Seizing the territory of economically and politically less developed countries for the purpose of political domination and economic exploitation.
The colonial era began with the conquest in 1402-05. Canary Islands by the Frenchman J. de Betancourt. In con. 15th century the Portuguese (B. Dias, V. da Gama) opened the route to India around the southern tip of Africa, and the Spaniards (X. Columbus) - American continent. According to the Spanish-Portuguese agreement in Tordesillas (1494), the whole world was divided into 2 zones - Portuguese (Africa, Asia, Brazil) and Spanish (North and South America). After the first trip around the world F. Magellan (1519-22), it was supplemented by the Treaty of Saragossa (1529), according to which Oceania and the Philippine Islands were included in the Spanish possessions.
European colonialists in America
In 1505-06. The Portuguese began to create a colonial empire in the zone assigned to them (see article Portuguese colonial empire). Lacking significant human and material resources, they limited themselves to capturing key points along the coast and by 1560 had created a chain of possessions from the mouth of the Senegal River to Macau in Southeast China, bringing the spice route and trade with Japan under their control. From 1530 they began colonizing Brazil.
In 1508, the Spaniards began the conquest of the West Indies and Central America, and in 1524 - South America (see article Spanish colonial empire). By 1560 they had conquered the main islands of the West Indies, Mexico, Central America, and northern and western South America.
Pitcairn Island. The last colony of Great Britain.
Attempts by other European countries in the 16th century. to create their own colonial empires failed. The French were unable to gain a foothold in Canada, Brazil and Florida, and the British were unable to gain a foothold in Virginia. But the weakening of Spain and Portugal allowed them, as well as the Dutch, to expand from the beginning. 17th century colonial expansion. In the 1st half. 17th century The Dutch achieved particular success, knocking out the Portuguese from Indonesia and the island of Ceylon, taking away part of Brazil from them, gaining a monopoly in trade with Japan, and gaining a foothold in southern Africa, on the east coast North America and the northern coast of the South (Guiana) (see article: Dutch colonial empire). The French began to colonize Canada (see article French Colonial Empire), the British - Virginia, Maryland and New England (see article British Colonial Empire). Actively using piracy (see Art. Corsairs), England, France and Holland gradually ousted the Spaniards from the West Indies. In the 2nd half. 17th century The Dutch began to cede primacy in colonial rivalry to the French and British, who settled on the southwestern (Malabar) and southeastern (Coromandel) coasts of India and entered into the struggle for North America. K con. 17th century France subjugated Canada and the Mississippi Valley, and England subjugated the eastern coast of the continent and the Hudson Bay region.
18th century was marked by a decisive battle between the British and French for supremacy of the seas. By 1763, Great Britain had broken the colonial power of France and seized its colonies in India and North America. North American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 effectively ended the expansion of the British in North America, which prompted them to concentrate their efforts on the conquest of Hindustan. In the 1750-60s. they established control over the East, and in the 1790s. - over South India. In 1788 they began to colonize Australia.
As a result of the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1814), most of the remaining colonies of the French and Dutch (Cape Colony, Ceylon, Western Guiana) passed to Britain. France retained only the mouth of Senegal, Eastern Guiana and several islands in the Caribbean Sea and Indian Ocean, Holland - Indonesia and Central Guiana (Suriname).
A strong blow to European colonialism was dealt by the War of Independence of Spanish America of 1810-1826, which ended with the fall of Spain's colonial rule in all of its American colonies, except Cuba and Puerto Rico. In 1822, Brazil was freed from Portuguese rule. All of South and Central America, except Guiana and British Honduras (Belize), fell out of colonial system.
In the 1st half. 19th century The British completed the conquest of Hindustan: having eliminated the Maratha Federation (1817), they subjugated Central India, and in 1843-49. captured Northwestern India (Sindh, Kashmir, Punjab). Lower Burma was also annexed (1824-1852).
The British expanded their holdings in other regions of the world. In the 2nd quarter of the 19th century. they intensified the development of Australia; in 1839 they occupied the port of Aden, which became the base of their expansion on the Arabian Peninsula; in 1840 the conquest of New Zealand began.
In 1830, having occupied Northern Algeria, France resumed its policy of colonial conquest. During the Second Empire (1851-1870), it captured the Lower Senegal valley, Cambodia, Cochin China (South Vietnam) and the island of New Caledonia in the Pacific Ocean.
The culmination of the colonial era was the period 1880-1912, when the European powers, Japan and the United States carried out the division of undivided territories in Africa, Asia and Oceania. North Africa was divided between France (Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco), Italy (Libya) and Britain (Egypt). Most of West Africa went to the French, the rest to the Spaniards (Western Sahara), the British (Nigeria, Ghana, Gambia, Sierra Leone) and the Germans (Togo). Equatorial Africa was divided by France (Congo, Gabon, between the Ubangi and Shari rivers), Germany (Cameroon; see article German colonial empire) and Belgium (Zaire; see article Belgian colonial empire). The main part of South Africa, except for German South-West Africa and the Portuguese colonies of Mozambique and Angola, was received by Britain. East Africa was divided between the British (Kenya) and the Germans (Tanganyika, Rwanda, Burundi), Northeast Africa - between the British (Sudan, British Somalia) and the Italians (Eritrea, Italian Somalia). Madagascar went to the French.
In Asia, the British subjugated Southern and Eastern Arabia, divided Persia into spheres of influence with the Russians, conquered Balochistan, established a protectorate over Afghanistan, captured Upper Burma, most of the Malay Peninsula and North Kalimantan. The French established control over Central and Northern Vietnam, Laos and the eastern regions of Siam (Thailand). China in 1898 was divided into zones of influence between Germany, Britain, France, Russia and Japan.
As a result of defeat in the Spanish-American War (1898-1899), Spain lost its last possessions in the West Indies, Asia and Oceania: Cuba gained independence, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands and the island of Guam went to the United States, Micronesia to Germany.
By 1906, the division of Oceania was completed. Its western part was received by Germany, the central part by Britain, the northeastern part by the USA, and the southwestern and southeastern parts by France.
As a result, by 1914, most of the planet was occupied by colonial empires. The collapse of the colonial system occurred after the Second World War of 1939-1945.
The foundations of American statehood began to take shape during the period of colonial dependence on England. During this period, two major stages were distinguishable in its evolution: before and after the English Glorious Revolution of 1688. At the first stage, three types of colonies arose - royal, proprietary (founded by large English feudal lords) and corporate. In all three types, the principles of representative government arose and took root, embodied primarily in the activities of elected assemblies created in all colonies. There was a clear tendency to strengthen not only the principles of representative government in each of the colonies, but also their self-government, that is, weakening dependence on the English overlords and state institutions. It would seem that the English Glorious Revolution of 1688 should have further consolidated these principles, but in reality after it political development North America has proven to be more controversial than before. On the one hand, the strengthening of the positions of parliamentarism, liberalism and constitutionalism in England itself led to the spread of democratic attitudes in the worldview and political culture of the Americans, who viewed themselves as the same Englishmen, but who had just moved to the New Council. On the other hand, however, after 1688, paradoxically, there was an increase in the colonial dependence of North America on England, which resulted in an increase in the political governance of the North American provinces of undemocratic features.
Although in England itself after 1688 the prerogatives of the monarch sharply weakened, in North America they, on the contrary, increased, and the power of his counterweight in the New World - local assemblies - began to be infringed. The English monarchy began not only to restore order in the royal colonies, but also to expand the latter at the expense of proprietary colonies. TO mid-18th century V. Only three proprietary colonies remained in North America - Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Two corporate colonies remained - Rhode Island and Connecticut. The remaining eight colonies were royal. The executive power of English monarchs in North America was exercised through governors, and the legislative power through royal instructions. In general, the monarch personified the political power of the mother country in relation to the colonies. True, over time, parliament began to interfere in the administration of the colonies, but its intervention did not at all contribute to the liberalization of colonial orders. Westminster's attempts to legislate against Americans have become especially frequent since Seven Years' War 1756-1763 and, like royal decrees and instructions, they limited the rights and freedoms of Americans.
By formal standards, the American colonies in the 18th century. embodied the system of “mixed government” so revered in England. According to the description of a contemporary, the power in the colonies in the “person of the governor, representing the king, was monarchical, in the person of the Council - aristocratic, in the person of the House of Representatives or elected people - democratic” Sogrin V.V. Critical directions of non-Marxist historiography of the USA of the 20th century. M., 1987. . But the relationship and real significance of these authorities in North America had serious differences from England.
A key figure in the administration of the colonies in the 18th century. was the governor. In the corporate colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut, governors were elected by assemblies; in all others, they were appointed either by the English monarch or the owners of the colonies. The governors of the royal and proprietary colonies had full power executive power, and also retained extensive legislative powers, above all, they had the right of absolute veto over decisions of the colonial assemblies, as well as the right to convene and dissolve legislative assemblies. Finally, the governors had full judicial power: they created colonial courts, appointed judges at all levels and executors of court decisions, and granted pardons and amnesties for all types of crimes.
Colonial councils acted as the second branch of American mixed government. Appointed by governors, the latter combined both executive and legislative powers: on the one hand, they were like ministerial offices under the governors, helping them in all matters, on the other hand, they acted as the upper house of the legislative branch, having the right of veto in relation to decisions of the lower chambers. The councils also assisted governors in making judicial decisions. In general, the councils were part of the “monarchical” rather than an independent “aristocratic” branch.
If such a huge number of powers were in the hands of the “monarchical” branch, then what was left for the “democratic” branch and can we talk about its real significance? This problem gave rise to a wide and lengthy debate among American researchers. In the second half of the 20th century. the most authoritative researchers, among them J. Green, J. Pole, B. Beilin, E. Morgan, came to the conclusion that the power of the colonial assemblies, while formally inferior to the power of governors, actually constantly increased, acquiring real influence. The influence of the assemblies was based mainly on the fact that they managed, step by step, to concentrate in their hands the power over finances and the budget, making the governors dependent on all their expenditures. Assemblies everywhere received the right to impose taxes, determine the annual budget of the colonies, and set salaries for all officials including the governor himself. Using the financial dependence of the executive branch on the legislative branch, the assemblies repeatedly forced governors to approve certain bills, appoint the people they needed to various positions, and make decisions that suited them. All this, however, does not negate the facts of pressure from governors on assemblies: their subordination, dissolution, postponement of meetings, imposition of relevant decisions and appointments on them. The relationship between the assemblies and the governors turned into an endless battle in which, as colonial experience showed, the assemblies had no chance of a decisive victory.
In historiography, one of the controversial questions has always been the question of how democratic the “democratic branch” of political power in the colonies was. In the first half of the 20th century, the prevailing opinion of progressive historians was the relative narrowness of the American electorate and, consequently, the undemocratic nature of the colonial political system. From the middle of the 20th century. There was a widespread school of consensus view that up to 90% participated in elections in colonial America. adult white men and the entrenchment of “middle class democracy” within it. On modern stage the view prevailed, first substantiated by Charles Williamson, that 50 to 75% of adult white men enjoyed suffrage in the colonies Political power, democracy and oligarchy in North America during the colonial era. New and recent history. 2001. . The voting body in North America was certainly more democratic than in England, but if we consider that adult white males constituted about 20% of the American population, then we can conclude that it constituted between 10 and 15% of the population and therefore , was quite narrow.
The question of the degree of democracy of the American statehood of the colonial period involves an analysis not only of how wide the electoral corps was, but also of whether it had real influence on power. The totality of accumulated historical science The data allows us to conclude that not only in the “monarchical” branch of the colonial government, but also in the “democratic” branch, power was concentrated in the hands of a narrow circle of the provincial elite.
If the lists of the colonial councils consisted of 90% of the names of the “first families” of America, then in the provincial assemblies, elected bodies, at least 85% were people from the top 10% of colonial society.
Moreover, nepotism was also characteristic of elected assemblies, so that from generation to generation a narrow circle of people bearing the same surnames sat in them. The elite nature of the elected assemblies was explained by the fact that the property qualification for deputies was several levels (in some colonies 10 times) higher than for voters, and by the fact that, according to the norms of American political culture of that time, only wealthy people deserved election to public office and from respected families.
In general, we can conclude that during the colonial period of American statehood, its representative democratic principles remained underdeveloped and were in a subordinate position in relation to the elite oligarchic principles. Formation of the American state. St. Petersburg.. 1992. . At the same time, the conservation of elite-oligarchic principles was determined, first of all, by the colonial dependence of North America on England, and its elimination was the main condition for the rooting and development of democracy. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the anti-colonial revolution that broke out in 1775 served powerful impulse profound internal political transformations and marked the beginning of the second and, in system-forming terms, the main period of formation of American statehood.
In early modern times in the European economy, the agricultural sphere of production still sharply predominated over industry; Despite a number of technical discoveries, manual labor dominated everywhere. Under these conditions, economic factors such as labor, the scale of the labor market, and the level of professionalism of each employee acquired particular importance. Demographic processes had a noticeable impact on economic development in this era.
Extension scientific knowledge gave impetus rapid development industry and trade in Europe, the emergence of new forms of financial systems, banking and credit. The main trade routes moved from the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean.
The most important consequence of the discovery and colonization of new lands was the “price revolution,” which gave new impetus to the initial accumulation of capital in Europe and accelerated the formation of the capitalist structure in the economy.
However, the consequences of colonization and the conquest of new lands were ambiguous for the peoples of the metropolises and colonies. The result of colonization was not only the development of new lands, it was accompanied by the monstrous exploitation of conquered peoples, doomed to slavery and extinction. During the conquest, many centers of ancient civilizations were destroyed, the natural course was disrupted historical development entire continents, the peoples of colonized countries were forcibly drawn into the emerging capitalist market and with their labor accelerated the process of formation and development of capitalism in Europe.
3 periods of colonial expansion:
Stage 1:The period of commercial colonialism (from the beginning of the 16th to the mid-18th century): goods from the colonies were exported and distributed in Europe
Goals: obtain goods and establish a monopoly on them. Trade between East and West. It was accompanied by subjugation and even a certain deformation of the economy in some countries (India, Indonesia), as well as mass enslavement of people (Africa, partly Indonesia).
This stage can be associated with the activities of Portugal
The countries of the East were attractive because they had accumulated a large number of jewelry. But even with sufficient conditions for the development of capitalism in the East, it could not arise there, because it rejected the traditional dominance of the state and put forward the free market and private property as an alternative. This is a contradiction centuries-old traditions also caused resistance to the European system in colonial countries.
(Not sure if this is necessary) Economic stagnation of the East:
9) In the East, there were no prerequisites based on private property
The goal is consumption => not profit
10) The form of the state is despotism. There is no legal mechanism for the transfer of power. The individual has no rights.
11) The strength of power depended on the ability to successfully manage the common property.
12) The power of the sovereign in the East has a mystical origin, there is no legal formalization of power => hypertrophy of power. Therefore, violence, terror, fear in society.
13) In all Eastern religions, the role of mysticism is great. The state is something abstract and incomprehensible => passivity of the population due to religion
14) Neighborhood with an aggressive nomadic world, which weakened and disorganized the states.
15) The city is integrated into the system of feudal economic relations more organically than in the West. Europe => suppression of economic initiative
16) Uneven distribution of national income
In Eastern countries, everything is social. layers and groups, phenomena and institutions, subsystems were well adjusted to each other, so there could be no disagreements. Consequently, they could exist for a very long time.
Strong states, their reaction
1636 - Japan closes down. Absolute isolation.
1686 - Closure of Thailand.
1624 - China is almost closed, with only 4 ports for trade. Then - 1 port of Guangzhou. Compradors – those who trade with Europeans.
Weak states
Indonesia, India – willing trade with Europe.
Results for Europe:
Merchant capital turns into industrial capital
Depreciation of ground rent
Impoverishment of the aristocracy
Growth of entrepreneurial strata
Price revolution
The formation of the world commodity market.
Stage 2: Colonialism of the era of industrial capital\colonialism of the period of the industrial revolution (second half of the 18th - late 19th centuries): the main method of exploitation of the colonies and the entire non-European world was the export of European goods to these countries
Differences: 1) wide territorial coverage
2) Asian countries are a market for European goods.
Reasons for conquering territories:
Weak statehood of the countries of the East (India, Indonesia, Burma)
Military weakness of states
Lack of a sense of patriotism and national unity
Lack of understanding by the highest circles of the true balance of power
Result: the colonies begin to pay for themselves
Balance change foreign trade
The main source of income in the metropolises is trade in the colonies
Enslavement of countries through unequal treaties => emergence of semi-colonies ( Ottoman Empire, Iran, China, Japan)
8) A huge jump in world trade. Restructuring Asia's foreign trade. Some countries have become monoculture (China - rice, Ceylon - coffee, sugar, rubber)
9) Pumping out funds from colonies and semi-colonies thanks to the active foreign trade balance of European countries.
10) Decline of local traditional industry (crafts) => agrarianization of the economy, reduction of the urban population
11) Semi-colonies
12) The capture of Asian markets caused significant growth in the European economy
13) Asia in the 19th century - primitive accumulation of capital
14) Eastern countries – accumulation of explosive potential. The emergence of traditionalist popular movements, reform and religious.
Stage 3: Colonialism in the era of imperialism\monopoly capital: the export of European capital there, the growth of investment, which led to the industrial development of non-European countries. The latter period falls into two phases, roughly separated by the First World War:
Triumph of the colonial system
System decomposition
The beginning of decomposition is associated with the Meiji era.
Features: -unrestrained seizure of territories;
Division of Africa;
The emergence of new colonies of Italy and Germany;
The rapid expansion of British and Russian Empire V Central Asia;
-emergence of capital export to colonial countries
Formation of colonial empires:
German Empire (1884-1918)
Italian colonial empire
Belgian Empire
Colonialism is the economic development of empty or sparsely populated lands, the settlement of migrants in overseas territories, who brought with them their usual organization of society, work and life and entered into very difficult relationships with the indigenous population, who were, as a rule, at a lower stage of development.
Colonization methods:
1) Gradual development of remote empty or sparsely populated lands, while the inhabitants of these lands are relegated to worse lands Creation of states according to European models (North America, Australia, New Zealand, African Boer Republic)
2) Migration to areas with a significant local population, where there were their own civilizations. It all depends on the level of development of civilizations. Weak statehood => destruction by colonialists. If we also take into account that these colonialists were not the British with their strong capitalist tendencies and the powerful spirit of Puritan Protestantism, but the Portuguese and Spaniards with feudal forms of relations and Catholicism prevailing among them, then it is easy to understand why the Latinization of South and Central America led to different results than the colonization of the North. A different composition of the population (Indians, a huge number of African blacks, not too many immigrants from Europe and, as a result, the predominance of mulattoes and mestizo), different traditions, a lower level of the starting point of development and a clear predominance of the traditional non-European path of development. Thus, society Latin America- a hybrid of European feudalism, Catholicism and Indian folk forms of existence.
This version of colonization did not lead to the rapid development of the colony, but still contained the potential for some development, at least due to the presence of a small, but still existing and playing a role, share of the European private entrepreneurial tradition, dating back to the ancient capitalist type of development.
3) Colonization of areas with unfavorable living conditions (Africa, Asia, Oceania)
In these frequent cases, the local population, regardless of its size, was predominant. Europeans turned out to be only a small inclusion in it, as was the case everywhere in Africa, Indonesia, Oceania and some on the Asian continent (although we will talk about the developed East later). The weakness, or even the almost complete absence of political administration and statehood here helped the colonialists easily and with minimal losses not only to gain a foothold in foreign lands in the form of a system of outposts, ports, trading colonies and quarters, but also to take control of all local trade, and even and almost the entire economy of the surrounding areas and impose your will on local residents, sometimes entire countries, your principle of free market relations
4) Countries with a centuries-old culture and tradition of statehood => everything depends on the strength of the state. They could only trade with the strong.
Various circumstances played a big role here: Europeans’ ideas about the wealth of a particular Eastern country, for example India, and real strength colonized country, i.e. its fortress state power, And traditional forms of one or another eastern civilization with their norms and principles, and much more, including chance, which has always played important role in history.
As part of the fourth option, the colonialists could neither create a structure according to the European model (as in the first), nor create a hybrid structure (as in the second), nor simply crush with their power and direct the life of the backward local population entirely along the desired path, as was the case in Africa , on the spice islands, etc. (option three). Here it was only possible to actively develop trade and gain benefits through market exchange. But at the same time - which is very significant - Europeans, with rare exceptions, had to pay in cash, gold and silver.
Portuguese colonialism in Africa and Asia (as opposed to America) was commercial in nature
The century of Portuguese domination in colonial Afro-Asian trade was relatively short-lived: Portugal’s share in the increasingly large and territorially expanding trade expansion of European colonialists in Africa and especially in Asia fell rapidly even after the 16th century. became completely insignificant. The Dutch came out on top. The 17th century, especially its first half, is the century of the Netherlands in the East. From the second half XVII c., after a series of successful Anglo-Dutch wars, England became next to Holland, gradually pushing it aside.
True, the Dutch contributed to the renewal of colonialism by founding in 1602 the united East India Company - a powerful administrative-economic super-organization under the political patronage of the metropolis, the purpose of which was to optimize the conditions for the successful exploitation of all Dutch colonies in the East (in 1621 for the Dutch colonies in In the West, mainly in America, the West India Company was created). A similar organization (East India Company) was created by the British, even earlier, in 1600, but only in the second half of the 17th century, after the British strengthened in a number of important points on the east and west coasts of India, this company gained a certain economic stability and, most importantly, some administrative rights - their armed forces and the ability to conduct military operations
Using the example of the Dutch and English East India Companies, one can see that at least in the 17th century. these were trade organizations of a capitalist nature with limited administrative rights. Practice has shown that this kind of rights was quite enough for the British in India and the Dutch in Indonesia to feel like actual masters
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Colonisation2.gif- territory capture map
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0 %BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8
2 types of colonial empires:
· Tellurocracy - continental empires annexed neighboring lands and included them within their borders for security purposes, immediately turned them into their provinces, guaranteed the operation of laws and currencies (Ottoman, Chinese, Russian, Austrian)
· Thalassocracy – colonial, maritime. Separated from their colonies by maritime objects. They did not seek to export development and law to the colonies. Different governments, currencies.
In what is now the United States, English-speaking settlements began in the early 17th century. These settlements were scattered throughout the East Coast of the country. Puritans took root in New England, Quakers settled in Pennsylvania, and English Catholics colonized Maryland. The earliest settlements occurred in what are now Virginia and Carolina.
The British, of course, were not the only nation to establish colonies in the New World. Spain and Portugal dominated the territories of modern Latin America and the islands of the Caribbean Sea.
The Spanish flag once flew over what is now Florida. Spain also owned the desert territories of the West and the western coast of the continent.
The Dutch who settled in New York were driven out by the British before 1700. The Dutch language and certain fragments of Dutch law remained in New York for quite a long period.
Some parts of Dutch law probably spread beyond New York. The institution of the prosecutor may have its origins in Dutch terminology. This issue is quite controversial. But no one disputes the fact that quite tangible traces of Spanish law continue to live, especially in the territories once governed by Spain. One more surviving detail must be mentioned: the local laws of the native tribes. The laws and customs of the natives of America sometimes still play some role on their scattered reservations.
These are all exceptions. Basically, American law comes from one source - English law. No other system of law really had a chance to establish itself in the United States, just as no other language other than English.
The common law system that arose in England - its traditions, methods and techniques - crossed the Atlantic and took root in this country.
Legal history books often focus on the “colonial period,” looking at the impact of various eras on American law, and may give an inaccurate impression of the period's dominance. First of all, more than 150 years passed between the landing of the first settlers on the continent at Plymouth Rock and the beginning of the Revolution. This is as long a period of time as between 1834 and 1984 - an interval full of significant social conflicts. The colonial period was not as volatile and rapidly changing, but it was quite long and quite complex. At least there were many different colonies spread across the country from New Hampshire to Georgia. Settlements lined up like beads on a necklace along the narrow coastline. Communication with them was extremely difficult. The connection with the homeland was even worse; An immense and turbulent expanse of water separated the colonies from England.
This was a very important factor.
In theory, Britain had complete control over the life of the colonies - the inhabitants of the colonies were subjects of the British crown. In reality, she could only influence her distant child to a very small extent. The British were too distant to exercise effective diktat, even when they really wanted to. -Also, at least at the beginning of the development of new lands, they had neither a coherent political program for the empire, nor a concept of how to govern distant lands.
For most of their history, therefore, the colonies (at least most of them) grew and developed independently of Britain.
Colonies can be roughly divided into three more or less different groups. The northern colonies - Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut - were the least obedient to English law.
The second group of colonies - New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware - stood in the middle between the North and the South, both from a legal and geographical point of view.
The southern colonies were the most consistent in regard to both law and the whole legal culture. They adhered more closely to English traditions.
Naturally, such differences between colonies were not accidental.
Puritan New England or Quaker Pennsylvania deliberately chose a different path from the path taken by Virginia or the Carolinas. Climate and soil quality also had an impact. In the South, mild winters allowed the development of various areas of agriculture and the creation of a plantation system. Black slaves were another exceptional aspect of Southern life. The first American slaves arrived in Virginia and other southern colonies before the mid-17th century. By the time of the Revolution, slaves made up 40% of Virginia's population.
There were no blacks in England and there was no section of law that legally prohibited slavery. The slave law was a purely American invention, based on various sources, and was strongly influenced by a sense of racial superiority, being implicated in the traditions of the West Indies and the southern colonies. Slavery also existed in the northern colonies; in New York, 10% of the population were slaves. There were slaves as far away as Massachusetts and New Hampshire. But slavery never dominated the northern productive system as it did in South.
Slaves in New York, for example, primarily worked not in manufacturing but as domestic servants.
Indeed, the North had thousands of “indentured servants.” Contract service was a type of temporary slavery. The agreements were a written document, in some way an employment contract, in which there were stipulations
The terms and conditions of slavery were redefined. Indentured servants were intended to serve their masters for a specified period: seven years was the most common period. During the contract, the servant did not receive a salary. During the specified period, the owner had the right to sell the servant, or, to be more precise, had the right to sell the right to the servant’s labor for the period remaining until the end of the contract, the Servant could not control these actions of transferring (selling) him to another owner, although some colonies and tried to prevent abuses by owners of indentured servants. When the contract expired, the servant, unlike the slave, became completely free. According to custom or law, a servant was not supposed to leave his master empty-handed: he had the right to “vacation pay.” Originally in Maryland, for example, they consisted of a coat, a headdress, an axe, a hoe, three barrels of grain, and (until 1663) 50 acres of land. Later, clothing, food, and money became more typical items (“grain, clothing, and wages”).
Quite a large amount of research has already been carried out on issues of the colonial legal system. Most of them concerned the northern colonies, especially Massachusetts. Indeed, the Massachusetts legal system is extremely interesting. It was very different from the English law used in the royal courts of London. Massachusetts law, in fact, appeared so strikingly different from English that scholars even debated among themselves whether it should even be considered a subset of the general family of English law.
Today this idea seems quite stupid. Despite some oddities in practice and language, it can be said with absolute certainty that the law of this colony is rooted in English law and English practice. Upon closer inspection, some of its features disappear, especially if we remember that the first colonists were not lawyers. The law they brought with them was not the law of the royal court, but only local law - the custom of their community. We can call it "people's law." Naturally, it differed from the old official law. The key elements in it were still English: after all, what else could the settlers know? In other words, their law was a version of the Creole dialect or pidgin English of common English law.
The details of colonial law are complex and difficult to understand, but their basic essence is easy to understand. Imagine a group of American college students who are shipwrecked and land on desert island. They need to build a new society. They form a kind of crude surrogate government and create some semblance of a legal system, different from those they left on the mainland. After all, on the island, most of the old legal system will be completely unnecessary.
For example, road rules will be of no use. On the other hand, the colonists would have to create a lot of new laws - rules about setting up a sentry post on the mountain that would try to signal ships passing by the island, laws about how to divide fish and how to organize the collection of shellfish in coastal waters, and so on. The people on the island will reproduce such parts of American law as they can recall and which will suit the new conditions of their life and the life of their new community. Ideology would also play a role. Much would depend on who the students who landed on the shore were, in their own way. political views, what part of the country they came from, what their religion is,
Colonial law was quite similar to the legal system created by shipwrecked people. It consisted of three parts: elements of the old law that came to mind, new laws created as a result of the urgent needs of life in new country, and legal elements formalized
influenced by the religious views of the settlers (for example, Puritanism in Massachusetts). If we take the Law and Liberties of Massachusetts, one of the earliest colonial legal publications (1648), we find dozens of examples of the application of these three characteristic parts. To begin with, we find all sorts of references to judges and juries, to documents such as wills, to the system of private property - all that was brought from England as part of the baggage of memory and custom of the colonists and was accepted almost unchanged.
On the other hand, life in this desert area required orders far from those that existed in Stuart England. Here, for example, there was a rule that prohibited the sale, as well as the gift, to “any Indian... of any... weapons or gunpowder, bullets or lead... or any military weapons and equipment” - a rule that, naturally, did not have its counterpart in England. Religion also played an important role. It was a community created by purely religious people. There was legal persecution of Jesuits, Anabaptists, and witches (“any man or woman... who... has contact with such spirits shall be severely punished”). There were laws that also persecuted heretics (“those who intend to undermine or destroy the Christian Faith and Religion by accepting or supporting any heresy”).
Massachusetts law was inevitably simpler than the common law of England. It was mostly stripped of the old technical details. These changes were made to simplify the application of the law in practice. English law in the 1600s was saddled with a lot of technicalities. The slow evolution of this law allowed it to take the form of a dense monolithic structure of irrational, overlapping elements - a crazy connection that developed over the centuries. Even a hundred lawyers could not claim to have a complete understanding of all elements of this law. Even if the settlers wanted to, they would hardly be able to duplicate such a system in full. Colonies in this sense always start with a clean slate.
Therefore, in essence, Massachusetts and the other colonies set out on their own path. For example, consider the royal law of primogeniture in England. According to it, if a landowner died without leaving a will, his lands became the property of his eldest son. Massachusetts has abandoned this practice. All children had the right of inheritance, although the eldest son received a double share as the other heirs. Most of the other northern colonies (Rhode Island and New York were exceptions) simply repealed the primogeniture law, and quickly. This law lasted much longer in the southern colonies: in Georgia it was abolished in 1777, in North Carolina in 1784, in Virginia in 1785. It is impossible to reject the idea that differences in land ownership depended significantly on the fate of the law of primogeniture. Only in the South were there large estates and plantations, and in New England, “the topography and lands dictated a small holding and a compact settlement.” This delayed the moment of abolition of the law of primogeniture, that is, in essence, the division of this property between all children.
The judicial system in England was as complex as the legal system, if not more so. Lord Coke, who described the court system as it was in the 17th century, needed an entire volume just to list and explain the differences between dozens of royal, local, ordinary, special courts - a labyrinth of jurisdiction into which plaintiff and defendant (and their lawyers) had to get involved somehow.
Such an irrational system would be simply ridiculous in the small, poor, constantly struggling settlements of the American coast. Massachusetts created a clear and simple court system, and so did the other colonies.
The structures of the courts were similar, although they were never completely identical in different groups of colonies. The differences were sometimes even striking. Massachusetts, for example, did not have “equity” courts, which were important
the most important (and perplexing) feature of law in England. South Carolina, on the other hand, had well-developed courts of this type.
In the 18th century, the legal system of both the North and South seemed to move somewhat closer to English law, that is, it was becoming more like the English model. This happened naturally and largely unconsciously, partly due to the influence of Britain on its colonies, which began to realize, with some surprise, that it was placed at the head of an empire and that it could control it. As you know, attempts to manage the colonies ended in complete failure. Britain's attempt at imperial pressure came too late. The colonists learned to govern themselves, and when England tried to impose new taxes, create new courts, and behaved accordingly like an imperialist, it caused a revolution. As a result, England lost a diamond piece of its empire.
But the desire to be more in keeping with the traditions of England also had natural sources. First of all, despite political differences, the colonies acquired ever closer trade ties with their homeland. The population grew significantly, new cities grew, and the colonists needed more developed laws based on their needs. This was especially true of trade law: merchants whose ships sailed to England, Jamaica and ports around the world increasingly demanded modern trade law, such as was practiced in England and the rest of the European world.
Cultural ties with England were also maintained. The lawyers who lived in the colonies were English, some actually received their profession in England. The legal materials they used were in English. Apart from collections of local laws, there were no books published in the colonies on questions of law that could be mentioned. All definitions and terminology were in English. All case books were in English. Anyone who wanted to learn anything about law had to study English editions, and these books, of course, talked about the English understanding of law, not the American one.
In 1756, William Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England was first published in England. It became a bestseller, but gained perhaps even greater success on the other side of the ocean. Blackstone had a clear and concise writing style. He was writing a book for English gentlemen, ordinary people who would like to know something about their laws. Americans, both ordinary people and lawyers, eagerly seized on this book, since they were an accessible key to the law of the ancestral homeland. The American edition was published in Philadelphia in 1771-1772. Blackstone would never have become so popular in this country if there had been anything like his book that described American law.
j The colonial period, firstly, is interesting in itself, and secondly, it illustrates one of important topics of this book: how social conditions shape a country's legal system. This principle is still valid today; it is also the “key to understanding the legal past.
The events of sixty years ago around the Suez Canal had a strong impact not only on the balance of power in the Middle East, but also on all world politics. The fifties of the twentieth century on a global scale were characterized by a further aggravation of “ Cold War“between the West and the socialist countries, and in the Middle East and North Africa, there was, not without the influence of the USSR, an unprecedented rise in Arab nationalism.
Egypt, the most powerful of the Arab countries, has been led since 1956 by Gamal Abdel Nasser, one of the most important Arab political figures of the 20th century. A nationalist and patriot of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser considered one of his most important tasks to be the nationalization of the Suez Canal, built in 1869 as a Franco-Egyptian project, but then came under the control of the British. For Britain, as well as the whole world, the Suez Canal was of great strategic importance, as it connected the Mediterranean Sea through the Red Sea with the Indian Ocean. If it were not for the Suez Canal, British ships would have to go to India, rounding the entire African continent.
The idea of nationalizing the Suez Canal was seen by Nasser as an excellent opportunity to unite the Egyptians, and at the same time strike a blow against the British and French who were hostile to the Egyptian government. France was dissatisfied with Egypt's open support for the national liberation movement in Algeria, and Great Britain did not want to come to terms with the loss of its influence on the country, which until recently had been a British protectorate.
On July 19, 1956, the United States and Great Britain withdrew their offer to finance the construction of the Aswan High Dam. For Egypt, this was not only an economic blow, but also a great insult. Shortly before the funding proposal was withdrawn, on June 13, 1956, the withdrawal of British troops from Egyptian territory was completed. Thus, an end was put to the long-term British political and military presence in this country. The withdrawal of British troops added advantages to the already very great popularity of Gamal Abdel Nasser both in Egypt itself and in the Arab world as a whole. He gained the reputation of a true fighter for the liberation of Arab countries from Western colonialism. Nasser chose the right time to begin nationalizing the canal - British troops had already withdrawn from the country and could not interfere with his plans, and the refusal of Great Britain and the United States to finance the construction of the Aswan Dam required a serious and impressive response from Egypt.
On July 26, 1956, Nasser made a statement in Alexandria on the nationalization of the Suez Canal. In his speech he touched on both financial and historical aspects. From an economic point of view, Nasser emphasized, nationalization is necessary to ensure the construction of the vital Aswan Dam, and from a historical point of view, it is the restoration of justice, liberation from the traces of British colonialism and a tribute to the memory of the 120 thousand Egyptians who died during the construction of the canal in the 19th century . Nasser's speech caused real delight in the Arab world. For the first time, the leader of a developing country went directly against the interests of Western powers.
Naturally, Great Britain and France immediately assessed the actions of Gamal Abdel Nasser as hostile, although Egypt paid compensation to the shareholders of the channel. Of course, the Egyptian president himself also understood that his actions could lead to escalation international tension, but did not believe in the possibility of an invasion of Anglo-French and, especially, Israeli troops into Egyptian territory. Moreover, in early October 1956, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that confirmed Egypt’s right to control the Suez Canal. But, as it turned out, Nasser was wrong - Great Britain, France and Israel entered into a secret agreement in Sevres on the preparation of military intervention. Moreover, Israel was attracted to participate in the coalition only later - on the initiative of France, since Great Britain had very tense relations with Israel, caused by the fact that back in 1947 Israel occupied the territories that London planned to give to Jordan.
It is likely that the initiative of Great Britain, France and Israel would have been crowned with success if not for the position of the United States. Washington was very unhappy with the excessive independence of the European powers, which, instead of focusing on confronting the Soviet Union in connection with the events in Hungary, were preparing an adventure against Egypt. In addition, the actions of Great Britain and France in alliance with Israel violated US plans to create an anti-Soviet coalition of Arab states in the Arab world.
After the invasion of Anglo-Franco-Israeli troops into Egypt, even the most hostile Arab countries towards the USSR would never support a pro-Western coalition. An adventure by London and Paris would turn the entire Arab world against the West and push it into the arms of the socialist camp. However, both Great Britain and France decided to act independently in this situation, without looking back at Washington, since their own scores with the Egyptian leadership and its policies were too serious.
The military circles of Great Britain and France faced difficult task- not only to ensure by armed means the restoration of control over the Suez Canal, but also to achieve dominance in Egyptian airspace, and also, most importantly, to organize the overthrow of the country's President Nasser, with whom it was considered in London, Paris and Tel Aviv that it was possible to agree impossible. As part of Operation Musketeer, as the plan for the invasion of Egypt was called, the joint forces were supposed to neutralize strategic targets through massive air strikes on Egyptian territory, and then introduce ground units into the Suez Canal zone.
In this operation, the role of “aggressor” was assigned to Israel. The British leadership proposed that Israeli troops be the first to invade Egyptian territory and occupy the Sinai Peninsula, and then the British and French troops under the guise of a “peacekeeping operation” they would undertake the destruction of Egyptian military installations and establish control over the Suez Canal zone. Israel, which had already turned the entire Arab world against itself, did not need the image of an aggressor, so Tel Aviv in return demanded that Britain consolidate territorial acquisitions in Jordan and Lebanon and recognize Israeli jurisdiction over the Gulf of Aqaba. But in London, the Israeli demands were refused, which, however, did not have a significant impact on the behavior of Tel Aviv - the flywheel of military preparations had already been launched.
To divert attention, Israel conducted a raid on the West Bank, after which all Arab countries decided that it was there that they should expect some aggressive actions from Tel Aviv. Iraq sent an army division to Jordan in case of possible hostilities against Israel.
The French Navy brought its ships to the Israeli coast, and units of French ground forces began to land at Israeli airfields. In Israel itself, the mobilization of reservists began, and to divert attention, it was explained by the need to increase the country's combat readiness in connection with the deployment of an Iraqi division into neighboring Jordan. In Egypt, the meaning of Israel's military preparations was not understood and they did not believe in the imminent outbreak of war.
When the Israeli army attacked Egyptian positions in the Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956, Chief General Staff Egyptian army General Abdel Hakim Amer, at the head of an entire military delegation, was on an official visit to Jordan and Syria. Back on the night of October 28, Israel shot down an Egyptian plane returning from Syria, on which Amer was expected to fly. But the general returned to Egypt later, so only 18 senior officers of the Egyptian army died on the downed plane. After the Israeli invasion began, the United States proposed a resolution calling for an end to the aggression against Egypt, but Great Britain and France, using their rights as members of the UN Security Council, vetoed the American resolution.
The balance of forces on the eve of hostilities was not at all in favor of Egypt. The Israeli army, not to mention the armed forces of France and Great Britain, was much better armed, the level of combat training personnel differed significantly, but in addition there was a significant numerical superiority. Units totaling about 30 thousand Egyptian troops were stationed on the Sinai Peninsula, but only 10 thousand of them served in regular army, the remaining 20 thousand people were paramilitary and police forces that did not have the proper level of training or weapons. On October 31, British and French air forces began bombing Egyptian military infrastructure.
The Allies, having begun to strike command posts and communications centers of the Egyptian armed forces, instantly disabled the entire control system of the Egyptian army, after which the latter found itself in a state of chaos. In the shortest possible time, the Egyptian air force was practically paralyzed, which was never able to get most of its aircraft into the air. From the sea, the actions of British and French aviation and Israeli ground forces were supported by British and French ships. Already on October 31, the Egyptian frigate Dumyat (Damietta) was sunk, and the Egyptian destroyer Ibrahim el-Awal was captured in the Haifa area. On November 5, 1956, the British paratrooper brigade landed in Port Said and quickly established control over it, while French paratroopers captured Port Fuad. On the night of November 6, the landing began on the captured bridgeheads. amphibious assault. At the same time, Israeli units captured Sharm el-Sheikh, thereby establishing control over most of the Sinai Peninsula.
Fighting in Egypt caused an immediate increase in international tension. In this situation, the Soviet Union was especially active. Nikita Khrushchev began to threaten Great Britain, France and Israel with military intervention, even to the point of causing nuclear strikes at their military installations. The United States of America, which was also extremely irritated by the Anglo-French initiative, also demanded an end to the aggression. The UN General Assembly decided to deploy peacekeeping forces in the conflict zone, having secured the quick consent of the Egyptian leadership. Already on November 6, opponents of the conflict managed to force Great Britain, France and Israel to conclude a truce with Egypt. The conflict was settled, and by December 1956, Great Britain and France withdrew their troops from captured bridgeheads on Egyptian territory. In March 1957, under US pressure, units were also withdrawn israeli army. On January 1, 1957, a decree was issued to annul the Suez Canal agreement, that is, Nasser’s goal was achieved.
The "quick war" caused heavy losses for Egypt. About 3 thousand Egyptian troops and about 3 thousand Egyptian civilians were killed, half of the armored vehicles of the Egyptian army were destroyed, despite the fact that the allies lost only five aircraft, about 200 Israeli army soldiers and about 320 British and French military personnel killed. Egypt's main "pain points" were identified in terms of troop management, troop training and weapons, which forced Nasser to embark on a large-scale modernization of the armed forces with the help of Soviet Union, which became for a long time the main supplier military equipment and instructors for the Egyptian army.
As for the significance of the Suez crisis for international politics, it largely symbolized the end of the era of colonialism. The two largest and most powerful colonial powers - Great Britain and France - were actually forced to sacrifice their interests, unable to withstand pressure from the world community. It turned out that London and Paris can no longer dictate their will to third countries, including such states as Egypt. Moreover, the reckless actions of European powers have brought the world to the brink nuclear war, which did not happen only thanks to the political will of the Soviet and American leaders, since both the USSR and the USA then took the most reasonable position.
In addition to Egypt, which, with the support of the USSR and the anti-war position of the United States, managed to achieve its goal and force Great Britain and France to abandon their aggressive plans, Israel, oddly enough, also emerged as a winner in the Suez crisis. He not only tested and showed the Arab world the true combat capability of his army, but also achieved the lifting of the blockade on the Gulf of Aqaba and significantly frightened neighboring Arab states, emphasizing his readiness for decisive and tough actions.
