed under the direct control of states. A common shipbuilding program was developed for all shipyards, based on the principle of the best use of all technical means and capabilities and the most perfect internal technical organization. This program provided for the construction of ships of the same type in series, the widespread use of the standardization method. Any extension of existing shipyards, as well as

––––––––––

*) The Economist Commercial History and Review of 1917 Shipbuilding and Shipping, with. 293.

P. 185

cue order of the government to private shipyards was conditioned by the application of the principles developed in this program, and thus almost all UK shipyards had to abandon individual manufacturing methods and adopt a government shipbuilding program.

In parallel with the existing shipyards, the government undertook the construction of its own shipyards and managed to build three shipyards worth about 4 million pounds sterling in a short period of 14 months on the Severn River. These measures of government regulation were, when applied to the English industrial organization, imbued with the spirit of economic individualism and Manchester, measures so revolutionary that, despite the imperious motive "everything for war, everything for victory", which motivated this regulation, it nevertheless caused , fierce opposition from interested circles, who saw in these measures the first step towards the nationalization of the entire British merchant fleet. Especially sharply opposed to the construction of state shipyards and the creation of a state fleet the steamship owners represented by the chairman of the largest steamship trust Peninsular et Oriental (R.O.) Lord Inhkap, who called this policy a policy of destroying British sea power. Despite opposition, however, the government's shipbuilding program was carried out with rare insistence, the launching of new ships continued throughout the war, and between 1914 and 1918 about 5 million tons were built, which compensated for almost 60% of the losses.

After the conclusion of the peace, government control begins to weaken significantly. The state shipyards were partly sold to private hands, partly they were transferred to the construction of the navy. The state-owned merchant fleet was sold to private hands. The shipbuilding program lost its coercive nature.

Summing up the activities of the British government in the restoration of the British merchant fleet, so severely affected by the submarine war, we note that even those interested circles that during the war were in sharp opposition to the program of state regulation of shipbuilding, now had to admit that only a combination of these measures allowed England so

P. 186

quickly cover the losses of your fleet. Moreover, such a harshly criticized program of building ships in series, the use of standardization, now, according to the "Times", a body that especially sharply attacked the government for this, "gave a powerful impetus to the development of British shipbuilding."

After the signing of the peace, the construction of merchant ships proceeded at an even more accelerated pace, so that, by the beginning of 1920, according to the Lloyd's Register Book, the entire British tonnage had already reached 18.600.000 gross, a figure that almost coincides with the pre-war tonnage. *)

But this does not mean that the British merchant fleet has regained the dominant position that it occupied in the world economy before the war. New powerful competitors have appeared on the world stage, and the conditions for the operation of the British merchant fleet have undergone significant changes.

To begin with, the export of British coal, which, as we have already indicated, was one of the main reasons for the world domination of the British merchant fleet, providing the latter with always ready direct freight, now, after the world war, has decreased by almost two-thirds. This was due to a significant decrease in domestic coal production, as shown in the table below, and a significant increase in domestic consumption **).

	Number of workers:	Total produced:

While in 1913 England exported almost 1/3 of its coal production - 87 million tons of export for 287 million tons of production - in 1919 its export barely reached 35 million tons.

––––––––––

*) G. Lecarpentier. Les principales Marines Marchandes: La guerre et l'après-guerre de l'Economiste Française, 3, 10 Janvier et 6, 13 Mars 1920. p.99.

**) A.Aron, o p.cit . p. 72.

P. 187

This reduction cannot be regarded as a temporary phenomenon. Analysis of the reasons for the decline in production clearly indicates that we are dealing with reasons that are deeply lying and, in any case, long-term. It is difficult to think that England will soon be able to return to the same position that it occupied in the world coal market before the war. Let us add to this that, thanks to the rise in the cost of freight, British coal has already turned out to be too expensive, and in a number of countries it is beginning to be replaced by American coal. This should especially be said about South America which now almost exclusively feeds on coal from the United States.

Finally, the acute transport crisis observed in almost all states, a significant deterioration in almost all states of the work of railway and river transport, a lack of workers and a decrease in labor productivity, all this has as its consequence that the same amount of tonnage can now perform significantly less useful work, now, after the war than before the war. Sir I. Maklay, the British Comptroller of the Merchant Marine, estimates this decrease in the performance of the merchant fleet from pre-war times to 40%. In the issue of The Times of December 28, 1918, there is a very curious comparison of the time required in 1913 to move from British ports to Australia, including all loading and unloading operations, with the time required for this operation today. In 1913, the entire specified operation required 168 days for its implementation, and in 1919 for this purpose it took 237 days. As a result, despite the restoration of the world tonnage that was lost during the war, and, moreover, - despite the fact that by the middle of 1920 the world tonnage was 15% higher than the pre-war tonnage, - despite all this, the world tonnage today, thanks to to the above circumstances, is still far from being able to carry out the useful work that the smaller tonnage performed before the war. Thus, even the restored British merchant fleet cannot now carry out the work that it carried out before the war. All of the above circumstances should undoubtedly significantly reduce the chances of the British merchant fleet in the world struggle for naval domination, but a particularly significant factor weakening England's position in this respect is the competition between the huge merchant fleet of S.-A., which grew up during the war. U.S.A.

P. 188

COMMERCIAL FLEET S.-A. U.S.A.*)

Before the war, the merchant fleet of S.-A. S. States was so insignificant in comparison with the country's trade turnover that in the entire foreign sea trade of S.-A. In the United States, barely only 10% of shipments went under the American flag, the remaining 90% of American imports and exports were carried out under foreign flags. Without going into a detailed analysis of the reasons that determined such a weak development of the American merchant fleet before the war, let us note the main one: 1) the construction of ships at those few shipyards that by that time existed in St. S. States, cost 40% more than in English shipyards **); 2) the operation of the ships of the merchant fleet of the S. States was on average 60% more expensive than the British ships. The Great War, which immediately deprived American foreign trade of almost four-fifths of its tonnage as a result of the requisition by the respective governments of most of the English and French tonnage and the blockade of the German merchant fleet, put the entire foreign trade of S.-A. S. States in an extremely difficult situation. The first thought of the Americans was to acquire ownership of the amount of neutral tonnage that was free. For this purpose, two laws: of August 18, 1914 and March 4, 1915, greatly facilitated the procedure for including ships in the lists of the American merchant fleet, and also simplified the formalities that made it difficult to recruit ships. ***)

––––––––––

*) G. Lecarpentier, op.cit. La Marine Marchande Américaine, Economist Frances, No. 10, II (1920).

**) Note that an important role in the higher, in comparison with England, the cost of building the ships of the United States should be attributed to the dumping, which was practiced by the American steel trust. For example, at a meeting of the Merchant Marine Commission in 1905, one of the shipyard owners testified that Carnegie was selling him a ton of steel for $ 32, and at the same time it was selling the same steel to British shipyards for $ 22 with delivery.

***) Until that time, in order for the ship to be listed in the American merchant fleet, it had to: 1) belong to American citizens, 2) be under the command of American citizens, and 3) be built in American shipyards. The second condition was relaxed, and the third was completely abolished by the above laws.

P. 189

The results were immediately apparent in a significant increase in US tonnage. By July 31, 1915, 132 vessels with a capacity of 322 thousand tons passed under the American flag, and by January 1, 1917, this last number had increased to 651 thousand tons. But, of course, these measures could not produce significant results; meanwhile, thanks to the intensified German submarine war and the sinking of a significant number of merchant ships, in the middle of 1916, a significant lack of tonnage began to be felt, which, in connection with the ever increasing maritime traffic, could take on the character of a disaster for the Concord powers. A number of measures taken in this direction by the British government to replenish the lost tonnage could, of course, not resolve the crisis. Seeing the impossibility of solving this problem with their own means, the British undertook a special campaign in S.-A. C. States in order to induce the Americans to urgently build merchant ships to make up for the lack of tonnage.

The campaign met with a lively response in American business circles. We have already indicated above the difficult situation in which the American sea trade found itself at the beginning of the great war. The subsequent dizzying increase in freights, especially after the declaration of submarine war, and, on the other hand, the ever-increasing export of American goods to Europe created an exceptionally favorable environment for the campaign undertaken by the Allies in S.-A. S. States, and as a result, on September 7, 1916, the President approved the Administration Ship Purchase Bill, which allowed S.-A. C. For 4 years, the states will almost run out of their tonnage.

According to this law, a special committee of 5 members was formed, appointed by the President in agreement with the Senate, which was the main creator of the American merchant marine. The Shipping Board was entrusted with the purchase and construction of merchant ships, for which purpose it was to open a loan in the amount of 800 million dollars (about 12 billion francs at the current exchange rate). The task of this Committee, in addition to the construction and purchase of ships of the merchant fleet, included the production of all commercial operations associated with their operation. All these tasks were carried out by the Committee through the formation of special joint stock companies,

P. 190

whose capital was mainly made up of funds released by the Shipping Board. These Societies have implemented a significant part of the program developed by the Shipping Board. The Shipping Board's shipbuilding program was designed to build 18 million tons of steel merchant ships, of which almost half of them, 9 million tons, were launched during the 4-year period 1916-1920. Thus, by the time of the conclusion of the peace S.-A. The S. States possessed a merchant marine with a displacement of 12,416,000 against 2,027,000 tons in 1914. This tonnage is equal to 25% of the total world tonnage, with S.-A. C. States from 4th place moved to 2nd (after England) place in the statistics of world tonnage.

Rivalry BETWEEN THE MERCHANT FLEETS OF ENGLAND AND S.-A. S. STATOV AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF PEACE.

The armistice found England, as we saw above, with the merchant fleet almost restored and ready to take the place that it occupied in the world economy before the war. But on the world stage, England, with the destruction of German naval power, met with a new rival in the person of S.-A. S. States. This state of affairs should naturally lead to a struggle between the recent allies. The first year after the conclusion of peace, this struggle was not yet felt so sharply, a significant part of the merchant fleet was still requisitioned by the governments for the production of huge shipments to eliminate the war, there was little free tonnage, and freight rates were high. But already by the beginning of 1920, when a significant part of the maritime transport associated with the war was completed, when almost the entire tonnage was exempted from requisition, between merchant fleets S.-A. The United States and Great Britain are beginning to take shape rivalry, which, in our opinion, should be an important factor in the restructuring of world economic relations after the Great War.

This rivalry primarily affected freight rates. *) Taking advantage of the fact that the construction of a trading

–––––––––––––

*) La Situation Economique et Financi ère. No. 43 (1920). La Marine Marchande Américaine.

P. 191

fleet in the Northern States during the war cost, in general, significantly more expensive than the construction of the British merchant fleet, and, consequently, the operating costs of the American fleet should be higher than in the British merchant fleet (ships of the British merchant fleet, built during the war , were generally 40% cheaper than the same ships built in the S.-A. companies began to fight the American merchant marine strong decrease in freight. This is how the special magazine "Merchant Marine" characterizes this struggle between the British and American merchant fleets: "By the middle of 1920, the struggle between the American and - British and Japanese merchant fleets became especially acute. In the Pacific, British and Japanese shipping companies are steadily lowering their freight rates, forcing American shipping companies to go down the same way. In particular, the Shipping Board suffers losses from this struggle, since the freight rates no longer cover the operating costs of the merchant fleet belonging to it. As a result, a huge number of ships in the American merchant fleet are at anchor, and the cargo is transferred to British and Japanese competitors. "

The same struggle, according to this magazine, goes on Atlantic Ocean, only there French shipping companies take part in this struggle. This decrease in freight, making the operation of the American fleet unprofitable, was the first result of an attempt on the part of the Chairman of the Shipping Board, Admiral Benson (who is, as it were, a dictator

––––––––––

*) The cost of building ships of the North American merchant fleet was on average 40-50% higher than in England before the war. The ships built during the war by the Shipping Board were quite expensive, which is understandable given the haste of construction, the need for special laying of new shipyards, and the overall high cost. While a tonne of a steel ship cost the Shipping Board an average of $ 225 after the war, in early 1920, the cost of building the same ton in American shipyards is $ 180, and in England the same type of ship can be built, counting 145 dollars a ton.

P. 192

American merchant marine) to form an international agreement between the individual English, Japanese and American shipping companies, which would keep the freight rates at a certain height and would not allow them to go below a certain level, the so-called normal freight. This combination failed, and it is perfectly understandable, for the struggle between Britain and Japan, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other, has as its task not so much the peaceful division of the spheres of influence of the merchant fleets, as the desire to weaken the American power that has grown during the war.

The Shipping Board, in the impossibility of continuing to operate the merchant fleet with its own means, decided to resort to a heroic means - selling its entire merchant fleet to private hands at prices significantly, of course, reduced against the cost price and on extremely favorable terms of reckoning with payment in installments for many years. This is supposed to significantly lower the costs of operating ships for private shipowners and facilitate competition with British and Japanese shipping companies.

But the government's aid to the American merchant fleet did not stop there. In mid-1920, the Merchant Marine Act 1920, known as the "Jones Act" *) passed in Congress and the Senate, which made a tremendous impression not only in America, but also in Europe. This law is firmly on the ground of the most harsh protectionism in relation to the American merchant fleet. A new 6-member Shipping Board is established with the responsibility of selling the entire government-owned merchant fleet to private hands. Of the proceeds from the sale, $ 25 million is set aside annually in a special fund for the issuance of loans to those companies or individuals who wish to build new ships at American shipyards. In addition to this financial assistance, shipowners under this law are exempted for 10 years from paying income tax and extraordinary income tax.

–––––––––––

*) On this law, passed through Congress and the Senate, by President Wilson, by the latest information, "veto" was imposed; the last, however, Republican victory in the civil elections leaves no doubt that it will be enforced.

P. 193

so that the amount of taxes due from them is spent by them on the construction of new ships. The ships of the American merchant marine receive further a number of special advantages and privileges over the ships of other nations. Thus, for example, reduced export railway tariffs (25% discount on existing normal tariffs) can only be applied to goods that are exported under the American flag. Foreign ships cannot carry goods from one US port to another if they call at a non-US port in between.

Foreign shipping companies may not charge lower charges in American ports than the corresponding charges for the American merchant marine. Special dues are levied on ships of the foreign merchant fleet when they call at American ports. Finally, goods brought into the North by American ships receive a 5% discount on the current customs tariff, etc. There was even a talk during the discussion of this law exempting American shipowners from all dues when their ships pass through the Panama Canal.

This Jones Act, which in its main outlines resembles the famous "Navigation Acts" that laid the foundation for British naval power, was passed at the insistence of the Republican Party, whose policy by this time had gained a significant preponderance in Congress and in the Senate. One might think that the rise of the Republican Party and the failure of the entire policy of President Wilson should be largely attributed to this struggle between England and America for naval supremacy; a struggle that does not fit the economic idealism of President Wilson's program (4th point) *).

This ultra-protective law, which is essentially a harsh economic expression of the Monroe Doctrine, will compel the government of S.-A. S. States to implement it to abandon 24 trade agreements with individual states.

–––––––––

*) The 4th point of Wilson's program, consisting of 14 points, reads: elimination, as far as possible, of all economic barriers that exist between individual states, and the establishment of equal commercial conditions for all states that agree to conclude peace and support the preservation of peace with all their might.

P. 194

The Jones Act provoked strong protests from England and Japan. The protests were followed by economic reprisals against the American merchant marine. So, the English Lloyd refuses to insure American ships, a number of Japanese shipping companies have stopped, in protest, flights between Japan and American ports, the same repression is expected in the area of ​​establishing special fees from the ships of the American merchant fleet when they call at European ports, etc. etc.

The struggle between the British and American merchant fleets, however, did not stop there; in the very last months it took on completely sensational forms, expressing itself in the economic rapprochement between the United States and Germany.

As is well known, one of the main shortcomings of the North American merchant fleet is the lack of proper organization, the absence of a widespread network of agencies abroad, and the lack of experienced personnel. All this is explained by the fact that the American merchant fleet, as we have seen, emerged in an extremely short time; and if this period turned out to be sufficient for the construction of almost 8 million tons of a merchant fleet, then to create a corresponding commercial and technical organization, many years of hard work, accumulation of experience, contacts and knowledge are required. Taking into account this fundamental shortcoming of the American merchant fleet, the business circles of the S. States turned their eyes to Germany, which, having lost almost all of its merchant fleet under the Treaty of Versailles, retained, however, almost entirely its excellent technical and commercial organization, spread all over the world. One of the most powerful American steamship trusts, the American Ship and Commerce Corporation, which is controlled by Gariman's large financial group, entered into an agreement with the largest German steamship trust Hamburg - America, and this agreement was followed by a similar agreement between another powerful American company United States Mail Steamship Company with North German Lloyd. The essence of these treaties *) lies in the fact that the ready-made organization of the German steamship trusts should be used in the interest of

––––––––––

P. 195

the routes of the American merchant marine to combat British competition. For this purpose, all lines that were served before the war by these German shipping companies are being restored, and a number of new ones are planned. In addition, the agreement stipulates that a certain part of the required tonnage will be built at German shipyards. Let us note at the same time an interesting fact: according to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany undertakes, in addition to surrendering almost all of its merchant fleet to the Allies, to build for the Allies, at their request, up to 1 million tons of merchant fleet, counting 200,000 tons per year. This requirement, however, like many other conditions of the Versailles Treaty, has not yet been presented to Germany for execution. This is explained by pressure from shipyard owners in allied countries, which indicate that such orders to German shipyards will completely stop domestic shipbuilding. Thus, the German shipyards, actually freed from this requirement of the Treaty of Versailles, are supposed to be used for the purpose of building a new merchant fleet for this German-American steamship trust. It is important to note that the said agreement between the German and American steamship trusts owes its origin not only to a private initiative, but, as one might think, was brought about by the government of the S. States in the person of the Shipping Board, which gives the whole combination an extremely important political meaning.*)

Thus, if the world war incapacitated Germany, the main competitor of the British merchant fleet, then, on the other hand, the conditions created by the war gave rise to a powerful new competitor to England in the person of the United States, which, having united with Germany, will present such a combination of material forces and organizational talent, before which the competition of the German fleet pales before the war.

The struggle between S.-A. The United States and England did not confine itself to only one war of freights, aggravated competition between individual steamship trusts, etc. This struggle went much deeper and was expressed in Britain's desire to gain control over the world's oil riches. Invention at the beginning of the twentieth century of internal motors

––––––––––

P. 196

combustion represents, as is known, for industry the same revolution as the invention of the steam engine produced in its day. The significant improvement of these engines in recent years has expanded their application so much that the question of the fuel oil required for them is now of just as great an economic interest as the question of coal fuel. If the 19th century can be called the century of the steam engine and coal, then the 20th century, obviously, promises to be the century of internal combustion engines and liquid fuel. But, in addition to powering internal combustion engines, liquid fuel has recently begun to be used on a large scale for heating ship machines. If it is still impossible to speak about the complete displacement of coal by oil fuel, then a number of economic and technical advantages of the latter indicate that oil fuel will play a leading role in the world industry in the near future.

As we have already indicated above, one of the elements of British power was the wealth of England in coal fuel. Thanks to the wide network of English coal stations spread over all the seas, no ship could do without English coal, and, as we have seen, the English cardiff was always ready direct freight for the ships of the English merchant fleet. The significant reduction in the export of British coal after the war greatly weakened this special advantage of the British merchant fleet, and the beginning of the replacement of coal with liquid fuel for heating ships' engines may in the future completely deprive the British merchant fleet of this main advantage. It should be remembered that until very recently England did not have oil at its disposal; almost 70% of world oil consumption was produced by S.-A. C. States, which, therefore, could in the near future become the main supplier of oil for the world fleet as well. Faced with such a dilemma, British business leaders have turned their main attention, especially over the past two years, to seizing the world's oil wealth. We will not dwell here on that complex network of agreements, international treaties, in other cases - bribery, in others - exchange combinations, thanks to which England during the last two years, with the support of the British government and thanks to the energy of the leaders of the main British

P. 197

oil trust, known as the Shell Group, managed to seize enormous oil wealth in almost all parts of the world. *) True, the American oil trust Standart Oil С ° still produces three times more oil than the English trust, but the oil riches of the S. States are quickly depleted. According to the calculations of American geologists, the soil of the North American North of the States contains 7 billion barrels of oil, while the rest of the world has up to 50 billion of these reserves, and of these last reserves, the British last years managed to capture the largest part.

The given sketch of the influence of the war on the distribution of the world tonnage, the fantastically rapid growth of the S.-A. The United States, the struggle for naval domination between the Northern States and England, the desire on the part of England to secure for itself a significant part of the world's oil reserves and the desire to shake in this respect the almost monopoly position in the supply of oil to the Northern States, and the economic rapprochement that has begun between the United States. The United States and Germany — all these facts of modern economic reality — for all their fragmentary character, one might say episodic, still provide some material for judging the economic trends of the near future.

During the Great War, two completely opposite economic trends emerged in the world economy.

On the one hand, the war contributed to a strong exacerbation in many states economic nationalism - recall the increased protectionism during the war in almost all states, even such as England, before the war former country free trade par excellence; recall the policy of imposing a number of new industries on state treasury funds within states - Key industries in English, - "necessary for the purposes of defense and economic independence of the state"; recall about

––––––––––

*) Fr. Delaisi. Le Pétrole, p. 58, ill.

P. 198

revival in almost all countries, not excluding England, tendencies of agrarian protectionism, etc. Parallel to this, during the war, another trend emerged, which we would call economic internationalism, which was expressed in the creation of new international forms for the distribution between individual allied countries of various types of raw materials, tonnage, financial loans, etc.: recall the international organisms created during the war for distribution between the allies and neutral grain products, fatty substances, sugar, nitrates, tonnage; let us recall this amazing international economic solidarity, examples of which are filled with the entire world war and which alone made it possible for the Accord to win a decisive victory over Germany. These two tendencies of economic nationalism and internationalism, which coexisted during the war, formed the basis of two different programs to eliminate the war. Economic internationalism colored the famous 14 points of Wilson's program. Economic nationalism formed the basis of the peace treaties that ended the great war.

The struggle taking place before our eyes between England and America for economic domination seems to indicate a further exacerbation of economic nationalism after the war. At the same time, it is necessary to state a significant weakening of the tendencies of economic internationalism, the complete elimination of all international centers for the distribution of tonnage, raw materials, loans, etc.

Is it possible, however, on the basis of all these facts to make a forecast about the complete triumph of the idea of ​​economic nationalism and about the failure of the new forms of international economic solidarity outlined by the war? We think not.

We think that only the strengthening of international economic solidarity in the direction of creating international central organisms for accounting and distribution of raw materials, fuel, tonnage, loans, by analogy with the same organizations created during the war, but with the only difference that now these organizations all states must be included, and that the task of these organizations must be the economic and financial restoration of a world shaken to its foundations by the great war - that only this way can lead to a solution

P. 199

world economic and financial problems posed by the war.

We are convinced of this by the grave economic crisis now being experienced by the whole world, the slow recovery of Europe after the war, the complete breakdown of exchange rates, etc .; The manifesto of the Supreme Economic Council addressed to the whole world, and the resolution of the Brussels Financial Conference, and the resolution of the last meeting of the Council of the League of Nations call for the same way of strengthening international economic solidarity to resolve the problems posed by the war.

We are firmly convinced that, just as during the war, not immediately, but only in the second year of the war, the objective situation forced the states of Consent to choose the path of not only political, but also economic coalition, so the current economic situation will soon force all states to take the path of international resolving the economic and financial problems posed by the war.

A. Mikhelson.

Founding and Development of the USA

From the first days of its foundation, the United States of America has become one of the most powerful world powers. This was not prevented by either internal conflicts or wars with neighboring states.

USA at the dawn of its existence

In 1789, while the Constitution was still being drafted, George Washington was elected the first President of the United States of America. However, by the beginning of the second term of his presidency, disagreements appeared within the government coalition, which resulted in the formation of competing political parties.

Foreign Secretary Thomas Jefferson and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton left their posts, one organizing the Republican Party, the other the Federalist. Jefferson was an advocate of an agricultural society that advocated the rights of individuals, while Hamilton embraced the idea of ​​a strong federal government based on industry.

George Washington (center), the first President of the United States On April 30, 1789, in the Federal Assembly Hall in New York City, assumes office as President. New York State Chancellor Robert R. Livingston (left) swears in him. Arthur St. Clair, Samuel A. Otis, General Henry Knox, Roger Sherman (to the left of Washington), as well as Baron Friedrich von Steuben and John Adams (to the right of Washington) stand nearby.

Intensification of internal conflicts, political uprisings in other regions, as well as conducted by Washington foreign policy influenced the outcome of the struggle. Washington was a supporter of neutrality in settling external conflicts, but at the same time, it tried to establish good relations with other states in order to provide conditions for the development of trade, which is so necessary for the state's economy.

When the war broke out between France and Great Britain in 1793, American devotion to their own ideas began to falter. In 1778 America formed an alliance with France, and French troops fought on America's side against the British in the War of Independence. However, starting in 1793, trade relations with Britain came to the fore. America was officially neutral. However, Britain intervened in American-French trade, controlled and even confiscated American ships. As a result, in 1794, the Americans approvingly reacted to the conclusion of the Jay Treaty, which guaranteed freedom of trade with Great Britain in exchange for the obligation to free the forts located in the northwest of America. Republicans sympathetic to the French were outraged by the behavior of the Bree-V dance, as well as the instant concessions from the American government. For their part, the federalists assessed the Republican sympathy for the French as extremely unpatriotic behavior, the French were also very unhappy with the treaty, which they viewed as a violation of the American-French Treaty of 1778.

American statesmen James Monroe and Robert R. Livingston on April 30, 1803 conduct final negotiations with French Foreign Minister Talleyrand on the purchase of Louisiana.

After George Washington resigned from a third term in office, in his 1796 farewell speech, he emphasized how dangerous it can be to follow the politics of one party and get involved in international conflicts. And so it happened. The coming time was characterized by a split in America and possible confrontation with Great Britain and France.

In 1797, the federalist John Adams became the second president of the United States, and Thomas Jefferson became vice president. Shortly thereafter, French ships began piracy and hijacking American merchant ships. In response, Adams ordered the supply of merchant ships with weapons, and an undeclared naval war broke out between America and France. Adame refused to officially declare war and tried to resolve the issue through negotiations, despite the growing anti-French sentiment in his cabinet and among the public. The laws he issued on foreigners and incitement to rebellion, which were originally conceived as laws to protect against external threats, Adame began to use to strengthen the power of the federalists and suppress opposition forces opposing his party policies and policies of support for France. These laws were extremely unpopular and had the opposite effect, that is, they worked in favor of the Republicans. When Thomas Jefferson became president in 1800, he tried to reduce the influence of the federalists.

Louisiana Purchase

Although by this time the expansion of the lands to the east was already in full swing, in the Orinoco River basin it was not very successful. Jefferson, long drawn to the unknown western lands, upon assuming the presidency, it seemed, was not interested in expanding the territory of the state. In 1800, Spain ceded to Napoleonic France the state of Louisiana, the area of ​​which was equal to the area of ​​all thirteen states of America at that time. However, the French, preoccupied with a new war with Britain and the suppression of revolts in their Caribbean colony of Santo Domingo, missed the opportunity to take control of Louisiana.

Americans were worried about a conflict with the Spaniards over the shipping of American goods from New Orleans. In addition, the Americans feared that the establishment of real French control over Louisiana could lead to a restriction of free trade. Jefferson sent James Monroe to Paris, where he, along with the American Ambassador Robert R. Livingston and the French, was to discuss the purchase of New Orleans and, if possible, most of Florida.

To their amazement, even before Monroe's arrival, Napoleon made Livingston a counter-offer to sell the entire Louisiana area. They also agreed on a price: 15 million US dollars, which was eleven million more than the amount approved by Congress. Jefferson feared that the fact of the purchase might contradict the Constitution, but there was no time to wait, and an additional clause was introduced into the Constitution, which was quickly approved by the Senate, in order to avoid Napoleon's possible rejection of his decision.

Even before the deal was made, Meriwizer Lewis and George Rogers Clark were ready to begin preparations for the expedition that would later become famous. The Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis & Clark Expedition instantly set the stage for additional research and settlement. For Jefferson, Louisiana was the area through which his dream of creating an agrarian society came true. However, very soon, politics began to dominate in relation to foreign lands.

Embargo Act and War of 1812

Some Louisiana territories were bordered by open or closed Spanish and British possessions, which caused conflicts. This prompted Jefferson to reopen negotiations with Napoleon. The consequence of this was the internal split of the Republican Party and the emergence of the so-called third force, which feared too much prestige of Napoleon in America. Former Vice President Aaron Baer's vain attempts to take over Texas have only exacerbated the domestic political debate. However, Jefferson's main problem in the future will be the deterioration of relations with France and even more - with Great Britain.

When the conflict between the two countries escalated again in 1803, America again attempted to maintain neutrality, but the French and British resumed the pirate seizure of American ships. The British went even further: they forced captured American sailors to serve in the Royal Navy of Great Britain.

The Embargo Act, approved in 1807, ended trade with both countries to force the French to end their hostile actions against the American merchant fleet. However, the embargo backfired in his own country, and Jefferson would; forced in 1809, a few days before the end of his presidential term, to withdraw this law. " His successor, James Madison, initially attempted to secure a peaceful settlement with Britain, but the young Republican "hawks" in Congress demanded a "military response" from Britain, and thus war was declared in 1812. At first, the Americans had little success, and their attacks on the Channel were repulsed. However, at sea, they managed to repel powerful attacks from the British and won several beats, including at the Battle of the Thames in 1813.

After the victory over Napoleon, new British troops arrived from Europe, took Washington and burned down the White House. The British moved their H army further to Baltimore, but the Americans successfully defended themselves and the British were stopped. Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald wrote about this in his poem "The Star-Spangled Banner", which has been the national anthem of the United States since 1931. When the British-controlled attack was repulsed by the British, they began to think about the end of the conflict. The negotiations took place in the Belgian city of Ghent. The war was officially over after the signing of the Peace of Ghent in December 1814. However, even before they learned about it in America, a group of federalists gathered in Hartward and from late December to early January discussed the issue of withdrawing the states of New England from United States America (Hartford Convention). There were also disputes on military issues. Meanwhile, the British suffered another crushing defeat at the Battle of New Orleans. When the peace message finally arrived, many members of the Haritford Convention considered it a betrayal and declared the end of the federalist party.

The era of friendliness

The period from 1815 to 1824 is known in history as "the era of friendliness," a phrase coined by a newspaper after visiting Boston; James Monroe, who was elected President of the United States in 1817. At this time, internal political issues were actively discussed and relative national unity was preserved. The influence of the federalists diminished, disagreement on party issues disappeared, and the threat of foreign intervention and conflict disappeared.

1885 year. A column of carts of American settlers is advancing west across the treeless plains.

The war also gave rise to unexpected positive developments. As a result of the British naval blockade and the American trade embargo, American industry, especially in the northeast, experienced a boom, and agriculture in the south and west developed more intensively. The reason for this was the growing demand for raw materials for Food Industry... The territory of the state also increased. Between 1816 and 1821, it included six new states: Indiana, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, Alabama and Missouri, which were mainly formed as a result of the settlement of Louisiana.

However, difficulties did not spare the "era of friendliness": the economic boom brought new problems. The Panic of 1819 was a reflection of the first difficult economic crisis in America. In response to risky speculation and unconventional business practices by many state-owned banks, and in an effort to curb rampant inflation, the newly formed Second State Bank tightened its lending policy. The denial of loans has brought down many banks and bankrupted their clients. The exacerbation of the crisis was facilitated by an increase in the inflow of imported goods and a decrease in prices for textiles. Since the domestic industry and agriculture could not withstand, many people lost their jobs and a roof over their heads. However, despite the crisis of 1820, Monroe was elected again, but then another, much more serious problem arose.

Beginning in 1808, the importation of slaves was prohibited, and slavery was officially abolished in most northern states from 1790. However, the southern states, due to increased production of textiles, sugar and an increase in the area of ​​tobacco plantations during the war of 1812, depended on additional labor. When Missouri, a state with a slave economy, applied for membership in the union in 1820, it sparked a heated debate. However, it was not so much the moral side of slavery that was discussed as the balance of power in the Senate. Up to this point, there were eleven "free" and eleven "slaveholding" states in the Senate. To maintain this balance, a compromise was agreed regarding the state of Missouri. Maine was added to the list of "free" states, slavery was allowed in the south in the state of Arkansas, and on the contrary, it was prohibited in the north and west. If already around 1820 the end of the "era of friendliness" was only outlined, then in 1824, when party issues became the main ones on the agenda, it became obvious that for many the era of friendliness was over. In the same year, the Democratic Party was founded, and its founder, Andrew Jackson, immediately complained about the corruption that was present during the election of John Quincy Adams. Together with his supporters, Jackson set about preparing for the elections, and in 1829 he was elected the seventh president of the United States.

Indian resettlement

Around 1820, the border of American settlements began to run along the Mississippi River, as a result of which many Indian tribes were driven westward and expelled from their lands. When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, the settlement boundaries moved even further. Jackson was an active supporter of Indian resettlement and had previously tried to expedite the process. To do this, in 1814 and 1818, he organized military actions against the Indians, and also seized millions of hectares of land in Georgia, Alabama and Florida. During negotiations between 1814 and 1824, he actively promoted the treaties under which the Indians living in the south were taken from their lands, and the Indians themselves moved to new territories located west of the Mississippi River. This allowed the United States to expand its territories in the states of Georgia, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi.

However, not all Indians were ready for voluntary resettlement. Many of them remained in the United States. In 1823, the Supreme Court granted them the right to use their land, but without the right of ownership. To protect their lands, the Indians used a variety of strategies, including peaceful assimilation. The Cherokee Indians declared themselves an independent state in 1827 and even drew up a constitution in writing, since they had previously received an explanation from the United States of how they could obtain their lands legally. However, after a year of his presidency, Jackson developed a law on the resettlement of the Indians, and in subsequent years, the Indians were fraudulently expelled from their homes and were forced to cede part of their lands for the construction of western settlements. As a result, this strategy led to the eradication local population and military conflicts with the Indians (1860-1890), the most brutal of which was the massacre of the Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek, organized by the United States cavalry. Until 1840, military actions were isolated cases, and the government carried out at least some measures to protect the Indians remaining in the United States. However, latent discontent, which now and then spilled out, was the reason for Jackson's organization of military intervention.

Other Indian tribes, such as the Cherokee, have been tricked into drafting false treaties that have no legal effect. In 1833, a residence permit was issued to only a small group of immigrants. In 1838, when the majority of the indigenous population still remained in the ancestral lands of the Indians, thousands of soldiers were sent there with the aim of evicting them. During the forced relocation to the west ("The Road of Tears"), approximately 4 thousand Cherokee Indians died from disease, hunger and exhaustion. By 1837, 46,000 Indians had already been expelled from their lands and resettled east into the Mississippi River basin, in addition, even more people were awaiting resettlement under treaties.

The Americans now had vast areas suitable for building settlements and plantations in the south. Since the 1840s, new routes have been laid, the so-called "trails" (Mormon Trail, Oregon Trail, California Trail), along which cattle and carts were driven across the Great Plains. And soon, thanks to the creation of a system of canals and laying of rails, trade between the North, South and West became more convenient, which contributed to the expansion of the expansion and further development of the United States.

Main street in Dawson, the city of Canadian gold diggers during the Klondike Gold Rush. Right: Allied infantryman with gun and bayonet.

War against Mexico

In 1821, after the victory over Spain, the Mexicans annexed Texas to their territory.Soon they began to develop trade relations with the Americans who also settled in the region. The influx of people was so great that American settlers outnumbered the Mexican population, and calls were again heard for the incorporation of Mexico into the United States. In 1835 there was a revolution led by Sam Houston, and in the same year independence from Mexico was declared. At first, America did not dare to annex the slave state of Texas to its territory. However, in 1845 things went too far - tensions grew both within the public and in relations with other states.

At the same time, a dispute arose with Great Britain over land ownership in Oregon. These were annexed as early as 1846, when the British moved the Hudson's Bay Company headquarters further north to Fort Victoria and agreed on a border that would run along the 40th parallel. In the same year, the war with Mexico began.

The conflict lasted a year and a half, and Texas was drawn into it. Mexico City and California, where American settlers also protested. Mexico has fiercely resisted, but its unstable government

Under this agreement in California, in the Gulf area, it was planned to create a new railway branch - the South Ocean Railway, which required additional alienation of Mexican lands.

Expansion and slavery issues

The north, where industry prevailed, and the agrarian south have long argued among themselves. The reasons for these disputes were different economic needs and different political principles. After the successes in the war with Mexico and the acquisition of additional land, the patriotic feelings of the people were on the rise. However, patriotism gradually faded away, as issues related to slavery in new lands in the West, over which conflicts flared up, began to be brought to the agenda again. The Republican North supported a proposal to ban slavery in all of Mexico's former territories, with the exception of Texas (Wilmot's warning). However, Democrats in the south rejected the proposal, citing the fact that these lands lie south of the border determined during the compromise decision on Missouri. Democrats advocated the sovereignty of individual states so that local settlers could make their own decisions about slavery. However, the issue became even more complicated when California, a former Mexican province, declared its independence by the beginning of the war between the United States and Mexico, and later, as a state free from slavery, decided to become part of the United States.

After the discovery of the first gold deposits in 1848, this topic became even more relevant, as a huge number of new settlers arrived in the West every month, tormented by the Gold Rush. In the south, they thought about how to use slaves: as gold diggers or in various industrial jobs. In the north, on the contrary, a camp of staunch opponents of slavery (abolitionists) grew. Time itself was preparing to make a decision about the future of slavery.

The compromise decision of 1850 provided for measures that satisfied both slave owners and abolitionists. A solution was found that seemed to be universal. However, the idea of ​​state sovereignty when discussing slavery issues sparked unrest in Kansas. During the struggle for the presidency in 1860, when it became clear that many southerners did not see an alternative to secession from the United States, Republican Abraham Lincoln confidently walked towards victory. Lincoln's victory was secured only by the votes of the northerners.

Civil War

Shortly after Lincoln's election in 1861, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union. Seven other states soon followed and merged into the Confederation. Conflict erupted after Confederate troops entered Fort Sumter in South Carolina on April 12. Lincoln assembled a volunteer army, after which five more states joined the Confederation. The Union planned to implement a naval blockade of the southern coast; at the same time, they wanted to try to seize the capital of the southern states, the city of Richmond in Virginia, and control the most important rivers in the West. However, in the first clash, the Union was defeated, although it had obvious advantages: the northern states had a larger population and could provide more soldiers and labor for the war economy. Industry was more developed, agriculture was diversified, and transport networks (streets, waterways and railways) were better and covered the entire territory, which improved communication and facilitated movement.

Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States (1861 - 1865)

However, the Confederates, led by Jefferson, had some advantages: strong military traditions, disciplined military units, and experienced officers such as Robert Lee, Joseph Johnston, and "Stone Wall" Thomas Jackson. In addition, many battles were fought in Confederate territories. If in order to win the southerners had enough to restrain attacks, then the northerners needed to conduct offensive operations, calm and rally the population, since the ultimate goal was to restore the Confederation. The Southerners tried to advance to the northern territories, but in the battles of Antitem (1862) and Gettysburg (1863), the Northerners successfully repulsed their attacks. In 1863, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which abolished slavery in the Confederate zone, allowing blacks to serve in the military. Although one of the reasons for the outbreak of war was the controversy over the abolition of slavery, the Confederation had not until this point sought to abolish it completely. This move, aimed at strengthening the alliance politically and militarily, had far-reaching consequences both for the state as a whole and for black Americans.

In the same year, General Ulysses S. Grant captured Vicksburg and provided protection for the Mississippi. In 1864, he became commander-in-chief of the Allied forces and launched an offensive against Richmond. At the same time, General Sherman was leading an offensive into Atlanta and advancing along the coast to encircle Confederate troops and cut off the supply of weapons and food. After a long siege, the southern army returned to Appomatox and on April 9, 1865, was forced to surrender. Five days after the signing of the peace treaty on April 14, 1865 in Washington, Abraham Lincoln was killed at Ford's Theater. The assassin, an actor named John Wilkes Booth, back in 1864, together with the Confederates, developed a plan to eliminate Lincoln. Vice President Andrew Johnson took over as President.

Reconstruction of the South

The South Reconstruction Act of 1867 was intended to create conditions for the reorganization of the South and the return of the South American states to the Union, that is, the unification of the South and North. However, the South and North were split. For a long time, the South has been isolated from economic and industrial innovation and cut off from the infrastructure of the North. The defeat in the war caused additional commotion, moreover, the abolition of slavery could lead to the collapse of the economy. The accelerated industrialization and urbanization of the North was largely due to private initiative. The state lacked funds, and partly, and the desire to at least partially invest in the development of the South and provide the amounts required for an effective economic recovery. These were issues on which political differences continued to exist. All this, as before, still caused controversy among political opponents.

In 1865, Congress established a bureau to provide former slaves with food, clothing, medicine, land, and education. In the same year, in many southern states, where views of the inferiority of the black population were especially widespread, legislation was developed, which enshrined the suppression and restriction of the rights of blacks, the so-called "Black Codes". However, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and amendments Nos. 14 and 15 to the Constitution, these acts were invalidated. Blacks received all civil rights, equality before the law, and voting rights.

In the 1970s, the influx of Democrats to the South increased significantly. This was due in part to different living conditions in the South and North, as well as due to the flood of complaints about real and perceived corruption in the Republican ranks during the 1876 elections. A compromise was found on this issue in 1877. The occupation of the South was over and the Democrats came back to power. Thus, the reconstruction was completed, and its result was that the white Democrats of the southern states were once again able to infringe on the rights of blacks. In addition, paramilitary racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan emerged and terrorized the black population.

Golden age

In a sense, Reconstruction was a doomed project, and there were even rumors of a "second civil war" due to the unrest associated with it. However, this period was also a period of reforms and progress, as well as fundamental changes in society that occurred after Civil war The idi of the early twentieth century transformed America into a modern state. This era is called the "golden age" of America. This name comes from the eponymous novel by Mark Twain, published in 1873, in which he tried to describe the wealth, expansion, excesses and corruption of the time. The dominance of large firms, large-scale industrialization and urbanization contributed to the rapid transformation of America from a country with a pronounced agricultural bias to a modern industrial power. The changes were both positive and negative. The Industrial Revolution supported the settlement of the resource-rich West, but it also brought about major changes. transport system(1869: first transcontinental railway), new communications and other technological solutions. All this contributed to the development of the economy. There were different people among the Americans: some sought only personal enrichment, others, who were not deterred by corruption, thought about improving the welfare of society, created trade unions and dealt with issues of improving working conditions.

Due to the development of cities, the “golden age” also became a period of social reforms. Urbanization, population growth and massive displacement of people have created many problems. The solution to these problems was hampered by the infringement of the rights of the minority and the lower strata of society. The influx of immigrants, blacks and women increased, leading to the emergence of a distinctive urban culture. V late XIX century America has become a leading industrial power with a multi-layered culture.

Spanish-American War

The growth of American industry and economy in the outgoing 19th century led to the expansion of the original territorial boundaries and laid the foundations of American imperialism. Already in the 90s of the XIX century, large investments poured into the sugar trade of the Spanish colony of Cuba. However, while American entrepreneurs profited from import trade duties, the Cuban economy was in decline. Already between 1868 and 1878, Cuban nationalists began to fight against Spanish rule, and in 1895 powerful uprisings broke out again, paralyzing trade with America. Both sides acted quite harshly, but US public opinion towards the Spaniards was more unfriendly. The reasons for this were fears that resolving the conflict would require additional cash injections. When William McKinley took over as president in 1897, he opposed a military invasion. However, after an explosion occurred in the port of Havana on the USS Maine (1898), Spain was blamed for this, and war was declared shortly thereafter. A few months later, the United States defeated Spain. Military action against Spain with Caribbean islands spread to the Pacific Ocean and captured the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii. Under the terms of a peace treaty signed in Paris in 1898-1899, these islands, as well as thousands of other small islands in the Pacific Ocean, were annexed.

The United States has become an empire with dominions in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The commercial benefits of waterways between the Atlantic and By the Pacific Ocean knew for a long time. However, now strategic plans for the construction of a canal on the Isthmus of Panama began to come to the fore again. After the insurrection in Panama, supported by the United States, the Colombian province of Panama gained independence in 1903, which was immediately recognized by the President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909). In return, Panama promised to cede the canal zone on both sides of the waterway to the United States. In 1914, the construction of the Panama Canal was completed. The best engineering technologies have been implemented in this project. In addition, it was a great success for the United States on the path that it took in its development from a state with isolationist aspirations to a powerful world power.

01.12.2017