What are the subjective and objective reasons for the outbreak of the American Civil War?

The first reason is that I don't want Britain to support the South. The North declared the abolition of slavery, and Britain could not support a country with slavery (but as mentioned above, the North actually "abolished" slavery in the South). The second reason is to let slaves escape. As you said, more slaves should escape. Because there were many slaves who escaped at that time, all of them were at the front. Benjamin F. Butler, the northern general at that time, creatively left these slaves as workers and dug trenches, which became the confirmation bill of 186 1. The Declaration on Abolition of Slavery is a continuation of this point.

This phenomenon implies that the blacks themselves played a huge role: the civil war was a white war, which was related to whether the southern states could secede from the Union. White people don't think this is a war to solve slavery. Only the black slaves thought so, and realized from the beginning that this war was about their freedom. So they used mass escape to change the nature of the war. In the end, the Declaration on Abolition of Slavery largely acknowledged the status quo of the war zone.

The third reason is that white people think they have died too much.

It's not worth letting such an "excellent" white man die for such a thing. So I began to consider letting black people join the army, although there was great resistance. The fact is that the north is about to break the slavery in the south. Most emerging western cities chose to abolish slavery, shipping was prohibited by law, Lincoln came to power again, and the south had to resort to force. Tariffs: High tariffs make overseas imports expensive. If you buy foreign goods, you have to pay more. This is like buying an ipad, which has nothing to do with whether you buy a domestic cottage or not. At that time, Britain was far more industrialized than the United States, and its products were cheaper than those produced by the United States itself. Whigs should have no clear position on the abolition of slavery. At most, they are morally opposed, but legally recognized.

In fact, with the political characteristics of the United States, as long as an issue is not the focus of the whole people's attention, many candidates will adjust their positions according to the characteristics of their constituencies.

Democratic candidate: When slavery was abolished, all parties in the north had to take a stand on this issue. Due to the situation in the north, the leaders of the Democratic Party in the north should also approach/compromise with the abolitionists. At least, the road to abolishing slavery should not be blocked. But the south is unwilling to compromise at this time, so they can't reach a compromise internally. However, they don't want to quit the Democratic Party, which is split in nature. However, the Democrats in the north do not want war or independence in the south. They are in a very complicated and embarrassing situation. Black people are indispensable in the underground railway.

. But it really emerged as a large-scale political force after the outbreak of war.

One is that a large number of black slaves escaped from the south and were taken in by the northern army, which helped the north to change its attitude towards runaway slaves to some extent (as if some confiscation cases had been passed) and contributed to the transformation to the abolition of slavery bill. The other is that after the abolition of slavery laws, a large number of blacks finally joined the army.

1. Compared with the abolition of slavery in the United States and Britain, the cost of the whole process is much lower.

I searched the information about the price of slaves at that time. It is reported that in 1800, the price of a young and strong slave "Optimus Prime Tian Shou" was less than 400 dollars. By 1857, the price had risen to 1500 USD, about 3% of that in 2000. There is also a saying that "the price of adult slaves at that time was 500- 1500 dollars". 3. In addition, "3,000 dollars is equivalent to the salary of ordinary people for three years at that time", and this "salary of ordinary people" is understood as "the average salary of freemen engaged in other occupations in southern States".

The average domestic slave is actually a servant. This kind of people are few and the cost is not high, and there are ready-made ones on the market. Generally speaking, people choose to be liberated after their master dies, or they are nominally liberated but stay at home and work first. They wanted to be slaves in England and slaves in new york, and many of them came. However, after the death of systematic slaves in southern plantations, the important assets left to future generations could not be dispersed. Specifically, Thomas Jefferson, who was heavily in debt after his death, had to sell his slaves.

However, sugarcane plantations in Britain are different from those in North America. The sugar industry is manual labor, and only men are hard-working, so workers change rapidly and need to be constantly injected with new workers. Therefore, slaves can not be said to be fixed assets, but can be said to be an expense. In this way, once slaves are abolished, they are just workers who want to enter another place. For example, as soon as slaves were abolished, they were immediately overwhelmed by coolies.

What is the reason behind the North's support for the abolition of slavery, so that years of unremitting struggle eventually led to the outbreak of war?

The awakening of religion and some political struggles, religion should be an auxiliary factor of war, and political struggle is a manifestation. The abolition of slavery itself should not bring direct economic benefits to the north, but what are the "reasons" for the abolition of slavery in the north and what are the direct benefits-politics, economy and military? For northerners, abolishing slavery is a matter of face. They care about politics, not black people. That's why they consider sending black people back to Africa: it's a loss. Economically, the abolition of slavery in the north basically made the loss of slave owners minimum, rather than how to give black people equal rights quickly.

So I said that the abolition of slavery did not bring direct economic benefits to the north, and the main strategy was to limit, not abolish.

The direct cause of the civil war was not the abolition of slavery in the north. In the end, Lincoln announced the abolition of slavery, which was a political choice that could not be made under the unpredictable situation of war. A phenomenon reflected in this incident is that the American people, even whites, have great conflicts in their concepts, and there have been great conflicts and contradictions from the beginning. The American people are not monolithic.

The seeds of division were planted from the beginning, and the war was only the last outbreak of contradictions.

They thought they could solve it slowly, but it backfired. They think that/kloc-the constitution stipulated that slaves should not be imported at the beginning of the 9th century, which would make slavery disappear, but make the value of slaves soar, resulting in not only commodities, but also the most important property.

Ironically, the economic loss of the civil war actually exceeded the value of slaves. In other words, if both sides pay to buy out all slaves and become free men, the cost will be lower than fighting a war. But, of course, this is absolutely impossible. Another analysis shows that the abolition of slaves in the north is actually a process in which slaves redeem their own values through their own labor. In the end, these slaves bought their freedom.

The germination of northern capitalism leads to ideological enlightenment, while advanced production provides material guarantee for the realization of thought. This requires at least three generations of transformation. During this period, the contradiction between consumer market and labor demand will gradually strengthen with the development of the North. The significance and value of these contradictions cannot be denied because of the large-scale opening up later. The whole story is that an advanced thing has grown up and defeated the backward tradition. Simply put, because they are competitive in the market. Not only the two, but also Italian immigrants, Norwegian immigrants and Swedish immigrants are all in such a competitive relationship. To a great extent, the social security system in the United States was not perfect at that time, which made ordinary people, especially new immigrants, rely on traditional ethnic communities to provide basic employment and security.

The economic base determines the superstructure. In fact, it was the plantation economy of the southern slave owners that hindered the development of capitalism in the north. The north needs industrial raw materials to develop production, while the south exports these raw materials. North Korea needs to raise tariffs to protect its industry, while South Korea wants to lower tariffs to import goods from other countries. President Lincoln who supported the abolition of slavery only lit the fuse. The contradiction between the two sides has long been irreconcilable.

Lincoln submitted the emancipation proclamation to the cabinet.

In fact, there are many analyses on the differences between the North and the South in concept and economy, but these only constitute the differences and conflicts between the two sides, and it is still unknown whether the national division is inevitable. Even though the North always pretends to be merciful, criticizes slavery and isolates the South politically by various means, hasn't the South considered gradually accepting this fact and changing it slowly, at least the North hasn't forced them to change it immediately? However, it was the south that first proposed separation, and the north was forced to fight for the maintenance of unity. What did the South think at that time? Is it necessary to settle differences through independence?

The strategy of the south is to hold a group, and all States will hold a group and get at least one and a half electoral votes.

This is a great temptation. Any candidate will realize that if he has the support of the south, he only needs to win a few more northern States, and the president will get it. Therefore, in those years, most presidents supported the South.

Until Lincoln.

Many people have the impulse of revolutionary heroism because of this great change, and finally the abolition of slavery has become the greatest social achievement of a great war. But in fact, the abolition of slavery is not the biggest theme of this war. The biggest theme is the overall interests of the alliance, that is, the interests of the American nation that was later determined to be born. The original sin of the war was that the earliest constitution was not written, and slaves also accounted for the electoral votes in the general election. This allowed the South to compete with the North politically until the East and the West joined forces to overwhelm the South, but by this time decades had passed and it was too late. This is a constitutional issue, too basic to be solved, so we must fight. It also shows that the previous way of solving various internal disputes from local and state levels through bit by bit expansion is limited in ability.

Because there were about 2 million casualties in the civil war, you know, the population of the United States was only over 20 million at that time. So I thought of Marx's comments on the civil war, which probably meant that the civil war was a textbook demonstration of the development law of human society. I have never been able to understand it well, but now I really think it is too incisive. This law is that productivity determines the mode of production, which in turn affects the development of productivity. The emerging bourgeoisie and capitalism in the north represent advanced productive forces, but their social and political status is very low. So they challenged the old mode of production in various forms, such as religious conflict, cultural conflict, political conflict and war conflict. Especially political conflicts, in fact, the rise of the Communist Party and the rise of the Party are the reasons for the changes in the economic base, and a large number of bourgeoisie and industrial workers have become their new voters. However, the planters in the south represented the elites at that time, and the political struggle in the north challenged their lives. It was not a simple slavery, but a continuation of the colonial economy of plantation economy. This contradiction is irreconcilable. So there is no room for coordination and compromise.

In fact, Lincoln's party is not unwilling to compromise, but is going to war step by step. Moreover, the decisive role of productive forces can break the beams of all superstructures, including Lincoln's vote to abolish slavery. As reflected in that film, there is a lot of evidence that there is bribery. Moreover, in the movie, the southern negotiators all said that if the south voted, this amendment could not be passed. Plus it's illegal to wage war. But because of these acts that broke the legal framework and created the rise of American capitalism, who does not recognize Lincoln's greatness in abolishing slavery? In other words, the old superstructure is too stable, which inhibits the emerging productivity. For example, the superstructure of China's feudal society is so powerful that the contradiction between socialized large-scale production mode and it has not been fundamentally solved. Our corruption problem is actually the extreme embodiment of feudal official standard.

The real root is the contradiction between the emerging bourgeoisie and the old plantation owners. General Grant himself is not very opposed to slavery, and he has bought several female slaves himself. This shows that slavery was not the main contradiction in society at that time. What really makes the two sides stand on the opposite side is the economic interests of their respective representative classes. In addition to tariffs, it is more important to compete for means of production and resources. Before the abolition of slavery, Lincoln also promulgated a new land development system, which attracted a large number of new immigrants from the middle and lower classes and robbed the newly added land in the western region. Before Lincoln came to power in the United States, the separatist forces in the southern United States had declared independence and established a confederation. At that time, the president of the United States did not take drastic measures in the face of division, but let it go.

Although economic contradictions are the root cause of the civil war, the United States is still a federal country, not a loose economic union like the European Union. The prosperity of the southern economy is based on the colonial economy, not that the federal government can't reconcile it, because this contradiction itself can't reconcile it. Before the war broke out, the emerging bourgeoisie dominated by the North did not have a high political status, but gradually used various resources to gain political advantages, including religious awakening, the emergence of political parties and winning the presidential election. The final war should be an economic confrontation and an irreconcilable political evolution, which can also explain why the war is still going on so resolutely at such a huge cost.

As far as I know, apart from slavery, the causes of the American Civil War are more important. The industrial capital and financial capital in the north need to bring the south and the newly developed territories into a whole market, so that human resources, commodities and capital can flow freely as a whole. However, the economic base based on slavery in the South is incompatible with this requirement. What the northern capital wants is the south after capitalist industrialization, not the south based on slavery. Therefore, southerners say that they are fighting to defend the way of life they know. The American Civil War should be the inevitable result of the further advancement of the industrial revolution in the North American continent. In fact, the result is to drive a large number of labor and precipitated capital out of the land and integrate them into industrial production organizations. Even I think this is the American version of land reform or enclosure movement. One result is the almost unshakable hegemony of the United States in agriculture. And the evolution and changes of various ideologies, I think, are actually new collective consciousness produced by passive or active changes of social organization system in the process of industrialization.