Military Review

To the 160th anniversary of the start of the American Civil War: some prerequisites

54

The First and Second World Wars bypassed the territory of the United States proper, and the Civil War was the last in stories US armed conflict, in which the American army fought on its own territory, more precisely, two American armies, North and South, fought with each other from 1861 to 1865.


Economic and political reasons and prerequisites for war


As you know, in the American Civil War, the northern and southern states clashed. In Soviet historiography, war was seen as the result of a confrontation between the bourgeois North and the slave-owning South. However, this is clearly a simplified interpretation of the premises and causes of the conflict. At first, there was indeed a serious antagonism between the slave southern states and the northern states, which were dominated by farming and industrial production.

Secondly, ideologically, the northern and southern states were also quite different from each other. Southerners for the most part were supporters of slavery, because they saw the real efficiency of the economy based on the use of slave labor. Until the defeat of the southern states in the war, they were more developed and richer than the northern states and rightly saw in the criticism of slavery by the northerners a real threat to their own economic well-being. Even the concept of slavery was developed as a positive good both for the slave owner and for the slave himself. This concept ran counter to the values ​​of the abolitionist movement (the movement to abolish slavery), which gradually took root deeper and deeper in the north of the United States. The emerging antagonists saw each other as a threat at least to the economic plan, believing that the opposite side was ready to expand.

Finally, the southerners' cup of patience was filled with the election of abolitionist Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States in 1860. Today Lincoln is a national hero of the States, one of the symbols of this country, along with George Washington, and in 1860 a significant part of the US population did not support this man and his ideas. The southerners responded to the election of Lincoln as head of state with a process of secession from the Union of States, especially since the US Constitution did not provide for a direct ban on the secession of states from the country.

The exit of the southern states and the beginning of the war


South Carolina was the first to leave the United States - on December 20, 1860, then on January 9, 1861, it was the turn of Mississippi, January 10 - Florida, January 11 - Alabama, January 19 - Georgia and January 26 - Louisiana. Texas seceded on March 1, 1861, Virginia on April 17, Arkansas on May 6, Tennessee on May 7, North Carolina on May 20. In February 1861, the Confederation of the States of America was created, with ex-Senator Jefferson Davis, who formerly represented the state of Mississippi, elected as its president.

Interestingly, the Confederation was supported by the Indian Territories. This was due to the fact that the Indians did not want to give up slavery, and in the end this factor outweighed even the hostility to the southerners, who at one time drove the Indian population en masse from favorable climatic lands, which were then occupied by plantations.

Thus, 40% of the territory of the United States was under the control of the Confederates - supporters of slavery. As for the population of CSA, it was more than 9 million people, of which 3,5 million are African Americans. Nevertheless, many blacks then fought as part of the Confederate army, and this circumstance demonstrated a much greater complexity of political and socio-economic processes in North America than was commonly believed.

On April 12, 1861, the battle for Fort Sumter began, which is officially considered the first combat clash between North and South. However, according to other sources, sporadic hostilities were recorded from the second decade of March 1861.

From that moment on, the big war between the United States and the CSA became a reality. The fighting, which lasted four years, claimed the lives of more Americans than in any other US-fought war, including World War II. According to the most conservative estimates, the total losses of the opposing sides amounted to 600 thousand killed and about half a million wounded.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / Toure de Tulstrup - website of the Old Print Shop, New York City
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 21 March 2021 08: 24
    +1
    brought slaves and created problems for themselves for the future, the British are smarter in this regard
    1. Machito
      Machito 21 March 2021 13: 37
      +6
      For a long time, there was no Civil War in the USA. There are more than enough splits in American society, but there is still no war. Maybe BLM will arrange a war, and support the Kukskluklan? And there Latinos and Asians will take up arms.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 21 March 2021 20: 33
        +1
        Chinese states of North America? - who will suggest another name
      2. TANKISTONE
        TANKISTONE 21 March 2021 22: 49
        -2

        Bearded man (bearded man)
        For a long time, there was no Civil War in the USA. There are more than enough splits in American society, but there is still no war. Maybe BLM will arrange a war, and support the Kukskluklan? And there Latinos and Asians will take up arms.
        Do you have children?
        1. notingem
          notingem 24 March 2021 08: 35
          -1
          Snot about a child's tears, future thieves, murderers, were very fond of snotting in the early 90s. Only meant their children
        2. notingem
          notingem 24 March 2021 08: 47
          0
          When NATO bombers ironed Yugoslavia, they drew a clear line between the tears of their own and the SERBIAN children
    2. svp67
      svp67 21 March 2021 13: 38
      +4
      Quote: Ryaruav
      brought slaves and created problems for themselves for the future, the British are smarter in this regard

      Well, let's start with the fact that they could not have done otherwise. They needed as many workers as possible on the cotton plantations and slavery provided them, at very low prices. The north was more industrial and could abandon slavery, since production did not require so much unskilled labor.
      And at the expense of the brits. It was thanks to their support, both economic, that Britain was the main trading partner of the southern states, and the military-political southerners decided on this rebellion. And in words, fighting slavery, it was the British who supplied slaves from Africa to the Southerners.
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 22 March 2021 11: 09
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        fighting slavery in words, it was the British who supplied slaves from Africa to the Southerners

        Not only from Africa, but also from Ireland. Since the conquest of Ireland, the Britons have halved the population by selling the Irish into slavery.
        1. Alf
          Alf 22 March 2021 13: 10
          +2
          Quote: Captain Pushkin
          Quote: svp67
          fighting slavery in words, it was the British who supplied slaves from Africa to the Southerners

          Not only from Africa, but also from Ireland. Since the conquest of Ireland, the Britons have halved the population by selling the Irish into slavery.

          By the way, they don't like to talk about WHITE slaves in modern America.
  2. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 21 March 2021 08: 28
    +3
    This war is not over yet ... it has taken on different forms now. The feeling of revenge towards white Americans at the subconscious level of black residents of the United States remained. And we periodically observe this in mass demonstrations of African Americans; this internal contradiction of American society is incurable at this point in time.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 21 March 2021 08: 33
      +12
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      The feeling of revenge towards white Americans at the subconscious level of black people in the United States remains

      The case when you do not feel sorry for anyone!
    2. snerg7520
      snerg7520 23 March 2021 09: 35
      +1
      The situation is developing, and it is possible that this contradiction will be treated with machine guns ...
  3. Flooding
    Flooding 21 March 2021 08: 28
    +3
    The northerners reacted quickly, not wasting time on empty exhortations, expectations and not allowing the Confederation to grow stronger in a military aspect.
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 21 March 2021 13: 31
      +15
      In fact, Soviet historiography was closer to the truth .. For the conflict between the North and the South was mainly of an economic nature. The developing North needed raw materials as cheap as possible, and a market for its products, preferably more expensive. Therefore, he imposed terrible duties on the import and export of the South. In those days, almost 70% of the federal budget was filled with extortions from the southerners .. On the contrary, the South wanted to sell its raw materials at a higher price to Europe, and buy goods there with cheaper and better quality. And even more so - did not want to pay anything to the North and its bourgeoisie.

      As you can see, the war was inevitable. And it had nothing to do with slavery. For the right to own slaves - they do not fight as desperately as southerners. And the overwhelming majority of the Confederates did not have any slaves ..
      1. Thomas the Unbelieving
        Thomas the Unbelieving 22 March 2021 18: 09
        +1
        This is a more correct explanation of the causes of the civil war. After all, the declaration on the abolition of slavery was proclaimed by Lincoln a year after the outbreak of the war, in order to correct the failures of the northerners. By the way, it was in 1862 that the US Congress passed a law on resettlement to the West, outlawing the Indians. Each immigrant was allocated 160 acres of land. Aboriginal massacres began, and the survivors were herded into reservations. And this "public" still dares to stutter about genocide and personal freedom!
  4. Prisoner
    Prisoner 21 March 2021 08: 47
    +6
    "The Civil War was last in the history of the United States by armed conflict ... "(c) It's not over yet.
    1. Andrei Nikolaevich
      Andrei Nikolaevich 21 March 2021 09: 04
      +3
      Yeah .. It's been a long time since the United States fought against each other. And it's high time ..
      The Americans have become addicted. They love all sorts of "show" there So we will give them a "show". It will be fun, everyone. And the world will rest from their constant "care".
      1. Prisoner
        Prisoner 21 March 2021 10: 29
        +2
        There is a war of "black" and "white" roses on the way. laughing And the Democrats and the Republicans very much "loved" each other. It's a pity there is no one to throw cookies. winked
    2. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 21 March 2021 17: 12
      +1
      Quote: Captive

      "The Civil War was the last armed conflict in the history of the United States ..." (c) It's not over yet

      Right! It would be more correct to say - "extreme" armed conflict on the territory of the United States ...
    3. akinak-f
      akinak-f 26 March 2021 11: 40
      0
      Rather, you need to say "extreme" ..... :)
  5. Nikolay Ivanov_5
    Nikolay Ivanov_5 21 March 2021 08: 53
    +2
    For a short period of the existence of the United States, the most disgusting train of slavery, hatred and murder of man by man lasts. And these supermen teach the whole world democratic values.
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 21 March 2021 08: 59
      +3
      Quote: Nikolay Ivanov_5
      For a short period of the existence of the United States, the most disgusting train of slavery, hatred and murder of man by man lasts.

      And they are in no hurry to repent and apologize to the Indians.
      1. Nikolay Ivanov_5
        Nikolay Ivanov_5 21 March 2021 09: 04
        +3
        Their lies about the wealth of the nation are so huge that they cannot admit and repent of their sins.
      2. Avior
        Avior 21 March 2021 11: 33
        +3
        Apologized
        The US authorities have officially apologized to the indigenous people of North America. A congressional resolution was read out to representatives of the five major Native American peoples. Reported by the Associated Press.
        In the corresponding resolution of the Congress, the authorities apologize for the ill-conceived policy and violence against Indians, looting and violation of agreements with the indigenous population of North America ... The text of the resolution with an apology was approved by both houses of Congress last year and signed by US President Barack Obama in December ...
        1. Reviews
          Reviews 21 March 2021 12: 44
          +2
          Quote: Avior
          ill-conceived policies and violence against Indians, robberies

          Yes, "it was necessary to better think over both politics and violence with robberies, so that now there was no one to apologize to. Sorry for that!" "Sorry," damn it ... And words are worthless.
        2. Unknown
          Unknown 21 March 2021 15: 31
          +4
          Quote: Avior
          The US authorities have officially apologized to the indigenous people of North America. A congressional resolution was read out to representatives of the five major Native American peoples. Reported by the Associated Press.
          In the corresponding resolution of the Congress, the authorities apologize for the ill-conceived policy and violence against Indians, looting and violation of agreements with the indigenous population of North America ... The text of the resolution with an apology was approved by both houses of Congress last year and signed by US President Barack Obama in December ...

          Is it in 500 years? Well, the Indians should thank them for the apology. Since then, the number of Indians from 1500 to 1900 has decreased from 15 million to 237 thousand. It's approximately. Only in 1924 did the American Indians receive citizenship, however, who survived. And Canada generally screwed up there. All Indians in Canada are historically divided into two categories - status and non-status. Belonging to one category or another implies significant differences in the legal status of Aboriginal people. Understand as you wish. It was immigrants from the British Empire, Holland, France who staged a hunt for the indigenous population of North America
          Hitler, in comparison with the descendants of the British, stands on the sidelines. England prefers not to remember the indigenous population of Australia, New Zealand. Where did the indigenous people of the island of Tasmania go? For the murders of local residents, they began to pay money to the English "civilizers" and to encourage them with lands.

          Human hunting soon became a sport. Gentlemen with their families would go for a picnic, and then, taking guns and dogs, went into the woods. The hunt was considered successful if it was possible to shoot a woman or one or two men. There were also mass executions. At the end of 1834, the last natives, two hundred people, were evicted to a small swampy island, where in ten years almost everyone was dead. By 1860, eleven people remained alive. The last purebred Tasmanian male, William Lanny, died in 1869.

          In 1876, Truganini, the last purebred Tasmanian, died; her name in her native language meant the name of the local breed of gray swans. European values ​​in action. Notice, and no remorse, sprinkling ashes on their heads.
        3. Alf
          Alf 21 March 2021 22: 27
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          for an ill-conceived policy

          No, the policy was just well thought out ...
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 21 March 2021 20: 34
      0
      Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
      For a short period of the existence of the United States, the most disgusting train of slavery, hatred and murder of man by man lasts. And these supermen teach the whole world democratic values.

      Well, the Americans kept blacks in slavery. Yes, exactly blacks, because the politically correct term African American was not invented at that time, as well as political correctness itself. Negroes were then, in accordance with the coming into fashion Darwinism, considered a transitional evolutionary form between ape and white man. Mixed marriages, in particular, were prohibited because they were equated with bestiality, which Scripture strictly forbade. So it's strictly scientific. tongue
      But in Russia, in the same 1861, the centuries-old slavery, in which the Russians kept the same Russian Orthodox Christians, was abolished. And the civil war on this occasion, although it was delayed for more than half a century, nevertheless happened, and another question, which of the two wars was more bloody and destructive.
      1. Nikolay Ivanov_5
        Nikolay Ivanov_5 21 March 2021 21: 58
        +1
        1. And yet there is a difference between slavery and serfdom. On the plantations, slaves were like convicts who had nothing of their own. The serfs had houses, land, animals and tools, time to run their household.

        2.On February 19 (March 3), 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and the Regulation on the peasants emerging from serfdom.

        3. The abolition of slavery was finally declared by the 13th amendment to the US Constitution of February 1, 1865, but a quarter of the states did not ratify it. Formally, the state of Mississippi was the last to do this only in 2013.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 22 March 2021 04: 22
          0
          Quote: Nikolay Ivanov_5
          1. And yet there is a difference between slavery and serfdom. On the plantations, slaves were like convicts who had nothing of their own. The serfs had houses, land, animals and tools, time to run their household.

          If the owner has the right to sell you, exchange you for a dog, rip you half to death with a whip, forcefully marry or, on the contrary, break up a marriage, break up a family, and generally do whatever he wants with you, you are a slave. the property of the slave owner. And as for his own house, cattle, and other things, the owner could take it all away for any reason and without it at any time. And the difference between the words "slave" and "serf" is semantics.
        2. gsev
          gsev 22 March 2021 14: 06
          0
          Quote: Nikolay Ivanov_5
          February 19 (March 3) 1861 in St. Petersburg Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom

          My customer told me how a partner brought him the future production manager in the trunk of an SUV with the condition that he pay salaries not to the employee, but to the owner of the SUV. This was evident after 2000.
  6. Alsur
    Alsur 21 March 2021 09: 10
    +1
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    This war is not over yet ... it has taken on different forms now. The feeling of revenge towards white Americans at the subconscious level of black residents of the United States remained. And we periodically observe this in mass demonstrations of African Americans; this internal contradiction of American society is incurable at this point in time.

    In general, whites fought against whites in the civil war, blacks were on both sides, for the latter it was earnings, and even advancement in social status. This is just the article that it was a classic civil war, and not a war of slaves against slave owners.
    And you think whites fought against blacks, that's really Unified State Exam education.
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 21 March 2021 10: 06
      0
      do you think whites fought against blacks, that's really Unified State Exam education.

      smile no, I don’t think so (these know-it-alls, they ascribe their thoughts to me).
      I think the internal division of the United States has remained the same since the Civil War, taking on the protest form of the black movement ... Black lives also matter.
  7. apro
    apro 21 March 2021 09: 18
    +4
    It is extremely reckless to consider slavery as the main cause of civil war in the USSR. Many people forget about the name of the union of states with self-government, where federal laws are very limited.
    The reason is in the economy, in the ways of development, and in the contradictions between the essentially agricultural South, oriented for export in more solvent countries, and the industrial north experiencing a shortage of raw materials with an imbalance in prices and sales markets.
    1. Reviews
      Reviews 21 March 2021 10: 15
      +2
      Quote: apro
      It is extremely rash to regard slavery as the main cause of civil war in the USSR.

      The reason is in the economy.

      That's right, in the economy. And the backbone of the economy of the southern states was slavery. The northerners wanted to pin the southerners to the nail, for which it was necessary to knock out the basis of their economy from under them. There would be a different basis - the official version would be a fight with another. But, since slavery was at the core, it was chosen as a target and an official symbol. In general, both sides are still hyenas.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 21 March 2021 13: 38
        +6
        In fact, the issue of the abolition of slavery has long been discussed in the South. But the southerners, being sensible people, reasonably asked the question - well, we will free the blacks, what's next? What will the blacks live on? Therefore, it was proposed to allocate a special black state, giving all the liberated a piece of land and some inventory and cattle. For what freedom can there be if there is nothing to eat? But this was sharply opposed by the North, which was in need of millions of workers ready to work for a bowl of soup. And he consistently cut all the proposals of the southerners. So, word for word, and came to a massacre ...
        1. Reviews
          Reviews 21 March 2021 14: 11
          0
          Quote: paul3390
          In fact, the issue of the abolition of slavery has long been discussed in the South.

          Maybe. I did not dig deep into the question.
  8. Blacksmith 55
    Blacksmith 55 21 March 2021 10: 04
    0
    Good morning .
    I hope there will be a continuation of the article?
    Only the reasons and the beginning of hostilities are indicated.
    I recommend reading the book "Gone with the Wind", this is just about the civil war in the United States.
  9. bk0010
    bk0010 21 March 2021 10: 34
    +8
    The civil war in the states was for loot, the liberation of the blacks was an episode, an operation that was supposed to destroy the economy of the southern states, since it was not possible to crush them with military force on the fly. By the mid-19th century, the US was divided into an industrial north, an agricultural south, and no west. The South sold cotton to England and with the proceeds bought cheap and high-quality English goods. Since there was no income tax at that time, customs duties from the south made up a large part of the federal budget. At the same time, the federal authorities ignored the opinion of the southern states, and the north wanted to buy its products, not English. When the south was once again sent, it, absolutely legally, announced its secession. At first they agreed with this, but then they realized that without the south the states had no money and decided to return it to the stall, since the north and the population have more, and there is industry. However, the south suddenly began to beat the northerners. It was then that a decree was issued on the release of blacks.
  10. ee2100
    ee2100 21 March 2021 10: 50
    +7
    The main reason for the civil war in the United States is economic, and slavery arrived later.
    The northern, richer and more industrialized states began to impose their will on the southern states, agricultural from whom to buy equipment and to whom to sell products.
    In fact, the southerners were forced to buy less-quality and expensive agricultural equipment from the northerners, when the European one was cheaper and its quality was higher.
    Similarly, with agricultural products of the southerners. They could sell them only within the states at a dumping price, for the same northerners.
    When a person bought a slave for himself, he hoped for income from his acquisition and naturally he took care of him (fed, treated, clothed, etc.) when the off-season came, he continued to take care of him, and in the north other economic relations arose between the employer and an employee. There is work - we pay, no - good bye!
    1. Lynx-z
      Lynx-z 21 March 2021 15: 21
      0
      Quote: ee2100
      the ships arrived later.

      whose ships and where did they sail?)
    2. Alf
      Alf 21 March 2021 22: 34
      +1
      Quote: ee2100
      When a person bought a slave for himself, he hoped for income from his acquisition and naturally he took care of him (fed, treated, dressed, etc.) when the off-season came, he continued to take care of him,

      Many people forget about this fact, and some do not want to know. Plus, a healthy black paradise in the states cost up to $ 1000, which was very expensive.
  11. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 21 March 2021 12: 09
    +1
    Da zdravstvuyut KSHA!
  12. Bryanskiy_Volk
    Bryanskiy_Volk 21 March 2021 13: 29
    +1
    Could write on the site a better note about this historical event. And the above information stub only continues to multiply the myths about the causes and results of American Civil War.
    For example, literally on the first page of a search engine on the network, a much more interesting, informative, short analytical article was found: AiF "American legend. 7 main myths about the Civil War in the United States"
    https://aif.ru/society/history/amerikanskaya_legenda_7_glavnyh_mifov_o_grazhdanskoy_voyne_v_ssha#
  13. iouris
    iouris 21 March 2021 14: 52
    +2
    Considering the contradictions between different capitalist groupings as antagonism is a strong stretch. The need to abolish slavery (values!), As always, was used to cover up the true motives. This is called hypocrisy (these are Protestants!). Negroes remained Negroes.
    1. ee2100
      ee2100 21 March 2021 15: 57
      +2
      This is how I write - the main thing is money. And then they came up with the entourage. That in one, then the other army fought for 20% (about) blacks.
      1. iouris
        iouris 21 March 2021 16: 56
        0
        If there is a war, then 20% of Russians will fight for NATO.
        1. ee2100
          ee2100 21 March 2021 17: 40
          0
          Interesting approach! Will NATO entrust weapons to the Russians? She is such a memory ... at the genetic level.
          As I understand it, you live in Latvia, and I live in Tallinn, so we had several spy scandals and everything with the Russians in the service of the Estonian republic.
  14. Revolver
    Revolver 21 March 2021 19: 32
    +3
    About slavery is politically correct nonsense. The main disagreements were customs tariffs and the use of ports.
    The North, as the more industrialized one, insisted on increasing customs duties on imported industrial goods, mainly British. The South, as the main consumer of manufactured goods, wanted them to be reduced.
    The North has pushed through laws that trade in cotton and tobacco (the staples of the South) must go through the port and New York Mercantile Exchange. Accordingly, the North had a share from transshipment and loading, and most importantly from sales. The South wanted to export directly to Europe (mainly, again, to Britain) through their ports. By the way, the northerners did not just destroy and burn the southern port of Savannah (GA).
    Lincoln issued the Declaration of the Emancipation of the Slaves not at the beginning of the war (1861-04-12), but on 1863-01-01, when it seemed that the South was winning. And he did this not for the good of the slaves, but with the aim of undermining the economy of the South. Which he did.
    As later and on another occasion (and it seems that he did not come up with it himself, but at the suggestion of the electoral advisor), but it is quite applicable to the Civil War, said Bill Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid! (It's about the economy, you fool!").
    1. Alf
      Alf 21 March 2021 22: 37
      +1
      Quote: Nagan
      The main disagreements were customs tariffs and the use of ports.

      The basis for the existence of capitalism is the development and seizure of new markets, and here, to the south, there are huge undeveloped spaces.
  15. Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 22 March 2021 11: 13
    0
    Quote: paul3390
    And the overwhelming majority of the Confederates did not have any slaves ..

    By the way, among the northerners there were also slave states.
    So that "human rights" then, that now, it is more a tool and a screen for coercion of the disobedient under a specious pretext.
  16. monster
    monster 22 March 2021 17: 59
    0
    For the Confederates! For Robert Lee! For the staff of a lonely star!
  17. akinak-f
    akinak-f 26 March 2021 11: 34
    0
    Here's another contradiction between the North and the South was not mentioned. Earth. The planters of the South needed land. Cotton (the main product of the South) and tobacco quickly deplete the soil. As a result, the planters needed more and more land in order not to lose profits. On the other hand, there are the railway companies of the North. The point is that, according to the laws of the (then) USA, the strip of land along the railway belonged to ... the railway company. And the width of this strip ... (drum roll !!!) - 10 (!!!) miles (!!!). Railway companies made incredible profits by speculating in land. And they were eager to go to the South, which they (railway companies) mastered relatively less - for new markets - lands - profits. In general, everything again rested on MONEY. And the movement for some rights of some blacks is just sea foam on the crest of a tsunami, just an ideological cover ...
  18. mmaxx
    mmaxx 27 March 2021 18: 12
    0
    The expansion of the US territory was also one of the reasons. And, to put it mildly, the debate about whether to spread slavery to the new states. Here interests are mixed. Political, economic and ideological. The northerners needed one thing, the southerners needed another, and all this was superimposed on religious intolerance in terms of the prevention of slavery.
    For some reason, the current BLM do not remember that it was not Negroes who gave their lives for the freedom of Negroes, but whites. Who with religious fanaticism went to death for the freedom of slaves. And it was.
    It was here that the split of the States took place. In fact, the northerners initially (and Lincoln in particular) did not encroach on slavery in the southern states themselves. It was just about the new states. Perhaps, if it had been agreed upon and there would have been no civil war. Now the situation is similar. This is precisely the split of the country according to interests.