Colonial system: events and facts. Stages and methods of colonization. The rivalry of European powers for colonies, the final division of the world at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries The rivalry of European powers for colonies

Module I

1. The influence of colonialism on the economic development of the mother countries during the period of primitive accumulation of capital and the industrial revolution.

2. The economic role of colonial expansion in the era of imperialism.

3. Colonialism and the dynamics of social development of the countries of the West and East in the New Time.

4. Basic models of colonialism.

5. Stages and methods of colonial expansion.

6. Inter-imperialist conflicts and the final colonial division of the world at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries.

The era of colonialism is a special period in human history. The prologue to it was the Great Geographical Discoveries, which began with the voyages of Vasco da Gamma and Christopher Columbus at the end of the 15th century. Since the era of the Great geographical discoveries, the history of mankind began to acquire a worldwide character for the first time. The world was united in the course of the formation of the system of the World Capitalist Economy (WEC) and the single economic space,
within which a small group of states turned into metropolises (the states of Europe, the USA, later - Japan), and the vast majority of countries of the world (the countries of Asia, Africa, Central and South America) - into dependent, i.e. Colonies and semi-colonies. Actually, colonialism as such was not an invention of developing capitalism, just as the European conquistadors were not the pioneers of the phenomenon of colonization. In previous historical eras, there also existed - sometimes for many centuries - large colonial empires (Egyptian in the XYI-XI centuries BC, Iranian in the VI-IV centuries BC, Roman in the 1st century BC .e - IV century AD, Chinese, Mongolian, Ottoman, as well as in pre-Columbian America), which were also controlled by far from idyllic methods. The main difference was in the higher organizational and technological basis of European colonization (based on the results of cultural and scientific achievements
XVI-XVIII centuries and the Industrial Revolution), as well as in its absolute and relative "sizes". It was European capitalism that carried out the forcible unification of the world within the framework of the emerging system of the world colonial economy.

1. The influence of colonialism on the economic development of the mother countries during the period of primitive accumulation of capital and the industrial revolution. The colonial system, linking the world together, simultaneously divided it into two groups of countries: metropolises and colonies. On one side was a small number of capitalist nations, on the other - the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world. Due to the latter, to a large extent, the development of capitalism in the metropolises took place.

It should be noted that intercontinental trade was in the XVI-XVIII centuries. An insignificant part of the foreign trade turnover of both European and Asian, Central and South American countries. However, in addition to the "colonial trade" itself, there was a direct robbery of the colonies, the export of precious metals, treasures and slaves. With the expansion of colonial expansion, incomes grew not only
from colonial trade with various parts of Asia, but also from the direct exploitation of the population (the Moluccas, they are also the spice islands in the 16th-18th centuries, Surat, Madras, Purikat from 1615, Java in the 17th-18th centuries, Bengal from XVIII century etc.). All this had a significant impact on the development of economic infrastructure in the European countries themselves, including the formation of large port urban centers, the development of transport, insurance and banking, communications. Colonial expansion also turned into the most important factor in the primitive accumulation of capital.

The very process of primitive accumulation is only one of the aspects of the genesis of capitalism in Europe. By forcibly breaking the connection between the direct producer and the means of production, which was the basis of the feudal economic model, this process led to the combination of labor and means of production on a new capitalist basis. On the one hand, he formed capital, and on the other hand, a mass of workers seeking employment. The initial accumulation of capital associated with colonial expansion had a different character. Firstly, the values ​​and treasures exported by the colonizers were exported to the metropolises and only there they turned into capital. For the plundered countries, this was not a loss that undermined their economies. According to far from complete data from the English East India Company itself, the first 100 years of its dominance in India (1757-1857) pumped out more than a billion pounds worth of valuables. Of course, these valuables were obtained not so much through insignificant trade, but through the direct exploitation of territories and the capture of huge wealth, which was then transported to England. No less significant is the example of the robbery of America. Just one of the many Spanish
ports - Seville in 1503-1660. 185 tons of gold and 16,886 tons of silver were openly imported from the American colonies! Moreover, according to a number of data, much more was imported illegally. Here they are - powerful incentives for the "revolution of prices" and the development of capitalism in Europe.

Secondly, the grandiose expropriation of land carried out by the colonialists did not lead to the development of agriculture or the emergence of industry in any of the colonies. On the contrary, the consequence of this was such an increase in feudal exploitation, which directly caused the destruction of the productive forces and the death of millions of people. For example, the famine of 1770, directly caused by the tax predation of the British, claimed a third of the population of rich and populous Bengal - over 10 million human lives. Other colonialists acted in the same way: the predation of the Dutch led to the depopulation of entire regions in Java, the extinction of the population, and the flight of the survivors to the mountains.

In connection with the significant expansion of the English, French and Dutch plantation economy in the West Indies (America), the previously flourishing slave trade also grew steadily. In a hundred years, from 1680 to 1780, from Africa to the Antilles
and 2,200,000 slaves were exported to the English North American colonies. By the end of the XVIII century. The import of slaves reached 80 thousand annually. Half of this highly profitable trade was with England, as the strongest at that time.
colonial and maritime power. Liverpool, and then Bristol and London, grew rich in the slave trade. If in 1630 15 slave ships were registered to the port of Liverpool, then in 1692 there were already 132 ships there.

A major role in the initial accumulation at the expense of the peoples of the East was played by the establishment by Europeans of their dominance on the new sea route from Europe to India, as well as goods and sources of raw materials. To the old methods of colonial
new ones were added to the operation.

Western colonial capital did not seek to replace feudal relations of production with relations of the capitalist order. On the contrary, local feudalism not only adapted to the needs of colonial exploitation, but also preserved not only feudal, but also pre-feudal (patriarchal) remnants in land relations, in the field of political structure, ideology and way of life.

The adaptation of feudal relations to the needs of colonial exploitation was reduced mainly to the abolition of feudal-state ownership of land (where it was) and the transformation of land into a commodity that is freely
sold and bought. A significant part of the land fund was seized by the colonizers themselves.

A number of Eastern countries (China, Japan, the Ottoman Empire, etc.), mainly due to fierce competition between Western powers, did not become colonies of one of them, but retained the semblance of independence. For their economic enslavement and colonial exploitation, special mechanisms were developed. First of all, these were the so-called "unequal treaties" or "surrenders", which were imposed from positions of strength, were not discussed bilaterally and became state obligations of the semi-colonial countries. These "capitulations" were very diverse, over time became more and more burdensome for dependent countries, but mainly expressed in the following: free importation of foreign goods subject to a minimum duty (violation of customs autonomy), free access to foreign merchants, entrepreneurs, missionaries and etc. (“extraterritoriality regime”), opening of foreign consulates in capitals and large cities, exclusion of foreigners from local courts, exemption from taxes (“consular jurisdictions”), the emergence of settlements of Europeans and Americans in capitals and port cities that were not subject to local jurisdiction and had self-government (settlements). All these "contractual privileges" were supplemented by the direct intervention of European diplomats, financiers and entrepreneurs in the internal affairs of dependent countries.

2. The economic role of colonial expansion in the era of imperialism. From the 70s. 19th century A new period in the development of capitalism began - a period of development of "free" into monopoly, i.e., "imperialism". A fierce competition for spheres and regions of the most profitable investment of capital, as well as markets for goods, unfolded between the leading industrial powers.

In the last third of the XIX century. The era of the creation of huge colonial empires has ended, the largest of which was the British Empire, spread over vast expanses from Hong Kong in the East to Canada in the West. The whole world turned out to be divided, there were almost no "no man's" territories left. The great era of European expansion is over.

Completion of the territorial division of the world in the last third of the XIX century. It also signified the final transformation of the colonial system of pre-monopoly capitalism into the colonial system of imperialism.

The main and decisive feature of the colonial system of imperialism was that it embraced the whole world, all the territories of the globe, and became an integral part of the world capitalist economy. The colonial system included both colonies in the proper sense of the word, i.e. Countries and territories, deprived of any form of self-government, and semi-colonies, in one form or another, have retained their traditional systems of government. In terms of their socio-economic structure, the semi-colonies did not differ from the colonies. Under the conditions of imperialism, the
tendencies towards the complete enslavement of dependent countries, towards the transformation of semi-colonies into colonies.

Having turned most of the world's countries into colonies and semi-colonies, the monopolies began to squeeze out huge superprofits by brutally exploiting the labor of hundreds of millions of the population of dependent countries. These countries continued to serve as sales markets, sources of raw materials, supplied almost free labor, but the export of capital became a new and eventually the main form of colonial enslavement, which also turned into
one of the most important regularities of the existence of monopoly capitalism.

The export of capital to the colonies and dependent countries was carried out in various forms. Bonded loans extended by the banks of the imperialist powers to the governments of dependent countries became widespread. In the colonies, for example, in India, loan agreements were concluded by the colonial authorities, and they were paid for by taxes extorted from the population. Loans not only brought high profits to the banks of the metropolitan countries, but also led to the establishment of financial control over the debtor countries. A situation was created when banks controlled entire countries. It was in their tension that the main threads of the economic, and consequently, the political life of the country were concentrated. Banks directly owned many
enterprises controlling the export of raw materials, mining, and, as, for example, in Indonesia, carried out an opium and vodka monopoly. In Korea, the Japanese bank acted as a state bank, it issued banknotes and bonds, and carried out foreign exchange and treasury operations. The same role was played in Egypt by the so-called "National Bank", whose assets were located in London.
The Anglo-French "Ottoman Bank" and the English "Shahinshah Bank", etc., made a huge contribution to the enslavement of Turkey and Iran. By the beginning of the XIX century. Only England had 50 colonial banks, and the number of branches in various cities exceeded 5 thousand. Banks controlled not only the economies of dependent countries, they also determined the policy of their governments.

The export of capital in no way weakened the export of goods. Usually, when concluding loans, lenders negotiated the most favorable terms of trade for themselves. At the end of the 19th century, the role of the colonies as markets for products of the factory industry of the metropolises grew significantly, and the same period was marked by the conclusion of new unequal treaties, the subordination of customs policy to the interests of the metropolitan countries. At the same time, the old capitulations remained in force.

The monopolies of the imperialist countries bought up for next to nothing or seized land in the colonies and semi-colonies on a large scale, creating plantations of the raw materials and food crops they needed. Thus, most of the tea plantations in India found themselves in the hands of British capital, and the Dutch monopolies owned vast plantations in Indonesia. The expropriation of land has acquired particularly wide proportions in Africa. In particular, the French colonized Algeria with fire and sword, they managed to seize vast land masses in Morocco and Tunisia through various machinations.

The further process of turning the countries of Asia and Africa into sources of raw materials for capitalist industry undermined the foundations of natural economy there and at the same time connected these countries with the world market, forcibly drawn them into the world capitalist economy (MCC). The metropolises dictated to their colonies the nature and method of farming, transferring it to the production of crops that were beneficial to them. Many dependent countries began to specialize in the cultivation of one crop to the detriment of all others. So, for example, Assam, Ceylon, Java became tea growing areas. The British specialized in Bengal in the production of jute, Iraq supplied them with barley, North Africa - olives, Vietnam - rice, Uganda - cotton, Egypt also turned into a cotton field for the British textile industry. At the same time, many of these countries were losing their own food base.

An important object of capital investment in the colonies and dependent countries was the construction of railways, ports, telegraph lines, which were of great military and strategic importance. Therefore, such construction, carried out with the use of almost free labor of the local population, served as an instrument of colonial expansion. Such a role, for example, was played by the construction of the Baghdad railway by the German monopolies; only in the Union of South Africa, in the Belgian and French colonies, more than 7 thousand miles of railways were laid. The interests of the colonialists were served by the Suez Canal dug in Egypt.

Foreign industrial enterprises were also created in the colonies and dependent countries, primarily in the mining industry. The colonialists intensively seized all sources of raw materials, already discovered and not yet discovered.

To this end, various concessions granted to monopolies have become widespread. Often the territory of the concession, the subsoil of which could be exploited uncontrollably, became a kind of state.
in the state. Such was, in particular, the concession of the Anglo-Persian (future Anglo-Iranian) oil company in Iran. In the territories of foreign concessions in China, the powers had their own authorities, courts and police. Oil, coal, ores, rare metals, phosphates - everything passed into the hands of foreign monopolies. Numerous companies for the exploitation of the subsoil and for the exploration of minerals were created. Oil companies seized the main oil-bearing regions in the Arab countries, Iran, Indonesia. Foreigners appropriated a monopoly on the extraction and sale of salt in Egypt, India, Vietnam, Turkey. The richest diamond and gold
placers in India, African countries passed into the hands of British, French and Belgian companies.

Foreign companies captured not only the domestic market, but also the foreign trade of the countries of the East. In itself, the transformation of a dependent country into a country of monoculture and a source of raw materials was not so effective for finance capital without dominance in the sphere of export and import operations. And each imperialist power that imported capital invested a huge part of it in this sphere. An analysis of the structure of imports and exports of goods from colonial and dependent countries shows an enormous predominance in the export of raw materials and in the import of manufactured goods. So, in India on the verge of XIX and XX centuries. Half of the imports were English cotton fabrics, and three-quarters of the exports were colonial raw materials and foodstuffs. Egypt imported large quantities of cotton fabrics and foodstuffs, and exported mainly cotton. In the Philippines, 90% of all exports were sugar, hemp, coconuts and tobacco. This list can be continued for a long time. The following is obvious: in foreign trade relations between metropolitan countries and dependent countries, a system of unequal exchange dominated. The population of the colonies and semi-colonies was subjected to a double robbery.

All customs policy was subordinated to the mother countries. The Americans in the Philippines, the French in Vietnam, the British in India and Egypt set the customs and railroad tariffs that gave them the greatest benefit.

Imperialism conserved feudal survivals in the colonies and dependent countries. Although at the end of the XIX century. In most countries of Asia and some countries of Africa, subsistence farming was undermined and commodity-money relations penetrated into the countryside, the exploitation of the land-deprived peasantry still had a feudal or semi-feudal character. Not only their own landlords, but also the monopolies of the imperialist states exploited the peasantry of Asia and Africa by semi-feudal methods. On the plantations owned by foreign capital, the workers, in fact, were in the position of semi-slaves - semi-serfs. In an effort to preserve the colonies and dependent countries as their agrarian and raw materials appendages, the imperialist powers maintained the domination of landowners and other survivals of the Middle Ages. The introduction of foreign capital was accompanied by increased feudal exploitation of the peasantry. Imperialist oppression was inextricably linked and closely intertwined with feudal oppression.

This far from complete list of new methods and forms of exploitation of dependent countries led to serious changes in the socio-economic structure of Eastern societies, in the conditions of their forced colonial-capitalist synthesis.

One of the most important problems in the development of the countries of Asia and Africa during the period of the colonial system of imperialism is the problem of the interaction of their traditional ways of life with Western colonial capital in the conditions of its transition to a new stage. After all, over the entire previous period of the formation of colonial structures, practically no active elements of colonial synthesis were born in any eastern country.
in basic or superstructure structures. However, already the early commercial expansion of the future metropolises (pumping of raw materials, monopoly farming, forced crop systems, tax oppression, etc.) undermined and sometimes destroyed the very economic structure of traditional production in those areas that turned out to be colonial possessions. Some countries of the East, in order to avoid open Western aggression, deliberately refused contacts with foreigners and active foreign trade activities, closing their ports and countries from Europeans and Americans. So it was in China, Japan, Siam. And this, of course, caused a slowdown in the pace of transformation of the old mode of production in these countries.

The subsequent phases of colonialism were associated with the industrial revolution in Western Europe and North America, but especially with the transition of capitalism to the imperialist stage, which would fully affect Eastern societies from the last third of the 19th century. By the end of the XIX century. Entire continents with their populations of many millions were subordinated to the needs and goals of the industrial countries. The financial-industrial monopolies have changed the traditional production and agrarian structure, while at the same time causing fundamental changes in the social structures of the Eastern countries.

The basis of the economies of the countries of the East has always been agriculture. It employed more than two-thirds of the population, and for a long time retained traditional methods and ways of organizing production. Naturally, many important reorganizations in the agrarian structures and the system of agriculture, carried out by the colonial authorities in order to encourage the development of the colonial economy, directly or indirectly affected
the entire socio-economic and demographic complex of the colonies.

The methods of forming the agrarian sector of the colonial countries were varied, but they all boiled down to two main trends: the first was the transfer of traditional communal peasant farms to the cultivation of export crops, the creation of small-scale production in the export sector, and then on the basis of land ownership arising during the colonial development and lease of land for large-scale production of the landowner type; the second - the planting of large-scale plantation-type production. The foreign plantation economy, earlier and faster than others, was modified and gradually turned into a modern capitalist enterprise. The development of the plantation economy contributed to the formation of the capitalist way of life in the colonies.

The first plantations that appeared in the XVII-XIX centuries. In the Moluccas, later in other parts of Southeast Asia, there were still episodic phenomena. Only at the end of the XIX century. A powerful process has begun to develop new, previously unused lands and introduce new industrial crops. A whole system of plantation economy arose in India, Indonesia, Burma, Egypt, Malaya, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and
other countries. Huge tracts of land cleared from the jungle, drained of swamps or watered with irrigation systems, which included complex engineering and construction structures - dams, dams, canals, pumping stations, etc., were allotted for plantations. Plantations were overgrown with infrastructure: railroads and highways, warehouses, residential buildings for workers, and subsequently modern enterprises for the primary processing of products.

The appearance of such complexes represented, as it were, a direct import of capitalism into the eastern countries. The construction and maintenance of large plantation farms was based on the use of both modern technical means and personnel, and significant masses of low-paid manual labor, plantation and auxiliary workers, and the local population (yesterday's tenant farmers who lost their traditional occupations and livelihoods). In other words, at the end of the XIX century. Originates, and in the first half of the XX century. The colonial-capitalist synthesis is already actively operating - a kind of colonial division of labor within the framework of the metropolis system - dependent countries.

We have spoken above about the forcible adaptation of the agriculture of the colonies to the export needs of the mother countries. But it should be especially noted that from that time on, dependent countries began to produce large quantities of export crops that had not previously been cultivated here at all: tea in India, coffee in Indonesia, rubber in almost all countries of South and Southeast Asia. The production of a number of local plants, such as cotton, jute, sugar cane, tobacco, coconut and oil palm, grapes, citrus fruits and others, also intended for export, has increased many times over. In some countries of the East, for example in
In Egypt, land companies organized a diversified economy, specializing in the production of fruits, vegetables, cotton, and additionally grew cereals, forage grasses, and immediately created large livestock
farms, built factories for the processing of their products. In Algeria, thanks to a large influx of population from Europe, a large-capitalist and highly profitable economy, oriented to the metropolitan market, has become dominant.

When organizing plantation farms, joint-stock companies and private individuals faced considerable difficulties in hiring workers. The mass market of labor and wage laborers in the countries of the East was just beginning to take shape, and therefore, usually workers, seasonal migrants from less developed areas or neighboring countries (for example, from China and India in the countries of Southeast Asia) were employed on plantations.

The administration of the plantations, if these were large farms based on equity capital, or the owners of medium and small plantations, did not conduct all business and settlements with the workers themselves, but with the main recruiters, with whom they drew up contracts for the supply of coolies. Cooley, having signed a contract and received an advance, fell into bondage to the recruiter until the expiration of the contract (formally, the coolie contracting system was canceled only at the end of the 20s of the 20th century, but in fact continued to operate later).

Although the main activity of the plantation economy was aimed at the production of only marketable products, at first it was neither purely capitalist nor an integral part of the local (national) economy.
Workers on the plantations, in many respects, cannot yet be considered as persons of free employment, and the entire product was exported to the metropolis, at first without even being subjected to primary processing. But on the whole, it was easier for foreign land companies to organize their economy on a capitalist basis than for local large and medium landowners, who still owned the land on conditions before bourgeois law, and the exploitation of the peasants and rent retained semi-feudal features in their basis.

The consequences of the influence of the capitalist West on the traditional industry of the East and, accordingly, the resulting synthesis of the traditional and the modern in the urban economy and non-agricultural sectors were contradictory and ambiguous. The industrial revolution in Western Europe began with textile production. It was the import of cheap manufactured products of this branch of industry into the eastern countries that caused a reduction in the total volume of handicraft cotton production there. First, spinning was destroyed, since the influx of machine yarn made this industry unprofitable and uncompetitive.
Imported yarn of Western factory production was imported and the peasants abandoned their own hand spinning trade.

This first peculiar synthesis in industrial production lasted during the long period of colonial dependence and continued to manifest itself throughout the period under consideration (and beyond). The situation when small producers used not home-made yarn, but factory-supplied yarn supplied by capitalist enterprises (initially from metropolitan areas, and then factories), became disastrous, first for home spinning, and then for hand weaving. The local textile factories that appeared gradually replaced the artisan weavers. This process was most obvious in India, where at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Factories, which employed approximately 8% of the total number of people employed in the production of cotton fabrics, produced more than half of the country's production of this kind.

Of course, such processes did not become a general phenomenon, as it was in the classical colonial country - India. There, along with the destruction of handicraft cotton production in the second half of the 19th century. The first local workshops for the production of yarn and cotton fabrics arose. The founders of these enterprises were both local merchants who made their capital on the trade in opium and cotton, and English capitalists. Initially, factory products, especially yarn, came to China, but from the end of the 19th century. It began to enter the domestic markets of India, but already in the form of finished fabrics.

The emergence and development of the foreign sector of the economy, which included industrial, mining, transport, banking, and public utilities created by foreign capital, marked the formation of a colonial-capitalist synthesis in non-agricultural industries. Transplanted to the eastern soil, developed capitalist relations based on machine industry were seriously affected by traditional social and economic structures and at the same time had a transformative effect on them far more than foreign trade and export agriculture. These relationships have become a powerful stimulus for the growth of national private industrial entrepreneurship. In the East, on the site of a previously monolithic, uniform pre-capitalist structure, a multistructural system began to take shape: next to
with the quantitatively predominant traditional mode of production, elements of the capitalist structure appeared, consisting of two varieties - modern machine (modern capitalism) and national (originally in
mainly manufacturing distributive capitalism).

The formation of a diverse intermediate environment between modern and traditional socio-economic types of economy also proceeded quite intensively. Synthesis in industry and other sectors of the economy, rooted in the very impossibility of a rapid and widespread transformation of the old and lower forms of production, began to develop from the end of the 19th century. Transforms into the leading direction of colonial-capitalist and dependent development.

New types of production, branches of the economy, and especially the system of machines in the East, in contrast to the West, began to be mastered in the "reverse sequence". If in the countries of Western Europe and North America the system of machines initially began to be used in industry, then in the countries of the East - in transport. Steam shipping, railroads, and the telegraph were the first systems of machines that the inhabitants of colonial and dependent countries recognized. This sequence was determined both by the peculiarities of the development of the colonial independent periphery and by the economic and military-political needs of the mother countries. In the West, beginning with England, the advent of improved textile machines contributed to the development of economic sectors associated with the metallurgical and metalworking industries, and then mechanical engineering, which ultimately led to the technical re-equipment and re-equipment of the entire economy.

The systems of machines and the sequence in which they appeared in the East did not entail profound reorganizations in the structure of the quantitatively dominant handicraft to factory and even to manufactory production and could not cause an immediate replacement of home production by factory industry. The traditional early manufacturing stage was not prepared for the introduction of foreign production and technical forms, their development, perception and application. Machine production in the East was not the product of independent (as in the West), internal and consistent development. Factory forms in finished form were transplanted from the outside. machine production,
the first representatives of which turned out to be foreign or local, but working on imported equipment, factories were layered on handicraft and early manufactory production, and the latter in countries such as India, China, Egypt has not yet strengthened, and in others - Vietnam, Burma, etc. . - and did not develop.

Thus, in the last third of the XIX century. A process began, the development of which was most clearly marked in the 20th century. It is interaction and interconnection, and subsequently a synthesis of modern, colonial and traditional. This synthesis was not always promising and successful. The modern appeared and spread, subordinating, displacing the traditional or coexisting with it, primarily in large cities or special European settlements that had connections (industrial, commercial, administrative, etc.) with the metropolis, as well as on the coast, where industry developed, infrastructure and export agriculture. The traditional, due to limited contacts with the introduced modern, was kept, and sometimes
"closed" in the inner deep regions, little connected with the territories subjected to transformation. In these remote areas and provinces, traditional production, the old way of life, the old systems of education, social relations, values, and administration dominated. Traditional and modern, as it were, had their own peculiar territorial-geographical, economic and social boundaries in the reproduction of social life.

3. Colonialism and the dynamics of social development of the countries of the West and East in modern times. Colonialism, as a consequence of the Great geographical discoveries, simultaneously arose both in the East and in Latin America. However, the very system of emerging colonial relations, as well as the appearance of colonialism, were determined
features of operation of the countries of Asia and Africa. It was there that the main wealth of the world and the vast majority of its population were located.

Contrary to the widely held opinion about the well-known "backwardness" of the East and the "avant-garde" role of the West at the turn of the New Age, the situation was different. By the beginning of the XVI century. 288 million people or 68% of all inhabitants of the Earth at that time lived in the East. It was to the East, until the end of the XVII century. It accounted for about 77% of industrial (i.e., in accordance with the canons of the era of manufactory handicraft) production.

In 1500, there were 31 large cities in the world with a population of over 100 thousand people. Of these, 25 were in the East and only 4 - in Europe. Until the beginning of the 19th century. Europe imported many high-quality goods from the countries of the East, especially fabrics, silk, jewelry and other finished products, medicines, spices, coffee, tea, and sugar. Even in 1875, the proportion of city dwellers in the East was higher than in the West.

Europeans admired in the XVI-XVII centuries. Abundance, luxury and power of the East, and Europe itself seemed to them then a much poorer and backward part of the world. The level of material production, especially industrial production, was especially low. In total, Europe (without Russia) then accounted for 16% of the total population of the Earth (68 million people) and 18% of world industrial production.

Only in the south of Europe, in the Mediterranean countries connected with the East, was the economic and social situation much better, especially in such Italian city-republics as Venice, Genoa, Florence, Pisa, Amalfi, Livorno, largely due to constant trade, economic, cultural and other links with the Middle East and North Africa. In addition, from the early Middle Ages, especially from the era of the Crusades, representatives of the peoples of the East lived in the Mediterranean countries of Europe. These were colonies of Muslim merchants in Naples and Marseilles, prisoners of war employed in various jobs, for example,
in Provence, Arab doctors, jewelers, artisans, architects. In addition, it could be mercenaries and slaves. The slave trade flourished for a long time in Europe, especially in the Mediterranean zone. In particular, in Italy there was almost no wealthy family that did not have slaves and slaves from the East in the service in the 16th-17th centuries. Among the slaves in Europe, Arabs, Turks, Slavs, Greeks prevailed.

Colonialism- the system of domination of a group of industrialized countries (mother countries) over the rest of the world in the 16th-20th centuries. Colonial policy is a policy of enslavement and exploitation with the help of military, political and economic coercion of peoples, countries and territories predominantly with a non-national population, as a rule, economically less developed.

Purposes of acquisition of colonies by mother countries

• Economy, trade
• Exploitation of natural and human resources, in some cases - direct access to unique, rare resources (including transit), the desire to monopolize the world trade in them;
• Optimization of trade routes, sales markets, elimination of inconvenient intercultural countries-intermediaries;
• Achieving greater security of trade, its more efficient power support;
• Better legal protection of trade through the unification of the legal field, the formation of imperial legal standards, a single and understandable trading culture;

• Social sphere, optimization of social balance
• Finding adequate goals for the application of efforts by criminal-oriented passionate social strata, reducing their “burden” on society in the metropolis, sometimes selling prisoners, the destitute, unable to find a use for themselves, outcasts, dissatisfied with the traditions that have developed in society, the customs prescribed by society social the role being superseded by competition;
• Colonial administration, colonial administration is a good school for managers, and the use of force in resolving significant local conflicts is a way to keep the imperial armed forces in good shape. Formation of a school of adequate professionally savvy and experienced civil and military bureaucracy for the needs of the empire, practical testing of a new generation of officials, renewal of the military, political, economic, and cultural elite;
• Acquisition of less rights in comparison with the inhabitants of the metropolis, cheaper or generally free labor, including “for export” to places of greatest need for it and / or its import into the metropolis for “dirty”, non-prestigious, but socially significant work;
• Testing of new civil and military technologies, methods, tactics, know-how, export of hazardous waste from their production, the possibility of conducting risky military, scientific, industrial, natural experiments, activities, the results of which could endanger the well-being, health, and life of the inhabitants of the metropolis. In a number of cases, it is a convenient way to keep something like this secret from the public opinion of the empire and the world;

• Foreign policy, civilizational expansion
• Geostrategic interests, the formation of a system of strongholds in key points of the world to achieve greater mobility of its armed forces;
• Control over the movements of troops, fleets, trade routes, migrations of the population of other colonial empires, preventing the penetration of the latter into the corresponding region, reducing their role, world status;
• Considerations of imperial prestige, gaining greater geopolitical weight in the conclusion of international treaties, further decisions on the fate of the world;
• Civilizational, cultural, linguistic expansion - and through its strengthening of the authority, legitimacy of the current government in the metropolis, colonies and the rest of the world. The transformation of imperial civilizational standards into global ones.

Signs of colonies

• Political lack of independence, a special legal status, usually different from the status of full-fledged metropolitan provinces;
• Geographic isolation and, in most cases, remoteness from the metropolis;
• Economic exploitation of natural resources, labor of aborigines in favor of the metropolis, which often leads to a slowdown in economic development, degradation of the colony;
• In many cases, the ethnic, religious, cultural or other similar difference between the majority of aborigines and the inhabitants of the metropolis, often giving the first reason to consider themselves a separate, independent community;
• Historical factor:
• Capture of the territory by the mother country, occupation;
• Deprivation of the colony by the metropolis of an independent legal status:
• by imposing unequal, enslaving treaties on local authorities on protectorate, vassalage, "lease", concession, guardianship, redemption, other forms of deprivation or restriction of the fullness of their sovereignty on the territory of the colony in favor of the metropolis,
• by imposing military force or inspiring the coming to power in the colony of a dependent, puppet regime,
• through the annexation of territory, the formation by the mother country of its colonial administration,
• by direct control of the colony from the mother country;
• Immigration to the colony of a significant number of residents from the metropolis, the formation of local authorities, political, economic, cultural elite by them;
• The presence of interstate treaties of the metropolis with third countries, bargaining about the fate of the colony.
• Often (especially until the last quarter of the 20th century) - infringement of the civil rights of aborigines in comparison with the inhabitants of the metropolis, planting a culture, religion, language, customs alien to aborigines, discrimination of local culture, up to racial, class or other segregation, apartheid, expulsion from the earth, livelihood deprivation, genocide;
• In many cases - the desire of the majority of the inhabitants of the colony to change, to improve their situation.
• The presence of a clearly expressed and permanent separatism (national liberation movement) - the desire of the natives for secession, gaining sovereignty to independently decide their fate (independence or reunification with a more geographically, ethnically, religiously and / or culturally adequate country);
• Measures on the part of the mother country for the violent suppression of such;
• Sometimes - long-term territorial claims to this colony from a more geographically, ethnically, religiously and / or culturally adequate country.

Colonialism in the Middle Ages

The prerequisites for colonialism originated in the era of the great geographical discoveries, namely in the 15th century, when Vasco da Gama opened the way to India, and Columbus reached the shores of America. When confronted with peoples of other cultures, Europeans demonstrated their technological superiority (ocean sailing ships and firearms). The first colonies were founded in the New World by the Spaniards. The robbery of the states of the American Indians contributed to the development of the European banking system, the growth of financial investments in science and stimulated the development of industry, which, in turn, required new raw materials.

The colonial policy of the period of primitive accumulation of capital is characterized by: the desire to establish a monopoly in trade with conquered territories, the seizure and plunder of entire countries, the use or imposition of predatory feudal and slave-owning forms of exploitation of the local population. This policy played a huge role in the process of primitive accumulation. It led to the concentration of large capital in the countries of Europe on the basis of the robbery of the colonies and the slave trade, which especially developed from the 2nd half of the 17th century and served as one of the levers for turning England into the most developed country of that time.

In the enslaved countries, the colonial policy caused the destruction of the productive forces, retarded the economic and political development of these countries, led to the plunder of vast regions and the extermination of entire peoples. Military confiscation methods played a major role in the exploitation of the colonies during that period. A striking example of the use of such methods is the policy of the British East India Company in Bengal, which it conquered in 1757. The consequence of this policy was the famine of 1769-1773, which killed 10 million Bengalis. In Ireland, during the XVI-XVII centuries, the British government confiscated and transferred to the English colonists almost all the land that belonged to the native Irish.

Colonialism in modern times

As the transition from manufactory to large-scale factory industry, significant changes took place in colonial policy. The colonies are economically more closely connected with the metropolises, turning into their agrarian and raw-material appendages with a monocultural direction in the development of agriculture, into markets for industrial products and sources of raw materials for the growing capitalist industry of the metropolises. Thus, for example, the export of British cotton fabrics to India from 1814 to 1835 increased 65 times.

The spread of new methods of exploitation, the need to create special organs of colonial administration that could consolidate dominance over the local peoples, as well as the rivalry of various sections of the bourgeoisie in the mother countries, led to the liquidation of monopoly colonial trading companies and the transfer of the occupied countries and territories under the state administration of the mother countries.

The change in the forms and methods of exploitation of the colonies was not accompanied by a decrease in its intensity. Huge wealth was exported from the colonies. Their use led to the acceleration of socio-economic development in Europe and North America. Although the colonialists were interested in the growth of the marketability of the peasant economy in the colonies, they often maintained and consolidated feudal and pre-feudal relations, considering the feudal and tribal nobility in the colonized countries as their social support.

With the advent of the industrial age, Great Britain became the largest colonial power. Having defeated France in the course of a long struggle in the 18th and 19th centuries, she increased her possessions at her expense, as well as at the expense of the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Great Britain subjugated India. In 1840-42, and together with France in 1856-60, she waged the so-called Opium Wars against China, as a result of which she imposed favorable treaties on China. She took possession of Xianggang (Hong Kong), tried to subjugate Afghanistan, captured strongholds in the Persian Gulf, Aden. The colonial monopoly, together with the industrial monopoly, ensured Great Britain the position of the most powerful power throughout almost the entire 19th century. Colonial expansion was also carried out by other powers. France subjugated Algeria (1830-48), Vietnam (50-80s of the 19th century), established its protectorate over Cambodia (1863), Laos (1893). In 1885, the Congo became the possession of the Belgian King Leopold II, and a system of forced labor was established in the country.

Colonial dominance was administratively expressed either in the form of a "dominion" (direct control of the colony through a viceroy, captain-general or governor-general), or in the form of a "protectorate". The ideological substantiation of colonialism proceeded through the need to spread culture (cultural tregging, modernization, westernization) - "the burden of the white man." The Spanish version of colonization meant the expansion of Catholicism, the Spanish language through the encomienda system. The Dutch version of the colonization of South Africa meant apartheid, the expulsion of the local population and its imprisonment in reservations or bantustans. The colonists formed communities completely independent of the local population, which were recruited from people of various classes, including criminals and adventurers. Religious communities (New England Puritans and Old West Mormons) were also widespread. The power of the colonial administration was exercised according to the principle of "divide and conquer" by pitting local religious communities (Hindus and Muslims in British India) or hostile tribes (in colonial Africa), as well as through apartheid. Often the colonial administration supported oppressed groups to fight their enemies (the oppressed Hutu in Rwanda) and created armed detachments from the natives (sepoys in India, Gurkhas in Nepal, Zouaves in Algeria).

Decolonization. Neocolonialism

The decisive demolition of the colonial system (decolonization) occurred after the Second World War as a result of the beginning of the process of humanization and democratization of society. Decolonization was welcomed by both the then superpowers, the USSR (represented by Stalin and Khrushchev) and the USA (Eisenhower). In 1947, India gained independence, and in 1960, a number of African possessions were added. The countries liberated from colonial dependence were called the Third World countries. And in the post-colonial period, the developed Western countries are economically and politically far superior to the countries of the Third World. The Third World countries are still acting as sources of cheap raw materials and reservoirs of cheap labor, which makes it possible for international corporations to minimize their costs.

Many weak, corrupt regimes in Third World countries are unable to achieve a fair price ratio in domestic markets, ensure control over the return of foreign exchange earnings and increase tax collection for the development of their own educational and scientific spheres. The debt of most developing countries is chronically growing. Some researchers believe that after 1991, many republics of the former USSR became objects of neo-colonial exploitation.

The foundations of American statehood began to take shape during the period of colonial dependence on England. During this period, two major stages are 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 beginnings 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 beginnings of representative government in each of the colonies, but also their self-government, that is, weakening their dependence on 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 the political development of North America turned out to be more contradictory 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 considered themselves as the same Englishmen, but only 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 the growth of undemocratic features in the political administration of the North American provinces.

Although in England itself after 1688 the prerogatives of the monarch were sharply weakened, in North America they, on the contrary, increased, and the power of his counterbalance in the New World - the 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. By the middle of the XVIII century. 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 the 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 management of the colonies, but its intervention did not at all contribute to the liberalization of the colonial order. Westminster's attempts to legislate against Americans intensified after the Seven Years' War of 1756-1763. and, like royal decrees and instructions, they restricted the rights and freedoms of Americans.

By formal standards, the American colonies in the XVIII century. embodied the system of "mixed government" so revered in England. According to the characteristics of a contemporary, the power in the colonies "in the person of the governor, who represented the king, was monarchical, in the person of the Council - aristocratic, in the person of the House of Representatives or the elected people - democratic" Sogrin V.V. Critical trends in non-Marxist historiography of the USA in the 20th century. M., 1987. . But here the correlation and real significance of these authorities in North America had serious differences from England.

A key figure in the management of the colonies in the XVIII century. was the governor. In the corporate colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut the governors were elected by the assemblies, in all the others they were appointed either by the English monarch or by the proprietors of the colonies. The governors of the royal and proprietary colonies had full executive power, and also retained extensive legislative powers, first of all, they had the right of absolute veto over the 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 judicial decisions, granted pardons and amnesties for all types of crimes.

The second branch of American mixed government was the colonial councils. Appointed by governors, the latter combined both executive and legislative powers: on the one hand, they were, as it were, ministerial offices under the governors, helping them in all matters, on the other, they acted as the upper house of the legislative branch, having the right to veto decisions of the lower houses. The councils also assisted the governors in making judicial decisions. On the whole, the soviets were more of a part of the "monarchist" rather than an independent "aristocratic" branch.

If such a huge number of powers were in the hands of the "monarchist" branch, then what was left for the "democratic" branch and can we talk about its real significance? This problem has given rise to a wide and lengthy discussion among American researchers. In the second half of the XX 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, formally yielding to the power of governors, actually constantly increased, acquiring real influence. The influence of the assemblies rested chiefly on the fact that they succeeded, step by step, in concentrating power over finance and budget in their own hands, making the governors dependent on all their expenses. The assemblies everywhere were given the right to impose taxes, to determine the annual budget of the colonies, to fix salaries for all officials, including the governor himself. Using the financial dependence of the executive branch on the legislature, the assemblies have repeatedly forced the governors to approve certain bills, appoint the people they need to various positions, and make decisions that please them. All this, however, does not negate the fact that governors put pressure on the assemblies: their subordination, dissolution, postponement of meetings, the imposition of appropriate decisions and appointments on them. The relationship of the assemblies with the governors turned into a never-ending battle in which, as colonial experience testified, the assemblies had no chance of a decisive victory.

In historiography, one of the debatable questions has always been how democratic the "democratic branch" of political power in the colonies was. Since the middle of the XX century. the point of view of the school of consensus spread that up to 90% took part in the elections in colonial America. adult white males and the rooting of "middle-class democracy" in it. At the present stage, the view prevailed, first substantiated by C. Williamson, that from 50 to 75% of adult white men used the right to vote in the colonies. Political power, democracy and oligarchy in North America of the colonial era. New and recent history. 2001. . The constituency in North America was certainly more democratic than in England, but if we take into account that adult white males made up about 20% of the American population, then we can conclude that he made up 10 to 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 body was, but also of whether it had real influence on power. The totality of the data accumulated by historical science allows us to conclude that not only in the "monarchical" branch of the colonial power, but also in the democratic "power was concentrated in the hands of a narrow circle of the provincial elite.

If the lists of 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 from the top 10% of colonial society.

Moreover, nepotism was also characteristic of elective assemblies, so that from generation to generation they sat in a narrow circle of people who bore the same surnames. 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 the American political culture of that time, only wealthy people deserved to be elected to public office. and from respected families.

On the whole, it can be concluded that during the colonial period of American statehood, its representative-democratic principles remained underdeveloped and were in a subordinate position in relation to the elitist oligarchic principles. The formation of the American state. SPb.. 1992. . At the same time, the conservation of the 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 as a powerful impetus for deep domestic political transformations and marked the beginning of the second and, in terms of system-forming terms, the main period in the formation of American statehood.

In what is now the United States, English-speaking settlements appeared in the early 17th century. These settlements were scattered all over the East Coast of the country. The Puritans took root in New England, the Quakers settled in Pennsylvania, the English Catholics colonized Maryland. The earliest settlements arose in places now called Virginia and the Carolinas.

The English, of course, were not the only nation establishing colonies in the New World. Spain and Portugal dominated what is now Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Spanish flag once flew over what is now Florida. Spain also held the territories of the deserts of the West and the western coast of the continent.

The Dutch who settled in New York were forced out by the British before 1700. The Dutch language and fragments of Dutch law lingered 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 originated 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 ruled by Spain. Another 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 part in their scattered reservations.

All of these are exceptions. Most American law comes from one source - English law. No other system of law really had a chance to establish itself in the US, just like no other language but English.

The common law system that originated in England - its traditions, methods and techniques - crossed the Atlantic and took root in this country.

Legal history books often talk about the "colonial period" by examining the impacts of various eras on American law, and one may get an ill-founded impression of the dominance of this period. First of all, more than 150 years elapsed between the landing of the first settlers on the land of 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 collisions. The colonial period was not so fickle and rapidly changing, but it was long enough and rather complicated. At least there were many different colonies scattered across the country from New Hampshire to Georgia. Settlements lined up like beads on a necklace along a narrow coastline. Communication with them was extremely difficult. Communication with the motherland was even worse; an immense and restless expanse of water separated the colonies from England.

This was a very important factor.

Theoretically, Britain completely controlled the life of the colonies - the inhabitants of the colonies were subjects of the British crown. In reality, she could only to a very small extent influence her distant child. The British were too far away to exercise effective dictatorship, 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 of the empire, nor a concept of how to govern the outlying lands.

For most of their history, therefore, the colonies (at least most of them) grew and developed independently of Britain.

The colonies can be roughly divided into three more or less distinct 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 North and South, both in terms of law and geographically.

The southern colonies were the most consistent in regard to both the law and the entire legal culture. They adhered more closely to English traditions.

Such differences between the colonies, of course, were not accidental.

Puritan New England or Quaker Pennsylvania consciously chose a different path than that of 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 exclusive aspect of Southern life. The first American slaves arrived in Virginia and other southern colonies before the mid-17th century. By the time the Revolution began, slaves made up 40% of the population of Virginia.

There were no blacks in England, and there was no section of the law against slavery. The Slave Law was a purely American invention, based on various sources, and strongly influenced by a sense of racial superiority, incorporating 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 even slaves in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. But slavery never dominated the northern productive system as it did in south.

Slaves in New York City, for example, did not primarily work in manufacturing but as domestic servants.

Indeed, the North had thousands of "contractual servants". Service under contracts was one of the varieties of temporary slavery. The contracts were a written document, in some way an employment contract, in which

ren the terms and conditions of slavery. Contract servants were meant to serve their masters for a fixed period: seven years was the most common. During the term of 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 work the servant, for the period remaining until the end of the contract, the Servant could not control these actions to transfer (sale) it to another owner, although some colonies and tried to prevent the abuse of indentured servant owners. When the contract expired, the servant, unlike the slave, became completely free. According to custom or law, the servant was not supposed to leave the master empty-handed: he had the right to "holiday". Originally in Maryland, for example, they consisted of an outer garment, a headdress, an axe, a hoe, three barrels of grain, and (before 1663) 50 acres of land. Later clothes, food and money became more typical things ("grain, clothes and wages").

A fairly large number of studies have already been carried out on issues of the colonial legal system. Most of them concerned the northern colonies, especially Massachusetts. Indeed, the legal system of Massachusetts is extremely interesting. It was very different from the English law used in the royal courts of London. Massachusetts law actually looked so strikingly different from English law that scholars even argued among themselves whether it should even be considered as one of the varieties of the general family of English law.

Today, this idea seems rather silly. 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. On 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 may call it "the people's law." Naturally, it differed from the old official law. English elements were still key in it: after all, what else could the settlers know? In other words, their law was a kind of creole or common law pidgin English.

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 shipwrecked and stranded on a desert island. They need to build a new society. They form some crude surrogate government and create some semblance of a legal system, different from those they left on the mainland. Indeed, on the island, most of the old legal system would be completely unnecessary.

For example, traffic rules will be useless. On the other hand, the colonists will have to create a lot of new laws - rules on setting up a sentry post on the mountain that would try to signal ships passing by the island, a law on how to share fish and how to organize the collection of shellfish in coastal waters, and so on. The people on the island will reproduce those parts of American law that they can remember and that 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 beach were, in their political views, what part of the country they came from, what their religion was,

Colonial law was similar enough 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 a 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 will find all kinds 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 customs of the colonists and was accepted almost unchanged.

On the other hand, life in this desert area required an order that was far from those that were in England of the Stuarts. Here, for example, there was a rule that forbade the sale, as well as the gift, "to any Indian ... any ... weapons or gunpowder, bullets or lead ... or any military weapons and equipment" - a rule that, of course, had no its counterpart in England. Religion also played an important role. It was a community created by purely religious people. There was legal persecution of the Jesuits, Anabaptists, witches (“any man or woman ... who ... has contact with such spirits should be severely punished”). There were laws against heretics as well ("those who intend to undermine or destroy the Christian Faith and Religion by accepting or supporting any heresy").

Massachusetts law was inevitably simpler than English common law. It was mostly devoid of old technical details. These changes were made in order to simplify the application of the law in practice. English law in the 1600s was burdened with a lot of technical tricks. The slow evolution of this right has allowed it to take the form of a dense, monolithic structure of irrational, overlapping elements - a mad bond that has evolved over the centuries. Even a hundred lawyers could not claim to fully understand all the elements of this right. Even if the settlers wanted to, they could hardly duplicate such a system in full. Colonies in this sense always start from scratch.

Hence, essentially, Massachusetts and the other colonies went their own way. For example, consider the royal law of England on primogeniture. According to him, if the landowner died without leaving a will, his lands became the property of the eldest son. Massachusetts has abandoned this practice. All children had the right to inherit, although the eldest son received a double share against the rest of the heirs. Most of the other northern colonies (Rhode Island and New York were exceptions) simply abolished the birthright, and pretty soon. Much longer this law was in force 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 essentially on the fate of the birthright. Only in the South were large estates and plantations, and in New England "the topography and lands led to a small allotment and a compact settlement." This delayed the moment of the abolition of the birthright law, that is, in fact, 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 judicial system as it was in the 17th century, needed a whole volume just to list and explain the differences between dozens of royal, local, ordinary, special courts - a maze of jurisdiction into which the plaintiff and defendant (and their lawyers) they had to get involved somehow.

Such an irrational system would be simply ridiculous in the small, poor, constantly fighting for their existence settlements on the American coast. Massachusetts created a clear and simple system of courts, 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 (and perplexing) feature of the law in England. South Carolina, on the contrary, had well-developed courts of this type.

In the 18th century, the legal system of both the North and the South seemed to somehow come closer to English law, that is, it became 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 the empire and that it could manage it. As you know, attempts to manage the colonies ended in complete failure. Britain began to attempt imperial pressure too late. The colonists learned to govern themselves, and when England tried new taxes, new courts, and behaved like an imperialist accordingly, she caused a revolution. As a result, England lost a brilliant piece of her empire.

But the desire to be more in line 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 sprang up, and the colonists needed more developed law based on their needs. This was especially true of commercial law: merchants whose ships sailed to England, Jamaica and the ports of the world increasingly demanded modern commercial law, as practiced in England and the rest of the European world.

Cultural ties with England also remained. The lawyers who lived in the colonies were English, some actually got their profession in England. The legal materials they used were English. Apart from collections of local laws, no books on legal matters were published in the colonies to mention. All definitions and terminology were English. All collections of precedents were English. Anyone who wanted to know anything about law had to study the English editions, and these books were, of course, about the English understanding of law, not about the American one.

In 1756, William Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England was first published in England. It became a bestseller, but has gained, perhaps, even greater success on the other side of the ocean. Blackstone had a clear and concise style of presentation. He was writing a book for English gentlemen, laymen who would like to know something about their laws. Americans, laymen and lawyers alike, seized on this book with zeal, for it was a readily available key to the law of the ancestral home. An American edition was published in Philadelphia in 1771-1772. Blackstone would never have become so popular in this country if there had been at least something - like his book - that described American law.

j The colonial period is, firstly, interesting in itself, and secondly, it illustrates one of the important themes of this book: how social conditions shape (the legal system of the country. This principle still applies today; it is also ". the key to ~ "understanding the legal past.

The events of sixty years ago around the Suez Canal had a strong influence not only on the balance of power in the Middle East, but also on the entire world politics. The 1950s on a global scale were characterized by a further aggravation of the Cold War between the West and the socialist countries, and in the Middle East and North Africa, not without the influence of the USSR, an unprecedented rise of Arab nationalism took place.

Egypt, the most powerful of the Arab countries, was headed since 1956 by Gamal Abdel Nasser, one of the most ambitious Arab politicians of the 20th century. A nationalist and patriot of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, considered one of his most important tasks the nationalization of the Suez Canal, built in 1869 as a Franco-Egyptian project, but then fell under the control of the British. For Britain, as well as for the whole world in general, the Suez Canal was of great strategic importance, since it connected the Mediterranean Sea through the Red Sea with the Indian Ocean. If not for the Suez Canal, British ships would have to go to India, skirting the entire African continent.

The idea of ​​nationalizing the Suez Canal was seen by Nasser as an excellent opportunity to rally the Egyptians, and at the same time to strike at the British and French 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 accept 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 withdrawal of the funding proposal, on June 13, 1956, the withdrawal of British troops from Egyptian territory was completed. Thus, an end was put to the long British political and military presence in that country. The withdrawal of British troops added pluses to the already very high popularity of Gamal Abdel Nasser both in Egypt itself and in the Arab world as a whole. Behind him stuck the glory of a true fighter for the liberation of the Arab countries from Western colonialism. Nasser chose the right time to start nationalizing the canal - British troops had already been 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 needed a serious and impressive response from Egypt.

On July 26, 1956, Nasser made a statement in Alexandria about the nationalization of the Suez Canal. In his speech, he touched on both financial and historical aspects. From an economic point of view, Nasser stressed, nationalization is necessary to ensure the construction of the vital Aswan Dam, and from a historical point of view, it is a restoration of justice, liberation from the traces of British colonialism and a tribute to the memory of those 120,000 Egyptians who died during the construction of the canal in the 19th century. . Nasser's speech caused a real delight in the Arab world. For the first time, the leader of a developing country went directly against the interests of the 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 an escalation of 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 concluded a secret agreement in Sevres on the preparation of a military intervention. Moreover, Israel was attracted to participate in the coalition only later - at the initiative of France, since the UK 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 dissatisfied 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 the US plans to create an anti-Soviet coalition of Arab states in the Arab world.

After the invasion of the Anglo-French-Israeli troops into Egypt, even the most hostile to the USSR Arab countries would never have supported the pro-Western coalition. The adventure of 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 accounts for the Egyptian leadership and its policy were too serious.

The military circles of Great Britain and France faced a difficult task - not only to ensure the restoration of control over the Suez Canal by armed means, but also to achieve dominance in the Egyptian airspace, and, most importantly, to organize the overthrow of President Nasser, with whom they agreed, as they considered in London, Paris and Tel Aviv, it was impossible. As part of Operation Musketeer, as the plan for the invasion of Egypt was called, the joint forces were 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 Egypt, occupy the Sinai Peninsula, and then British and French troops, under the guise of a "peacekeeping operation", would undertake the destruction of Egyptian military facilities and establish control over the Suez Canal zone. The image of the aggressor Israel, which had already turned the entire Arab world against itself, was not needed, so Tel Aviv in return demanded that Britain consolidate its 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 was already launched.

To divert attention, Israel conducted a raid on the West Bank of the Jordan River, after which all the Arab countries decided that it was there that some aggressive actions from Tel Aviv should be expected. Iraq sent an army division to Jordan in case of possible hostilities against Israel.

The French Navy brought their ships to the Israeli coast, and units of the French ground forces began to land on Israeli airfields. In Israel itself, the mobilization of reservists began, and, as a distraction, it was explained by the need to increase the country's combat readiness in connection with the entry 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 on October 29, 1956, the Israeli army attacked the positions of the Egyptian troops in the Sinai Peninsula, the Chief of the General Staff of the Egyptian army, General Abdel Hakim Amer, at the head of an entire military delegation, was on an official visit to Jordan and Syria. On the night of October 28, Israel shot down an Egyptian plane returning from Syria, on which, as expected, Amer was supposed to fly. But the general returned to Egypt later, so only 18 senior officers of the Egyptian army were killed on the downed plane. After the start of the Israeli invasion, the US proposed a resolution calling for an end to the aggression against Egypt, but Britain and France, using their right as members of the UN Security Council, vetoed the US 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 of personnel differed significantly, but in addition there was a significant numerical superiority. About 30,000 Egyptian military personnel were stationed on the Sinai Peninsula, but only 10,000 of them served in the regular army, the remaining 20,000 people were paramilitary and militia units that did not have either the proper level of training or weapons. On October 31, British and French air forces began bombarding the Egyptian military infrastructure.

The allies, having begun to strike at the command posts and communication centers of the Egyptian armed forces, instantly disabled the entire control system of the Egyptian army, after which the latter was in a state of chaos. In the shortest possible time, the Egyptian air force was practically paralyzed, which could not lift most of its aircraft into the air. From the sea, the actions of British and French aviation and the Israeli ground forces supported British and French ships. Already on October 31, the Egyptian frigate "Dumyat" ("Damietta") was sunk, and the Egyptian destroyer "Ibrahim el-Aval" was captured in the Haifa area. On November 5, 1956, a British airborne brigade landed in Port Said and quickly established control over it, and French paratroopers captured Port Fuad. On the night of November 6, amphibious assault began on the captured bridgeheads. At the same time, Israeli units captured Sharm el-Sheikh, thereby establishing control over most of the Sinai Peninsula.

The fighting in Egypt caused an instant increase in international tension. In this situation, the Soviet Union was especially active. Nikita Khrushchev began to threaten Britain, France and Israel with military intervention, up to and including nuclear strikes on their military facilities. The United States of America also demanded an end to the aggression, which was also extremely annoyed by the Anglo-French initiative. 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, the opponents of the conflict managed to force Britain, France and Israel to conclude a truce with Egypt. The conflict was extinguished, and by December 1956, Great Britain and France withdrew their troops from the captured bridgeheads on Egyptian territory. In March 1957, under US pressure, units of the Israeli army were also withdrawn. On January 1, 1957, a decree was issued annulling the Suez Canal agreement, that is, Nasser's goal was achieved.

"Quick War" caused heavy losses for Egypt. About 3 thousand Egyptian soldiers 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 soldiers of the Israeli army and about 320 British and French soldiers who died. Egypt's main "hot spots" were identified in terms of command and control, training of troops and weapons, which forced Nasser to embark on a large-scale modernization of the armed forces with the help of the Soviet Union, which became for a long time the main supplier of military equipment and instructors for the Egyptian army.

As for the significance of the Suez crisis for international politics, it symbolized to a large extent the end of the era of colonialism. The two largest and most powerful colonial powers - Great Britain and France - were actually forced to give up their interests, unable to withstand the pressure of 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 the European powers brought the world to the brink of a 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 plans of conquest, Israel also turned out to be the winner in the Suez crisis. He not only checked and showed the Arab world the true combat capability of his army, but also achieved the lifting of the blockade from the Gulf of Aqaba and tangibly frightened the neighboring Arab states, emphasizing their readiness for decisive and tough actions.