History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

by J. N. Larned

received the name of Monte del Popolo, because it included all
who were eligible to the Great Council of the State. Yet the
factions of the elder Monti still survived; and to what extent
they had absorbed the population may be gathered from the fact
that, on the defeat of the Riformatori, 4,500 of the Sienese
were exiled. It must be borne in mind that with the creation
of each new Monte a new party formed itself in the city, and
the traditions of these parties were handed down from
generation to generation. At last, in the beginning of the
16th century, Pandolfo Petrucci, who belonged to the Monte de'
Nove, made himself in reality, if not in name, the master of
Siena, and the Duke of Florence later on in the same century
[1557]) extended his dominion over the republic."
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 3.
{2908}
SIENA: A. D. 1460.
War with Florence and victory at Montaperti.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
----------SIENA: End--------
SIENPI, The.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.
SIERRA LEONE.
"During the war of the [American] Revolution a large number of
blacks, chiefly runaway slaves, ranged themselves under the
British banner. At the close of the war a large number of
these betook themselves to Nova Scotia with the view of making
that their future home; while others followed the army, to
which they had been attached, to London. It was soon
ascertained that the climate of Nova Scotia was too severe for
those who had gone there; and those who followed the army to
London, when that was disbanded, found themselves in a strange
land, without friends and without the means of subsistence. In
a short time they were reduced to the most abject want and
poverty; and it was in view of their pitiable condition that
Dr. Smeathman and Granville Sharp brought forward the plan of
colonizing them on the coast of Africa. They were aided in
this measure by the Government. The first expedition left
England in 1787, and consisted of 400 blacks and about 60
whites, most of whom were women of the most debased character.
… On their arrival at Sierra Leone a tract of land of 20 miles
square was purchased from the natives of the country, and they
immediately commenced a settlement along the banks of the
river. In less than a year their number was reduced more than
one half, owing, in some measure, to the unhealthiness of the
climate, but more perhaps to their own irregularities. Two
years afterward they were attacked by a combination of
natives, and had nigh been exterminated. About this time the
'Sierra Leone Company' was formed to take charge of the
enterprise. Among its directors were enrolled the venerable
names of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thornton, and Granville Sharp.
The first agent sent out by the Company to look after this
infant colony found the number of settlers reduced to about
60. In 1791 upward of 1,100 colored emigrants were taken from
Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. About the same time as many as a
hundred whites embarked in England for the same place. … In
1798 it is said that Free-town had attained to the dimensions
of a full-grown town. … About the same time the colony was
farther reinforced by the arrival of more than 500 Maroons
from the Island of Jamaica. These Maroons were no better in
character than the original founders of the colony, and no
little disorder arose from mixing up such discordant elements.
These were the only emigrations of any consequence that ever
joined the colony of Sierra Leone from the Western hemisphere.
Its future accessions … came from a different quarter. In 1807
the slave-trade was declared piracy by the British Government,
and a squadron was stationed on the coast for the purpose of
suppressing it. About the same time the colony of Sierra Leone
was transferred to the Government, and has ever since been
regarded as a Crown colony. The slaves taken by the British
cruisers on the high seas have always been taken to this
colony and discharged there; and this has been the main source
of its increase of population from that time."
J. L. Wilson,
Western Africa,
part 4, chapter 2.
SIEVERSHAUSEN, Battle of (1553).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.
SIEYES, Abbé, and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE:
A. D. 1789 (JUNE);
1790;
1791 (OCTOBER);
1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
1799 (NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
SIFFIN, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
SIGAMBRI,
SICAMBRI.
See USIPETES;
also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.
SIGEBERT I.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 561-575.
SIGEBERT II.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), 633-650.
SIGEL, General Franz.
Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI);
1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
Command in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
SIGISMUND,
SIGMUND,
King of Hungary, A. D. 1386-1437;
King of Germany, 1410-1437;
Emperor, 1433-1437;
King of Bohemia, 1434-1437.
Sigismund, King of Sweden, 1522-1604.
Sigismund I., King of Poland, 1507-1548.
Sigismund II., King of Poland, 1548-1574.
Sigismund III., King of Poland, 1587-1632.
SIGNORY, The Florentine.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
SIGURD I., King of Norway, A. D. 1122-1130.
SIGURD II., King of Norway, 1136-1155.
SIKANS.
SIKELS.
See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.
SIKHS, The.
"The founder of the Sikh religion was Nanak [or Nanuk], son of
a petty Hindu trader named Kalu. Nanak was born in the
vicinity of Lahor in the year 1469. A youth much given to
reflection, he devoted himself at an early period of his life
to a study of the rival creeds then prevailing in India, the
Hindu and the Muhammadan. Neither satisfied him. … After
wandering through many lands in search of a satisfying truth,
Nanak returned to his native country with the conviction that
he had failed. He had found, he said, many scriptures and many
creeds; but he had not found God. Casting off his habit of an
ascetic, he resumed his father's trade, married, became the
father of a family, and passed the remainder of his life in
preaching the doctrine of the unity of one invisible God, of
the necessity of living virtuously, and of practising
toleration towards others. He died in 1539, leaving behind him
a reputation without spot, and many zealous and admiring
disciples eager to perpetuate his creed. The founder of a new
religion, Nanak, before his death, had nominated his
successor—a man of his own tribe named Angad. Angad held the
supremacy for twelve years, years which he employed mainly in
committing to writing the doctrines of his great master and in
enforcing them upon his disciples. Angad was succeeded by
Ummar Das, a great preacher. He, and his son-in-law and
successor, Ram Das, were held in high esteem by the emperor
Akbar. But it was the son of Ram Das, Arjun, who established
on a permanent basis the new religion. … He fixed the seat of
the chief Guru, or high priest of the religion, and of his
principal followers, at Amritsar, then an obscure hamlet, but
which, in consequence of the selection, speedily rose into
importance.
{2909}
Arjun then regulated and reduced to a systematic tax the
offerings of his adherents, to be found even then in every
city and village in the Panjab and the cis-satlaj territories.
… The real successor of Arjun was his son, Hur Govind. Hur
Govind founded the Sikh nation. Before his time the followers
of the Guru had been united by no tie but that of obedience to
the book. Govind formed them into a community of warriors. He
did away with many of the restrictions regarding food,
authorised his followers to eat flesh, summoned them to his
standard, and marched with them to consolidate his power. A
military organisation based upon a religious principle, and
directed by a strong central authority, will always become
powerful in a country the government of which is tainted with
decay. The ties which bound the Mughul empire together were
already loosening under the paralysing influence of the
bigotry of Aurangzile, when, in 1675, Govind, fourth in
succession to the Hur Govind to whom I have adverted, assumed
the mantle of Guru of the Sikhs. … Govind still further
simplified the dogmas of the faith. Assembling his followers,
he announced to them that thenceforward the doctrines of the
'Khalsa,' the saved or liberated, alone should prevail. There
must be no human image or resemblance of the One Almighty
Father; caste must cease to exist; before Him all men were
equal; Muhammadanism was to be rooted out; social
distinctions, all the solaces of superstition, were to exist
no more; they should call themselves 'Singh' and become a
nation of soldiers. The multitude received Govind's
propositions with rapture. By a wave of the hand he found
himself the trusted leader of a confederacy of warriors in a
nation whose institutions were decaying. About 1695, twelve
years before the death of Aurangzile, Govind put his schemes
into practice. He secured many forts in the hill-country of
the Panjab, defeated the Mughul troops in several encounters,
and established himself as a thorn in the side of the empire."
But more than half a century of struggle with Moghul, Afghan
and Mahratta disputants was endured before the Sikhs became
masters of the Panjab. When they had made their possession
secure, they were no longer united. They were "divided into 12
confederacies or misls, each of which had its chief equal in
authority to his brother chiefs, … and it was not until 1784
that a young chieftain named Maha Singh gained, mainly by
force of arms, a position which placed him above his fellows."
The son of Maha Singh was Ranjit Singh, or Runjet Singh, who
established his sovereignty upon a solid footing, made terms
with his English neighbors (see INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816), and
extended his dominions by the capture of Multan in 1818, by
the conquest of Kashmere in 1819-20, and by the acquisition of
Peshawar in 1823.
G. B. Malleson,
The Decisive Battles of India,
chapter 11.
The wars of the Sikhs with the English, in 1845-6, and 1848-9,
the conquest and annexation of their country to British India,
and the after-career in exile of Dhuleep Singh, the heir, are
related under INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849, and 1849-1893.
ALSO IN:
J. D. Cunningham,
History of the Sikhs.
Sir L. Griffin,
Ranjit Singh.
SIKSIKAS,
SISIKAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
SIKYON.
See SICYON.
SILBURY HILL.
See ABURY.
SILCHESTER, Origin of.
See CALLEVA.
----------SILESIA: Start--------
SILESIA:
Origin of the name:
See LYGIANS.
SILESIA: 9th Century.
Included in the kingdom of Moravia.
See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.
SILESIA: A. D. 1355.
Declared an integral part of Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
SILESIA: A. D. 1618.
Participation in the Bohemian revolt.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
SILESIA: A. D. 1633.
Campaign of Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
SILESIA: A. D. 1648.
Religious concessions in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
SILESIA: A. D. 1706.
Rights of the Protestants asserted and enforced by
Charles XII. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
SILESIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
Invasion and conquest by Frederick the Great.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
SILESIA: A. D. 1742.
Ceded to Prussia by the Treaty of Breslau.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE).
SILESIA: A. D. 1748.
Cession to Prussia confirmed.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.
SILESIA: A. D. 1757.
Overrun by the Austrians.
Recovered by Frederick the Great.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
SILESIA: A. D. 1758.
Again occupied by the Austrians.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
SILESIA: A. D. 1760-1762.
Last campaigns of the Seven Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1760; and 1761-1762.
SILESIA: A. D. 1763.
Final surrender to Prussia.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.
----------SILESIA: End--------
SILESIAN WARS, The First and Second.
The part which Frederick the Great took in the War of the
Austrian Succession, in 1740-1741, when he invaded and took
possession of Silesia, and in 1743-1745 when he resumed arms
to make his conquest secure, is commonly called the First
Silesian War and the Second Silesian War.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741; 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.
SILESIAN WARS, The Third.
The Seven Years War has been sometimes so-called.
See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1755-1756.
SILINGI, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
SILISTRIA: A. D. 1828-1829.
Siege and capture by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
SILK MANUFACTURE; transferred from Greece to Sicily and Italy.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
SILLERY, The Mission at.
See CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.
SILO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 774-783.
SILOAM INSCRIPTION, The.
A very ancient and most important inscription which was
discovered in 1880 on the wall of a rock-cut channel leading
into the so-called Pool of Siloam, at Jerusalem. It relates
only to the excavating of the tunnel which carries water to
the Pool, "yet its importance epigraphically and
philologically is immense. … It shows us that several
centuries must have elapsed, during which the modifications of
form which distinguish the Phoenician, the Moabite and the
Hebrew scripts gradually developed, and that the Hebrews,
therefore, would probably have been in possession of the art
of writing as early at least as the time of Solomon."
C. R. Conder,
Syrian Stone-Lore,
page 118.
{2910}
SILPHIUM.
See CYRENAICA.
SILURES, The.
An ancient tribe in southern Wales, supposed by some to
represent a mixture of the Celtic and pre-Celtic inhabitants
of Britain.
See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN;
also, BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.
The conquest of the Silures was effected by Claudius.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.
SILVER-GRAYS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
SILVER QUESTION, in America, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1873, 1878, 1890-1893;
also MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893, and 1853-1874.
SILVER QUESTION, in India, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1893.
SIMNEL, Lambert, Rebellion of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.
SIMPACH, Battle of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
SIN.
SINÆ.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
SINDH.
See SCINDE.
SINDMAN, The.
See COMITATUS.
SINGARA, Battle of (A. D.348).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
SINGIDUNUM.
See BELGRADE.
SINIM.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
SINITES, The.
A Canaanite tribe whose country was the mountain chain of
Lebanon.
SINSHEIM, Battle of (1674).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SION.
See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.
SIOUX, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
SIPPARA, The exhumed Library of.
See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.
SIRBONIS LAKE.
See SERBONIAN BOG.
SIRIS.
SIRITIS.
THURII.
METAPONTIUM.
TARENTUM.
"Between the point [on the Tarentine gulf, southeastern Italy]
where the dominion of Sybaris terminated on the Tarentine
side, and Tarentum itself, there were two considerable Grecian
settlements—Siris, afterwards called Herakleia, and
Metapontium. The fertility and attraction of the territory of
Siris, with its two rivers, Akiris and Sins, were well-known
even to the poet Archilochus (660 B. C.). but we do not know
the date at which it passed from the indigenous Chonians, or
Chaonians into the hands of Greek settlers. … At the time of
the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the fertile territory of
Siritis was considered as still open to be colonised; for the
Athenians, when their affairs appeared desperate, had this
scheme of emigration in reserve as a possible resource. … At
length, after the town of Thurii had been founded by Athens
[B. C. 443, under the administration of Perikles; the
historian Herodotus and the orator Lycias being among the
settlers], in the vicinity of the dismantled Sybaris, the
Thurians tried to possess themselves of the Siritid territory,
but were opposed by the Tarentines. According to the
compromise concluded between them, Tarentum was recognised as
the metropolis of the colony, but joint possession was allowed
both to Tarentines and Thurians. The former transferred the
site of the city, under the new name Herakleia, to a spot
three miles from the sea, leaving Siris as the place of
maritime access to it. About twenty-five miles eastward of
Siris, on the coast of the Tarentine gulf, was situated
Metapontium, a Greek town, … planted on the territory of the
Chonians, or Œnotrians; but the first colony is said to have
been destroyed by an attack of the Samnites, at what period we
do not know. It had been founded by some Achæan settlers. …
The fertility of the Metapontine territory was hardly less
celebrated than that of the Siritid. Farther eastward of
Metapontium, again at the distance of about twenty-five miles,
was situated the great city of Taras, or Tarentum, a colony
from Sparta founded after the first Messenian war, seemingly
about 707 B. C. … The Tarentines … stand first among the
Italiots, or Italian Greeks, from the year 400 B. C. down to
the supremacy of the Romans."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22.
SIRKARS, OR CIRCARS, The Northern.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
SIRMIUM.
Sirmium (modern Mitrovitz, on the Save) was the Roman capital
of Pannonia, and an important center of all military
operations in that region.
SIRMIUM:
Ruined by the Huns.
See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
SIRMIUM:
Captured by the Avars.
See AVARS.
SISECK, Siege and Battle of (1592).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
SISINNIUS, Pope, A. D. 708, January to February.
SISSETONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
SISTOVA, Treaty of (1791).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
SITABALDI HILLS, Battle of the (1817).
See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
SITVATOROK, Treaty of (1606).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
SIX ACTS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
SIX ARTICLES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.
SIX HUNDRED, The Charge of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
SIX NATIONS OF INDIANS.
See FIVE NATIONS.
SIXTEEN OF THE LEAGUE, in Paris, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
SIXTUS IV., Pope, A. D. 1471-1484.
SIXTUS V., Pope, 1585-1590.
SKALDS.
See SCALDS.
SKINNERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SKITTAGETAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.
SKOBELEFF, General, Campaigns of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881;
and TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
SKODRA (Scutari).
See ILLYRIANS.
SKRÆLINGS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
SKUPTCHINA.
The Servian parliament or legislature.
{2911}
SKYTALISM.
See SCYTALISM.
SLAVE:
Origin of the servile signification of the word.
The term slave, in its signification of a servile state, is
derived undoubtedly from the name of the Slavic or Sclavic
people. "This conversion of a national into an appellative
name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the
Oriental France [Austrasia], where the princes and bishops
were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian
(exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word
was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even
to the style of the last Byzantines."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 55, foot-note.
See, also, AVARS; and SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
SLAVE OR MAMELUKE DYNASTY OF INDIA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
SLAVE RISING UNDER SPARTACUS.
See SPARTACUS;
and ROME: B. C. 78-68.
SLAVE TRADE, First measures for the suppression of the.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.
SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.
After the Romans became masters of Sicily the island was
filled rapidly with slaves, of which a vast number were being
continually acquired in the Roman wars of conquest. Most of
these slaves were employed as shepherds and herdsmen on great
estates, the owners of which gave little attention to them,
simply exacting in the most merciless fashion a satisfactory
product. The result was that the latter, half perishing from
hunger and cold, were driven to desperation, and a frightful
rising among them broke out, B. C. 133. It began at Enna, and
its leader was a Syrian called Eunus, who pretended to
supernatural powers. The inhabitants of Enna were massacred,
and that town became the stronghold of the revolt. Eunus
crowned himself and assumed the royal name of Antiochus.
Agrigentum, Messana and Tauromenium fell into the hands of the
insurgents, and more than a year passed before they were
successfully resisted. When, at last, they were overcome, it
was only at the end of most obstinate sieges, particularly at
Tauromenium and Enna, and the vengeance taken was without
mercy. In Italy there were similar risings at the same time,
from like causes, but these latter were quickly suppressed.
Thirty years later a second revolt of slaves was provoked,
both in southern Italy and in Sicily,—suppressed promptly in
the former, but growing to seriousness in the latter. The
Sicilian slaves had two leaders, Salvius and Athenio; but the
former established his ascendancy and called himself king
Triphon. The rebellion was suppressed at the cost of two heavy
battles.
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 48,
and book 6, chapter 55.
ALSO IN:
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 9.
----------SLAVERY: Start--------
SLAVERY: Ancient.
Among the Oriental races.
"From the writings of the Old Testament a fairly distinct
conception can be formed of slavery among the Hebrews. Many
modern critics hold the picture presented in the Book of
Genesis, of the patriarchal age, its slavery included, to be
not a transcript of reality, but an idealisation of the past.
Whether this is so or not, can only be properly decided by the
historico-critical investigations of specialists. Although the
Hebrews are described as having shown extreme ferocity in the
conquest of Canaan, their legislation as to slavery was, on
the whole, considerate and humane. Slaves were not numerous
among them, at least after the exile. Hebrew slavery has
naturally been the subject of much research and controversy.
The best treatise regarding it is still that of Mielziner.
Slavery in the great military empires, which arose in ancient
times in anterior Asia, was doubtless of the most cruel
character; but we have no good account of slavery in these
countries. The histories of Rawlinson, Duncker, Ranke, Ed.
Meyer, and Maspero, tell us almost nothing about Chaldean,
Assyrian, and Medo-Persian slavery. Much more is known as to
slavery, and the condition of the labouring classes, in
ancient Egypt, although of even this section of the history
there is much need for an account in which the sources of
information, unsealed by modern science, will be fully
utilised. While in Egypt there were not castes, in the strict
sense of the term, classes were very rigidly defined. There
were troops of slaves, and as population was superabundant,
labour was so cheap as to be employed to an enormous extent
uselessly. It may suffice to refer to Wilkinson, Rawlinson,
and Buckle. It does not seem certain that the Vedic Aryans had
slaves before the conquest of India. Those whom they conquered
became the Sudras, and a caste system grew up, and came to be
represented as of divine appointment. The two lower castes of
the Code of Manu have now given place to a great many. There
was not a slave caste, but individuals of any caste might
become slaves in exceptional circumstances. Even before the
rise of Buddhism there were ascetics who rejected the
distinction of castes. Buddhism proclaimed the religious
equality of Brahmans and Sudras, but not the emancipation of
the Sudras."
R. Flint,
History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
pages 128-129.
ALSO IN:
E. J. Simcox,
Primitive Civilizations.
SLAVERY:
Among the Greeks.
"The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is
impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the
very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point
of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened
philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from
time to time protesting against the necessity of the
institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of
human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the
very earliest times the right of the strongest had established
the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or
ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold
into slavery by them. … Besides the wars, piracy, originally
regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave
markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set
a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased,
since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in
Greece, but still more in Oriental countries.
{2912}
In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most
part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the
Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied
themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on
the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not
only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in
particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave
trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at
Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the
first of every month. … A large portion of the slave
population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that
is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave
mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner
disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the
number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece
was large or small. At Rome thy formed a large proportion of
the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed
greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as
much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their
cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those
who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born
slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class.
In early times even free men might become slaves by legal
methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected
their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were
insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors [see
DEBT: ANCIENT GREEK], a severe measure which was forbidden by
Solon's legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other
Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of
those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of
the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their
owners. Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic
population originally resident there were subdued by foreign
tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their
position differed in but few respects from that of the
barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs
were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the
Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the
position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive
the statements of writers with great caution, since they
undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the
cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it
is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. …
The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were
very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in
the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour —for instance,
in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them
with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but,
at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. … Legal
marriages between slaves were not possible, since they
possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment
separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of
it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to
earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they
then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain
proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves,
and when they had saved the necessary amount they could
purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to
agree, for he was not compelled. … The protection given to
slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were
differences in different states. … It would be impossible to
make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on
the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us
any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a
very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own
no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very
modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six
persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands
working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and
those who were the property of the State and the temples,
there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably
exceeded that of the free population."
H. Blümner,
The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
lectures 2-3, third course (volume 2).
SLAVERY:
Among the Romans.
Slavery, under the Roman Empire, "was carried to an excess
never known elsewhere, before or since.
See ROME: B. C. 159-133.
Christianity found It permeating and corrupting every domain
of human life, and in six centuries of conflict succeeded in
reducing it to nothing. … Christianity, in the early ages,
never denounced slavery as a crime; never encouraged or
permitted the slaves to rise against their masters and throw
off the yoke; yet she permeated the minds of both masters and
slaves with ideas utterly inconsistent with the spirit of
slavery. Within the Church, master and slave stood on an
absolute equality."
W. R. Brownlow,
Lectures on Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
lectures 1-2.
SLAVERY: Mediæval and Modern.
SLAVERY:
Villeinage.
Serfdom.
"The persons employed in cultivating the ground during the
ages under review [the 7th to the 11th centuries, in Europe]
may be divided into three classes:
I. 'Servi,' or slaves. This seems to have been the most
numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war,
or of persons the property in whom was acquired in some one of
the various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. Servus,
volume vi. page 447. The wretched condition of this numerous
race of men will appear from several circumstances.
1. Their masters had absolute dominion over their persons.
They had the power of punishing their slaves capitally,
without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right
they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their
manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the 12th
century. … Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be
restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little
value that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it
away. If masters had power over the lives of their slaves, it
is evident that almost no bounds would be set to the rigour of
the punishments which they might inflict upon them. … The
cruelty of these was, in many instances, excessive. Slaves
might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. The laws
with respect to these points are to be found in Potgiesserus,
lib. iii. cap. 7. 2. and are shocking to humanity.
{2913}
2. If the dominion of masters over the lives and persons of
their slaves was thus extensive, it was no less so over their
actions and property. They were not originally permitted to
marry. Male and female slaves were allowed, and even
encouraged, to cohabit together. But this union was not
considered as a marriage. … When the manners of the European
nations became more gentle, and their ideas more liberal,
slaves who married without their master's consent were
subjected only to a fine. …
3. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with
their parents, and became the property of their master. …
4. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters that
they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery
continued, property in a slave was sold in the same manner
with that which a person had in any other moveable. Afterwards
slaves became 'adscripti glebæ,' and were conveyed by sale,
together with the farm or estate to which they belonged. …
5. Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes
from their master; all the profits of their labour accrued to
him. …
6. Slaves were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress.
Among all the barbarous nations, long hair was a mark of
dignity and of freedom; slaves were for that reason, obliged
to shave their heads. …
II. 'Villani.' They were likewise 'adscripti glebæ,' or
'villæ,' from which they derived their name, and were
transferable along with it. Du Cange, voc. Villanus. But in
this they differed from slaves, that they paid a fixed rent to
their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after
paying that, all the fruits of their labour and industry
belonged to themselves in property. This distinction is marked
by Pierre de Fontain's Conseil. Vie de St. Louis par
Joinville, page 119, édit. de Du Cange. Several cases decided
agreeably to this principle are mentioned by Muratori, ibid,
page 773.
III. The last class of persons employed in agriculture were
freemen. … Notwithstanding the immense difference between the
first of these classes and the third, such was the spirit of
tyranny which prevailed among the great proprietors of lands …
that many freemen, in despair, renounced their liberty, and
voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful
masters. This they did in order that their masters might
become more immediately interested to afford them protection,
together with the means of subsisting themselves and their
families. … It was still more common for freemen to surrender
their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of
the security which the vassals and slaves of churches and
monasteries enjoyed. … The number of slaves in every nation of
Europe was immense. The greater part of the inferior class of
people in France were reduced to this state at the
commencement of the third race of kings. Esprit des Loix, liv.
xxx. c. ii. The same was the case in England. Brady, Pref. to
Gen. Hist. … The humane spirit of the christian religion
struggled long with the maxims and manners of the world, and
contributed more than any other circumstance to introduce the
practice of manumission. … The formality of manumission was
executed in a church, as a religious solemnity. … Another
method of obtaining liberty was by entering into holy orders,
or taking the vow in a monastery. This was permitted for some
time; but so many slaves escaped by this means out of the
hands of their masters that the practice was afterwards
restrained, and at last prohibited, by the laws of almost all
the nations of Europe. … Great … as the power of religion was,
it does not appear that the enfranchisement of slaves was a
frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its
vigour. … The inferior order of men owed the recovery of their
liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy."
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
notes 9 and 20.
ALSO IN:
A. Gurowski,
Slavery in History,
chapters 15-20.
T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 3, chapter 5.
See, also, DEDITITIUS.
SLAVERY: England.
Villeinage.
"Chief of all causes [of slavery] in early times and among all
peoples was capture in war. The peculiar nature of the English
conquests, the frequent wars between the different kingdoms
and the private expeditions for revenge or plunder would
render this a fruitful means whereby the number of slaves
would increase on English soil. In this way the Romanized
Briton, the Welshman, the Angle and Saxon and the Dane would
all go to swell the body of those without legal status. In
those troubled times any were liable to a reduction to
slavery; the thegn might become a thrall, the lord might
become the slave of one who had been in subjection under him,
and Wulfstan, in that strong sermon of his to the English
[against Slavery—preserved by William of Malmesbury], shows
that all this actually took place. It was at the time of the
Danish invasion and the sermon seems to point clearly to a
region infested by Danes, a region in which was the seat of
Wulfstan's labors, for he was Archbishop of York from 1002 to
1023. Wulfstan's graphic picture does not seem to be
corroborated by the evidence of the Domesday Survey. Mr.
Seebohm's map shows that in the west and southwest there
appears the greatest percentage in that record; that in
Gloucestershire nearly one fourth of the population,
twenty-four per cent., were in a state of slavery; that in
Cornwall, Devon, and Stafford the proportion was only one to
every five; in central England about one to every seven; in
the east, Essex, Surrey, Cambridge and Herts one to every
nine; in East Anglia and Wessex one to every twenty-five,
while in the northerly districts in Nottinghamshire one to two
hundred is given, and in York, Rutland, Huntingdon and Lincoln
no slaves at all are recorded. From this it is evident that
the Danish invasion was less serious from this point of view
than had been the original conquest. Domesday records the
social condition 500 years after the settlement, and many
influences, with Christianity as the primary, were at work to
alter the results of that movement. The main inference to be
drawn is that the continued warfare along the Welsh marches
replenished the supply in the west, while in the east the
slave element was rapidly decreasing and in the north,
notwithstanding the Danish invasion, there was rather a
commingling of peoples than a subjection of the one by the
other. A second cause was the surrender into slavery of the
individual's own body either by himself or a relative. This
could be voluntary, the free act of the individual or his
relatives, or it could be forced, resulting from the storm and
stress of evil days: This surrender was one of the most
unfortunate phases of the Anglo-Saxon servitude and indicates
to us the growing increase of the traffic in slaves; and the
personal subjection was largely the outcome of that which was
common to all peoples, the demand for slaves.
{2914}
Even as early as the time of Strabo, in the half century
following Cæsar's conquest, the export of slaves began in
Britain and before the Norman Conquest the sale of slaves had
become a considerable branch of commerce. The insular position
of England, her numerous ports, of which Bristol was one of
the chief, gave rise during the Saxon occupation to a traffic
in the slaves of all nations, and we know that slaves were
publicly bought and sold throughout England and from there
transported to Ireland or the continent. It was the prevalence
of this practice and the wretched misery which it brought upon
so many human beings, as well as the fact that it was against
the precepts if not the laws of the church, that led Wulfstan,
the Wilberforce of his time, to bring about the cessation of
the slave trade at Bristol. From this place lines of women and
children, gathered together from all England, were carried
into Ireland and sold. … Besides this sale into slavery for
purposes of traffic, which as a regular commerce was not
prohibited until after the Norman conquest, many seem to have
submitted themselves to the mastery of another through the
need of food, which a year of famine might bring. A charter in
the Codex Diplomaticus tells us of those men who bowed their
heads for their meat in the evil days. Kemble thinks that such
cases might have been frequent and Simeon of Durham, writing
of the year 1069 when there was a dreadful famine in England,
which raged particularly in the north, says that many sold
themselves into slavery, that they might receive the needed
support. … Even so late as the so-called laws of Henry I, such
an act was recognized and a special procedure provided. … In
addition to all those thus born into slavery or reduced to
that condition in the ways above noted, there was another
class made up of such as were reduced to slavery unwillingly
as a penalty for debt or crime: these were known as
'witetheowas' or 'wite-fæstanmen.' … The legal condition of
the slave was a particularly hard one; as a thing, not as a
person, he was classed with his lord's goods and cattle and
seems to have been rated according to a similar schedule, to
be disposed of at the lord's pleasure like his oxen or horses.
… They had no legal rights before the law and could bear no
arms save the cudgel, the 'billum vel strublum,' as the laws
of Henry I call it. Yet the position of the slave appears to
have improved in the history of Anglo-Saxon law. … Hardly any
part of the work of the Church was of greater importance than
that which related to the moral and social elevation of the
slave class. Its influence did much to mitigate their hard
lot, both directly and indirectly."
C. McL. Andrews,
The Old English Manor,
page 181-188.
The Domesday Survey "attests the existence [in England, at the
time of the Norman Conquest] of more than 25,000 servi, who
must be understood to be, at the highest estimate of their
condition, landless labourers; over 82,000 bordarii; nearly
7,000 cotarii and cotseti, whose names seem to denote the
possession of land or houses held by service of labour or rent
paid in produce; and nearly 110,000 villani. Above these were
the liberi homines and sokemanni, who seem to represent the
medieval and modern freeholder. The villani of Domesday are no
doubt the ceorls of the preceding period, the men of the
township, the settled cultivators of the land, who in a
perfectly free state of society were the owners of the soil
they tilled, but under the complicated system of rights and
duties which marked the close of the Anglo-Saxon period had
become dependent on a lord, and now under the prevalence of
the feudal idea were regarded as his customary tenants;
irremoveable cultivators, who had no proof of their title but
the evidence of their fellow ceorls. For two centuries after
the Conquest the villani are to be traced in the possession of
rights both social and to a certain extent political. … They
are spoken of by the writers of the time as a distinct order
of society, who, although despicable for ignorance and
coarseness, were in possession of considerable comforts, and
whose immunities from the dangers of a warlike life
compensated for the somewhat unreasoning contempt with which
they were viewed by clerk and knight. During this time the
villein could assert his rights against every oppressor but
his master; and even against his master the law gave him a
standing-ground if he could make his complaint known to those
who had the will to maintain it. But there can be little doubt
that the Norman knight practically declined to recognise the
minute distinctions of Anglo-Saxon dependence, and that the
tendency of both law and social habit was to throw into the
class of native or born villeins the whole of the population
described in Domesday under the heads of servi, bordarii and
villani."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 132.
"It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to
ancient slavery, one implying dependence on the lord of the
soil and attachment to the glebe, the other being based on
complete subjection to an owner. … If, from a general survey
of medieval servitude we turn to the actual condition of the
English peasantry, say in the 13th century, the first fact we
have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general
proposition. The majority of the peasants are villains, and
the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the
connexion of the villain with the soil, but in his personal
dependence on the lord. … As to the general aspect of
villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can
be no doubt. The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few
words: the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of
the bodies of their 'ascripticii,' they may transfer them
wherever they please, 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if
they like.' Glanville and Bracton, Fleta and Britton follow in
substance the same doctrine, although they use different
terms. They appropriate the Roman view that there is no
difference of quality between serfs and serfs: all are in the
same abject state. Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the
distinction between status and tenure, between a villain and a
free man holding in villainage, but it does not admit of any
distinction of status among serfs: 'servus,' 'villanus' and
'nativus' are equivalent terms as to personal condition,
although this last is primarily meant to indicate something
else besides condition, namely, the fact that a person has
come to it by birth. … Manorial lords could remove peasants
from their holdings at their will and pleasure. An appeal to
the courts was of no avail.
{2915}
… Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and
nature of his services; the King's Courts will not examine any
complaint in this respect, and may sometimes go so far as to
explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between
the lord and his man. … Even as to his person, the villain was
liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord, if the
punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury
to his body. … It is not strange that in view of such
disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume
equality of condition between the English villain and the
Roman slave, and to use the terms 'servus,' 'villanus,' and
'nativus' indiscriminately."
P. Vinogradoff,
Villainage in England,
chapter 1.
"Serfdom is met with for the last time in the statute-book of
England under Richard II. By reason of the thriving condition
of the towns, many villeins who had betaken themselves
thither, partly with the consent of their owners and partly in
secret, became free. If a slave remained a year and a day in a
privileged town without being reclaimed in the interval, he
became free. The wars carried on against France, the fact that
serf-labour had become more expensive than that of free-men,
thus rendering emancipation an 'economical' consideration, and
finally, frequent uprisings, contributed to diminish the
number of these poor helots. How rapidly serfdom must have
fallen away may be inferred from the fact that the rebels
under Wat Tyler, in 1381, clamored for the removal of serfdom;
the followers of Jack Cade, in 1450, for everything else save
the abolition of slavery. … The few purchasable slaves under
the Tudors were met with only on the property of the churches,
the monasteries, and the bishoprics. This slavery was often of
a voluntary nature. On the king's domains bondmen were only

emancipated by Elizabeth in 1574. The last traces of personal
slavery, and of a subject race permanently annexed to the
soil, are met with in the reign of James I. As a rule, it may
be assumed that, with the Tudors, serfdom disappeared in
England."
E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
F. Hargrave,
Argument in the Case of James Sommersett
(Howell's State Trials, volume 20).
W. R. Brownlow,
Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
lectures 3-4.
See, also, MANORS.
SLAVERY: France.
Villeinage.
On the condition of the servile classes in Gaul during the
first five or six centuries after the barbarian conquest.
See GAUL: 5-10TH CENTURIES.
"In the Salic laws, and in the Capitularies, we read not only
of Servi, but of Tributarii, Lidi, and Coloni, who were
cultivators of the earth, and subject to residence upon their
lord's estate, though not destitute of property or civil
rights. Those who appertained to the demesne lands of the
crown were called Fiscalini. … The number of these servile
cultivators was undoubtedly great, yet in those early times, I
should conceive, much less than it afterwards became. … The
accumulation of overgrown private wealth had a natural
tendency to make slavery more frequent. … As the labour either
of artisans or of free husbandmen was but sparingly in demand,
they were often compelled to exchange their liberty for bread.
In seasons, also, of famine, and they were not unfrequent,
many freemen sold themselves to slavery. … Others became
slaves, as more fortunate men became vassals, to a powerful
lord, for the sake of his protection. Many were reduced into
this state through inability to pay those pecuniary
compositions for offences which were numerous and sometimes
heavy in the barbarian codes of law; and many more by neglect
of attendance on military expeditions of the king, the penalty
of which was a fine called Heribann, with the alternative of
perpetual servitude. … The characteristic distinction of a
villein was his obligation to remain upon his lord's estate. …
But, equally liable to this confinement, there were two
classes of villeins, whose condition was exceedingly
different. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II.,
one only, and that the inferior species, existed; incapable of
property, and destitute of redress, except against the most
outrageous injuries. … But by the customs of France and
Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been called
serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to
fixed payments and duties. … Louis Hutin, in France, after
innumerable particular instances of manumission had taken
place, by a general edict in 1315, reciting that his kingdom
is denominated the kingdom of the Franks, that he would have
the fact to correspond with the name, emancipates all persons
in the royal domains upon paying a just composition, as an
example for other lords possessing villeins to follow. Philip
the Long renewed the same edict three years afterwards; a
proof that it had not been carried into execution. … It is not
generally known, I think, that predial servitude was not
abolished in all parts of France till the revolution. In some
places, says Pasquier, the peasants are taillables à volonté,
that is, their contribution is not permanent, but assessed by
the lord with the advice of prud'hommes, resseants sur les
lieux, according to the peasant's ability. Others pay a fixed
sum. Some are called serfs de poursuite, who cannot leave
their habitations, but may be followed by the lord into any
part of France for the taille upon their goods. … Nor could
these serfs, or gens de mainmorte, as they were sometimes
called, be manumitted without letters patent of the king,
purchased by a fine.-Recherches de la France, l. iv., c. 5.
Dubos informs us that, in 1615, the Tiers État prayed the king
to cause all serfs (hommes de pooste) to be enfranchised on
paying a composition, but this was not complied with, and they
existed in many parts when he wrote."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 2, part 2, and foot-note (volume 1).
"The last traces of serfdom could only be detected [at the
time of the Revolution] in one or two of the eastern provinces
annexed to France by conquest; everywhere else the institution
had disappeared; and indeed its abolition had occurred so long
before that even the date of it was forgotten. The researches
of archæologists of our own day have proved that as early as
the 13th century serfdom was no longer to be met with in
Normandy."
A. de Tocqueville,
State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789,
book 2, chapter 1.
{2916}
SLAVERY:
Germany.
"As the great distinction in the German community was between
the nobles and the people, so amongst the people was the
distinction between the free and the servile. Next to those
who had the happiness to be freeborn were the Freedmen, whom
the indulgence or caprice of their masters relieved from the
more galling miseries of thraldom. But though the Freedman was
thus imperfectly emancipated, he formed a middle grade between
the Freeman and the Slave. He was capable of possessing
property; but was bound to pay a certain rent, or perform a
certain service, to the lord. He was forbidden to marry
without the lord's assent; and he and his children were
affixed to the farm they cultivated. … This mitigated
servitude was called 'Lidum,' and the Freedman, Lidus, Leud,
or Latt. The Lidus of an ecclesiastical master was called
Colonus. … A yet lower class were the Slaves, or Serfs
[Knechte] who were employed in menial or agricultural
services; themselves and their earnings being the absolute
property of their master, and entirely at his disposal. The
number of these miserable beings was gradually increased by
the wars with the Sclavonic nations, and the sale of their
prisoners was one great object of traffic in the German fairs
and markets. But a variety of causes combined to wear out this
abominable system; and as civilization advanced, the
severities of slavery diminished; so that its extinction was
nearly accomplished before the 14th century."
Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 27 (volume 2).
"The following table will show that the abolition of serfdom
in most parts of Germany took place very recently. Serfdom was
abolished:
1. In Baden, in 1783.
2. In Hohenzollern, in 1804.
3. In Schleswig and Holstein, in 1804.
4. In Nassau, in 1808.
5. In Prussia, Frederick William I. had done away with serfdom
in his own domains so early as 1717.
The code of the Great Frederick … was intended to abolish it
throughout the kingdom, but in reality it only got rid of it
in its hardest form, the 'leibeigenschaft,' and retained it in
the mitigated shape of 'erbunterthänigkeit.' It was not till
1809 that it disappeared altogether.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
6. In Bavaria serfdom disappeared in 1808.
7. A decree of Napoleon, dated from Madrid in 1808, abolished
it in the Grand-duchy of Berg, and in several other smaller
territories, such as Erfurt, Baireuth, &c.
8. In the kingdom of Westphalia, its destruction dates from
1808 and 1809.
9. In the principality of Lippe Detmold, from 1809.
10. In Schomburg Lippe, from 1810.
11. In Swedish Pomerania, from 1810, also.
12. In Hessen Darmstadt, from 1809 and 1811.
13. In Wurtemberg, from 1817.
14. In Mecklenburg, from 1820.
15. In Oldenburgh, from 1814.
16. In Saxony for Lusatia, from 1832.
17. In Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, only from 1833.
18. In Austria, from 1811.
So early as in 1782, Joseph II. had destroyed
'leibeigenschaft;' but serfage in its mitigated form of
'erbunterthänigkeit,' lasted till 1811."
A. de Tocqueville,
State of Society in France before 1789, note D.
SLAVERY: Hungary and Austria: A. D. 1849.
Completed emancipation of the peasantry.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.
SLAVERY: Ireland: 12th Century.
The Bristol Slave-trade.
See BRISTOL: 12TH CENTURY.
SLAVERY: Moslem relinquishment of Christian slavery.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.
SLAVERY: Papal doctrine of the condemnation of the
Jews to perpetual bondage.
See JEWS: 13-14TH CENTURIES.
SLAVERY: Poland.
"The statements of the Polish nobles and their historians, to
the effect that the peasant was always the hereditary property
of the lord of the manor are false. This relation between
eleven million men and barely half a million masters is an
abuse of the last two hundred years, and was preceded by one
thousand years of a better state of things. Originally the
noble did not even possess jurisdiction over the peasant. It
was wielded by the royal castellans, and in exceptional cases
was bestowed on individual nobles, as a reward for
distinguished services. … Those peasants were free who were
domiciled according to German law, or who dwelt on the land
which they themselves had reclaimed. It was owing to the
feudal lords' need of labourers, that the rest of the peasants
were bound to the soil and could not leave the land without
permission. But the peasant did not belong to the lord, he
could not be sold. … The fact that he could possess land
prevented him from ever becoming a mere serf. … It is
remarkable that the Polish peasant enjoyed these privileges at
a time when villeinage existed in all the rest of Europe, and
that his slavery began when other nations became free.
Villeinage ceased in Germany as early as the 12th and 13th
centuries, except in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and Lusetia,
which had had a Slavonic population. … In Poland it began in
the 16th century. The kings were forced to promise that they
would grant the peasant no letters of protection against his
lord [Alexander, 1505; Sigismund I., 1543; Sigismund III.,
1588]. Henceforth the lord was to have the right of punishing
his disobedient subjects at his own discretion. … Without the
repeal of a single statute favourable to the peasants, it
became a fundamental principle of the constitution, that
'Henceforth no temporal court in existence can grant the
peasant redress against his lord, though property, honour, or
life be at stake.' The peasant was thus handed over to an
arbitrary power, which had no limit, except that which the
excess of an evil imposes on the evil itself. … There was no
help for the peasant save in the mercy of his lord or in his
own despair. The result was those terrible insurrections of
the peasants—the very threat of which alarmed the nobles—the
ruin of landed property, and the failure of those sources from
which a nation should derive its prosperity and its strength."
Count von Moltke,
Poland: an Historical Sketch,
chapter 4.
SLAVERY:
Rome, Italy, and the Church.
"It is perhaps hardly surprising that the city of Rome should,
even down to the 16th century, have patronised slavery, and it
was only natural that the rest of Italy should follow the
example of the metropolis of Christianity. The popes were wont
to issue edicts of slavery against whole towns and provinces:
thus for instance did Boniface VIII. against the retainers of
the Colonnas.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1204-13481;
Clement V. against the Venetians; Sixtus IV. against the
Florentines; Gregory XI. against the Florentines;
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
Julius II. against the Bolognese and Venetians; and the
meaning of it was, that anyone who could succeed in capturing
any of the persons of the condemned was required to make
slaves of them. The example of Rome encouraged the whole of
Italy, and especially Venice, to carry on a brisk trade in
foreign, and especially female slaves. The privilege which had
sprung up in Rome and lasted for some years, by virtue of
which a slave taking refuge on the Capitol became free, was
abolished in 1548 by Paul III. upon the representation of the
Senate.
{2917}
Rome, of all the great powers of Europe, was the last to
retain slavery. Scholasticism having undertaken in the 13th
century to justify the existing state of things, a theological
sanction was discovered for slavery; Ægidius of Rome, taking
Thomas Aquinas as his authority, declared that it was a
Christian institution, since original sin had deprived man of
any right to freedom."
J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
p. 75.
See, also, CATTANI.
SLAVERY: Russia.
Serfdom and Emancipation.
"In the earliest period of Russian history the rural
population was composed of three distinct classes. At the
bottom of the scale stood the slaves, who were very numerous.
Their numbers were continually augmented by prisoners of war,
by freemen who voluntarily sold themselves as slaves, by
insolvent debtors, and by certain categories of criminals.
Immediately above the slaves were the free agricultural
labourers, who had no permanent domicile, but wandered about
the country and settled temporarily where they happened to
find work and satisfactory remuneration. In the third place,
distinct from these two classes, and in some respects higher
in the social scale, were the peasants properly so called.
These peasants proper, who may be roughly described as small
farmers or cottiers, were distinguished from the free
agricultural labourers in two respects: they were possessors
of land in property or usufruct, and they were members of a
rural Commune. … If we turn now from these early times to the
18th century, we find that the position of the rural
population has entirely changed in the interval. The
distinction between slaves, agricultural labourers, and
peasants has completely disappeared. All three categories have
melted together into a common class, called serfs, who are
regarded as the property of the landed proprietors or of the
State. 'The proprietors [in the words of an imperial ukaze of
April 15, 1721] sell their peasants and domestic servants not
even in families, but one by one, like cattle, as is done
nowhere else in the whole world.'" At the beginning of the
18th century, while the peasantry had "sunk to the condition
of serfs, practically deprived of legal protection and subject
to the arbitrary will of the proprietors, … they were still in
some respects legally and actually distinguished from the
slaves on the one hand and the 'free wandering people' on the
other. These distinctions were obliterated by Peter the Great
and his immediate successors. … To effect his great civil and
military reforms, Peter required an annual revenue such as his
predecessors had never dreamed of, and he was consequently
always on the look-out for some new object of taxation. When
looking about for this purpose, his eye naturally fell on the
slaves, the domestic servants, and the free agricultural
labourers. None of these classes paid taxes. … He caused,
therefore, a national census to be taken, in which all the
various classes of the rural population … should be inscribed
in one category; and he imposed equally on all the members of
this category a poll-tax, in lieu of the former land-tax,
which had lain exclusively on the peasants. To facilitate the
collection of this tax the proprietors were made responsible
for their serfs; and the 'free wandering people' who did not
wish to enter the army were ordered, under pain of being sent
to the galleys, to inscribe themselves as members of a Commune
or as serfs to some proprietor. … The last years of the 18th
century may be regarded as the turning-point in the history of
serfage. Up till that time the power of the proprietors had
steadily increased, and the area of serfage had rapidly
expanded. Under the Emperor Paul we find the first decided
symptoms of a reaction. … With the accession of Alexander I.
in 1801 commenced a long series of abortive projects of a
general emancipation, and endless attempts to correct the more
glaring abuses; and during the reign of Nicholas no less than
six committees were formed at different times to consider the
question. But the practical result of all these efforts was
extremely small."
D. M. Wallace,
Russia,
chapter 29.
"The reign of Alexander II. [who succeeded Nicholas in 1855],
like that of Alexander I., began with an outburst of reform
enthusiasm in the educated classes. … The serfage question,
which Nicholas had always treated most tenderly, was raised in
a way that indicated an intention of dealing with it boldly
and energetically. Taking advantage of a petition presented by
the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces,
praying that their relations with their serfs might be
regulated in a more satisfactory way—meaning, of course, in a
way more satisfactory for the proprietors—the Emperor
authorized committees to be formed in that part of the country
'for ameliorating the condition of the peasants,' and laid
down the general principles according to which the
amelioration was to be effected. … This was a decided step,
and it was immediately followed by one still more significant.
His Majesty, without consulting his ordinary advisers, ordered
the Minister of the Interior to send to the Governors all over
European Russia copies of the instructions forwarded to the
Governor-General of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous,
patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and
suggesting that, perhaps, the landed proprietors of other
provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was, of
course, taken, and in all provinces where serfage existed
emancipation committees were formed. … There were, however,
serious difficulties in the way. The emancipation was not
merely a humanitarian question, capable of being solved
instantaneously by an Imperial ukase. It contained very
complicated problems, affecting deeply the economic, social,
and political future of the nation. … It was universally
admitted that the peasants should not be ejected from their
homes, though their homesteads belonged legally to the
proprietors; but there was great diversity of opinion as to
how much land they should in future enjoy, by what tenure they
should in future hold it, and how the patriarchal, undefined
authority of the landlords should be replaced. … The main
point at issue was whether the serfs should become
agricultural labourers dependent economically and
administratively on the landlords, or should be transformed
into a class of independent communal proprietors. The Emperor
gave his support to the latter proposal, and the Russian
peasantry acquired privileges such as are enjoyed by no other
peasantry in Europe."
Alexander II.
(Eminent Persons:
Biographies, reprinted from The Times).
{2918}
"On the 3d of March, 1861 (February, 19, O. S.), the
emancipation act was signed. The rustic population then
consisted of 22,000,000 of common serfs, 3,000,000 of appanage
peasants, and 23,000,000 of crown peasants. The first class
were enfranchised by that act: and a separate law has since
been passed in favor of these crown peasants and appanage
peasants, who are now as free in fact as they formerly were in
name. A certain portion of land, varying in different
provinces according to soil and climate, was affixed to every
'soul'; and government aid was promised to the peasants in
buying their homesteads and allotments. The serfs were not
slow to take this hint. Down to January 1, 1869, more than
half the enfranchised male serfs have taken advantage of this
promise: and the debt now owing from the people to the crown
(that is, to the bondholders) is an enormous sum."
W. H. Dixon,
Free Russia,
chapter 51.
"Emancipation has utterly failed to realize the ardent
expectations of its advocates and promoters. The great
benefit of the measure was purely moral. It has failed to
improve the material condition of the former serfs, who on
the whole are [1888] worse off than they were before the
Emancipation. The bulk of our peasantry is in a condition not
far removed from actual starvation—a fact which can neither
be denied nor concealed even by the official press."
Stepniak,
The Russian Peasantry,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
The Empire of the Tsars,
part 1, book 7.
SLAVERY: Modern: Indians.
Barbarity of the Spaniards in America, and
humane labors of Las Casas.
"When Columbus came to Hispaniola on his second voyage [1493],
with 17 ships and 1,500 followers, he found the relations
between red men and white men already hostile, and in order to
get food for so many Spaniards, foraging expeditions were
undertaken, which made matters worse. This state of things led
Columbus to devise a notable expedient. In some of the
neighbouring islands lived the voracious Caribs. In fleets of
canoes they would swoop upon the coasts of Hispaniola, capture
men and women by the score, and carry them off to be cooked
and eaten. Now Columbus wished to win the friendship of the
Indians about him by defending them against these enemies, and
so he made raids against the Caribs, took some of them
captive, and sent them as slaves to Spain, to be taught
Spanish and converted to Christianity, so that they might come
back to the islands as interpreters, and thus be useful aids
in missionary work. It was really, said Columbus, a kindness
to these cannibals to enslave them and send them where they
could be baptized and rescued from everlasting perdition; and
then again they could be received in payment for the cargoes
of cattle, seeds, wine, and other provisions which must be
sent from Spain for the support of the colony. Thus quaintly
did the great discoverer, like so many other good men before
and since, mingle considerations of religion with those of
domestic economy. It is apt to prove an unwholesome mixture.
Columbus proposed such an arrangement to Ferdinand and
Isabella, and it is to their credit that, straitened as they
were for money, they for some time refused to accept it.
Slavery, however, sprang up in Hispaniola before anyone could
have fully realized the meaning of what was going on. As the
Indians were unfriendly and food must be had, while foraging
expeditions were apt to end in plunder and bloodshed, Columbus
tried to regulate matters by prohibiting such expeditions and
in lieu thereof imposing a light tribute or tax upon the
entire population of Hispaniola above 14 years of age. As this
population was dense, a little from each person meant a good
deal in the lump. The tribute might be a small piece of gold
or of cotton, and was to be paid four times a year. … If there
were Indians who felt unable to pay the tribute, they might as
an alternative render a certain amount of personal service in
helping to plant seeds or tend cattle for the Spaniards. No
doubt these regulations were well meant, and if the two races
had been more evenly matched, perhaps they might not so
speedily have developed into tyranny. As it was, they were
like rules for regulating the depredations of wolves upon
sheep. Two years had not elapsed before the alternative of
personal service was demanded from whole villages of Indians
at once. By 1499 the island had begun to be divided into
repartimientos, or shares. One or more villages would be
ordered, under the direction of their native chiefs, to till
the soil for the benefit of some specified Spaniard or
partnership of Spaniards; and such a village or villages
constituted the repartimiento of the person or persons to whom
it was assigned. This arrangement put the Indians into a state
somewhat resembling that of feudal villenage; and this was as
far as things had gone when the administration of Columbus
came abruptly to an end." Queen Isabella disapproved, at
first, of the repartimiento system, "but she was persuaded to
sanction it, and presently in 1503 she and Ferdinand issued a
most disastrous order. They gave discretionary power to Ovando
[who succeeded Columbus in the governorship] to compel Indians
to work, but it must be for wages. They ordered him, moreover,
to see that Indians were duly instructed in the Christian
faith. … The way in which Ovando carried out the order about
missionary work was characteristic. As a member of a religious
order of knights, he was familiar with the practice of
encomienda, by which groups of novices were assigned to
certain preceptors to be disciplined and instructed in the
mysteries of the order. The word encomienda means 'commandery'
or 'preceptory,' and so it came to be a nice euphemism for a
hateful thing. Ovando distributed Indians among the Spaniards
in lots of 50 or 100 or 500, with a deed worded thus: 'To you,
such a one, is given an encomienda of so many Indians, and you
are to teach them the things of our holy Catholic Faith.' In
practice, the last clause was disregarded as a mere formality,
and the effect of the deed was simply to consign a parcel of
Indians to the tender mercies of some Spaniard, to do as he
pleased with them. If the system of repartimientos was in
effect serfdom or villenage, the system of encomiendas was
unmitigated slavery. Such a cruel and destructive slavery has
seldom, if ever, been known. The work of the Indians was at
first largely agricultural, but as many mines of gold were
soon discovered they were driven in gangs to work in the
mines. … In 1500 Ovando was recalled. … Under his successor,
Diego Columbus, there was little improvement. The case had
become a hard one to deal with.
{2919}
There were now what are called 'vested rights,' the rights of
property in slaves, to be respected. But in 1510 there came a
dozen Dominican monks, and they soon decided, in defiance of
vested rights, to denounce the wickedness they saw about
them." Generally, the Spaniards who enjoyed the profit of the
labor of the enslaved Indians hardened their hearts against
this preaching, and were enraged by it; but one among them had
his conscience awakened and saw the guiltiness of the evil
thing. This was Bartolomé de Las Casas, who had joined the
colonists at Hispaniola in 1502 and who had entered the
priesthood in 1510. He owned slaves, whom he now set free, and
he devoted himself henceforth to labors for the reformation of
the system of slavery in the Spanish colonies. In 1516 he won
the ear of Cardinal Ximenes, who appointed a commission of
Hieronymite friars "to accompany Las Casas to the West Indies,
with minute instructions and ample powers for making
investigations and enforcing the laws. Ximenes appointed Las
Casas Protector of the Indians, and clothed him with authority
to impeach delinquent judges or other public officials. The
new regulations, could they have been carried out, would have
done much to mitigate the sufferings of the Indians. They must
be paid wages, they must be humanely treated and taught the
Christian religion. But as the Spanish government needed
revenue, the provision that Indians might be compelled to work
in the mines was not repealed. The Indians must work, and the
Spaniards must pay them. Las Casas argued correctly that so
long as this provision was retained the work of reform would
go but little way. Somebody, however, must work the mines; and
so the talk turned to the question of sending out white
labourers or negroes. … At one time the leading colonists of
Hispaniola had told Las Casas that if they might have license
to import each a dozen negroes, they would coöperate with him
in his plans for setting free the Indians and improving their
condition. … He recalled this suggestion of the colonists, and
proposed it as perhaps the least odious way out of the
difficulty: It is therefore evident that at that period in his
life he did not realize the wickedness of slavery so
distinctly in the case of black men as in the case of red men.
… In later years he blamed himself roundly for making any such
concessions. Had he 'sufficiently considered the matter,' he
would not for all the world have entertained such a suggestion
for a moment. … The extensive development of negro slavery in
the West Indies … did not begin for many years after the
period in the career of Las Casas with which we are now
dealing, and there is nothing to show that his suggestion or
concession was in any way concerned in bringing it about." The
fine story of the life and labours of Las Casas,—of the colony
which he attempted to found on the Pearl Coast of the
mainland, composed of settlers who would work for themselves
and not require slaves, and which was ruined through the
wicked lawlessness of other men,—of the terrible barbarians of
the "Land of War" whom he transformed into peaceful and
devoted Christians,—cannot be told in this place. His final
triumphs in the conflict with slavery were:
1. In 1537, the procuring from Pope Paul III. of a brief
"forbidding the further enslavement of Indians under penalty
of excommunication."
2. In 1542, the promulgation of the New Laws by Charles V.,
the decisive clause in which was as follows: "'We order and
command that henceforward for no cause whatever, whether of
war, rebellion, ransom, or in any other manner, can any Indian
be made a slave.'
This clause was never repealed, and it stopped the spread of
slavery. Other clauses went further, and made such sweeping
provisions for immediate abolition that it proved to be
impossible to enforce them. … The matter was at last
compromised by an arrangement that encomiendas should be
inheritable during two lives, and should then escheat to the
crown. This reversion to the crown meant the emancipation of
the slaves. Meanwhile such provisions were made … that the
dreadful encomienda reverted to the milder form of the
repartimiento. Absolute slavery was transformed into
villenage. In this ameliorated form the system continued."
J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest in America.
Sir A. Helps,
Life of Las Casas.
G. E. Ellis,
Las Casas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, chapter 5).
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 5.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1442-1501.
Its beginning in Europe and its establishment in Spanish America.
"The peculiar phase of slavery that will be brought forward in
this history is not the first and most natural one, in which
the slave was merely the captive in war, 'the fruit of the
spear,' as he has figuratively been called, who lived in the
house of his conqueror and laboured at his lands. This system
culminated among the Romans; partook of the fortunes of the
Empire; was gradually modified by Christianity and advancing
civilization; declined by slow and almost imperceptible
degrees into serfage and vassalage; and was extinct, or nearly
so, when the second great period of slavery suddenly uprose.
This second period was marked by a commercial character. The
slave was no longer an accident of war. He had become the
object of war. He was no longer a mere accidental subject of
barter. He was to be sought for, to be hunted out, to be
produced; and this change accordingly gave rise to a new
branch of commerce. Slavery became at once a much more
momentous question than it ever had been, and thenceforth,
indeed, claims for itself a history of its own."
Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest in America,
and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
book 1, chapter 1.
"The first negroes imported into Europe after the extinction
of the old pagan slavery were brought in one of the ships of
Prince Henry of Portugal, in the year 1442. There was,
however, no regular trade in negroes established by the
Portuguese; and the importation of human beings fell off,
while that of other articles of commerce increased, until
after the discovery of America. Then the sudden destruction of
multitudes of Indians in war, by unaccustomed labour, by
immense privations, and by diseases new to them, produced a
void in the labour market which was inevitably filled up by
the importation of negroes. Even the kindness and the piety of
the Spanish monarchs tended partly to produce this result.
{2920}
They forbade the enslaving of Indians, and they contrived that
the Indians should live in some manner apart from the
Spaniards; and it is a very significant fact that the great
'Protector of the Indians,' Las Casas, should, however
innocently, have been concerned with the first large grant of
licenses to import negroes into the West India Islands. Again,
the singular hardihood of the negro race, which enabled them
to flourish in all climates, and the comparative debility of
the Indians, also favoured this result. The anxiety of the
Catholic Church for proselytes combined with the foregoing
causes to make the bishops and monks slow to perceive the
mischief of any measure which might tend to save or favour
large communities of docile converts."-
Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest in America,
and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
book 21, chapter 5 (volume 4).
The first notice of the introduction of negro slaves in the
West Indies appears in the instructions given in 1501 to
Ovando, who superseded Columbus in the governorship.
Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest in America,
and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1562-1567.
John Hawkins engages England in the traffic.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1609-1755.
In colonial New York.
"From the settlement of New York by the Dutch in 1609, down to
its conquest by the English in 1664, there is no reliable
record of slavery in that colony. That the institution was
coeval with the Holland government, there can be no historical
doubt. During the half-century that the Holland flag waved
over the New Netherlands, slavery grew to such proportions as
to be regarded as a necessary evil. … The West India Company
had offered many inducements to its patroons. And its pledge
to furnish the colonists with 'as many blacks as they
conveniently could,' was scrupulously performed. … When New
Netherlands became an English colony, slavery received
substantial official encouragement, and the slave became the
subject of colonial legislation. … Most of the slaves in the
Province of New York, from the time they were first
introduced, down to 1664, had been the property of the West
India Company. As such they had small plots of land to work
for their own benefit, and were not without hope of
emancipation some day. But under the English government the
condition of the slave was clearly defined by law and one of
great hardships. On the 24th of October, 1684, an Act was
passed in which slavery was for the first time regarded as a
legitimate institution in the Province of New York under the
English government." After the mad excitement caused by the
pretended Negro Plot of 1741 (see NEW YORK: A. D. 1741) "the
legislature turned its attention to additional legislation
upon the slavery question. Severe laws were passed against the
Negroes. Their personal rights were curtailed until their
condition was but little removed from that of the brute
creation. We have gone over the voluminous records of the
Province of New York, and have not found a single act
calculated to ameliorate the condition of the slave."
G. W. Williams,
History of the Negro Race in America,
volume 1, chapter 13.
A census of the slaves in the Province of New York was made in
1755, the record of which has been preserved for all except
the most important counties of New York, Albany and Suffolk.
It shows 67 slaves then in Brooklyn.
Doc. History of New York,
volume 3.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1619.
Introduction in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.
Beginning and ending in Massachusetts.
In the code of laws called the Body of Liberties, adopted by
the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641, there is the
following provision (Article 91): "There shall never be any
Bond Slavery, Villinage, or Captivity amongst us, unless it be
lawful Captives taken in just Wars, and such strangers as
willingly sell themselves, or are sold to us. And these shall
have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of
God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth
morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be
judged thereto by authority."
Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
volume 28, page 231.
"No instance has been discovered of a sale by one man of
himself to another, although the power of doing this was
recognized in the Body of Liberties. But of sales by the way
of punishment for crime, under a sentence of a court, there
are several instances recorded. … Of captives taken in war and
sold into slavery by the colony, the number appears to have
been larger, though it is not easy to ascertain in how many
instances it was done. As a measure of policy, it was adopted
in the case of such as were taken in the early Indian wars. …
It was chiefly confined to the remnants of the Pequod tribe,
and to such as were taken in the war with King Philip. …
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, and 1676-1678.
If now we recur to negro slavery, it does not appear when it
was first introduced into the colony. … When Josslyn was here
in 1638, he found Mr. Maverick the owner of three negro
slaves. He probably acquired them from a ship which brought
some slaves from the West Indies in that year. And this is the
first importation of which we have any account. But Maverick
was not properly a member of Winthrop's Company. He came here
before they left England, and had his establishment, and lived
by himself, upon Noddle's Island. … The arrival of a
Massachusetts ship with two negroes on board, whom the master
had brought from Africa for sale, in 1645, four years after
the adoption of the Body of Liberties, furnished an
opportunity to test the sincerity of its framers, in seeking
to limit and restrict slavery in the colony. … Upon
information that these negroes had been forcibly seized and
abducted from the coast of Africa by the captain of the
vessel, the magistrates interposed to prevent their being
sold. But though the crime of man-stealing had been committed,
they found they had no cognizance of it, because it had been
done in a foreign jurisdiction. They, however, went as far
towards reaching the wrong done as they could; and not only
compelled the ship-master to give up the men, but sent them
back to Africa, at the charge of the colony. … And they made
this, moreover, an occasion, by an act of legislation of the
General Court, in 1646, 'to bear witness,' in the language of
the act, 'against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing,
as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and
such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all
others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most
odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men.' …
In 1767 a bill to restrain the importing of slaves passed the
popular branch of the General Court, but failed in the
Council. Nor would it have availed if it had passed both
branches, because it would have been vetoed by the Governor;
acting under instructions from the Crown.
{2921}
This was shown in 1774, when such a bill did pass both
branches of the General Court, and was thus vetoed. These
successive acts of legislation were a constantly recurring
illustration of the truth of the remark of a modern writer of
standard authority upon the subject, that—'though the
condition of slavery in the colonies may not have been created
by the imperial legislature, yet it may be said with truth
that the colonies were compelled to receive African slaves by
the home government.' … The action of the government [of
Massachusetts] when reorganized under the advice of the
Continental Congress, was shown in September, 1776, in respect
to several negroes who had been taken in an English prize-ship
and brought into Salem to be sold. The General Court, having
learned these facts, put a stop to the sale at once. And this
was accompanied by a resolution on the part of the House—'That
the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct
violation of the natural rights alike vested in them by their
Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles
on which this and the other States have carried on their
struggle for liberty.' … In respect to the number of slaves
living here at any one time, no census seems to have been
taken of them prior to 1754. … In 1708, Governor Dudley
estimates the whole number in the colony at 550; 200 having
arrived between 1698 and 1707. Dr. Belknap thinks they were
the most numerous here about 1745. And Mr. Felt, upon careful
calculation, computes their number in 1754 at 4,489. … In
1755, Salem applied to the General Court to suppress slavery.
Boston did the same in 1766, in 1767, and … in 1772. In 1773
the action of the towns was more general and decided." In
1780, the then free state of Massachusetts framed and adopted
a constitution, the opening declaration of which was that
"'all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural,
essential, and unalienable rights.' … When [the next year] the
highest judicial tribunal in the State was called upon to
construe and apply this clause, they gave a response which
struck off the chains from every slave in the commonwealth."
E. Washburn,
Slavery as it once Prevailed in Massachusetts
(Lowell Inst. Lectures, 1869:
Massachusetts and its Early History, lecture 6).
ALSO IN:
W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
chapters 12 and 22 (volume 2).
Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
Fifth Series, v. 3).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1652.
First Antislavery enactment in Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1658.
Introduction of slavery in Cape Colony.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1669-1670.
Provided for in Locke's Fundamental Constitutions
for the Carolinas.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1680.
Early importance in South Carolina.
Indian slavery also established.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1685-1772.
Black slaves in England.
"The extensive proprietary interests which, during last
century, English merchants and members of the English
aristocracy held in the American colonies and the West Indies,
involved the possession also on their part of many slaves.
Many of these black slaves were trained to act as household
servants and personal attendants, and in this capacity
accompanied their owners when travelling. The presence of
black slaves in this country was therefore not an unfamiliar
sight; but it will perhaps startle many readers to know that
in 1764, according to the estimate of the 'Gentleman's
Magazine' of the period, there were upwards of 20,000 black
slaves domiciled in London alone, and that these slaves were
openly bought and sold on 'Change.' The newspapers of the day
represent these slaves as being upon the whole rather a
trouble to their owners. For one thing, they ceased to
consider themselves 'slaves' in this so-called 'free country';
hence they were often unwilling to work, and when forced to
labour were generally sullen, spiteful, treacherous, and
revengeful. They also frequently, as we shall find from the
press advertisements of the day, made their escape,
necessitating rewards being offered for their recapture. For
instance, in the' London Gazette' for March, 1685, there is an
advertisement to the effect that a black boy of about 15 years
of age, named John White, ran away from Colonel Kirke on the
15th inst. 'He has a silver collar about his neck, upon which
is the colonel's coat of arms and cipher; he has upon his
throat a great scar: &c. A reward is offered for bringing him
back. In the 'Daily Post' of August 4, 1720, is a similar
notice. … Again, in the 'Daily Journal' for September 28,
1728, is an advertisement for a runaway black boy. It is added
that he had the words 'My Lady Bromfield's black in Lincoln's
Inn Fields' engraved on a collar round his neck. … That a
collar was considered as essential for a black slave as for a
dog is shown by an advertisement in the 'London Advertiser'
for 1756, in which Matthew Dyer, working-goldsmith at the
Crown in Duck Lane, Orchard Street, Westminster, intimates to
the public that he makes' silver padlocks for Blacks or Dogs;
collars,' &c. … In the 'Tatler' for 1709, a black boy, 12
years of age, 'fit to wait on gentleman,' is offered for sale
at Dennis's Coffee-house, in Finch Lane, near the Royal
Exchange. From the 'Daily Journal ' of September 28, 1728, we
learn that a negro boy, 11 years of age, was similarly offered
for sale at the Virginia Coffee-house. … Again, in the 'Public
Ledger' for December 31, 1761, we have for sale 'A healthy
Negro Girl, aged about 15 years; speaks good English, works at
her needle, washes well, does household work, and has had the
small-pox.' So far these sales seem to have been effected
privately; but later on we find that the auctioneer's hammer
is being brought into play. In 1763, one John Rice was hanged
for forgery at Tyburn, and following upon his execution was a
sale of his effects by auction, 'and among the rest a negro
boy.' He brought £32. The 'Gentleman's Magazine' of the day,
commenting upon the sale of the black boy, says that this was
'perhaps the first custom of the kind in a free country.' …
The 'Stamford Mercury' for [1771] bears record that 'at a sale
of a gentleman's effects at Richmond, a Negro Boy was put up
and sold for £32.' The paper adds: 'A shocking instance in a
free country!' The public conscience had indeed for many years
been disturbed on this question, the greater number in England
holding that the system of slavery as tolerated in London and
the country generally should be declared illegal. From an
early period in last century the subject had not only been
debated in the public prints and on the platform, but had been
made matter of something like judicial decision.
{2922}
At the first, legal opinion was opposed to the manumission of
slaves brought by their masters to this country. In 1729, Lord
Talbot, Attorney-general, and Mr. Yorke, Solicitor-general,
gave an opinion which raised the whole question of the legal
existence of slaves in Great Britain and Ireland. The opinion
of these lawyers was that the mere fact of a slave coming into
these countries from the West Indies did not render him free,
and that he could be compelled to return again to those
plantations. Even the rite of baptism did not free him—it
could only affect his spiritual, not his temporal, condition.
It was on the strength of this decision that slavery continued
to flourish in England until, as we have seen, there were at
one time as many as 20,000 black slaves in London alone.
Chief-justice Holt had, however, expressed a contrary opinion
to that above given; and after a long struggle the matter was
brought to a final issue in the famous case of the negro
Somersett. On June 22, 1772, it was decided by Lord Mansfield,
in the name of the whole bench, that 'as soon as a slave set
foot on the soil of the British Islands, he became free.' From
that day to the present this has remained the law of our land
as regards slavery. The poet Cowper expressed the jubilant
feeling of the country over Lord Mansfield's dictum when he
sung: … 'Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
receive our air, that moment they are free.'"
Black Slaves in England
(Chamber's Journal, January 31, 1891).
ALSO IN:
H. Greeley,
History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction,
pages 2-3.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1688-1780.
Beginning and growth or Antislavery sentiment
among the Quakers.
Emancipation in Pennsylvania.
"So early as the year 1688, some emigrants from Kriesheim in
Germany, who had adopted the principles of William Penn, and
followed him into Pennsylvania, urged in the yearly meeting of
the Society there, the inconsistency of buying, selling, and
holding men in slavery, with the principles of the Christian
religion. In the year 1696, the yearly meeting for that
province took up the subject as a public concern, and the
result was, advice to the members of it to guard against
future importations of African slaves, and to be particularly
attentive to the treatment of those, who were then in their
possession. In the year 1711, the same yearly meeting resumed
the important subject, and confirmed and renewed the advice,
which had been before given. From this time it continued to
keep the subject alive; but finding at length, that, though
individuals refused to purchase slaves, yet others continued
the custom, and in greater numbers that it was apprehended
would have been the case after the public declarations which
had been made, it determined, in the year 1754, upon a fuller
and more serious publication of its sentiments; and therefore
it issued, in the same year, … [a] pertinent letter to all the
members within its jurisdiction. … This truly Christian
letter, which was written in the year 1754, was designed, as
we collect from the contents of it, to make the sentiments of
the Society better known and attended to on the subject of the
Slave-trade. It contains … exhortations to all the members
within the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, to
desist from purchasing and importing slaves, and, where they
possessed them, to have a tender consideration of their
condition. But that the first part of the subject of this
exhortation might be enforced, the yearly meeting for the same
provinces came to a resolution in 1755, That if any of the
members belonging to it bought or imported slaves, the
overseers were to inform their respective monthly meetings of
it, that 'these might treat with them, as they might be
directed in the wisdom of truth.' In the year 1774, we find
the same yearly meeting legislating again on the same subject.
By the preceding resolution they, who became offenders, were
subjected only to exclusion from the meetings for discipline,
and from the privilege of contributing to the pecuniary
occasions of the Society; but by the resolution of the present
year, all members concerned in importing, selling, purchasing,
giving, or transferring Negro or other slaves, or otherwise
acting in such manner as to continue them in slavery beyond
the term limited by law or custom, were directed to be
excluded from membership or disowned. … In the year 1776, the
same yearly meeting carried the matter still further. It was
then enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to
execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were
to be disowned likewise."
T. Clarkson,
History of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade,
volume 1, chapter 5.
In 1780 Pennsylvania adopted an act for the gradual
emancipation of all slaves within its territory, being the
first among the States to perform that great act of justice.
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 3, chapter 7.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1698-1776.
England and the Slave-trade.
The Assiento contract with Spain.
After the opening of the slave trade to the English by
Hawkins, in 1562-1564, "the traffic in human flesh speedily
became popular. A monopoly of it was granted to the African
Company, but it was invaded by numerous interlopers, and in
1698 the trade was thrown open to all British subjects. It is
worthy of notice that while by the law of 1698 a certain
percentage was exacted from other African cargoes for the
maintenance of the forts along that coast, cargoes of negroes
were especially exempted, for the Parliament of the Revolution
desired above all things to encourage the trade. Nine years
before, a convention had been made between England and Spain
for supplying the Spanish West Indies with slaves from the
island of Jamaica, and it has been computed that between 1680
and 1700 the English tore from Africa about 300,000 negroes,
or about 15,000 every year. The great period of the English
slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713
that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most
important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was
the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British
Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an
absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish
colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate
treaty, guarding among other things against any possible
scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of
heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the 30 years
from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish
West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year;
that during the first 25 years of the contract they might
import a still greater number on paying certain moderate
duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into
numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been

excluded.
{2923}
The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea
Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension
both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became
a central object of English policy. A few facts will show the
scale on which it was pursued From Christmas 1752 to Christmas
1762 no less than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica.
In a despatch written at the end of 1762, Admiral Rodney
reports that in little more than three years 40,000 negroes
had been introduced into Guadaloupe. In a discussion upon the
methods of making the trade more effectual, which took place
in the English Parliament in 1750, it was shown that 46,000
negroes were at this time annually sold to the English
colonies alone. A letter of General O'Hara, the Governor of
Senegambia, written in 1766, estimates at the almost
incredible figure of 70,000 the number of negroes who during
the preceding fifty years had been annually shipped from
Africa. A distinguished modern historian, after a careful
comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the
century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the
American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by
the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English
colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less
than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter
of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were
thrown into the Atlantic."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of English in the 18th Century,
chapter 5 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States.
(Author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 16 (volume 2).
D. Macpherson,
Annals of Commerce,
volume 4, pages 141-157.
See, also,
UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
AIX LA CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS;
ENGLAND: A. D. 1739, 1741;
GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743;
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1713-1776.
Maintained in the American colonies by the English Crown
and Parliament.
"The success of the American Revolution made it possible for
the different states to take measures for the gradual
abolition of slavery and the immediate abolition of the
foreign slave-trade. On this great question the state of
public opinion in America was more advanced than in England. …
George III. … resisted the movement for abolition with all the
obstinacy of which his hard and narrow nature was capable. In
1769 the Virginia legislature had enacted that the further
importation of negroes, to be sold into slavery, should be
prohibited. But George III. commanded the governor to veto
this act, and it was vetoed. In Jefferson's first draft of the
Declaration of Independence, this action of the king was made
the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in
deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia the
clause was struck out by Congress. When George III. and his
vetoes had been eliminated from the case, it became possible
for the States to legislate freely on the subject."
J. Fiske,
T/w Critical Period of American History,
page 71.
"During the regal government, we had at one time obtained a
law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as
amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate
assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed
the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then
sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever
after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom
met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the
royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first
session held under the republican government, the assembly
passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation
of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this
great political and moral evil, while the minds of our
citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human
nature."
T. Jefferson,
Notes on the State of Virginia,
query 8.
"It has been frequently stated that England is responsible for
the introduction of negro slavery into British America; but
this assertion will not stand the test of examination. … It
is, however, true that from a very early period a certain
movement against it may be detected in some American States,
that there was, especially in the Northern Provinces, a great
and general dislike to the excessive importation of negroes,
and that every attempt to prohibit or restrict that
importation was rebuked and defeated by England. … The State
Governors were forbidden to give the necessary assent to any
measures restricting it, and the English pursued this policy
steadily to the very eve of the Revolution."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 5 (volume 2).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1717.
Introduction into Louisiana.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1735-1749.
Questioned early in Georgia.
Slavery prohibited at the beginning, and finally introduced.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1741.
The pretended Negro Plot in New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1756.
Extent and distribution in the English American colonies.
"The number of African slaves in North America in 1756, the
generation preceding the Revolution, was about 292,000. Of
these Virginia had 120,000, her white population amounting at
the same time to 173,000. The African increase in Virginia had
been steady. In 1619 came the first 20, and in 1649 there were
300. In 1670, there were 2,000. In 1714, there were 23,000. In
1756, there were 120,000. The 172,000 who, in addition to
these, made up the African population of America, were
scattered through the provinces from New England to Georgia."
J. E. Cooke,
Virginia,
page 367.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1769-1785.
The ending of slavery in Connecticut and New Hampshire.
"For the New England States the Revolution was the death knell
of slavery and of the slave-trade protected by the law [see
action in Massachusetts and Rhode Island detailed above and
below]. … In New Hampshire the institution died a natural
death. As Belknap said in 1792, 'Slavery is not prohibited by
any express law. … Those born since the constitution was made
[1776] are free.' Although the legal status of the negro was
somewhat different, he was practically treated in the same
manner in New Hampshire that he was treated in Rhode Island.
Connecticut did not change her royal charter into a state
constitution until 1818, and her slaves were freed in 1784.
The slave-trade in New England vessels did not cease when the
state forbade it within New England territory. It was
conducted stealthily, but steadily, even into the lifetime of
Judge Story. Felt gives instances in 1785, and the inference
is that the business was prosecuted from Salem."
W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
volume 2, pages 834-835.
{2924}
"Connecticut was one of the first colonies to pass a law
against the slave-trade. This was done in 1769. The main cause
of the final abolition of slavery in the State was the fact
that it became unprofitable. In 1784 the Legislature passed an
Act declaring that all persons born of slaves, after the 1st
of March in that year, should be free at the age of 25. Most
of those born before this time were gradually emancipated by
their masters, and the institution of slavery had almost died
out before 1806."
E. B. Sanford,
History of Connecticut,
page 252.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1774.
The bringing of slaves into Rhode Island prohibited.
"Africans had been brought to the shores of this colony in the
earliest of the vessels in which the commerce of Newport had
reached across the Atlantic. Becoming domesticated within the
colony, the black population had in 1730 reached the number of
1,648, and in 1774 had become 3,761. How early the
philanthropic movement in their behalf, and the measures
looking towards their emancipation, had gained headway, cannot
be determined with accuracy. It is probable that the movement
originated with the Society of Friends within the colony. But
little progress had been made towards any embodiment of this
sentiment in legislative enactment, however, until the very
year of the First Continental Congress, when at the direct
instance of Stephen Hopkins (himself for many years an owner
of slaves, though a most humane master), the General Assembly
ordained [June, 1774] 'that for the future no negro or mulatto
slave shall be brought into the colony,' and that all
previously enslaved persons on becoming residents of Rhode
Island should obtain their freedom. 'In this decided action,'
once more, as has been so often seen to be the case with
movements led by Stephen Hopkins, 'Rhode Island,' says Arnold,
'took the lead of all her sister colonies.'"
W. E. Foster,
Stephen Hopkins,
part 2, pages 98-100.
ALSO IN:
W. D. Johnston,
Slavery in Rhode Island,
part 2.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1776-1808.
Antislavery sentiment in the Southern (American) States.
The causes of its disappearance.
Jefferson's "'Notes on Virginia' were written in 1781-2. His
condemnation of slavery in that work is most emphatic. 'The
whole commerce between master and slave,' he says, 'is a
perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most
unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading
submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to
imitate it. … The man must be a prodigy who can retain his
manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. With what
execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting
one-half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the
other, transforms those into despots and these into
enemies—destroys the morals of the one part and the amor
patriæ of the other? … Can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a
conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the
gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His
wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just—that His justice cannot sleep forever.' … On the
practical question, 'What shall be done about it?' Mr.
Jefferson's mind wavered; he was in doubt. How can slavery be
abolished? He proposed, in Virginia, a law, which was
rejected, making all free who were born after the passage of
the act. And here again he hesitated. What will become of
these people after they are free? … He thought they had better
be emancipated and sent out of the country. He therefore took
up with the colonization scheme long before the Colonization
Society was founded. He did not feel sure on this point. With
his practical mind he could not see how a half million of
slaves could be sent out of the country, even if they were
voluntarily liberated; where they should be sent to, or how
unwilling masters could be compelled to liberate their slaves.
While, therefore, he did not favor immediate emancipation, he
was zealous for no other scheme. … Mr. Jefferson, in August,
1785, wrote a letter to Dr. Richard Price, of London, author
of a treatise on Liberty, in which very advanced opinions were
taken on the slavery question. Concerning the prevalence of
anti-slavery opinions at that period, he says: 'Southward of
the Chesapeake your book will find but few readers concurring
with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth
to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will
approve its theory, and it will find a respectable minority, a
minority ready to adopt it in practice; which, for weight and
worth of character, preponderates against the greater number
who have not the courage to divest their families of a
property which, how·ever, keeps their consciences unquiet.
Northward of the Chesapeake you may find, here and there, an
opponent to your doctrine, as you find, here and there, a
robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of
America there are but few slaves, and they can easily
disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put in
such train that in a few years there will be no slaves
northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a
disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in
Virginia. These [the inhabitants of Virginia] have sucked in
the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers'
milk, and it is to these I look with anxiety to turn the fate
of this question. Be not, therefore, discouraged.'" M. Brissot
de Warville visited Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1788, and
conversed with him freely on the subject of slavery. "This
great man declared to me," he wrote in his narrative,
afterwards published, "that he rejoiced at what was doing in
other States on the subject [of emancipation—alluding to the
recent formation of several state societies]; that he
sincerely desired the extension of it in his own State; but he
did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to be
overcome; that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at a
prejudice which had begun to diminish; that time, patience,
and information would not fail to vanquish it."
W. F. Poole,
Anti-Slavery Opinions before the year 1800,
pages 25-35, and foot-note.
{2925}
"In Virginia all the foremost statesmen—Washington, Jefferson,
Lee, Randolph, Henry, and Madison, and Mason—were opposed to the
continuance of slavery; and their opinions were shared by many
of the largest planters. For tobacco-culture slavery did not
seem so indispensable as for the raising of rice and indigo;
and in Virginia the negroes, half-civilized by kindly
treatment, were not regarded with horror by their masters,
like the ill-treated and ferocious blacks of South Carolina
and Georgia. After 1808 the policy and the sentiments of
Virginia underwent a marked change. The invention of the
cotton-gin, taken in connection with the sudden prodigious
development of manufactures in England, greatly stimulated the
growth of cotton in the ever-enlarging area of the Gulf
states, and created an immense demand for slave-labour, just
at the time when the importation of negroes from Africa came
to an end. The breeding of slaves, to be sold to the planters
of the Gulf states, then became such a profitable occupation
in Virginia as entirely to change the popular feeling about
slavery. But until 1808 Virginia sympathized with the
anti-slavery sentiment which was growing up in the northern
states; and the same was true of Maryland. … In the work of
gradual emancipation the little state of Delaware led the way.
In its new constitution of 1776 the further introduction of
slaves was prohibited, all restraints upon emancipation having
already been removed. In the assembly of Virginia in 1778 a
bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was moved
and carried by Thomas Jefferson, and the same measure was
passed in Maryland in 1783, while both these states removed
all restraints upon emancipation. North Carolina was not ready
to go quite so far, but in 1786 she sought to discourage the
slave-trade by putting a duty of £5 per head on all negroes
thereafter imported."
J. Fiske,
The Critical Period of American History,
page 73.
ALSO IN:
T. Jefferson,
Notes on the State of Virginia,
query 18.
J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
chapters 16-17 (volume 1.
J. R. Brackett,
The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789
(Essays in Constitutional History).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1777.
Prohibited by the organic law of Vermont.
See VERMONT: A. D.1777-1778.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1781.
Emancipation in Massachusetts.
See, SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
The compromises in the Constitution of the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1787.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
Exclusion forever from the Northwest
Territory of the United States.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1790.
Guaranteed to Tennessee.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1791-1802.
The Revolt of the Haytian blacks, under
Toussaint L' Ouverture, and the ending
of slavery on the island.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792.
The institution entrenched in the Constitution
of the new state of Kentucky.
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792-1807.
Earliest measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.
"In 1776 the first motion against the trade was made in the
English parliament; and soon leading statesmen of all parties,
including Fox, Burke, and Pitt, declared themselves in favour
of its abolition. In 1792 the Danish King took the lead in the
cause of humanity by absolutely prohibiting his subjects from
buying, selling, and transporting slaves; and at last, in
1807, the moral sense of the British public overrode the
vested interests of merchants and planters; parliament, at
Lord Grenville's instance, passed the famous act for the
Abolition of the Slave trade; and thenceforward successive
British governments set themselves steadily by treaty and
convention to bring other nations to follow their example. …
In 1794 the United States prohibited their subjects from
slave-trading to foreign countries, and in 1807 they
prohibited the importation of slaves into their own."
C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
volume 2, pages 67-68.
ALSO IN:
T. Clarkson,
History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1799.
Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1806.
Act of the English Parliament against the slave-trade.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1815.
Declaration of the Powers against the slave-trade.
The following are passages from the Declaration against the
Slave Trade, which was signed by the representatives of the
Powers at the Congress of Vienna, February 8, 1815: "Having
taken into consideration that the commerce known by the name
of 'the Slave Trade' has been considered by just and
enlightened men of all ages as repugnant to the principles of
humanity and universal morality; … that at length the public
voice, in all civilized countries, calls aloud for its prompt
suppression; that since the character and the details of this
traffic have been better known, and the evils of every kind
which attend it, completely developed, several European
Governments have, virtually, come to the resolution of putting
a stop to it, and that, successively all the Powers possessing
Colonies in different parts of the world have acknowledged,
either by Legislative Acts, or by Treaties, or other formal
engagements, the duty and necessity of abolishing it: That by
a separate Article of the late Treaty of Paris, Great Britain
and France engaged to unite their efforts at the Congress of
Vienna, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to proclaim
the universal and definitive Abolition of the Slave Trade:
That the Plenipotentiaries assembled at this Congress …
declare, in the face of Europe, that, considering the
universal abolition of the Slave Trade as a measure
particularly worthy of their attention, conformable to the
spirit of the times, and to the generous principles of their
august Sovereigns, they are animated with the sincere desire
of concurring in the most prompt and effectual execution of
this measure, by all the means at their disposal. … The said
Plenipotentiaries at the same time acknowledge that this
general Declaration cannot prejudge the period that each
particular Power may consider as most desirable for the
definitive abolition of the Slave Trade. Consequent]y, the
determining the period when this trade is to cease universally
must be a subject of negociation between the Powers; it being
understood, however, that no proper means of securing its
attainment, and of accelerating its progress, are to be
neglected."
L. Hertslet,
Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
volume 1, page 11.
{2926}
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1816-1849.
The organization of the American Colonization Society.
The founding of Liberia.
"Samuel J. Mills organized at Williams College, in 1808, for
missionary work, an undergraduate society, which was soon
transferred to Andover, and resulted in the establishment of
the American Bible Society and Board of Foreign Missions. But
the topic which engrossed Mills' most enthusiastic attention
was the Negro. The desire was to better his condition by
founding a colony between the Ohio and the Lakes; or later,
when this was seen to be unwise, in Africa. On going to New
Jersey to continue his theological studies, Mills succeeded in
interesting the Presbyterian clergy of that State in his
project. Of this body one of the most prominent members was
Dr. Robert Finley. Dr. Finley succeeded in assembling at
Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the
project of sending Negro colonists to Africa. Although
supported by few save members of the seminary, Dr. Finley felt
encouraged to set out for Washington in December 1816, to
attempt the formation of a colonization society. Earlier in
this same year there had been a sudden awakening of Southern
interest in colonization. … The interest already awakened and
the indefatigable efforts of Finley and his friend Colonel
Charles Marsh, at length succeeded in convening the assembly
to which the Colonization Society owes its existence. It was a
notable gathering. Henry Clay, in the absence of Bushrod
Washington, presided, setting forth in glowing terms the
object and aspirations of the meeting. … John Randolph of
Roanoke, and Robert Wright of Maryland, dwelt upon the
desirability of removing the turbulent free-negro element and
enhancing the value of property in slaves. Resolutions
organizing the Society passed, and committees appointed to
draft a Constitution and present a memorial to Congress. …
With commendable energy the newly organized Society set about
the accomplishment of the task before it. Plans were discussed
during the summer, and in November two agents, Samuel J. Mills
and Ebenezer Burgess, sailed for Africa to explore the western
coast and select a suitable spot. … Their inspection was
carried as far south [from Sierra Leone] as Sherbro Island,
where they obtained promises from the natives to sell land to
the colonists on their arrival with goods to pay for it. In
May they embarked on the return voyage. Mills died before
reaching home. His colleague made a most favorable report of
the locality selected, though, as the event proved, it was a
most unfortunate one. After defraying the expenses of this
exploration the Society's treasury was practically empty. It
would have been most difficult to raise the large sum
necessary to equip and send out a body of emigrants; and the
whole enterprise would have languished and perhaps died but
for a new impelling force. … Though the importation of slaves
had been strictly prohibited by the Act of Congress of March
2, 1807, no provision had been made for the care of the
unfortunates smuggled in in defiance of the Statute. They
became subject to the laws of the State in which they were
landed; and these laws were in some cases so devised that it
was profitable for the dealer to land his cargo and incur the
penalty. The advertisements of the sale of such a cargo of
'recaptured Africans' by the State of Georgia drew the
attention of the Society and of General Mercer in particular
to this inconsistent and abnormal state of affairs. His
profound indignation shows forth in the Second Annual Report
of the Society, in which the attention of the public is
earnestly drawn to the question; nor did he rest until a bill
was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to
do away with the evil. This bill became a law on March 3,
1819. … The clause which proved so important to the embryo
colony was that dealing with the captured cargoes: 'The
President of the United States is hereby authorized to make
such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for
the safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of
the United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons
of color as may be so delivered and brought within their
jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or persons
residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for
receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color,
delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of
the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed
vessels.' The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for carrying
out the provisions of the Act. President Monroe determined to
construe it as broadly as possible in aid of the project of
colonization. After giving Congress, in his message, December
20, 1818, fair notice of his intention, no objection being
made, he proceeded to appoint two agents, the Rev. Samuel
Bacon, already in the service of the Colonization Society, and
John P. Bankson as assistant, and to charter the ship
Elizabeth. The agents were instructed to settle on the coast
of Africa, with a tacit understanding that the place should be
that selected by the Colonization Society. … For the expenses
of the expedition $33,000 was placed in the hands of Mr.
Bacon. Dr. Samuel A. Crozier was appointed by the Society as
its agent and representative; and 86 negroes from various
states—33 men, 18 women, and the rest children, were embarked.
On the 6th of February, 1820, the Mayflower of Liberia weighed
anchor in New York harbor, and, convoyed by the U. S.
sloop-of-war Cyane, steered her course toward the shores of
Africa. The pilgrims were kindly treated by the authorities at
Sierra Leone, where they arrived on the 9th of March; but on
proceeding to Sherbro Island they found the natives had
reconsidered their promise, and refused to sell them land.
While delayed by negotiations the injudicious nature of the
site selected was disastrously shown. The low marshy ground
and the bad water quickly bred the African fever, which soon
carried off all the agents and nearly a fourth of the
emigrants. The rest, weakened and disheartened, were soon
obliged to seek refuge at Sierra Leone. In March, 1821, a body
of 28 new emigrants under charge of J. B. Winn and Ephraim
Bacon, reached Freetown in the brig Nautilus. Winn collected
as many as he could of the first company, also the stores sent
out with them, and settled the people in temporary quarters at
Fourah Bay, while Bacon set out to explore the coast anew and
secure suitable territory. An elevated fertile and desirable
tract was at length discovered between 250 and 300 miles S. E.
of Sierra Leone. This was the region of Cape Montserado. It
seemed exactly suited to the purposes of the colonists, but
the natives refused to sell their land for fear of breaking up
the traffic in slaves; and the agent returned discouraged.
Winn soon died, and Bacon returned to the United States. In
November, Dr. Eli Ayres was sent over as agent, and the U. S.
schooner Alligator, commanded by Lieutenant Stockton, was
ordered to the coast to assist in obtaining a foothold for the
colony. Cape Montserado was again visited; and the address and
firmness of Lieutenant Stockton accomplished the purchase of a
valuable tract of land.
{2927}
The cape upon which the settlers proposed to build their first
habitations consists of a narrow peninsula or tongue of land
formed by the Montserado River, which separates it from the
mainland. Just within the mouth of the river lie two small
islands, containing together less than three acres. To these,
the Plymouth of Liberia, the colonists and their goods were
soon transported. But again the fickle natives repented the
bargain, and the settlers were long confined to 'Perseverance
Island,' as the spot was aptly named. … After a number of
thrilling experiences the emigrants, on April 25, 1822,
formally took possession of the cape, where they had erected
rude houses for themselves; and from this moment we may date
the existence of the colony. Their supplies were by this time
sadly reduced; the natives were hostile and treacherous; fever
had played havoc with the colonists in acclimating; and the
incessant downpour of the rainy season had set in. Dr. Ayres
became thoroughly discouraged, and proposed to lead them back
to Sierra Leone. Then it was that Elijah Johnson, an emigrant
from New York, made himself forever famous in Liberian history
by declaring that he would never desert the home he had found
after two years' weary quest! His firmness decided the
wavering colonists; the agents with a few faint-hearted ones
sailed off to America; but the majority remained with their
heroic Negro leader. The little band, deserted by their
appointed protectors, were soon reduced to the most dire
distress, and must have perished miserably but for the arrival
of unexpected relief. The United States Government had at last
gotten hold of some ten liberated Africans, and had a chance
to make use of the agency established for them at so great an
expense. They were accordingly sent out in the brig Strong
under the care of the Rev. Jehudi Ashmun. A quantity of stores
and some 37 emigrants sent by the Colonization Society
completed the cargo. Ashmun had received no commission as
agent for the colony, and expected to return on the Strong;
under this impression his wife had accompanied him. But when
he found the colonists in so desperate a situation he nobly
determined to remain with them at any sacrifice. … On the 24th
of May, 1823, the brig Oswego arrived with 61 new emigrants
and a liberal supply of stores and tools, in charge of Dr.
Ayres, who, already the representative of the Society, had now
been appointed Government Agent and Surgeon. One of the first
measures of the new agent was to have the town surveyed and
lots distributed among the whole body of colonists. Many of
the older settlers found themselves dispossessed of the
holdings improved by their labor, and the colony was soon in a
ferment of excitement and insurrection. Dr. Ayres, finding his
health failing, judiciously betook himself to the United
States. The arrival of the agent had placed Mr. Ashmun in a
false position of the most mortifying character. … Seeing the
colony again deserted by the agent and in a state of
discontent and confusion, he forgot his wrongs and remained at
the helm. Order was soon restored but the seeds of
insubordination remained. The arrival of 103 emigrants from
Virginia on the Cyrus, in February 1824, added to the
difficulty, as the stock of food was so low that the whole
colony had to be put on half rations. This necessary measure
was regarded by the disaffected as an act of tyranny on
Ashmun's part; and when shortly after the complete prostration
of his health compelled him to withdraw to the Cape De Verde
Islands, the malcontents sent home letters charging him with
all sorts of abuse of power, and finally with desertion of his
post! The Society in consternation applied to Government for
an expedition of investigation, and the Rev. R. R. Gurley,
Secretary of the Society, and an enthusiastic advocate of
colonization, was despatched in June on the U. S. schooner
Porpoise. The result of course revealed the probity, integrity
and good judgment of Mr. Ashmun; and Gurley became thenceforth
his warmest admirer. As a preventive of future discontent a
Constitution was adopted at Mr. Gurley's suggestion, giving
for the first time a definite share in the control of affairs
to the colonists themselves. Gurley brought with him the name
of the colony—Liberia, and of its settlement on the
Cape—Monrovia, which had been adopted by the Society on the
suggestion of Mr. Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland. He
returned from his successful mission in August leaving the
most cordial relations established throughout the colony.
Gurley's visit seemed to mark the turning of the tide, and a
period of great prosperity now began." The national
independence of the commonwealth of Liberia was not assumed
until 1847, when the first President of the Republic, Joseph
J. Roberts, was elected.
J. H. T. McPherson,
History of Liberia
(Johns Hopkins University Studies,
series 9, number 10), chapters 2-3 and 5.
ALSO IN:
S. Wilkeson,
History of the American Colonies in Liberia.
A. H. Foote,
Africa and the American Flag,
chapters 10-11.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1818-1821.
The opening struggle of the American conflict.
The Missouri Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1821-1854.
Emancipation in New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1823.
Abolition in Central America.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1825.
Bolivar's Emancipation in Bolivia.
See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1827.
Final Emancipation in New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1828-1832.
The rise of the Abolitionists in the United States.
Nat Turner's Insurrection.
While the reign of Andrew Jackson [1828-1836] paved the way on
which the slave-holding interest ascended to the zenith of its
supremacy over the Union, there arose, at the same time, in
the body of the abolitionists, the enemy which undermined the
firm ground under the feet of that same slave-holding
interest. The expression, 'abolition of slavery,' is to be met
with even before the adoption of the constitution. But the
word 'abolitionism,' as descriptive of a definite political
programme, occurs for the first time in this period. … The
immediate precursor, and, in a certain sense, the father of
the abolitionists, was Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, born in New
Jersey. In Wheeling, West Virginia, where he learned the
saddler's trade, he had ample opportunity to become acquainted
with the horrors of slavery, as great cargoes of slaves, on
their way to the southern states, frequently passed the place.
{2928}
Lundy had been endeavoring for some years to awaken an active
interest among his neighbors in the hard lot of the slaves,
when the Missouri question brought him to the resolve to
consecrate his whole life to their cause. In 1821, he began to
publish the 'Genius of Universal Emancipation,' which is to be
considered the first abolition organ. The 19th century can
scarcely point to another instance in which the command of
Christ, to leave all things and follow him, was so literally
construed and followed. Lundy gave up his flourishing
business, took leave of his wife and of his two dearly beloved
children, and began a restless, wandering life, to arouse
consciences everywhere to a deeper understanding of the sin
and curse of slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he obtained, as
associate publisher of his sheet, William Lloyd Garrison, a
young litterateur, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who,
from the position of a poor apprentice to a tradesman, rose to
be a type-setter, and from being a type-setter to be a
journalist. The removal of Garrison from New England to
Baltimore, where Lundy was then publishing the 'Genius,' was
an event pregnant with consequences. Garrison had long been a
zealous enemy of slavery, but had hitherto seen the right way
of doing away with the evil in the efforts of the colonization
society. What he now saw of slavery and its effects with his
own eyes produced a complete revolution in his views in a few
months. He not only recognized the impossibility of preventing
the extension of slavery by colonizing the free negroes in
Africa, to say nothing of gradually doing away with it
altogether, but he became convinced also that the leading
spirits of the colonization society purposely sought to induce
the philanthropists of the north to enter on a wrong course,
in the interests of slavery. Hence his own profession of faith
was, henceforth, 'immediate and unconditional emancipation.'
His separation from the more moderate Lundy, which was
rendered unavoidable by this course, was hastened by an
outside occurrence. The captain of a ship from New England
took on board at Baltimore a cargo of slaves destined for New
Orleans. Garrison denounced him on that account with
passionate violence. The matter was carried before the court,
and he was sentenced to prison and to pay a money fine for
publishing a libelous article and for criminally inciting
slaves to insurrection. After an imprisonment of seven weeks,
his fine was paid by a New York philanthropist, Arthur Tappan,
and Garrison left the city to spread his convictions by means
of public lectures through New England. Although his success
was not very encouraging, he, in January, 1831, established a
paper of his own in Boston, known as 'The Liberator.' He was
not only its publisher, and sole writer for it, but he had to
be his own printer and carrier. His only assistant was a
negro. … In one year, Garrison had found so many who shared
his views, that it was possible to found the 'New England
Anti-Slavery Society' in Boston [January, 1832]. The example
was imitated in other states. The movement spread so rapidly
that as early as December, 1833, a 'national' anti-slavery
convention could be held in Philadelphia. The immediate
practical result of this was the foundation of the 'American
Anti-Slavery Society.' … In the same year that Garrison raised
the standard of unconditional abolitionism in Boston, an event
happened in Virginia, which, from the opposite side,
contributed powerfully to lead the slavery question over into
its new stage of development. In August, 1831, an uprising of
slaves, under the leadership of Nat Turner, occurred in
Southampton county. It was, however, quickly subdued, but cost
the life of 61 white persons, mostly women and children. The
excitement throughout the entire south, and especially in
Virginia and the states contiguous to it, was out of all
proportion with the number of the victims and the extent of
the conspiracy."
H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life,
volume 1, chapters 6-9.
S. J. May,
Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict,
pages 1-90.
G. L. Austin,
Life and Times of Wendell Phillips,
chapter 3.
O. Johnson,
William Lloyd Garrison and his Times,
chapters 1-5.
J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
chapter 1.
B. Tuckerman,
William Jay and the Constitutional Movement
for the Abolition of Slavery.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1829-1837.
Emancipation in Mexico, resisted in Texas.
Schemes of the American slave power for acquiring that state.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836;
and MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1834-1838.
Emancipation in the British colonies.
"The abolition of slavery, as Fox had said, was the natural
consequence of the extinction of the slave trade; and in 1833
the act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British
colonies was passed. The law was to take effect from the first
of August 1834, but the slaves were to be apprenticed to their
former owners till 1838 and in the case of agricultural slaves
till 1840, and £20,000,000 sterling were voted as compensation
to the slave-holders at the Cape, in Mauritius, and in the
West Indies. As a matter of fact, however, two colonies,
Antigua and the Bermudas, had the good sense to dispense with
the apprenticeship system altogether, and in no case was it
prolonged beyond 1838. … When Burke wrote, there were,
according to his account, in the British West Indies at least
230,000 slaves against at the most 90,000 whites. In 1788 it
is stated that there were 450,000 negroes in the British sugar
colonies. At the last registration prior to emancipation,
after British Guiana and Trinidad had become British
possessions, the number of slaves was given at some 674,000."
C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
volume 2, pages 68-69.
See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1836.
The Atherton Gag.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1847.
The Liberty Party and the Liberty League.
"Nothing affords more striking evidence of the gravity and
difficulties of the antislavery struggle [in the United
States] than the conflicting opinions and plans of the honest
and earnest men engaged in it. … The most radical difference
was that which separated those who rejected from those who
adopted the principle of political action. The former were
generally styled the 'old organization,' or Garrisonian
Abolitionists; the latter embraced the Liberty Party and those
antislavery men who still adhered to the Whig and Democratic
parties." In 1847 the Liberty Party became divided, and a
separate body was formed which took the name of the Liberty
League, and which nominated Gerrit Smith for President, with
Elihu Burritt for Vice-President. "As distinguished from the
other wing, it may be said that the members of the Liberty
League were less practical, more disposed to adhere to
theories, and more fearful of sacrificing principle to
policy."
H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
W. Birney,
James G. Birney and his Times,
chapter 29.
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1840, and 1844.
{2929}
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1860.
The Underground Railroad.
The Underground Railroad was the popular designation given [in
the United States] to those systematic and co-operative
efforts which were made by the friends of the fleeing slave to
aid him in eluding the pursuit of the slave-hunters, who were
generally on his track. This 'institution,' as it was
familiarly called, played an important part in the great drama
of slavery and anti-slavery. By its timely and effective aid
thousands were enabled to escape from the prison-house of
bondage. … The practical working of the system required
'stations' at convenient distances, or rather the houses of
persons who held themselves in readiness to receive fugitives,
singly or in numbers, at any hour of day or night, to feed and
shelter, to clothe if necessary, and to conceal until they
could be despatched with safety to some other point along the
route. There were others who held themselves in like readiness
to take them by private or public conveyance. … When the wide
extent of territory embraced by the Middle States and all the
Western States east of the Mississippi is borne in mind, and
it is remembered that the whole was dotted with these
'stations,' and covered with a network of imaginary routes,
not found, indeed, in the railway guides or on the railway
maps; that each station had its brave and faithful men and
women, ever on the alert to seek out and succor the coming
fugitive, and equally intent on deceiving and thwarting his
pursuers; that there were always trusty and courageous
conductors waiting, like the 'minute-men' of the Revolution,
to take their living and precious freights, often by
unfrequented roads, on dark and stormy nights, safely on their
way; and that the numbers actually rescued were very great,
many counting their trophies by hundreds, some by thousands,
two men being credited with the incredible estimate of over
2,500 each,—there are materials from which to estimate,
approximately at least, the amount of labor performed, of cost
and risk incurred on the despised and deprecated Underground
Railroad, and something of the magnitude of the results
secured."
H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Clarke,
Anti-Slavery Days,
chapter 3.
W. Still,
The Underground Railroad.
M. G. McDougal,
Fugitive Slaves
(Fay House Monographs, 3).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844.
Attempted insurrection in Cuba.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844-1845.
The contest over the annexation of Texas.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1845-1846.
Revolt in the Democratic Party against slavery extension.
The Wilmot Proviso.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
Abolition in Venezuela.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1855.
Solidification of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
Birth of the Republican Party of the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1859.
The struggle for Kansas.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1856.
Abolition in Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1857.
The Dred Scott case.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1859.
John Brown at Harper's Ferry.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1860-1865.
The slaveholders' Rebellion in the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (May).
The first war-thrust.
General Butler declares the slaves to be Contraband of War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August).
Act of Congress freeing slaves employed
in the service of the Rebellion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August-September).
Fremont's premature Proclamation of Emancipation
in Missouri, and Lincoln's modification of it.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Compensated Emancipation proposed by President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S
PROPOSAL OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Federal officers forbidden, by the amended Military Code,
to surrender fugitive slaves.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH) AMENDMENT OF THE MILITARY
CODE.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Abolition in the District of Columbia and
the Territories of the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-JUNE).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
rescinded by President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY)
GENERAL HUNTER'S EMANCIPATION ORDER.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
First arming of the Freedmen in the War for the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Gradual Emancipation in West Virginia provided for.
See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862
Act confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of Rebels.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
President Lincoln's preliminary or monitory
Proclamation of Emancipation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Abolition in the Dutch West Indies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1863.
President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JANUARY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JUNE).
{2930}
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
Constitutional abolition of slavery in Louisiana.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, forever prohibiting slavery.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Abolition in Tennessee by Constitutional Amendment.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MARCH).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1869-1893.
The slave-trade in Africa and the European measures
for its suppression.
"While Livingstone was making his terrible disclosures
respecting the havoc wrought by the slave-trader in east
central Africa, Sir Samuel Baker was striving to effect in
north central Africa what has been so successfully
accomplished in the Congo State. During his expedition for the
discovery of the Albert Nyanza, his explorations led him
through one of the principal man-hunting regions, wherein
murder and spoliation were the constant occupations of
powerful bands from Egypt and Nubia. These revelations were
followed by diplomatic pressure upon the Khedive Ismail, and
through the personal influence of an august personage he was
finally induced to delegate to Sir Samuel the task of
arresting the destructive careers of the slavers in the region
of the upper Nile. In his book Ismailïa we have the record of
his operations by himself. The firman issued to him was to the
effect that he 'was to subdue to the Khedive's authority the
countries to the south of Gondokoro, to suppress the slave
trade, to introduce a system of regular commerce, to open to
navigation the great lakes of the equator, and to establish a
chain of military stations and commercial depots throughout
central Africa.' This mission began in 1869, and continued
until 1874. On Baker's retirement from the command of the
equatorial Soudan the work was intrusted to Colonel C. G.
Gordon—commonly known as Chinese Gordon. Where Baker had
broken ground, Gordon was to build; what his predecessor had
commenced, Gordon was to perfect and to complete. If energy,
determination and self-sacrifice received their due, then had
Gordon surely won for the Soudan that peace and security which
it was his dear object to obtain for it. But slaving was an

old institution in this part of the world. Every habit and
custom of the people had some connection with it. They had
always been divided from prehistoric time into enslavers and
enslaved. How could two Englishmen, accompanied by only a
handful of officers, removed 2,000 miles from their base of
supplies, change the nature of a race within a few years?
Though much wrong had been avenged, many thousands of slaves
released, many a slaver's camp scattered, and many striking
examples made to terrify the evil-doers, the region was wide
and long; and though within reach of the Nile waters there was
a faint promise of improvement, elsewhere, at Kordofan,
Darfoor, and Sennaar, the trade flourished. After three years
of wonderful work, Gordon resigned. A short time afterwards,
however, he resumed his task, with the powers of a dictator,
over a region covering 1,100,000 square miles. But the
personal courage, energy, and devotion of one man opposed to a
race can effect but little. … After another period of three
years he again resigned. Then followed a revulsion. The
Khedivial government reverted to the old order of things. …
All traces of the work of Baker and Gordon have long ago been
completely obliterated. Attention has been given of late to
Morocco. This near neighbor of England is just twenty years
behind Zanzibar. … While the heart of Africa responds to the
civilizing influences moving from the east and the west and
the south, Morocco remains stupidly indifferent and inert, a
pitiful example of senility and decay. The remaining portion
of North Africa which still fosters slavery is Tripoli. The
occupation of Tunis by France has diverted such traffic in
slaves as it maintained to its neighbor. Though the
watchfulness of the Mediterranean cruisers renders the trade a
precarious one, the small lateen boats are frequently able to
sail from such ports as Benghazi, Derna, Solum, etc., with
living freight, along the coast to Asia Minor. In the
interior, which is inaccessible to travellers, owing to the
fanaticism of the Senoussi sect, caravans from Darfoor and
Wadai bring large numbers of slaves for the supply of
Tripolitan families and Senouissian sanctuaries. … The
partition of Africa among the European powers [by the Berlin
Conference of 1885 and the Anglo-German Convention of 1890] …
was the first effective blow dealt to the slave trade in inner
Africa.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
The east coast, whence a few years ago the slaves marched in
battalions to scatter over the wide interior of the continent
for pillage and devastation, is to-day guarded by German and
British troops. The island of Zanzibar, where they were
equipped for their murderous enterprises, is under the British
flag. … The final blow has been given by the act of the
Brussels Antislavery Conference, lately [1893] ratified by the
powers, wherein modern civilization has fully declared its
opinions upon the question of slavery, and no single power
will dare remain indifferent to them, under penalty of obloquy
and shame. … The Congo State devotes her annual subsidies of
£120,000 and the export tax of £30,000 wholly to the task of
securing her territory against the malign influences of the
slave trade, and elevating it to the rank of self-protecting
states. The German government undertakes the sure guardianship
of its vast African territory as an imperial possession, so as
to render it inaccessible to the slave-hunter. … The coast
towns are fortified and garrisoned; they [the Germans] are
making their advance towards Lake Tanganika by the erection of
military stations; severe regulations have been issued against
the importation of arms and gun-powder; the Reichstag has been
unstinted in its supplies of money; an experienced
administrator, Baron von Soden, has been appointed an imperial
commissioner, and scores of qualified subordinates assist him.
… So far the expenses, I think, have averaged over £100,000
annually. The French government devotes £60,000 annually for
the protection and administration of its Gaboon and Congo
territory."
H. M. Stanley,
Slavery and the Slave Trade in Africa (1893).
ALSO IN:
R. F. Clarke,
Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave Trade,
part 2.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1871-1888.
Emancipation in Brazil.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.
{2931}
SLAVES AND GLADIATORS, Rising of the.
See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.
----------SLAVONIC PEOPLES: Start--------
SLAVONIC PEOPLES AND LANGUAGE.
"The name under which the Slavonians appear in ancient
literature is generally Venedi or Veneti. … This name, unknown
to the Slavonians themselves, is that by which the Teutonic
tribes have from the first designated these their eastern
neighbours, viz. Wends, and the use of this appellation by the
Roman authors plainly shows that their knowledge of the
Slavonians was derived only from the Germans. The Old German
form of this name was Wineda, and Wenden is the name which the
Germans of the present day give to the remnants of a Slavonic
population, formerly large, who now inhabit Lusatia, while
they give the name of Winden to the Slovens in Carinthia,
Carniola and Styria. … If the Slavonians themselves ever
applied any common name to the whole of their family, it must
most probably have been that by which we now are accustomed to
call them, Slavs, or Slavonians; its original native form was
Slovene. … The most ancient sources from which we derive a
knowledge of the Wends or Slavonians, unanimously place them
by the Vistula. From that river, which must have formed their
western frontier, they extended eastward to the Dnieper, and
even beyond. To the south the Carpathians formed their
boundary. To the north they perhaps crossed the Dwina into the
territory afterwards known as Novgorod. In the extensive woods
and marshes which cover these remote tracts the Slavonians
seem to have dwelt in peace and quiet during the first
centuries after Christ, divided into a number of small tribes
or clans. … It was not long, however, before their primitive
home became too narrow for the Slavs, and as their numbers
could no longer be contained within their ancient
boundaries—and, perhaps, compelled to it by pressure from
without—they began to spread themselves to the west, in which
direction the great migrations of the fourth and fifth
centuries had made abundant room for the new immigrants. By
two different roads the Slavs now begin to advance in great
masses. On the one side, they cross the Vistula and extend
over the tracts between the Carpathian mountains and the
Baltic, right down to the Elbe, the former Germanic population
of this region having either emigrated or been exhausted by
their intestine contests and their deadly struggle with the
Roman empire. By this same road the Poles, and probably also
the Chekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, reached the districts they
have inhabited since that period. In the rest of this western
territory the Slavonians were afterwards almost exterminated
during their bloody wars with the Germans, so that but few of
their descendants exist. The other road by which the
Slavonians advanced lay to the south-west, along the course of
the Danube. These are the so-called South-Slavonians: the
Bulgarians, the Servians, the Croatians, and farthest
westward, the Slovens."
V. Thomsen,
Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
lecture 1.
"A controversy has been maintained respecting the origin of
the name [Slave]. The fact that … it has become among
ourselves a synonyme of servitude, does not of course
determine its real meaning. Those who bear it, naturally
dignify its import and themselves by assigning to it the
signification of 'glory';—the Slavonians to themselves are,
therefore, 'the glorious race.' But the truth seems to be,
that 'Slava' in its primitive meaning, was nothing but
'speech,' and that the secondary notions of 'fama,' 'gloria,'
followed from this, as it does in other tongues. ['If I know
not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that
speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a
barbarian unto me.' I. Corinthians, xiv. 11.]. … Slave or
Slavonian was, therefore, nothing more than the gentile
appellative, derived from the use of the national tongue, and
intended as antithetical to 'foreigner.' In the ancient
historic world, the Slaves played an insignificant part. Some
have identified them with the Scythians of Herodotus. … Like
the Celts, they seemed destined to be driven into corners in
the old world."
J. G. Sheppard,
The Fall of Rome,
lecture 3.
See SLAVE: ORIGIN, &c.
"The Wendic or Slav group [lingual] … came into Europe during
the first five centuries of our era; it is divided into two
great branches, Eastern and Western. The first includes
Russian, Great Russian in West Central Russia; Little Russian,
Rusniac, or Ruthene in the south of Russia and even into
Austria, … Servian, Croatian, Slovenic, and Bulgarian, of
which the most ancient form is to the whole group what Gothic
is to the German dialects; modern Bulgarian is, on the
contrary, very much altered. … The western branch covered from
the 7th to the 9th century vast districts of Germany in which
only German is now known: Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg,
Saxony, Western Bohemia, Austria, Styria, and Northern
Carinthia. Though now much restricted, it can still boast
numerous dialects; among others the Wendic of Lusatia, which
is dying out, Tzech or Bohemian, which is very vigorous (ten
millions), of which a variety, Slovac, is found in Hungary;
lastly, Polish (ten millions)."
A. Lefèvre,
Race and Language,
pages 239-240.
See, also: ARYANS; SARMATIA; and SCYTHIANS.
SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7th Centuries.
Migrations and settlements.
"The movements of the Avars in the sixth century [see AVARS]
seem to have had much the same effect upon the Slaves which
the movements of the Huns in the fourth century had upon the
Teutons. … The Slaves seem to have been driven by the Turanian
incursions in two directions; to the North-west and to the
South-west. The North-western division gave rise to more than
one European state, and their relations with Germany form an
important part of the history of the Western Empire. These
North-western Slaves do not become of importance till a little
later. But the South-western division plays a great part in
the history of the sixth and seventh centuries. … The Slaves
play in the East, though less thoroughly and less brilliantly,
the same part, half conquerors, half disciples, which the
Teutons played in the West. During the sixth century they
appear only as ravagers; in the seventh they appear as
settlers. There seems no doubt that Heraclius encouraged
Slavonic settlements south of the Danube, doubtless with a
view to defence against the more dangerous Avars. … A number
of Slavonic states thus arose in the lands north and east of
the Hadriatic, as Servia, Chrobatia or Croatia, Carinthia. …
Istria and Dalmatia now became Slavonic, with the exception of
the maritime cities, which, among many vicissitudes, clave to
the Empire. …
{2932}
The Slaves pressed on into a large part of Macedonia and
Greece, and, during the seventh and eighth centuries, the
whole of those countries, except the fortified cities and a
fringe along the coast, were practically cut off from the
Empire. The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to
Peloponnêsos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached
points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. … The
Slavonic occupation of Greece is a fact which must neither be
forgotten nor exaggerated. It certainly did not amount to an
extirpation of the Greek nation; but it certainly did amount
to an occupation of a large part of the country, which was
Hellenized afresh from those cities and districts which
remained Greek or Roman."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Empire,
chapter 5, section 4.
See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.
SLESWIG.
See SCHLESWIG.
SLIDING SCALE OF CORN DUTIES.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1815-1828; and 1842.
SLIVNITZA, Battle of (1885).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
A. D. 1878-1886 (BULGARIA).
SLOBADYSSA, Battle of (1660).
See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
SLOVENES, The.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
SLUYS: A. D. 1587.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.
SLUYS: A. D. 1604.
Taken by Prince Maurice of Nassau.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
SLUYS, Battle of (1340).
Edward III. of England, sailing with 200 ships on his second
expedition to France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360), found a
French fleet of about equal numbers lying in wait for him in
the harbor of Sluys. The English attacked, June 24, 1340, and
with such success that almost the entire French fleet was
taken or destroyed, and 25,000 to 30,000 men slain.
W. Warburton,
Edward III.,
pages 77-79.
ALSO IN:
Sir J. Froissart,
Chronicles,
(translated by Johnes).
volume 1, book 1, chapter 50.
SMALKALDE, League of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
SMALL-POX, AND VACCINATION.
See PLAGUE, ETC.: 6-13TH CENTURIES,
and MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY.
SMERWICK, Massacre of (1580).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
SMITH, Captain John:
American voyages and adventures.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610, and 1609-1616;
also, AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
SMITH, Joseph, and the founding of Mormonism.
See MORMONISM.
SMITH, Sir Sidney, and the siege of Acre.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
SMITH COLLEGE.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.
SMOLENSK, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
SMYRNA: Turkish massacre of Christians (1821).
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
SNAKE INDIANS, OR SHOSHONES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
SNUFF-TAKERS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
SOBIESKI, John,
King of Poland, A. D. 1674-1697,
and his deliverance of Vienna.
See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
SOBRAON, Battle of (1846).
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
SOBRARBE, Kingdom of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
SOCAGE TENURE.
FREESOCAGE.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Start--------
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
Communism.
Socialism.
Labor Organization.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
Utopias, Ancient and Modern.
"Speculative Communism has a brilliant history. It begins
about six hundred years before Christ with Phaleas of
Chalcedon, whom Milton speaks of as the first to recommend the
equalization of property in land. Plato favors Communism. In
the fifth book of the 'Republic,' Socrates is made to
advocate, not merely community of goods, but also community of
wives and children. This was no after-dinner debauch in the
groves of the Academy, as Milton too severely suggests. It was
a logical conclusion from a mistaken premise. … The ideal
aimed at was the unity of the State, whose pattern appears to
have been partly Pythagorean, and partly Spartan. In regard to
property, the formulated purpose was, not to abolish wealth,
but to abolish poverty. In the 'Laws' (volume 13), Plato would
allow to the richest citizen four times as much income as to
the poorest. In regard to women, the aim was not sensual
indulgence, but the propagation and rearing of the fittest
offspring. This community of wives and children was for the
ruling class only; not for the husbandmen, nor for the
artificers. So also, probably, the community of goods. We say
probably, for the scheme is not wrought out in all its
details, and Plato himself had no hope of seeing his dream
realized till kings are philosophers, or philosophers are
kings. The echoes of this Platonic speculation have been loud
and long. About the year 316 B. C., Evemerus, sent eastward by
Cassander, King of Macedon, on a voyage of scientific
discovery, reports in his 'Sacred History' the finding of an
island which he calls Panchaia, the seat of a Republic, whose
citizens were divided into the three classes of Priests,
Husbandmen, and Soldiers; where all property was common; and
all were happy. In 1516 Sir Thomas More published his
'Utopia;' evidently of Platonic inspiration. More also chose
an island for his political and social Paradise. He had Crete
in mind. His island, crescent-shaped, and 200 miles wide at
the widest point, contained 54 cities. It had community of
goods, but not of women.
{2933}
The 'Civitas Solis' of Campanella, published in 1623, was in
imitation perhaps of More's 'Utopia.' This City of the Sun
stood on a mountain in Ceylon, under the equator, and had a
community both of goods and of women. About the same time Lord
Bacon amused himself by writing the 'New Atlantis,' a mere
fragment, the porch of a building that was never finished. In
the great ferment of Cromwell's time the 'Oceana' of
Harrington appeared (1656); a book famous in its day, with
high traditional repute ever since, but now seldom read except
by the very few who feel themselves called upon to master the
literature of the subject. Hallam pronounces it a dull,
pedantic book; and nobody disputes the verdict. Harrington
advocates a division of land, no one to have more than two
thousand pounds' (ten thousand dollars') worth. The upshot of
it all would be, a moderate aristocracy of the middle classes.
Such books belong to a class by themselves, which may be
called Poetico-Political; æsthetic, scholarly, humane, and
hopeful. They are not addressed to the masses. If they make
revolutions, it is only in the long run. They are not battles,
nor half battles, but only the bright wild dreams of tired
soldiers in the pauses of battles. Communistic books with iron
in them … are not modern only, but recent. Modern Communism,
now grown so surly and savage everywhere, began mildly enough.
As a system, it is mostly French, name and all. The famous
writers are Saint-Simon, Fourier, Considérant, Proudhon,
Cabet, and Louis Blanc."
R. D. Hitchcock,
Socialism,
pages 33-36.
ALSO IN:
M. Kaufmann,
Utopias.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Definition of Terms:
Socialism.
Communism.
Collectivism.
"As socialism has been most powerful and most studied on the
Continent, it may be interesting to compare the definitions
given by some leading French and German economists. The great
German economist Roscher defines it as including 'those
tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal
than consists with human nature.' Adolf Held says that 'we may
define as socialistic every tendency which demands the
subordination of the individual will to the community.' Janet
more precisely defines it as follows:—'We call socialism every
doctrine which teaches that the State has a right to correct
the inequality of wealth which exists among men, and to
legally establish the balance by taking from those who have
too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and
that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a
particular case—a famine, for instance, a public calamity,
etc.' Laveleye explains it thus: 'In the first place, every
socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in
social conditions; and in the second place at realising those
reforms by the law or the State.' Von Scheel simply defines it
as the 'economic philosophy of the suffering classes.'"
T. Kirkup,
A History of Socialism,
introduction.
"The economic quintessence of the socialistic programme, the
real aim of the international movement, is as follows. To
replace the system of private capital (i. e. the speculative
method of production, regulated on behalf of society only by
the free competition of private enterprises) by a system of
collective capital, that is, by a method of production which
would introduce a unified (social or 'collective ')
organization of national labour, on the basis of collective or
common ownership of the means of production by all the members
of the society. This collective method of production would
remove the present competitive system, by placing under
official administration such departments of production as can
be managed collectively (socially or co-operatively), as well
as the distribution among all of the common produce of all,
according to the amount and social utility of the productive
labour of each. This represents in the shortest possible
formula the aim of the socialism of today."
A. Schäffle,
The Quintessence of Socialism,
pages 3-4.
"Socialism, … while it may admit the state's right of property
over against another state, does away with all ownership, on
the part of members of the state, of things that do not perish
in the using, or of their own labor in creating material
products. Its first and last policy is to prevent the
acquisition or exclusive use of capital, by any person or
association under the control of the state, with the
exception, perhaps, of articles of luxury or enjoyment
procured by the savings of wages. No savings can give rise to
what is properly called capital, or means of production in
private hands. … Commun·ism, in its ordinary signification, is
a system or form of common life, in which the right of private
or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or
vow. … Collectivism, which is now used by German as well as by
French writers, denotes the condition of a community when its
affairs, especially its industry, is managed in the collective
way, instead of the method of separate, individual effort. It
has, from its derivation, some advantages over the vague word
socialism, which may include many varieties of associated or
united life."
T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 1-8.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800.
Origin of Trades Unions in England.
"A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous
association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or
improving the conditions of their employment. … We have, by
our definition, expressly excluded from our history any
account of the innumerable instances in which the manual
workers have formed ephemeral combinations against their
social superiors. Strikes are as old as history itself. The
ingenious seeker of historical parallels might, for instance,
find in the revolt, B. C. 1490, of the Hebrew brickmakers in
Egypt against being required to make bricks without straw, a
curious precedent for the strike of the Stalybridge
cotton-spinners, A. D. 1892, against the supply of bad
material for their work. But we cannot seriously regard, as in
any way analogous to the Trade Union Movement of to-day, the
innumerable rebellions of subject races, the slave
insurrections, and the semi-servile peasant revolts of which
the annals of history are full. … When, however, we pass from
the annals of slavery or serfdom to those of the nominally
free citizenship of the mediæval town, we are on more
debatable ground. We make no pretence to a thorough knowledge
of English town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that
there were at all times, alongside of the independent master
craftsmen, a number of hired journeymen, who are known to have
occasionally combined against their rulers and governors. …
{2934}
After detailed consideration of every published instance of a
journeyman's fraternity in England, we are fully convinced
that there is as yet no evidence of the existence of any such
durable and independent combination of wage-earners against
their employers during the Middle Ages. There are certain
other cases in which associations, which are sometimes assumed
to have been composed of journeymen maintained a continuous
existence. But in all these cases the 'Bachelors' Company,'
presumed to be a journeymen's fraternity, formed a subordinate
department of the masters' gild, by the rulers of which it was
governed. It will be obvious that associations in which the
employers dispensed the funds and appointed the officers can
bear no analogy to modern Trade Unions. The explanation of the
tardy growth of stable combination among hired journeymen is,
we believe, to be found in the prospects of economic
advancement which the skilled handicraftsman still possessed.
… The apprenticed journeyman in the skilled handicrafts
belonged, until comparatively modern times, to the same social
grade as his employer, and was, indeed, usually the son of a
master in the same or an analogous trade. So long as industry
was carried on mainly by small masters, each employing but one
or two journeymen, the period of any energetic man's service
as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded a few
years. … Under such a system of industry the journeymen would
possess the same prospects of economic advancement that
hindered the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary
handicrafts, and in this fact may lie the explanation of the
striking absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the
building trades right down to the end of the eighteenth
century. When, however, the capitalist builder or contractor
began to supersede the master mason, master plasterer, &c.,
and this class of small entrepreneurs had again to give place
to a hierarchy of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern
sense, began, as we shall see, to arise. We have dwelt at some
length upon these ephemeral associations of wage-earners and
on the journeymen fraternities of the Middle Ages, because it
might plausibly be argued that they were in some sense the
predecessors of the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is
not in these institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism
has usually been sought. For the predecessor of the modern
Trade Union, men have turned, not to the mediæval associations
of the wage-earners, but to those of their employers—that is
to say, the Craft Gilds. … The supposed descent of the Trade
Unions from the mediæval Craft Gild rests, as far as we have
been able to discover, upon no evidence whatsoever. The
historical proof is all the other way. In London, for
instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved an unbroken
existence from the eighteenth century. The Craft Gilds still
exist in the City Companies, and at no point in their history
do we find the slightest evidence of the branching off from
them of independent journeymen's societies. … We have failed
to discover, either in the innumerable trade pamphlets and
broad-sheets of the time, or in the Journals of the House of
Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to 1700, of
continuous associations of wage-earners for maintaining or
improving the conditions of their employment. And when we
remember that during the latter decades of the seventeenth
century the employers of labour, and especially the industrial
'companies' or corporations, memorialised the House of Commons
on every conceivable grievance which affected their particular
trade, the absence of all complaints of workmen's combinations
suggests to us that no such combinations existed. In the early
years of the eighteenth century we find isolated complaints of
combinations 'lately entered into' by the skilled workers in
certain trades. As the century progresses we watch the gradual
multiplication of these complaints, met by counter-accusations
presented by organised bodies of workmen. … If we examine the
evidence of the rise of combinations in particular trades, we
see the Trade Union springing, not from any particular
institution, but from every opportunity for the meeting
together of wage-earners of the same trade. Adam Smith
remarked that 'people of the same trade seldom meet together,
even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in
a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to
raise prices.' And there is actual evidence of the rise of one
of the oldest of the existing Trade Unions out of a gathering
of the journeymen 'to take a social pint of porter together.'
More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of which grows a
permanent organisation. … If the trade is one in which the
journeymen frequently travel in search of work, we note the
slow elaboration of systematic arrangements for the relief of
these 'tramps' by their fellow-workers in each town through
which they pass, and the inevitable passage of this
far-extending tramping society into a national Trade Union. …
We find that at the beginning of the eighteenth century the
typical journeyman tailor in London and Westminster had become
a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, therefore, that
one of the earliest instances of permanent Trade Unionism that
we have been able to discover occurs in this trade. The master
tailors in 1720 complain to Parliament that 'the Journeymen
Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to
the number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered
into a combination to raise their wages and leave off working
an hour sooner than they used to do; and for the better
carrying on their design have subscribed their respective
names in books prepared for that purpose, at the several
houses of call or resort (being publick-houses in and about
London and Westminster) where they use; and collect several
considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions against
them.' Parliament listened to the masters' complaint, and
passed the Act 7, Geo. 1. st. 1, c. 13, restraining both the
giving and the taking of wages in excess of a stated maximum,
all combinations being prohibited. From that time forth the
journeymen tailors of London and Westminster have remained in
effective though sometimes informal combination, the
organisation centring round the fifteen or twenty 'houses of
call.'"
S. and B. Webb,
The History of Trade-Unionism,
chapter 1.
{2935}
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797.
Mably, Morelly, and the conspiracy of Babœuf, in France.
"If Rousseau cannot be numbered among the communistic writers,
strictly so called, two of his contemporaries, Mably and
Morelly—the first more a dreamer, the second of a more
practical spirit —deserve that title. … In the social theory
of Mably, inequality of condition is the great evil in the
world … Mably was a theorist who shrunk back from the
practical application of his own theories. The establishment
of community of goods, and even of equality of fortunes, he
dared not advocate. 'The evil,' he says, 'is too inveterate
for the hope of a cure.' And so he advised half
measures—agrarian laws fixing the maximum of landed estates,
and sumptuary laws regulating expenses. … Morelly, whose
principal works are a communistic poem, called 'The Basiliade'
(1753) and 'The Code of Nature' (1755), is called by a French
writer one of the most obscure authors of the last century.
But he knew what he wanted, and had courage to tell it to
others. … Morelly's power on subsequent opinion consists in
his being the first to put dreams or theories into a code;
from which shape it seemed easy to fanatical minds to carry it
out into action. His starting-point is that men can be made
good or evil by institutions. Private property, or avarice
called out by it, is the source of all vice. 'Hence, where no
property existed there would appear none of its pernicious
consequences.' … In 1782, Brissot de Warville invented the
phrase, used afterward by Proudhon, Propriété c'est le vol. …
Twelve years afterward a war against the rich began, and such
measures as a maximum of property and the abolition of the
right to make a will were agitated. But the right of property
prevailed, and grew stronger after each new revolution. In
1796 the conspiracy of the Equals, or, as it is generally
called, of Babœuf, was the final and desperate measure of a
portion of those Jacobins who had been stripped by the fall of
Robespierre (in 1794) of political power. It was the last hope
of the extreme revolutionists, for men were getting tired of
agitations and wanted rest. This conspiracy seems to have been
fomented by Jacobins in prison; and it is said that one of
them, who was a believer in Morelly and had his work in his
hands, expounded its doctrines to his fellow-prisoner Babœuf.
When they were set at liberty by an amnesty law, there was a
successful effort made to bring together the society or sect
of the Equals; but it was found that they were not all of one
mind. Babœuf was for thorough measures—for a community of
goods and of labor, an equality of conditions and of comforts.
… There was a secret committee of the society of the Equals,
as well as an open society. The latter excited the suspicion
of the Directory, and an order was given to suspend its
sessions in the Pantheon (or (Church of St. Geneviève). The
order was executed by Bonaparte, then general of the army of
the interior, who dispersed the members and put a seal on the
doors of the place of meeting. Next the Equals won over a body
of the police into their measures; and, when this force was
disbanded by the Directory, the Equals established a committee
of public safety. The committee was successful in bringing as
many as sixty of the party of the mountain into their ranks,
and an insurrection was projected. Seventeen thousand fighting
men were calculated upon by the conspirators as at their
disposal. But an officer of the army whom they had tried to
bring into their plots denounced them to the Directory. The
leading conspirators were arrested [1797]. Babœuf and Darthé
suffered death, and five others were banished."
T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 97-104.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1774-1875.
The Communities of the Shakers.
See SHAKERS.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824.
Robert Owen.
His experiments at New Lanark and his New Harmony Society.
"Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution swept over
the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less
tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new
tool-making machinery were transforming manufacture into
modern industry, and thus revolutionising the whole foundation
of bourgeois society. … With constantly increasing swiftness
the splitting-up of society into large capitalists and
non-possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of
the former stable middle-class, an unstable mass of artisans
and small shopkeepers, the most fluctuating portion of the
population, now led a precarious existence. The new mode of
production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of
ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of
production—the only one possible under existing conditions.
Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses.
… At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a
manufacturer 29 years old—a man of almost sublime, childlike
simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few
born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of
the materialistic philosophers: that man's character is the
product, on the one hand, of heredity, on the other, of the
environment of the indivIdual during his lifetime, and
especially during his period of development. In the industrial
revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and
the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making
large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of
putting into practice his favourite theory, and so of bringing
order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as
superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory.
From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New
Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same
lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success
that made him a European reputation. A population, originally
consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very
demoralised elements, a population that gradually grew to
2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness,
police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were
unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in
conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully
bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of
infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. …
Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a
day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10½ hours. When a
crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers
received their full wages an the time. And with all this the
business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded
large profits to its proprietors. In spite of all this, Owen
was not content. The existence which he secured for his
workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human
beings. 'The people were slaves at my mercy.' … 'The working
part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing
as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century
before, it would have required the working part of a
population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became
of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons
and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?' The
answer was clear.
{2936}
It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5
per cent. on the capital they had laid out, in addition to
over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark
held to a still greater extent for all the factories in
England. … The newly-created gigantic productive forces,
hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the
masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction
of society; they were destined, as the common property of all,
to be worked for the common good of all. Owen's Communism was
based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to
say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this
practical character."
F. Engels,
Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,
pages 19-24.
Owen's projects "were received with applause at first. 'The
Times' spoke of 'his enlightened zeal in the cause of
humanity;' the Duke of Kent writes to Owen: 'I have a most
sincere wish that a fair trial should be given to your system,
of which I have never hesitated to acknowledge myself an
admirer;' Lord Brougham sympathised with the propounder of
this social scheme; the judicial philosopher Bentham became
actually a temporary ally of the 'wilful Welshman;' a
committee was appointed, including Ricardo and Sir R. Peel,
who recommended Owen's scheme to be tried; it was taken up by
the British and Foreign Philanthropic Society for the
permanent relief of the working-classes; it was actually
presented to Parliament with petitions humbly praying that a
Committee of the House might be appointed to visit and report
on New Lanark. But the motion was lost. The temporary
enthusiasm cooled down. … Contemporaneously with royal
speeches alluding to the prosperity of trade, and
congratulations as to the flourishing appearance of town and
country, the voice of Owen is silenced with his declining
popularity. It must be remembered also that he had by this
time justly incurred the displeasure of the religious public,
by the bold and unnecessarily harsh expressions of his ethical
and religious convictions. Those who could distinguish the man
from his method, who were fully aware of his generous
philanthropy, purity of private life, and contempt of personal
advancement, could make allowance for his rash assertions. The
rest, however, turned away with pious horror or silent
contempt from one who so fiercely attacked positive creeds,
and appeared unnecessarily vehement in his denial of moral
responsibility. Owen set his face to the West, and sought new
adherents in America, where he founded [1824] a 'Preliminary
Society' in 'New Harmony', which was to be the nucleus of his
future society. …
See A. D. 1805-1827: ROBERT OWEN AND THE
COMMUNITY AT NEW HARMONY.
In the following year Owen agreed to a change in the
constitution, in favour of communism, under the title of the
'New Harmony Community of Equality.' The settlement enjoyed a
temporary prosperity, but soon showed signs of decay, and Owen
was destined to meet with as many trials in the new as he had
encountered discouragements in the old world."
M. Kaufmann,
Utopias,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
W. L. Sargant,
Robert Owen and his Social Philosophy.
Anonymous
Life of Robert Owen.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1875.
Struggle of the Trades Unions in England for a legal existence.
During the 18th century, "the employers succeeded in passing a
whole series of laws, some of them of Draconian severity,
designed to suppress combinations of working men. In England
they are called the Combination Laws, and culminated in the
Act of 40 George Ill., c. 106, which was passed in 1800 in
response to a petition from the employers. It made all trade
combinations illegal. … The result of this law, which was
expressly designed to put an end to strikes altogether, is an
instructive example of the usual effect of such measures. The
workmen's associations, which had frequently hitherto been
formed quite openly, became secret, while they spread through
the length and breadth of England. The time when the books of
the Union were concealed on the moors, and an oath of secrecy
was exacted from its members, is still a living tradition in
labour circles. It was a time when the hatred of the workers
towards the upper classes and the legislature flourished
luxuriantly, while the younger generation of working men who
had grown up under the shadow of repressive legislation,
became the pillars of the revolutionary Chartist movement. The
old struggle against capital assumed a more violent character.
… It was the patent failure of the Combination Laws which gave
the stimulus to the suggestion of repeal soon after 1820," and
the repeal was accomplished by the Act of 1824. "The immediate
consequence of this Act was the outbreak of a number of
somewhat serious strikes. The general public then took fright,
and thus the real struggle for the right of combination began
after it had received legal recognition. In 1825, the
employers rallied and demanded the re-enactment of the earlier
laws on the ground that Parliament had carried their repeal
with undue precipitation. … The Act of 1825 which repealed
that of the previous year, was a compromise in which the
opponents of free combination had gained the upper hand. But
they had been frustrated in their attempt to stamp out the
Unions with all the rigour of the law, for the champions of
the Act of 1824 were in a position to demonstrate that the
recognition of combination had already done something to
improve the relations between capital and labour. It had at
least done away with that secrecy which in itself constituted
a danger to the State; and now that the Unions were openly
avowed, their methods had become less violent. Nevertheless,
the influence of the manufacturers strongly predominated in
framing the Bill. … The only advance on the state of things
previous to 1824 which had been secured was the fundamental
point that a combination of working men was not in itself
illegal-though almost any action which could rise out of such
a combination was prohibited. Yet it was under the Act of 1825
that the Trade Unions grew and attained to that important
position in which we find them at the beginning of the
seventies. Here was emphatically a movement which the law
might force into illegal channels, but could not suppress. …
The most serious danger that the Trade Unions encountered was
in the course of the sixties. Under the leadership of one
Broadhead, certain Sheffield Unions had entered on a course of
criminal intimidation of non-members. The general public took
their action as indicating the spirit of Trade Unions
generally.
{2937}
In point of fact, the workmen employed in the Sheffield trade
were in a wholly exceptional position. … But both in
Parliament and the Press it was declared that the occurrences
at Sheffield called for more stringent legislation and the
suppression of combinations of working men. … But times had
changed since 1825. The Unions themselves called for the most
searching inquiry into their circumstances and methods, which
would, they declared, prove that they were in no way
implicated in such crimes as had been committed in Sheffield.
The impulse given by Thomas Carlyle had raised powerful
defenders for the workmen, first among whom we may mention the
positivist Frederic Harrison, and Thomas Hughes, the
co-operator. … The preliminaries to the appointment of the
Commission of 1867 revealed a change in the attitude of the
employers, especially the more influential of them, which
marked an enormous advance on the debates of 1824 and 1825. …
The investigation of the Commission of 1867-1869 were of a
most searching character, and their results are contained in
eleven reports. The Unions came well through the ordeal, and
it was shown that the outrages had been confined to a few
Unions, for the most part of minor importance. It further
appeared that where no combination existed the relations
between employers and hands were not more friendly, while the
position of the workers was worse and in some cases quite
desperate. The report led up to proposals for the legislation
of Trade Unions, and to the legislation of 1871-1876, which
was supported by many influential employers. The altitude of
Parliament had changed with amazing rapidity. … The Trade
Union Acts of 1871 and 1870 give all Unions, on condition that
they register their rules, the same rights as were already
enjoyed by the Friendly Societies in virtue of earlier
legislation, i. e. the rights of legal personality. They can
sue and be sued, possess real and personal estate, and can
proceed summarily against their officers for fraudulent
conduct. They also possess facilities for the transfer of
investments to new trustees. The Act of 1871 was extended by
that of 1876, framed expressly with the concurrence of the
Trade Union leaders. … The working men, now that they are left
to conduct their meetings in any way they choose, have
gradually developed that sober and methodical procedure which
amazes the Continental observer. … At Common Law, any action
of Trade Unionists to raise wages seemed liable to punishment
as conspiracy, on the ground that it was directed against the
common weal. The course run by the actual prosecutions did,
indeed, prevent this doctrine from ever receiving the sanction
of a sentence expressly founded on it; but it gathered in ever
heavier thunders over the heads of the Unions, and its very
vagueness gave it the appearance of a deliberate persecution
of one class of society in the interests of another. The Act
of 1871 first brought within definite limits the extreme
penalties that could be enforced against Trade Unionists
either at Statute or Common Law. … By the Conspiracy and
Protection of Property Act of 1875 the workmen's economic aims
were at last recognised on precisely the same footing as those
of other citizens."
G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz,
Social Peace,
pages 86-102.
ALSO IN:
Le Comte de Paris,
The Trades' Unions of England.
W. Trant,
Trade Unions.
National Association for the Promotion of Social Science,
Report of Committee on Societies and Strikes, 1860.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827.
George Rapp and the Harmony Society.
Robert Owen and the Community at New Harmony.
The "Harmony Society" was first settled in Pennsylvania, on a
tract of land about twenty five miles north of Pittsburgh, in
1805, by George Rapp, the leader of a religious congregation
in Germany which suffered persecution there and sought greater
freedom in America. From the beginning, they agreed "to throw
all their possessions into a common fund, to adopt a uniform
and simple dress and style of house; to keep thenceforth all
things in common; and to labor for the common good of the
whole body. … At this time they still lived in families, and
encouraged, or at any rate did not discourage, marriage." But
in 1807 they became persuaded that "it was best to cease to
live in the married state. … Thenceforth no more marriages
were contracted …, and no more children were born. A certain
number of the younger people, feeling no vocation for a
celibate life, at this time withdrew from the society." In
1814 and 1815 the society sold its property in Pennsylvania
and removed to a new home in Posey County, Indiana, on the
Wabash, where 30,000 acres of land were bought for it. The new
settlement received the name of "Harmony." But this in its
turn was sold, in 1824, to Robert Owen, for his New Lanark
colony, which he planted there, under the name of the "New
Harmony Community," and the Rappists returned eastward, to
establish themselves at a lovely spot on the Ohio, where their
well-known village called "Economy" was built. "Once it was a
busy place, for it had cotton, silk, and woolen factories, a
brewery, and other industries; but the most important of these
have now [1874] ceased. … Its large factories are closed, for
its people are too few to man them; and the members [numbering
110 in 1874, mostly aged] think it wiser and more comfortable
for themselves to employ labor at a distance from their own
town. They are pecuniarily interested in coal-mines, in
saw-mills, and oil-wells; and they control manufactories at
Beaver Falls—notably a cutlery shop. … The society is
reported to be worth from two to three millions of dollars."
C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 63-91.
At the settlement in Indiana, "on the departure of the
Rappites, persons favorable to Mr. Owen's views came flocking
to New Harmony (as it was thenceforth called) from all parts
of the country. Tidings of the new social experiment spread
far and wide. … In the short space of six weeks from the
commencement of the experiment, a population of 800 persons
was drawn together, and in October 1825, the number had
increased to 900." At the end of two years, in June, 1827, Mr.
Owen seems to have given up the experiment and departed from
New Harmony. "After his departure the majority of the
population also removed and scattered about the country. Those
who remained returned to individualism, and settled as farmers
and mechanics in the ordinary way. One portion of the estate
was owned by Mr. Owen, and the other by Mr. Maclure. They
sold, rented, or gave away the houses and lands, and their
heirs and assigns have continued to do so."
J. H. Noyes,
History of American Socialisms,
chapter 4.
{2938}
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886.
The modern Co-operative movement in England.
"The co-operative idea as applied to industry existed in the
latter part of the last century. Ambelakia was almost a
co-operative town, as may be read in David Urquhart's 'Turkey
and its Resources.' So vast a municipal partnership of
industry has never existed since. The fishers on the Cornish
coast carried out co-operation on the sea, and the miners of
Cumberland dug ore on the principle of sharing the profits.
The plan has been productive of contentment and advantage.
Gruyère is a co-operative cheese, being formerly made in the
Jura mountains, where the profits were equitably divided among
the makers. In 1777, as Dr. Langford relates in his 'Century
of Birmingham Life,' the tailors of that enterprising town set
up a co-operative workshop, which is the earliest in English
record. In France an attempt was made by Babœuf in 1796, to
establish a despotism of justice and equality by violence,
after the manner of Richelieu, whose policy taught the French
revolutionists that force might be a remedy. … Contemporaneous
with the French revolutionists we had Shute Barrington, Bishop
of Durham, who surpassed all other bishops in human sympathy
and social sagacity. He established at Mongewell, in
Oxfordshire, the first known co-operative store; and he, Count
Rumford, and Sir Thomas Bernard published in 1795, and for
many years after, plans of co·operative and social life, far
exceeding in variety and thoroughness any in the minds of
persons now living. 'The only apostle of the social state in
England at the beginning of this century,' Harriet Martineau
testifies, 'was Robert Owen,' and to him we owe the
co-operation of to-day. With him it took the shape of a
despotism of philanthropy. … The amazing arrangements Mr. Owen
made at his New Lanark Mills for educating his workpeople, and
the large amount of profit which he expended upon their

personal comforts, have had no imitators except Godin of
Guise, whose palaces of industry are to-day the wonder of all
visitors. Owen, like Godin, knew how to make manufacturing
generosity pay. … It was here that Mr. Owen set up a
co-operative store on the primitive plan of buying goods and
provisions wholesale and selling them to the workmen's
families at cost price, he giving storerooms and paying for
the management, to the greater advantage of the industrial
purchasers. The benefit which the Lanark weavers enjoyed in
being able to buy retail at wholesale prices was soon noised
abroad, and clever workmen elsewhere began to form stores to
supply their families in the same way. The earliest instance
of this is the Economical Society of Sheerness, commenced in
1816, and which is still doing business in the same premises
and also in adjacent ones lately erected. … These practical
co-operative societies with economical objects gradually
extended themselves over the land, Mr. Owen with splendid
generosity, giving costly publicity to his successes, that
others might profit likewise according to their means. His
remarkable manufacturing gains set workmen thinking that they
might do something in the same way. … The co-operative stores
now changed their plan. They sold retail at shop charges, and
saved the difference between retail and cost price as a fund
with which to commence co-operative workshops. In 1830 from
300 to 400 co-operative stores had been set up in England.
There are records of 250 existing, cited in the 'History of
Co-operation in Eng]and.' … The Rochdale Society of 1844 was
the first which adopted the principle of giving the
shareholders 5 per cent. only, and dividing the remaining
profit among the customers. There is a recorded instance of
this being done in Huddersfield in 1827, but no practical
effect arose, and no propagandism of the plan was attempted
until the Rochdale co-operators devised the scheme of their
own accord, and applied it. They began under the idea of
saving money for community purposes and establishing
co-operative workshops. For this purpose they advised their
members to leave their savings in the store at 5 per cent.
interest; and with a view to get secular education, of which
there was little to be had in those days, and under the
impression that stupidity was against them, they set apart 2½
per cent. of their profits for the purpose of instruction,
education, and propagandism. By selling at retail prices they
not only acquired funds, but they avoided the imputation of
underselling their neighbours, which they had the good sense
and good feeling to dislike. They intended to live, but their
principle was 'to let live.' By encouraging members to save
their dividends in order to accumulate capital, they taught
them habits of thrift. By refusing to sell on credit they made
no losses; they incurred no expenses in keeping books, and
they taught the working classes around them, for the first
time, to live without falling into debt. This scheme of
equity, thrift, and education constitutes what is called the
'Rochdale plan.' … The subsequent development of co-operation
has been greatly due to the interest which Professor Maurice,
Canon Kingsley, Mr. Vansittart Neale, Mr. Thomas Hughes, and
Mr. J. M. Ludlow took in it. They promoted successive
improvements in the law which gave the stores legal
protection, and enabled them to become bankers, to hold land,
and allow their members to increase their savings to £200. …
The members of co-operative societies of the Rochdale type now
exceed 900,000, and receive more than 2½ millions of profit
annually. There are 1,200 stores in operation, which do a
business of nearly 30 millions a year, and own share capital
of 8 millions. The transactions of their Co-operative Bank at
Manchester amount to 16 millions annually. The societies
devote to education £22,000 a year out of their profits, and
many societies expend important sums for the same purpose,
which is not formally recorded in their returns. In the
twenty-five years from 1861 to 1886 the co-operators have done
business of upwards of 361 millions, and have made for working
people a profit of 30 millions. … Co-operation in other
countries bears no comparison with its rise and progress in
England. The French excel in co-operative workshops, the
Germans in co-operative banks, England in the organisation of
stores. No country has succeeded yet with all three. Italy
excels even Germany in co-operative banks. It has, too, some
remarkable distributive societies, selling commodities at cost
prices, and is now beginning stores on the Rochdale plan.
France has many distributive stores, and is likely to
introduce the Rochdale type. … America … is likely to excel in
industrial partnerships, and is introducing the English system
of co-operation."
{2939}
G. J. Holyoake,
The Growth of Co-operation in England
(Fortnightly Review, August 1, 1887).
The "Christian Socialism" which arose in England about 1850,
under the influence of Frederick D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley,
Thomas Hughes, identified itself practically with the
co-operative movement.
R. T. Ely,
French and German Socialism,
pages 249-251.
ALSO IN:
G. J. Holyoake,
History of Co-operation in England.
G. J. Holyoake,
History of the Rochdale Pioneers.
B. Jones,
Co-operative Production.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825.
Saint Simon and Saint Simonism.
"Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism,
was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to a younger branch of
the family of the celebrated duke of that name. His education,
he tells us, was directed by D'Alembert. At the age of
nineteen he went as volunteer to assist the American colonies
in their revolt against Britain. … It was not till 1817 that
he began, in a treatise entitled 'L'Industrie,' to propound
his socialistic views, which he further developed in
'L'Organisateur' (1819), 'Du Système industriel' (1821),
'Catechisme des Industriels' (1823). The last and most
important expression of his views is the 'Nouveau
Christianisme' (1825). For many years before his death in 1825
Saint-Simon had been reduced to the greatest straits. He was
obliged to accept a laborious post for a salary of £40 a year,
to live on the generosity of a former valet, and finally to
solicit a small pension from his family. In 1823 he attempted
suicide in despair. It was not till very late in his career
that he attached to himself a few ardent disciples. As a
thinker Saint-Simon was entirely deficient in system,
clearness, and consecutive strength. His writings are largely
made up of a few ideas continually repeated. But his
speculations are always ingenious and original; and he has
unquestionably exercised great influence on modern thought,
both as the historic founder of French socialism and as
suggesting much of what was afterwards elaborated into
Comtism. … His opinions were conditioned by the French
Revolution and by the feudal and military system still
prevalent in France. In opposition to the destructive
liberalism of the Revolution he insisted on the necessity of a
new and positive re-organisation of society. So far was he
from advocating social revolt that he appealed to Louis XVIII.
to inaugurate the new order of things. In opposition, however,
to the feudal and military system, the former aspect of which
had been strengthened by the Restoration, he advocated an
arrangement by which the industrial chiefs should control
society. In place of the Mediæval Church, the spiritual
direction of society should fall to the men of science. What
Saint-Simon desired, therefore, was an industrialist State
directed by modern science. The men who are best fitted to
organise society for productive labour are entitled to bear
rule in it. The social aim is to produce things useful to
life; the final end of social activity is 'the exploitation of
the globe by association.' The contrast between labour and
capital, so much emphasised by later socialism, is not present
to Saint-Simon, but it is assumed that the industrial chiefs,
to whom the control of production is to be committed, shall
rule in the interest of society. Later on, the cause of the
poor receives greater attention, till in his greatest work,
'The New Christianity,' it becomes the central point of his
teaching, and takes the form of a religion. It was this
religious development of his teaching that occasioned his
final quarrel with Comte. Previous to the publication of the
'Nouveau Christianisme' Saint-Simon had not concerned himself
with theology. Here he starts from a belief in God, and his
object in the treatise is to reduce Christianity to its simple
and essential elements. … During his lifetime the views of
Saint-Simon had little influence, and he left only a very few
devoted disciples, who continued to advocate the doctrines of
their master, whom they revered as a prophet. … The school of
Saint-Simon insists strongly on the claims of merit; they
advocate a social hierarchy in which each man shall be placed
according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works.
This is, indeed, a most special and pronounced feature of the
Saint-Simon Socialism, whose theory of government is a kind of
spiritual or scientific autocracy. … With regard to the family
and the relation of the sexes the school of Saint-Simon
advocated the complete emancipation of woman and her entire
equality with man."
T. Kirkup,
A History of Socialism,
chapter 2.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847.
Fourier and Fourierism.
"Almost contemporaneously with St. Simon [see SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825] another Frenchman, Charles
Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of
Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on
Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main
ideas are embodied, called the 'Théorie des quatre
Mouvements,' was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had
given his views to the world, but it received no attention
until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme,
beginning in 1832. Association is the central word of
Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated
groups of from 1,600 to 2,000 persons are to cultivate a
square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx; and
are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may
be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile
of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in
buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to
reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table
or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life in
common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not
work in common more than is necessary under the existing
system; and there is not a community of property. Neither
private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the
division of the produce of industry, after a minimum
sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one,
the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future
operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests
of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions
of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths.
Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes,
may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups
of labourers within each association. Everyone must work;
useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary
work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen
generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which
the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor
need the work be disagreeable. On the contrary, Fourier has
discovered the secret of making labour attractive.
{2940}
Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any
is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too
long continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish,
and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as
intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not
regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done.
But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of
compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who
perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them
vary it with work more agreeable, as they will have
opportunity of doing in the new community."
W. Graham,
Socialism, New and Old,
pages 98-100.
Fourier died in 1837. After his death the leadership of his
disciples, who were still few in number, devolved upon M.
Considérant, the editor of 'La Phalange,' a journal which had
been started during the previous year for the advocacy of the
doctrines of the school. "The activity of the disciples
continued unabated. Every anniversary of the birthday of the
founder they celebrated by a public dinner. In 1838 the number
of guests was only 90; in the following year they had
increased to 200; and they afterwards rose to more than 1,000.
Every anniversary of his death they visited his grave at the
cemetery of Montmartre, and decorated it with wreaths of
immortelles. Upon these solemn occasions representatives
assembled from all parts of the world, and testified by their
presence to the faith they had embraced. In January, 1839, the
Librairie Sociale, in the Rue de I' Ecole de Medicine, was
established, and the works of Fourier and his disciples, with
those of other socialist writers, obtained a large
circulation. … In 1840 'La Phalange,' began to appear, as a
regular newspaper, three times a week. … Some of its
principles began to exercise a powerful influence. Several
newspapers in Paris, and throughout the country, demanded
social revolution rather than political agitation. The cries
of 'Organisation du Travail,' 'Droit au Travail,' that were
now beginning to be heard so frequently in after-dinner
toasts, and in the mouths of the populace, were traced back to
Fourier. Cabet had already published his 'Voyage en Icarie';
Louis Blanc was writing in 'La Revue du Progrès,' and many
other shades of socialism and communism were springing into
existence, and eagerly competing for public favour. … M.
Schneider communicated the theory to his countrymen in
Germany, in 1837. The knowledge was farther extended in a
series of newspaper articles by M. Gatzkow, in 1842; and
separate works treating of the subject were subsequently
published by M. Stein and M. Loose. In Spain, it found au
active disciple in Don Joachin Abreu; and a plan for
realisation was laid before the Regent by Don Manuel de Beloy.
In England, Mr. Hugh Doherty was already advocating it in the
'Morning Star.' In 1841, his paper appeared with the new name
of 'London Phalanx'; and it was announced that thousands of
pounds, and thousands of acres, were at the disposal of the
disciples. The Communists of the school of Owen received the
new opinions favourably, and wished them every success in
their undertaking. In America, Fourier soon obtained
followers; the doctrine seems to have been introduced by M.
Jean Manesca, who was the secretary of a phalansterian
society, established in New York so early as 1838. In 1840, no
less than 50 German families started from New York, under the
leadership of MM. Gaertner and Hempel, both Fourierists, to
establish a colony in Texas. They seem to have prospered for a
time at least, for their numbers subsequently rose to 200,000.
In October of the same year, the first number of the 'Phalanx'
appeared at Buffalo, in New York State. Mr. Albert Brisbane,
who had recently returned from Paris, had just published a
work on the 'Social Destiny of Man,' which is, to a great
extent, an abridgment of M. Considérant's 'Destinée Sociale.'
He became the editor of the 'Future,' which replaced the
'Phalanx,' and was published at New York. This paper obtained
but a small circulation, and Mr. Brisbane thought it advisable
to discontinue it, and, in its stead, to purchase a column in
the 'New York Tribune.' … When Mr. Brisbane began his
propaganda, there was a 'Society of Friends of Progress' in
existence in Boston. It included among its members some of the
most eminent men in the intellectual capital of the New World.
… A paper called the 'Dial' was started, to which Emerson,
Parker, and Margaret Fuller contributed. Their object was to
advocate a community upon the principles of Fourier, but so
modified as to suit their own peculiar views. The result was
the acquisition of Brook Farm. … But the influence of Mr.
Brisbane was not limited to indirectly inspiring these
eccentric experiments. It was said that in New York alone, in
1843, there were three newspapers reflecting the opinions of
Fourier, and no less than forty throughout the rest of the
States. Besides this, many reviews were occupied in discussing
them. The first association in America to call itself a
phalanx was Sylvania. It was begun in October, 1843, and
lasted for about a year and a half. There were 150 members,
and Mr. Horace Greeley's name appears among the list of its
officers; it consisted of 2,300 acres in Pennsylvania. … There
were thirty-four undertaken during the Fourier excitement, but
of these we have complete statistics of only fourteen. … The
years 1846-7 proved fatal to most of them. Indeed, Mr.
Brisbane acknowledged in July, 1847, that only three then
survived."
A. J. Booth,
Fourier,
(Fortnightly Review, December, 1872).
"Horace Greeley, under date of July 1847, wrote to the
'People's Journal' the following. 'As to the Associationists
(by their adversaries termed "Fourierites"), with whom I am
proud to be numbered, their beginnings are yet too recent to
justify me in asking for their history any considerable space
in your columns. Briefly, however, the first that was heard in
this country of Fourier and his views (beyond a little circle
of perhaps a hundred persons in two or three of our large
cities, who had picked up some notion of them in France or
from French writings), was in 1840, when Albert Brisbane
published his first synopsis of Fourier's theory of industrial
and household Association. Since then the subject has been
considerably discussed, and several attempts of some sort have
been made to actualize Fourier's ideas, generally by men
destitute alike of capacity, public confidence, energy and
means. In only one instance that I have heard of was the land
paid for on which the enterprise commenced; not one of these
vaunted "Fourier Associations" ever had the means of erecting
a proper dwelling for so many as three hundred people, even if
the land had been given them. Of course the time for paying
the first installment on the mortgage covering their land has
generally witnessed the dissipation of their sanguine dreams.
{2941}
Yet there are at least three of these embryo Associations
still in existence; and, as each of these is in its third or
fourth year, they may be supposed to give some promise of
vitality. They are the North American Phalanx, near
Leedsville, New Jersey; the Trumbull Phalanx, near Braceville,
Ohio; and the Wisconsin Phalanx, Ceresco, Wisconsin. Each of
these has a considerable domain nearly or wholly paid for, is
improving the soil, increasing its annual products, and
establishing some branches of manufactures. Each, though far
enough from being a perfect Association, is animated with the
hope of becoming one, as rapidly as experience, time and means
will allow.' Of the three Phalanxes thus mentioned as the
rear-guard of Fourierism, one—the Trumbull—disappeared about
four months afterward (very nearly at the time of the
dispersion of Brook Farm), and another—the Wisconsin—lasted
only a year longer, leaving the North American alone for the
last four years of its existence."
J. H. Noyes,
History of American Socialisms,
chapter 40.
ALSO IN:
R. Brisbane:
Albert Brisbane; a Mental Biography.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894.
Proudhon and his doctrines of Anarchism.
The Individualistic and Communistic Anarchists
of the present generation.
"Of the Socialistic thinkers who serve as a kind of link
between the Utopists and the school of the Socialism of
historical evolution, or scientific Socialists, by far the
most noteworthy figure is Proudhon, who was born at Besançon
in 1809. By birth he belonged to the working class, his father
being a brewer's cooper, and he himself as a youth followed
the occupation of cowherding. In 1838, however, he published
an essay on general grammar, and in 1839 he gained a
scholarship to be held for three years, a gift of one Madame
Suard to his native town. The result of this advantage was his
most important though far from his most voluminous work,
published the same year as the essay which Madame Suard's
scholars were bound to write: it bore the title of 'What is
Property?' (Qu' est-ce que la propriété?) his answer being
Property is Robbery (La propriété est Ie vol). As may be
imagined, this remarkable essay caused much stir and
indignation, and Proudhon was censured by the Besançon Academy
for its production, narrowly escaping a prosecution. In 1841
he was tried at Besançon for a letter he wrote to Victor
Considérant, the Fourierist, but was acquitted. In 1846 he
wrote his 'Philosophie de la Misère' (Philosophy of Poverty),
which received an elaborate reply and refutation from Karl
Marx. In 1847 he went to Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 he
showed himself a vigorous controversialist, and was elected
Deputy for the Seine. … After the failure of the revolution of
'48, Proudhon was imprisoned for three years, during which
time he married a young woman of the working class. In 1858 he
fully developed his system of 'Mutualism' in his last work,
entitled 'Justice in the Revolution and the Church.' In
consequence of the publication of this book he had to retire
to Brussels, but was amnestied in 1860, came back to France
and died at Passy in 1865."
W. Morris and E. B. Bax,
Socialism, its Growth and Outcome,
chapter 18.
"In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
the state that it shall embrace all the more important
concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
In that connection he said: 'In a given society the authority
of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of
intellectual development which that society has reached. …
Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since
the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society
seeks order in anarchy.' About twelve years before Proudhon
published his views Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions
in America. But as the Frenchman possessed the originality
necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we must
regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific
anarchism. … Proudhon's social ideal was that of perfect
individual liberty. Those who have thought him a communist or
socialist have wholly mistaken his meaning. … Proudhon
believed that if the state in all its departments were
abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if
the principle of laissez faire were made universal in its
operation, every form of social ill would disappear. According
to his views men are wicked and ignorant because, either
directly or indirectly, they have been forced to be so: it is
because they have been subjected to the will of another, or
are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to
another. If the individual, after reaching the age of
discretion, could be freed from repression and compulsion in
every form and know that he alone is responsible for his acts
and must bear their consequences, he would become thrifty,
prudent, energetic; in short he would always see and follow
his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of
others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on
all the great industrial enterprises of to-day either
separately or by voluntary association. No compulsion,
however, could be used to force one to fulfil a contract or
remain in an association longer than his interest dictated.
Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened
self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form
of social organization. … Proudhon's theory is the sum and
substance of scientific anarchism. How closely have the
American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their master?
One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch
associations in a few other cities, is composed of faithful
disciples of Proudhon. They believe that he is the leading
thinker among those who have found the source of evil in
society and the remedy therefor. They accept his analysis of
social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not
implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists,
and claim to be the only class who are entitled to that name.
{2942}
They do not attempt to organize very much, but rely upon
'active individuals, working here and there all over the
country.' It is supposed that they may number in all some five
thousand adherents in the United States. … They, like
Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be
as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies.
Liberty prevails here no more than there. In some respects the
system of majority rule is more obnoxious than that of
monarchy. It is quite as tyrannical, and in a republic it is
more difficult to reach the source of the despotism and remove
it. They regard the entire machinery of elections as worthless
and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed to political
machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the duties
of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. … Concerning the
family relation, the anarchists believe that civil marriage
should be abolished and 'autonomistic' marriage substituted.
This means that the contracting parties should agree to live
together as long as it seems best to do so, and that the
partnership should be dissolved whenever either one desires
it. Still, they would give the freest possible play to love
and honor as restraining motives. … The Individualistic
Anarchists … profess to have very little in common with the
Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists. They
borrow their analysis of existing social conditions from Marx,
or more accurately from the 'communistic manifesto' issued by
Marx and Engels in 1847. In the old International Workingman's
association they constituted the left wing, which, with its
leader, Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of
Marx, the socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the
International in this country has been controlled wholly by
the anarchists. Their views and methods are similar to those
which Bakunine wished to carry out by means of his Universal
Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely in the minds
of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to organize
an international revolutionary movement of the laboring
classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as
possible, to bring about a general insurrection. In this way,
with the help of explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of
all kinds, they hope to destroy all existing institutions,
ecclesiastical, civil and economic. Upon the smoking ruins
they will erect the new and perfect society. Only a few weeks
or months will be necessary to make the transition. During
that time the laborers will take possession of all lands,
buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With
these in their possession, and without the interposition of
government, they will organize into associations or groups for
the purpose of carrying on the work of society."
H. L. Osgood,
Scientific Anarchism
(Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889).
ALSO IN:
F. Dubois,
The Anarchist Peril.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D.1840-1848.
Louis Blanc and his scheme of State-aided Co-operation.
"St. Simonism would destroy individual liberty, would weight
the State with endless responsibilities, and the whole details
of production, distribution, and transportation. It would
besides be a despotism if it could be carried out, and not a
beneficent despotism, considering the weakness and
imperfection of men. So objected Louis Blanc to St. Simonism,
in his 'Organisation du Travail' (1840), whilst bringing
forward a scheme of his own, which, he contends, would be at
once simple, immediately applicable, and of indefinite
extensibility; in fact a full and final solution of the Social
Problem. The large system of production, the large factory and
workshop, he saw was necessary. Large capital, too, was
necessary, but the large capitalist was not. On the contrary,
capitalism—capital in the hands of private individuals, with,
as a necessary consequence, unbounded competition, was ruinous
for the working classes, and not good for the middle classes,
including the capitalists themselves, because the larger
capitalists, if sufficiently astute or unscrupulous, can
destroy the smaller ones by under-selling, as in fact they
constantly did. His own scheme was what is now called
co·operative production, with the difference that instead of
voluntary effort, he looked to the State to give it its first
motion, by advancing the capital without interest, by drawing
up the necessary regulations, and by naming the hierarchy of
workers for one year, after which the co-operative groups were
to elect their own officers. He thought that if a number of
these co-operative associations were thus launched State-aided
in each of the greater provinces of industry, they could
compete successfully with the private capitalist, and would
beat him within no very long time. By competition he trusted
to drive him out in a moderate time, and without shock to
industry in general. But having conquered the capitalist by
competition, he wished competition to cease between the
different associations in any given industry; as he expressed
it, he would 'avail himself of the arm of competition to
destroy competition.' … The net proceeds each year would be
divided into three parts: the first to be divided equally
amongst the members of the association; the second to be
devoted partly to the support of the old, the sick, the
infirm, partly to the alleviation of crises which would weigh
on other industries; the third to furnish 'instruments of
labour' to those who might wish to join the association. …
Capitalists would be invited into the associations, and would
receive the current rate of interest at least, which interest
would be guaranteed to them out of the national budget; but
they would only participate in the net surplus in the
character of workers. … Such was the scheme of Louis Blanc,
which, in 1848, when member of the Provisional Government in
France, he had the opportunity, rarely granted to the social
system-maker, of partially trying in practice. He was allowed
to establish a number of associations of working men by the
aid of Government subsidies. The result did not realize
expectations. After a longer or shorter period of struggling,
every one of the associations failed; while, on the other
hand, a number of co-operative associations founded by the
workmen's own capital, as also some industrial partnerships
founded by capitalists, on Louis Blanc's principle of
distribution of the net proceeds, were successful. … I do not
refer to the 'ateliers nationaux,' [see FRANCE: A. D. 1848]
which were not countenanced by Louis Blanc; but to certain
associations of working men who received advances from the
Government on the principle advocated in his book. There were
not many of these at first. L. Blanc congratulated himself on
being able to start a few: after the second rising the
Government subsidized fifty-six associations, all but one of
which had failed by 1875."
W. Graham,
Socialism, New and Old,
chapter 3, section 5, with foot-note.
{2943}
"In 1848 the Constituent Assembly voted, in July, that is,
after the revolution of June, a subsidy of three millions of
francs in order to encourage the formation of working men's
associations. Six hundred applications, half coming from Paris
alone, were made to the commission entrusted with the
distribution of the funds, of which only fifty-six were
accepted. In Paris, thirty associations, twenty-seven of which
were composed of working men, comprising in all 434
associates, received 890,500 francs. Within six months, three
of the Parisian associations failed; and of the 434
associates, seventy-four resigned, fifteen were excluded, and
there were eleven changes of managers. In July, 1851, eighteen
associations had ceased to exist. One year later, twelve
others had vanished. In 1865 four were still extant, and had
been more or less successful. In 1875 there was but a single
one left, that of the file-cutters, which, as Citizen Finance
remarked, was unrepresented at the Congress."
E. de Laveleye,
The Socialism of To-day,
chapter 5, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
L. Blanc,
1848: Historical Revelations,
chapters 5-9, and 19.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883.
Icaria.
In 1840, Etienne Cabet published in France an Utopian romance,
the "Voyage en Icarie," which awakened remarkable interest,
very quickly. He described in this romance an ideal community,
and eight years later, having continued the propagation of his
social theories in the meantime, he undertook to carry them
into practice. A tract of land was secured in Texas, and in
February, 1848, sixty-nine emigrants—the advance guard of what
promised to be a great army of Icarians —set sail from Havre
for New Orleans. They were followed during the year by
others—a few hundreds in all; but even before the later comers
reached New Orleans the pioneers of the movement had abandoned
their Texas lands, disappointed in all their expectations and
finding themselves utterly unprepared for the work they had to
do, the expenditures they had to make, and the hardships they
had to endure. They retreated to New Orleans and were joined
there by Cabet. It happened that the Mormons, at this time,
were deserting their town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, and were
making their hejira to Salt Lake City. Cabet struck a bargain
with the retreating disciples of Joseph Smith, which gave his
community a home ready-made. The followers who adhered to him
were conveyed to Nauvoo in the spring; but two hundred more
gave up the socialistic experiment, and either remained at New
Orleans or returned to France. For a few years the colony was
fairly prosperous at Nauvoo. Good schools were maintained.
"Careful training in manners and morals, and in Icarian
principles and precepts, is work with which the schools are
especially charged. The printing office is a place of great
activity. Newspapers are printed in English, French and
German. Icarian school-books are published. … A library of
5,000 or 6,000 volumes, chiefly standard French works, seems
to be much patronized. … Frequent theatrical entertainments,
social dances, and lectures are common means of diversion. …
These families … are far from the condition of the happy
Icarians of the 'Voyage,' but considering the difficulties
they have encountered they must be accredited with having done
remarkably well." Dissensions arose however. In 1856 Cabet
found himself opposed by a majority of the community. In
November of that year he withdrew, with about 180 adherents,
and went to St. Louis, where he died suddenly, a few days
after his arrival. Those who had accompanied him settled
themselves upon an estate called Cheltenham, six miles west of
St. Louis; but they did not prosper, and were dispossessed, by
the foreclosure of a mortgage, in 1864, and the last of the
community was dispersed. The section left at Nauvoo held no
title to lands there, after Cabet separated from them, and
were forced to remove in 1860. They established themselves on
a tract of land in Adams county, southwestern Iowa, and there
Icaria, in a slender and modest form, has been maintained,
through many vicissitudes, to the present day. A new
secession, occurring 1879-83, sent forth a young colony which
settled at Cloverdale, California, and took the name of the
Icaria-Speranza Community, borrowing the name " Speranza" from
another Utopian romance by Pierre Leroux.
A. Shaw,
Icaria.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1841-1847.
Brook Farm.
On the 29th day of September, 1841, articles of association
were made and executed which gave existence to an Association
bearing the name and style of "The Subscribers to the Brook
Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education." By the second of
these articles, it was declared to be the object of the
Association "to purchase such estates as may be required for
the establishment and continuance of an agricultural,
literary, and scientific school or college, to provide such
lands and houses, animals, libraries and apparatus, as may be
found expedient or advantageous to the main purpose of the
Association." By article six, "the Association guarantees to
each shareholder the interest of five per cent. annually on
the amount of stock held by him in the Association." By
article seven, "the shareholders on their part, for
themselves, their heirs and assigns, do renounce all claim on
any profits accruing to the Association for the use of their
capital invested in the stock of the Association, except five
per cent. interest on the amount of stock held by them." By
article eight it was provided that "every subscriber may
receive the tuition of one pupil for every share held by him,
instead of five per cent. interest." The subscribers to these
Articles, for shares ranging in amount from $500 to $1,500,
were George Ripley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Minot Pratt, Charles
A. Dana, William B. Allen, Sophia W. Ripley, Maria T. Pratt,
Sarah F. Stearns, Marianne Ripley, and Charles O. Whitmore.
"The 'Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture'
was put in motion in the spring of 1841. There was no
difficulty in collecting a company of men and women large
enough to make a beginning. One third of the subscriptions was
actually paid in, Mr'. Ripley pledging his library for four
hundred dollars of his amount. With the sum subscribed a farm
of a little less than two hundred acres was bought for ten
thousand five hundred dollars, in West Roxbury, about nine
miles from Boston. The site was a pleasant one, not far from
Theodore Parker's meeting-house in Spring Street, and in close
vicinity to some of the most wealthy, capable, and zealous
friends of the enterprise.
{2944}
It was charmingly diversified with hill and hollow, meadow and
upland. … Later experience showed its unfitness for lucrative
tillage, but for an institute of education, a semi-æsthetic,
humane undertaking, nothing could be better. This is the place
to say, once for all, with the utmost possible emphasis, that
Brook Farm was not a 'community' in the usual sense of the
term. There was no element of 'socialism' in it. There was
about it no savor of antinomianism, no taint of pessimism, no
aroma, however faint, of nihilism. It was wholly unlike any of
the 'religious' associations which had been established in
generations before, or any of the atheistic or mechanical
arrangements which were attempted simultaneously or
afterwards. … The institution of Brook Farm, though far from
being 'religious' in the usual sense of the word, was
enthusiastically religious in spirit and purpose. … There was
no theological creed, no ecclesiastical form, no inquisition
into opinions, no avowed reliance on super-human aid. The
thoughts of all were heartily respected; and while some
listened with sympathy to Theodore Parker, others went to
church nowhere, or sought the privileges of their own
communion. … A sympathizing critic published in the 'Dial'
(January, 1842) an account of the enterprise as it then
appeared: … 'They have bought a farm in order to make
agriculture the basis of their life, it being the most direct
and simple in relation to nature. … The plan of the Community,
as an economy, is, in brief, this: for all who have property
to take stock, and receive a fixed interest thereon; then to
keep house or board in common, as they shall severally desire,
at the cost of provisions purchased at wholesale, or raised on
the farm; and for all to labor in community and be paid at a
certain rate an hour, choosing their own number of hours and
their own kind of work. With the results of this labor and
their interest they are to pay their board, and also purchase
whatever else they require, at cost, at the warehouses of the
community, which are to be filled by the community as such. To
perfect this economy, in the course of time they must have all
trades and all modes of business carried on among themselves,
from the lowest mechanical trade which contributes to the
health and comfort of life, to the finest art which adorns it
with food or drapery for the mind. All labor, whether bodily
or intellectual, is to be paid at the same rate of wages, on
the principle that, as the labor becomes merely bodily, it is
a greater sacrifice to the individual laborer to give his time
to it.' … The daily life at Brook Farm was, of course,
extremely simple, even homely. … There was at no time too much
room for the one hundred and fifty inmates. … The highest
moral refinement prevailed in all departments. In the morning,
every species of industrial activity went on. In the
afternoon, the laborers changed their garments and became
teachers, often of abstruse branches of knowledge. The
evenings were devoted to such recreations as suited the taste
of the individual. The farm was never thoroughly tilled, from
the want of sufficient hands. A good deal of hay was raised,
and milk was produced from a dozen cows. … Some worked all day
in the field, some only a few hours, some none at all, being
otherwise employed, or by some reason disqualified. The most
cultivated worked the hardest. … The serious difficulties were
financial. … As early as 1843 the wisdom of making changes in
the direction of scientific arrangement was agitated; in the
first months of 1844 the reformation was seriously begun," and
the model of the new organization was Fourier's "Phalanx."
"The most powerful instrument in the conversion of Brook Farm
was Mr. Albert Brisbane. He had studied the system [of
Fourier] in France, and made it his business to introduce it
here. … In March, 1845, the Brook Farm Phalanx was
incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts. The
Constitution breathes a spirit of hope which is pathetic at
this distance of time. … The publication of the Constitution
was followed in the summer by 'The Harbinger,' which became
the leading journal of Fourierism in the country. The first
number appeared on June 14th. … Its list of contributors was
about the most remarkable ever presented. Besides Ripley,
Dwight, Dana, and Rykman, of Brook Farm, there were Brisbane,
Channing, Curtis [George W., who had lived at Brook Farm for
two years], Cranch, Godwin, Greeley, Lowell, Whittier, Story,
Higginson, to say nothing of gentlemen less known. … 'The
Harbinger' lived nearly four years, a little more than two at
Brook Farm, less than two in New York. The last number was
issued on the 10th of February, 1849. … It is unnecessary to
speculate on the causes of the failure at Brook Farm. There
was every reason why it should fail; there was no earthly,
however much heavenly reason there may have been, why it
should succeed." In August, 1847, a meeting of stockholders
and creditors authorized the transfer of the property of the
Brook Farm Phalanx to a board of three trustees, "for the
purpose and with the power of disposing of it to the best
advantage of all concerned." And so the most attractive of all
social experiments came to an end.
O. B. Frothingham,
George Ripley,
chapters 3-4.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889.
Profit-sharing experiments.
Profit sharing was first practised systematically by M.
Leclaire, a Parisian house-painter and decorator. Beginning to
admit his workmen to participation in the profits of his
business in 1842, he continued the system, with modifications
and developments, until his death in 1872. His financial
success was signal. It was not due to mere good fortune.
Leclaire was a man of high business capacity. … In France, the
increase in the number of participating firms, from 1855
onwards, has been comparatively steady, the number now [1889]
standing between 55 and 60. In Switzerland, the 10 instances,
dating ten years back or more, have no followers recorded in
the sources of information open to me. This fact may be
explained in some degree by the circumstances that Dr.
Böhmert's work, the chief authority thus far on this subject,
was published in 1878, and that the principal investigations
since that time have been concerned mainly with France,
England, and the United States. This remark will apply to
Germany also; but the prevalence there of socialism has
probably been an important reason for the small and slow
increase in the number of firms making a trial of the system
of participation. …
{2945}
In England, the abandonment of their noted trials of
industrial partnership by the Messrs. Briggs and by Fox, Head
and Co. in 1874 checked the advance of the scheme to a more
general trial; but in the last five years, 7 houses have
entered upon the plan. In the United States, the experience of
the Messrs. Brewster and Co. exerted a similar influence, but
by 1882 6 concerns had introduced profit sharing; these were
followed by 11 in 1886, and in 1887 by 12 others. There are,
then, at least 29 cases of profit sharing in actual operation
at this time [1889] in this country, which began in 1887,
1886, or 1882. As compared with France, Germany, and
Switzerland, the United States show a smaller number of cases
of long standing, and a considerably larger number of
instances of adoption of the system in the last three years
[1887-1889]. … Not by mere chance, apparently, the two
republics of France and the United States show the longest
lists of profit sharing firms."
N. P. Gilman,
Profit Sharing,
chapter 9.
See, also,
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874.
Ebenezer and Amana, the communities of the
"True Inspiration Congregations."
In 1843 the first detachment of a company of immigrants,
belonging to a sect called the "True Inspiration
Congregations" which had existed in Germany for more than a
century, was brought to America and settled on a tract of land
in Western New York, near the city of Buffalo. Others
followed, until more than a thousand persons were gathered in
the community which they called "Ebenezer." They were a
thrifty, industrious, pious people, who believed that their
leader, Christian Metz, and some others, were "inspired
instruments," through whom Divine messages came to them. These
messages have all been carefully preserved and printed.
Communism appears to have been no part of their religious
doctrine, but practically forced upon them, as affording the
only condition under which they could dwell simply and piously
together. In 1854 they were "commanded by inspiration" to
remove to the West. Their land at Ebenezer was advantageously
sold, having been reached by the widening boundaries of
Buffalo, and they purchased a large tract in Iowa. The removal
was accomplished gradually during the next ten years, and in
their new settlement, comprising seven villages, with the
common name, Amana, the community is said to be remarkably
thriving. In 1874 Amana contained a population of 1,485 men,
women and children.
C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 25-43.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1883.
Karl Marx.
His theory of Capital.
His socialistic influence.
"The greatest and most influential name in the history of
socialism is unquestionably Karl Marx. … Like Ferdinand
Lassalle, he was of Jewish extraction. He was born at Treves
in 1818, his father being a lawyer in that town; and he
studied at Berlin and Bonn, but neglected the specialty of
law, which he nominally adopted, for the more congenial
subjects of philosophy and history. Marx was a zealous
student, and apparently an adherent of Hegelianism, but soon
gave up his intention of following an academic career as a
teacher of philosophy, and joined the staff of the Rhenish
Gazette, published at Cologne as an organ of the extreme
democracy. While thus engaged, however, he found that his
knowledge of economics required to be enlarged and corrected,
and accordingly in 1843, after marrying the sister of the
Prussian Minister, Von Westfalen, he removed to Paris, where
he applied himself to the study of the questions to which his
life and activity were henceforward to be devoted so entirely.
Here also he began to publish those youthful writings which
must be reckoned among the most powerful expositions of the
early form of German socialism. With Arnold Ruge he edited the
'Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.' In 1845 he was expelled
from Paris and settled in Brussels, where he published his
'Discours sur Je Libre ÉChange,' and his criticism of
Proudhon's 'Philosophie de la Misère,' entitled, 'Misère de la
Philosophie.' In Paris he had already met Friedrich Engels,
who was destined to be his lifelong and loyal friend and
companion-in-arms, and who in 1845 published his important
work, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England.' The two
friends found that they had arrived at a complete identity of
opinion; and an opportunity soon occurred for an emphatic
expression of their common views. A society of socialists, a
kind of forerunner of the International, had established
itself in London, and had been attracted by the new theories
of Marx and the spirit of strong and uncompromising conviction
with which he advocated them. They entered into relation with
Marx and Engels; the society was re-organised under the name
of the Communist League; and a congress was held, which
resulted (1847) in the framing of the 'Manifesto of the
Communist Party,' which was published in most of the languages
of Western Europe, and is the first proclamation of that
revolutionary socialism armed with all the learning of the
nineteenth century, but expressed with the fire and energy of
the agitator, which in the International and other movements
has so startled the world. During the revolutionary troubles
in 1848 Marx returned to Germany, and along with his comrades,
Engels, Wolff, &c., he supported the most advanced democracy
in the 'New Rhenish Gazette.' In 1849 he settled in London,
where he spent his after-life in the elaboration of his
economic views and in the realisation of his revolutionary
programme. During this period he published 'Zur Kritik der
politischen Oekonomie' (1859), and the first volume of his
great work on capital, 'Das Kapital' (1867). He died in
London, March 14, 1883."
T. Kirkup,
A History of Socialism,
chapter 7.
"As to the collectivist creed, Marx looks upon history as
ruled by material interests. He borrows from Hegel the idea of
development in history, and sees in the progress of
civilization merely the development of economic production,
which involves a conflict of classes. The older socialists
were idealists, and constructed a perfect social system. Marx
simply studies economic changes, and their effects on the
conflict of classes, as a basis for predicting the future.
Starting from the principle that there are no permanent
economic laws, but merely transitory phases, a principle
denied by the modern French economists, he does not criticise
but explains our modern capitalistic industrial system, and
its effects on society. Formerly, says Engels, an artisan
owned his tools and also the product of his labor. If he chose
to employ wage earners, these were merely apprentices, and
worked not so much for wages, but in order to learn the trade.
{2946}
All this is changed by the introduction of capital and the
modern industrial system. Marx explains the origin of capital
by saying that it was formerly the result of conquest, the
pillage of peasants, and of colonies, and the secularization
of church property. However, he does not hold the present
capitalists to be robbers. He does not deal with the
capitalist but with capital. His primary theory then is that
profit on capital, on which the possibility of accumulating
wealth depends, is due to the fact that the laborer does not
receive the entire product of his labor as his reward, but
that the capitalist takes the lion's share. Under the old
industrial system, the laborer's tools, his means of
production, belonged to him. Now they are owned by the
capitalist. Owing to the improvement of machinery, and the
invention of steam-power, the laborer can no longer apply his
energy in such a way as to be fully remunerated. He now must
sell his muscular energy in the market. The capitalist who
buys it offers him no just reward. He gives the laborers only
a part of the product of his labors, pocketing the remainder
as interest on capital, and returns for risks incurred. The
laborer is cheated out of the difference between his wages and
the full product of his labor, while the capitalist's share is
increased, day by day, by this stolen amount. 'Production by
all, distribution among a few.' This is the gist of Marx's
theories. Capital is not the result of intelligent savings. It
is simply an amount of wealth appropriated by the capitalist
from the laborer's share in his product."
J. Bourdeau,
German Socialism
(New Englander and Yale Review, September, 1891,
translated from Revue des Deux Mondes).
"The principal lever of Marx against the present form of
industry, and of the distribution of its results, is the
doctrine that value—that is, value in exchange—is created by
labor alone. Now this value, as ascertained by exchanges in
the market or measured by some standard, does not actually all
go to the laborer, in the shape of wages. Perhaps a certain
number of yards of cotton cloth, for instance, when sold,
actually pay for the wages of laborers and leave a surplus,
which the employer appropriates. Perhaps six hours of labor
per diem might enable the laborer to create products enough to
support himself and to rear up an average family; but at

present he has to work ten hours for his subsistence. Where do
the results of the four additional hours go? To the employer,
and the capitalist from whom the employer borrows money; or to
the employer who also is a capitalist and invests his capital
in his works, with a view to a future return. The laborer
works, and brings new workmen into the world, who in turn do
the same. The tendency of wages being toward an amount just
sufficient for the maintenance of the labor, there is no hope
for the future class of laborers. Nor can competition or
concurrence help the matter. A concurrence of capitalists will
tend to reduce wages to the minimum, if other conditions
remain as they were before. A concurrence of laborers may
raise wages above the living point for a while; but these fall
again, through the stimulus which high wages give to the
increase of population. A general fall of profits may lower
the price of articles used by laborers; but the effect of this
is not to add in the end to the laborer's share. He can live
at less expense, it is true, but he will need and will get
lower wages. Thus the system of labor and capital is a system
of robbery. The capitalist is an 'expropriator' who must be
expropriated, as Marx expresses it. A just system can never
exist as long as wages are determined by free contract between
laborers and employers; that is, as long as the means of
carrying on production are in private hands. The only cure for
the evils of the present industrial system is the destruction
of private property—so far, at least, as it is used in
production; and the substitution of the state, or of bodies or
districts controlled by the state, for the private owner of
the means of production. Instead of a number of classes in
society, especially instead of a bourgeoisie and a
proletariat, there must be but one class, which works directly
or indirectly for the state, and receives as wages what the
state decides to give to them. The state, it is taken for
granted, will give in return for hours of labor as much as can
be afforded, consistently with the interests of future labor
and with the expenses necessary for carrying on the state
system itself."
T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 162-163.
ALSO IN:
K. Marx,
Capital.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848.
The founding of the Oneida Community.
The Oneida and Wallingford communities of Perfectionists are
followers of doctrines taught by one John Humphrey Noyes, a
native of Vermont, who began his preaching at Putney, in that
state, about 1834. The community at Oneida, in Madison county,
New York, was formed in 1848, and had a struggling existence
for many years; but gradually several branches of industry,
such as the making of traps, travelling bags, and the like,
were successfully established, and the community became
prosperous. Everything is owned in common, and they extend the
community system" beyond property to persons." That is to say,
there is no marriage among them, and "exclusiveness in regard
to women and children" is displaced by what they claim to be a
scientific regulation of the intercourse of the sexes. In the
early years of the Oneida Community several other settlements
of the followers of Noyes were attempted; but one at
Wallingford, Connecticut, is the only survivor.
C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 259-293.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Noyes,
History of American Socialisms,
chapter 46.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883.
Schulze-Delitzsch and the Co-operative movement in Germany.
"Hermann Schulze was born at Delitzsch, in Prussian Saxony,
August 29th, 1808. He studied jurisprudence at Leipzig and
Halle, and afterwards occupied judicial posts under the
Government, becoming District Judge at Delitzsch in 1841, a
position which he held until 1850. In 1848, he was elected to
the Prussian National Assembly, and the following year he
became a member of the Second Chamber, in which he sat as
Schulze-Delitzsch, a name which has since adhered to him.
Being a member of the Progressist party, he proved a thorn in
the Government's flesh, and he was made District Judge at
Wreschen, but he returned later to the Prussian Diet, and
became also a member of the North German and German
Reichstags.
{2947}
For more than thirty years Schulze headed the co·operative
movement in Germany, but his self-sacrifice impoverished him,
and although his motto as a social reformer had always been
'Self-help,' as opposed to Lassalle's 'State-help,' he was
compelled in his declining years to accept a gift of £7,000
from his friends. Schulze died honoured if not famous on April
29th, 1883. Schulze-Delitzsch is the father of the
co-operative movement in Germany. He had watched the
development of this movement in England, and as early as 1848
he had lifted up his voice in espousal of co-operative
principles in his own country. Though a Radical, Schulze was
no Socialist, and he believed co-operation to be a powerful
weapon wherewith to withstand the steady advance of
Socialistic doctrines in Germany. Besides carrying on
agitation by means of platform-speaking, he published various
works on the subject, the chief of which are: 'Die arbeitenden
Klassen und das Associationswesen in Deutschland, als Programm
zu einem deutschen Congress,' (Leipzig, 1858); 'Kapitel zu
einem deutschen Arbeitercatechismus,' (Leipzig, 1863); 'Die
Abschaffung des geschäftlichen Risico durch Herrn Lassalle,'
(Berlin, 1865); 'Die Entwickelung des Genossenschaften in
einzelnen Gewerbszweigen,' (Leipzig, 1873). Schulze advocated
the application of the co-operative principle to other
organisations than the English stores, and especially to loan,
raw material, and industrial associations. He made a practical
beginning at his own home and the adjacent town of Eilenburg,
where in 1849 he established two co-operative associations of
shoemakers and joiners, the object of which was the purchase
and supply to members of raw material at cost price. In 1850
he formed a Loan Association (Vorschussverein) at Delitzsch on
the principle of monthly payments, and in the following year a
similar association on a larger scale at Eilenburg. For a long
time Schulze had the field of agitation to himself, and the
consequence was that the more intelligent sections of the
working classes took to his proposals readily. Another reason
for his success, however, was the fact that the movement was
practical and entirely unpolitical. It was a movement from
which the Socialistic element was absent, and one in which,
therefore, the moneyed classes could safely co-operate.
Schulze, in fact, sought to introduce reforms social rather
than Socialistic. The fault of his scheme as a regenerative
agency was that it did not affect the masses of the people,
and thus the roots of the social question were not touched.
Schulze could only look for any considerable support to small
tradesmen and artisans, to those who were really able to help
themselves if' shown the way. But his motto of 'Self-help' was
an unmeaning gospel to the vast class of people who were not
in this happy position. … The movement neared a turning point
in 1858. In that year Schulze identified himself with the
capitalist party at a Congress of German economists, held at
Gotha, and he soon began to lose favour with the popular
classes. The high-water mark was reached in 1860, at which
time the co-operative associations had a membership of
200,000, and the business done amounted to 40,000,000 thalers
or about £6,000,000; the capital raised by contribution or
loan approaching a third of this sum. In the year 1864 no
fewer than 800 Loan and Credit Associations had been
established, while in 1861 the number of Raw Material and
Productive Associations was 172, and that of Co-operative
Stores 66. Possibly the movement might have continued to
prosper, even though Schulze was suspected of sympathy with
the capitalists, had no rival appeared on the scene. But a
rival did appear, and he was none other than Lassalle."
W. H. Dawson,
German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
chapter 7.
The co-operative societies in Germany on the Schulze-Delitzsch
plan have been regularly organized into an association. "The
number of societies in this association increased from 171 in
1859, to 771 in 1864, and was 3,822 in 1885. At the last named
date they were distributed thus: loan and credit societies,
1,965; co-operative societies in various branches of trade,
1,146; co-operative store societies, 678; building societies,
33. At the end of 1884 the membership was 1,500,000. Of their
own capital, in shares and reserve funds, they possessed
300,000,000 marks; and of borrowed capital 500,000,000 marks."
Science,
September 9, 1887.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.
"The Familistère founded at Guise (Aisne), France, by the late
M. Jean Baptiste Andre Godin, has a world-wide reputation. The
Social Palace itself, a marvel of ingenious philanthropy,
which realizes successfully some of the characteristic ideas
of Fourier, … entitles M. Godin to a high place among the
social reformers of the 19th century. He was the son of a
worker in iron, and even before his apprenticeship had
conceived the idea that he was destined to set a great example
to the industrial world. … The business carried on in the
great foundries at Guise is the manufacture of cast-iron wares
for the kitchen and general house use, and of heating
apparatus of various kinds. M. Godin was the first man in
France to use cast iron in making stoves, in place of sheet
iron; this was but one example of his inventive powers. He
began in 1840, with 20 workmen, the manufacture which employed
in 1883 over 1,400 at Guise and 300 in the branch
establishment at Laeken, in Belgium. From the beginning there
was an organization for mutual aid among the workmen, assisted
by the proprietor. The Familistère was opened in 1860; but it
was not until 1877, owing to the obstacles presented by the
French law to the plan which he had in mind, that M. Godin
introduced participation by the workmen in the profits of his
gigantic establishment. … In 1880 the establishment became a
joint-stock company with limited liability, and the system of
profit sharing was begun which still [1889] obtains there. M.
Godin's main idea was gradually to transfer the ownership of
the business and of the associated Familistère into the hands
of his workmen. … No workman is admitted to participation [in
the profit-sharing] who is not the owner already of a share.
But the facility of purchase is great: and the interest on his
stock adds materially to the income of the average workman. M.
Godin was gradually disposing of his capital to the workmen up
to his death [in 1888], and this process will go on until
Madame Godin simply retains the direction of the business. But
when this shall have happened, the oldest workmen shall, in
like manner, release their shares to the younger, in order to
keep the ownership of the establishment in the hands of the
actual workers from generation to generation. In this way a
true cooperative productive house will be formed within ten or
a dozen years. M. Godin's capital in 1880 was 4,600,000
francs; the whole capital of the house in 1883 had risen to
6,000,000 francs, and of this sum 2,753,500 francs were held
by various employees in October, 1887.
{2948}
The organization of the workmen as participators forms quite a
hierarchy," at the head of which stand the "associates." "The
'associates' must own at least 500 francs' worth of stock;
they must be engaged in work, and have their home in the
Familistère: they elect new members themselves. … They will
furnish Madame Godin's successor from their ranks."
N. P. Gilman,
Profit Sharing,
pages 173-177.
In April, 1859, M. Godin began to realize the most important
of his ideas of social reform, namely, "the substitution for
our present isolated dwellings of homes and dwellings combined
into Social Palaces, where, to use M. Godin's expressive
words, 'the equivalents of riches,' that is the most essential
advantages which wealth bestows on our common life, may be
brought within reach of the mass of the population. In April,
1859, he laid the foundation of the east wing of such a
palace, the Familistère of Guise. It was covered in in
September of the same year, completed in 1860, and fully
occupied in the year following. In 1862 the central building
was commenced. It was completed in 1864 and occupied in 1865.
The offices in front of the east wing were built at the same
time as that wing—in 1860. The other appendages of the palace
were added in the following order—the nursery and babies'
school in 1866; the schools and theatre in 1869; and the baths
and wash-houses in 1870. The west wing was begun in 1877,
finished in 1879, and fully occupied in 1880. Till its
completion the inhabitants of the Familistère numbered about
900 persons; at present [1880] it accommodates 1,200. Its
population therefore already assumes the proportion of a
considerable village; while its style of construction would
easily allow of the addition of quadrangles, communicating
with the north-eastern and north-western angles of the central
building, by which the number of occupants might be raised to
1,800 or 2,000, without in any way interfering with the
enjoyments of the present inmates, supposing circumstances
made it desirable to increase their numbers to this extent. …
Of the moral effect upon the population of the free and yet
social life which a unitary dwelling makes possible, M. Godin
wrote in 1874:—'For the edification of those who believe that
the working classes are undisciplined or undisciplinable, I
must say that there has not been in the Familistère since its
foundation a single police case, and yet the palace contains
900 persons; meetings in it are frequent and numerous; and the
most active intercourse and relations exist among all the
inhabitants.' And this is not the consequence of any strict
control exercised over the inmates. On the contrary, the whole
life of the Familistère is one of carefully-guarded individual
liberty, which is prevented from degenerating into license
simply by the influence of public opinion among its
inhabitants, who, administering their own internal affairs as
a united body, exercise a disciplinary action upon each other.
There are no gates, beyond doors turning on a central pivot
and never fastened, introduced in winter for the sake of
warmth; no porter to mark the time of entrance or egress of
anyone. Every set of apartments is accessible to its occupants
at any hour of the day or night, with the same facility as if
it opened out of a well-lighted street, since all the halls of
the Familistère are lighted during the whole night. And as
there are ten different entrances, each freely communicating
with the whole building, it would be less easy for one inmate
to spy the movements of another than it is for the neighbours
in an ordinary street to keep an outlook on each other's
actions. … But one factor, and I conceive a very important
factor, in this effort, must not be lost sight of, namely that
the Social Palace at Guise is not a home provided for the
poor, by a benevolence which houses its own fine clay in its
isolated dwelling over against the abodes where those of
coarser clay are clustered together. It is a home for M. Godin
and members of his family, the heads of departments and other
persons connected with him, whose means rise considerably
above those of the workers, no less than for the workers in
the foundry—a mansion of which it is the glory that all the
rooms on every floor originally differ only by a few inches of
height, and such slight differences in the height and width of
doors and windows as require careful observation to detect,
and that all participate alike, according to the quarter of
the sky to which they look, in air and light. So that the
difference of accommodation is [practically reduced to the
number of square feet which the means of the inmate enables
him to occupy, and the internal arrangement of the space at
his disposal."
E. V. Neale,
Associated Homes.
ALSO IN:
E. Howland,
The Social Palace at Guise, and
The Familistère at Guise
(Harper's Monthly Magazine, April, 1872,
and November, 1885).
M. Godin,
Social Solutions.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870.
Nihilism in Russia.
"For the origin of nihilism [which had its period of activity
between 1860 and 1870] we must go back half a century to a
little company of gifted young men, most of whom rose to great
distinction, who used at that time to meet together at the
house of a rich merchant in Moscow, for the discussion of
philosophy, politics and religion. They were of the most
various views. Some of them became Liberal leaders, and wanted
Russia to follow the constitutional development of the West
nations; others became founders of the new Slavophil party,
contending that Russia should be no imitator, but develop her
own native institutions in her own way; and there were at
least two among them—Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin—who
were to be prominent exponents of revolutionary socialism. But
they all owned at this period one common master—Hegel. Their
host was an ardent Hegelian, and his young friends threw
themselves into the study of Hegel with the greatest zeal.
Herzen himself tells us in his autobiography how assiduously
they read everything that came from his pen, how they devoted
nights and weeks to clearing up the meaning of single passages
in his writings, and how greedily they devoured every new
pamphlet that issued from the German press on any part of his
system. From Hegel, Herzen and Bakunin were led, exactly like
Marx and the German Young Hegelians, to Feuerbach, and from
Feuerbach to socialism. Bakunin, when he retired from the
army, rather than be the instrument of oppressing the Poles
among whom he was stationed, went for some years to Germany,
where he lived among the Young Hegelians and wrote for their
organ, the 'Hallische Jahrbücher'; but before either he or
Herzen ever had any personal intercommunication with the
members of that school of thought, they had passed through
precisely the same development.
{2949}
Herzen speaks of socialism almost in the very phrases of the
Young Hegelians, as being the new 'terrestrial religion,' in
which there was to be neither God nor heaven; as a new system
of society which would dispense with an authoritative
government, human or Divine, and which should be at once the
completion of Christianity and the realization of the
Revolution. 'Christianity,' he said, 'made the slave a son of
man; the Revolution has emancipated him into a citizen.
Socialism would make him a man.' This tendency of thought was
strongly supported in the Russian mind by Haxthausen's
discovery and laudation of the rural commune of Russia. The
Russian State was the most arbitrary, oppressive, and corrupt
in Europe, and the Russian Church was the most ignorant and
superstitious; but here at last was a Russian institution
which was regarded with envy even by wise men of the west, and
was really a practical anticipation of that very social system
which was the last work of European philosophy. It was with no
small pride, therefore, that Alexander Herzen declared that
the Muscovite peasant in his dirty sheepskin had solved the
social problem of the nineteenth century, and that for Russia,
with this great problem already solved, the Revolution was
obviously a comparatively simple operation. You had but to
remove the Czardom, the services, and the priesthood, and the
great mass of the people would still remain organized in fifty
thousand complete little self-governing communities living on
their common land and ruling their common affairs as they had
been doing long before the Czardom came into being. … All the
wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already
raging in Russia in the forties. … Although the only political
outbreak of Nicholas's reign, the Petracheffsky conspiracy of
1849, was little more than a petty street riot, a storm of
serious revolt against the tyranny of the Czar was long
gathering, which would have burst upon his head after the
disasters to his army in the Crimea, had he survived them. He
saw it thickening, however, and on his death-bed said to his
son, the noble and unfortunate Alexander II., 'I fear you will
find the burden too heavy.' The son found it eventually heavy
enough, but in the meantime he wisely bent before the storm,
relaxed the restraints the father had imposed, and gave
pledges of the most liberal reforms in every department of
State—judicial administration, local government, popular
education, serf emancipation. … An independent press was not
among the liberties conceded, but Russian opinion at this
period found a most effective voice in a newspaper started in
London by Alexander Herzen, called the 'Kolokol ' (Bell),
which for a number of years made a great impression in Russia.
… Herzen was the hero of the young. Herzenism, we are told,
became the rage, and Herzenism appears to have meant, before
all, a free handling of everything in Church or State which
was previously thought too sacred to be touched. This
iconoclastic spirit grew more and more characteristic of
Russian society at this period, and presently, under its
influence, Herzenism fell into the shade, and nihilism
occupied the scene. We possess various accounts of the meaning
and nature of nihilism, and they all agree substantially in
their description of it. The word was first employed by
Turgenieff in his novel 'Fathers and Sons,' where Arcadi
Petrovitch surprises his father and uncle by describing his
friend Bazaroff as a nihilist. 'A nihilist,' said Nicholas
Petrovitch. 'This word must come from the Latin nihil,
nothing, as far as I can judge, and consequently it signifies
a man who recognises nothing.' 'Or rather who respects
nothing,' said Paul Petrovitch. 'A man who looks at everything
from a critical point of view,' said Arcadi. 'Does not that
come to the same thing?' asked his uncle. 'No, not at all. A
nihilist is a man who bows before no authority, who accepts no
principle without examination, no matter what credit the
principle has.' … 'Yes, before we had Hegelians; now we have
nihilists. We shall see what you will do to exist in
nothingness, in a vacuum, as if under an air pump.'
Koscheleff, writing in 1874, gives a similar explanation of
nihilism. 'Our disease is a disease of character, and the most
dangerous possible. We suffer from a fatal unbelief in
everything. We have ceased to believe in this or in that, not
because we have studied the subject thoroughly and become
convinced of the untenability of our views, but only because
some author or another in Germany or England holds this or
that doctrine to be unfounded. … Our nihilists are simply
Radicals. Their loud speeches, their fault-finding, their
strong assertions, are grounded on nothing.'"
J. Rae,
Contemporary Socialism,
chapter 9.
See, also, NIHILISM.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864.
Ferdinand Lassalle and the formation of the
Social Democratic Party in Germany.
"There has probably been no more interesting appearance in the
later political history of Germany than Lassalle's—no
character that has secured more completely the attention of
its world. There may be and there are many difficulties in the
way of accepting Lassalle's political creed, but he had
sufficient breadth and strength to win a secure place in the
two widely separated domains of German science and politics
and to profoundly influence the leading spirits of his time. …
In addition to his worth in the department of science Lassalle
was also a man of affairs, a practical politician, and—however
large an element of the actor and sophist there may have been
in him—the greatest German orator since Luther and John
Tauler. Besides this, he was naturally heroic, as beautiful in
person as Goethe; and when we remember that he was crossed in
love and met in consequence with a romantic death at the age
of thirty-nine, we see at once, as the publicist de Laveleye
has suggested, the making of a story like that of Abelard.
Lassalle has been the poetry of the various accounts of
contemporary socialism, and has already created a literature
which is still growing almost with the rapidity of the Goethe
literature. The estimate of Lassalle's worth has been in each
account naturally influenced by the economical or sentimental
standpoint of the writer. To de Laveleye, who takes so much
interest in socialism, Lassalle was a handsome agitator, whose
merit lies chiefly in his work as interpreter of Karl Marx. To
Montefiore he was a man of science who was led by accident
into politics; and Franz Mehring, who was once the follower of
Lassalle, in his 'Geschichte der deutschen Social-Demokratie,'
discusses his career in the intolerant mood in which one
generally approaches a forsaken worship.
{2950}
The Englishman John Rae, on the contrary, in his account of
socialism, makes Lassalle a hero; and in the narrative of the
talented Dane, Georg Brandes, Lassalle is already on the broad
road to his place as a god. In the same spirit Rudolf Meyer in
his work 'The Fourth Estate's Struggle for Emancipation' does
not hesitate to use the chief hyperbole of our modern writers,
and compares Lassalle with Jesus of Nazareth. Heine also, who
saw in his fellow Israelite that perfect Hegelian 'freedom
from God' which he himself had attempted in vain, hails
Lassalle as the 'Messiah of the age.' Among Lassalle's more
immediate disciples this deification seems to have become a
formal cultus, and it is affirmed, hard as one finds it to
believe the story, that after Lassalle's death he became an
object of worship with the German laborers. … The father of
Lassalle was a Jewish merchant in Breslau, where the future
'fighter and thinker' as Boeckh wrote mournfully over his
tomb, was born on the 11th of April, 1825. The Israelite
Lassal, for so the family name is still written, was a wealthy
wholesale dealer in cloth, and with a consciousness of the
good in such an avocation had from the first intended that
Ferdinand should be a merchant. … But this was not his
destiny. … The first feature in Lassalle was his will, the
source of his strength and his ruin, and one can find no
period in his life when this will seemed in the least capable
of compromise or submission. … When he decided to become a
Christian and a philosopher instead of a merchant, the family
had nothing to do but to accommodate themselves as best they
could to this arrangement."
L. J. Huff,
Ferdinand Lassalle
(Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887).
"It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of
the laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the
formation of the German Social Democratic Party. Previous to
his time, German laborers had been considered contented and
peaceable. It had been thought that a working men's party
might be established in France or England, but that it was
hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers.
Lassalle's historical importance lies in the fact that he was
able to work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them
to action. It is due to Lassalle above all others that German
working men's battalions, to use the social democratic
expression, now form the vanguard in the struggle for the
emancipation of labor. Lassalle's writings did not advance
materially the theory of social democracy. He drew from
Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but he clothed
their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers
to understand them, and this they never could have done
without such help. … Lassalle gave to Ricardo's law of wages
the designation, the iron law of wages, and expounded to the
laborers its full significance, showing them how it inevitably
forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to
live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system
and that his doctrines stood or fell with it. Laborers were
told that this law could be overthrown only by the abolition
of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to
be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers
that government should aid them by the use of its credit to
the extent of 100,000,000 of thalers, to establish
co-operative associations for production; and a great deal of
breath has been wasted to show the inadequacy of his proposed
measures. Lassalle could not himself have supposed that so
insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan would
solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was
necessary to have some definite party programme to insure
success in agitation. … On the 23d of May, 1863, German social
democracy was born. Little importance was attached to the
event at the time. A few men met at Leipsic, and, under the
leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a new political party
called the 'Universal German Laborers' Union' ('Der Allgemeine
Deutsche Arbeiterverein'). … Lassalle did not live to see the
fruits of his labors. He met with some success and celebrated
a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish as he hoped. At
the time of his death he did not appear to have a firm,
lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no
social-democratic party with political power. Although
Lassalle lost his life in a duel [1864], which had its origin
in a love affair, and not in any struggle for the rights of
labor, he was canonized at once by the working men. … His
influence increased more than ten-fold as soon as he ceased to
live."
R. T. Ely,
French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
chapter 12.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872.
The International in Europe.
The International came into being immediately after the
holding of the International Exhibition at London, in 1862. At
least it was then that it took bodily shape, for the idea, in
its theoretical form, dates from much earlier. … In 1862
certain manufacturers, such as M. Arlès-Dufour, and certain
newspapers, such as 'Le Temps' and 'L' Opinion Nationale,'
started the idea that it would be a good thing to send
delegates from the French working men to the London
Exhibition. 'The visit to their comrades in England,' said 'L'
Opinion Nationale,' 'would establish mutual relations in every
way advantageous. While they would be able to get an idea of
the great artistic and industrial works at the Exhibition,
they would at the same time feel more strongly the mutual
interests which bind the working men of both countries
together; the old leaven of international discord would settle
down, and national jealousy would give place to a healthy
fraternal emulation.' The whole programme of the International
is summed up in these lines; but the manufacturers little
foresaw the manner in which it was going to be carried out.
Napoleon III. appeared to be very favourable to the sending of
the delegates to London. He allowed them to be chosen by
universal suffrage among the members of the several trades,
and, naturally, those who spoke the strongest on the rights of
labour were chosen. By the Emperor's orders, their journey was
facilitated in every way. At that time Napoleon still dreamed
of relying, for the maintenance of his Empire, on the working
men and peasants, and of thus coping with the liberal middle
classes. At London the English working men gave the most
cordial welcome to 'their brothers of France.' On the 5th of
August they organized a fête of 'international fraternization'
at the Freemasons' Tavern. …
{2951}
They proposed to create committees of working men 'as a medium
for the interchange of ideas on questions of international
trade.' The conception of a universal association appears here
in embryo. Two years afterwards it saw the light. On the 28th
of September, 1864, a great meeting of working men of all
nations was held at St. Martin's Hall, London, under the
presidency of Professor Beesly. M. Tolain spoke in the name of
France. Karl Marx was the real inspirer of the movement,
though Mazzini's secretary, Major Wolff, assisted him—a fact
which has given rise to the statement that Mazzini was the
founder of the International. So far was this from being the
case that he only joined it with distrust, and soon left it.
The meeting appointed a provisional committee to draw up the
statutes of the association, to be submitted to the Universal
Congress, which was expected to meet at Brussels in the
following year. In this committee England, France, Italy,
Poland, Switzerland, and Germany were represented; and
afterwards delegates from other countries were admitted. They
were fifty in all. They adopted none of the ways of a secret
society. On the contrary, it was by publicity that they hoped
to carry on their propaganda. Their office was in London. …
Mazzini, by his secretary, Wolff, proposed a highly
centralized organization, which would entrust the entire
management to the leaders. Marx took the other side. … Marx
carried the day. Soon, in his turn, he too was to be opposed
and turned off as too dictatorial. Mazzini and his followers
seceded. … The progress of the new association was at first
very slow." After its second congress, held at Lausanne, in
1867, it spread rapidly and acquired an influence which was
especially alarming to the French government. In 1870 the
International was at the summit of its power. In 1872 its
congress, at the Hague, was a battlefield of struggling
factions and clashing ideas, and practically it perished in
the conflict. "The causes of the rapid decline of the famous
Association are easy to discover, and they are instructive.
First of all, as the organizer of strikes, its principal and
most practical end, it proved itself timid and impotent. The
various bodies of working men were not slow to perceive this,
and gave it up. Next, it had taken for motto, 'Emancipation of
the workers by the workers themselves.' It was intended, then,
to do without the bourgeois-radicals, 'the palaverers,' 'the
adventurers,' who when the revolution was made, would step
into power and leave the working men as they were before. The
majority of the delegates were nevertheless bourgeois; but, in
reality, the sentiment of revolt against the aristocratic
direction of the more intelligent members always persisted,
and it fastened principally on Karl Marx, the true founder of
the International, and the only political brain that it
contained. But to keep in existence a vast association
embracing very numerous groups of different nationalities, and
influenced sometimes by divergent currents of ideas, to make
use of publicity as the sole means of propaganda, and yet to
escape the repressive laws of different States, was evidently
no easy task. How could it possibly have lasted after the only
man capable of directing it had been ostracized? The cause of
the failure was not accidental; it was part of the very
essence of the attempt. The proletariat will not follow the
middle-class radicals, because political liberties, republican
institutions, and even universal suffrage, which the latter
claim or are ready to decree, do not change the relations of
capital and labour. On the other hand, the working man is
evidently incapable of directing a revolutionary movement
which is to solve the thousand difficulties created by any
complete change in the economic order. Revolutionary Socialism
thus leads to an insoluble dilemma and to practical impotence.
A further cause contributed to the rapid fall of the
International, namely, personal jealousies."
E. de Laveleye,
The Socialism of To-day,
chapter 9.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.
Rise and growth of the Patrons of Husbandry, or Grangers,
in the United States.
The order, composed of farmers, known as Patrons of Husbandry,
or Grangers, was founded in 1866. It grew rapidly during the
first decade of its existence, and reported a membership, in
November, 1875, of 763,263. After that period the numbers
declined. The general aims of the order were set forth in a
"Declaration of Purposes," as follows: "We shall endeavor to
advance our cause by laboring to accomplishing the following
objects: To develop a better and higher manhood and womanhood
among ourselves. To enhance the comforts and attractions of
our homes, and strengthen our attachments to our pursuits. To
foster mutual understanding and co-operation. … To
discountenance the credit system, the mortgage system, the
fashion system, and every other system tending to prodigality
and bankruptcy. We propose meeting together, talking together,
working together, buying together, selling together, and in
general acting together for our mutual protection and
advancement, as occasion may require. We shall avoid
litigation as much as possible by arbitration in the Grange. …
We are not enemies to capital, but we oppose the tyranny of
monopolies. We long to see the antagonism between labor and
capital removed by common consent and by an enlightened
statesmanship worthy of the nineteenth century. … Last, but
not least, we proclaim it among our purposes to inculcate a
proper appreciation of the abilities and sphere of woman, as
is indicated by admitting her to membership and position in
our order."
R. T. Ely,
The Labor Movement in America,
chapter 3.
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875.
The Brocton Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life.
The Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life was
established at Brocton, on the shore of Lake Erie, by Thomas
Lake Harris, in 1867. Harris had been, partly at least, the
founder of an earlier community at Mountain Cove, in North
Carolina, which went to pieces after two years. For some time
he travelled and lectured in America and England, and during a
certain period he engaged in business as a banker, at Amenia,
in Dutchess county, New York. He possessed qualities which
exercised a fascinating influence upon many people of superior
cultivation, and made them docile recipients of a very
peculiar religious teaching. He claimed to have made a strange
spiritual discovery, through which those who disciplined
themselves to the acceptance of what it offered might attain
to a "new life."
{2952}
The discipline required seems to have involved a very complete
surrender to the leader, Harris; and it was on such terms,
apparently, that the Community at Brocton—or Salem-on-Erie as
the Brotherhood renamed the place-was constituted. Among those
who entered it was the brilliant writer, diplomatist, and man
of society, Laurence Oliphant, who joined, with his wife, and
with Lady Oliphant, his mother. The connection of Oliphant
with the society drew to it more attention than it might
otherwise have received. The Community bought and owned about
2,000 acres of land, and devoted its labors extensively and
with success to the culture of grapes and the making of wine.
The breaking up of the Brotherhood appears to be covered with
a good deal of obscurity. Harris left Brocton in 1875 and went
to California, where he is reported to be living, at Sonoma,
on a great estate. Some of the Brotherhood went with him;
others were scattered, and the Brocton vineyards are now
cultivated by other hands.
W. E. K.,
Brocton (Buffalo Courier, July 19, 1891).
ALSO IN:
M. O. W. Oliphant,
Memoir of the life of Laurence Oliphant.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.
The Knights of Labor.
"The second great attempt [the first having been 'the
International'] to organize labor on a broad basis—as broad as
society itself, in which all trades should be recognized—was
the Noble Order of Knights of Labor of America. This
organization was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1869, in the city
of Philadelphia, and was the result of the efforts of Uriah S.
Stephens, as the leader, and six associates, all
garment-cutters. For several years previous to this date, the
garment-cutters of Philadelphia had been organized as a
trades-union, but had failed to maintain a satisfactory rate
of wages in their trade. A feeling of dissatisfaction
prevailed, which resulted, in the fall of 1869, in a vote to
disband the union. Stephens, foreseeing this result, had
quietly prepared the outlines of a plan for an organization
embracing 'all branches of honorable toil,' and based upon
education, which, through co-operation and an intelligent use
of the ballot, should gradually abolish the present wages
system. Stephens himself was a man of great force of
character, a skilled mechanic, with the love of books which
enabled him to pursue his studies during his apprenticeship,
and feeling withal a strong affection for secret
organizations, having been for many years connected with the
Masonic order. … He believed it was necessary to bring all
wage-workers together in one organization, where measures
affecting the interests of all could be intelligently
discussed and acted upon; and this he held could not be done
in a trades-union. At the last session of the Garment-cutters'
Union, and after the motion to disband had prevailed, Stephens
invited the few members present to meet him, in order to
discuss his new plan of organization. … Stephens then laid
before his guests his plan of an organization, which he
designated 'The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor.'
It was a new departure in labor organization. The founder
described what he considered a tendency toward large
combinations of capital, and argued that the trades-union form
of organization was like a bundle of sticks when unbound,—weak
and powerless to resist combination. … Stephens' great
controlling ideas may be formulated as follows: first that
surplus labor always keeps wages down; and, second, that
nothing can remedy this evil but a purely and deeply secret
organization, based upon a plan that shall teach, or rather
inculcate, organization, and at the same time educate its
membership to one set of ideas ultimately subversive of the
present wages system. … At a subsequent meeting, held December
28, 1869, upon the report of a Committee on Ritual, involving
obligations and oaths, Mr. Stephens and his six associates
subscribed their names to the obligations; and, when the
ritual was adopted, Mr. James L. Wright moved that the new
Order be named the 'Knights of Labor.' … The members were
sworn to the strictest secrecy. The name even of the Order was
not to be divulged. … The rules of government. … excluded
physicians from the Order, because professional confidence
might force the societies' secrets into unfriendly ears. The
rule prohibiting the admission of physicians, however, was
repealed at Detroit in 1881. Politicians were to be excluded,
because the founders of the Order considered that their moral
character was on too low a plane for the sacred work of the
new Order; and, besides, it was considered that professional
politicians would not keep the secrets of the Order, if such
secrets could be used for their own advantage. Men engaged in
political work are not now excluded for that cause alone.
Lawyers were to be excluded, and still are, because the
founders considered that the logical, if not the practical,
career of the lawyer is to get money by his aptitudes and
cunning, which, if used to the advantage of one, must be at
the expense of another. … Rum-sellers were and are excluded,
because the trade is not only useless, by being non-productive
of articles of use, but results in great suffering and
immorality. … The founders also considered that those who sell
or otherwise handle liquors should be excluded, because such
persons would be a defilement to the Order. In consequence of
the close secrecy thrown around the new organization, it did
not grow rapidly. Stephens, impressed with the Masonic ritual
and that of the Odd Fellows, was unwilling to allow any
change. … So the society struggled on, admitting now and then
a member, its affairs running smoothly, as a whole, but the
name of the organization never divulged. … In January, 1878,
when the whole machinery of the organization was perfected so
far as bodies were concerned, there had been no general
declaration of principles. The Order had been intensely
secret, as much as the society of the Masons or of the Odd
Fellows. The name of the Order began to be whispered about;
but beyond the name and most exaggerated accounts of the
membership, nothing was known of the Knights of Labor. The
membership must have been small,—indeed, not counting far into
the thousands. In fact, it did not reach fifty thousand until
five years later. … About this time [1878] the strict secrecy
in the workings of the Order, and the fact that the
obligations were oaths taken on the Bible, brought on a
conflict with the Catholic Church, and during the years
1877-78 many Local and several District Assemblies lapsed. …
Measures were adopted whereby a satisfactory conciliation was
brought about, on the general ground that the labor movement
could consistently take no interest in the advocacy of any
kind of religion, nor assume any position for or against
creeds.
{2953}
The prejudices against the Knights of Labor on account of
Catholic opposition then naturally, but gradually,
disappeared; and the Order took on new strength, until there
were in 1879 twenty-three District Assemblies and about
thirteen hundred Local Assemblies in the United States. … The
third annual session of the General Assembly was held at
Chicago, in September, 1879, when the federal body busied
itself with general legislation, and was called upon to
consider the resignation of Mr. Stephens as Master Workman.
This resignation, urgently pressed by Mr. Stephens, was
accepted; and Hon. Terrence V. Powderly was elected Grand
Master Workman in his place. … The membership was stated to be
five thousand in good standing. … The next annual meeting of
the General Assembly (the fourth) took place at Pittsburg, in
September, 1880, and consisted of forty delegates. At this
session, strikes were denounced as injurious, and as not
worthy of support except in extreme cases. … The fifth session
was held in September, 1881, at Detroit. This session had to
deal with one of the most important actions in the history of
the Order. The General Assembly then declared that on and
after January 1, 1882, the name and objects of the Order
should be made public. It also declared that women should be
admitted upon an equal footing with men. … A benefit insurance
law was also passed, and an entire change of the ritual was
advised. … The sixth annual assembly was held in New York in
September, 1882, the chief business consisting in the
discussion, and finally in the adoption, of a revised
constitution and ritual. At this Assembly, what is known as
the 'strike' element—that is, the supporters and believers in
strikes—was in the majority, and laws and regulations for
supporting strikes were adopted; and the co-operation of
members was suppressed by a change of the co-operative law of
the Order. … The seventh annual session of the General
Assembly was held at Cincinnati in September, 1883, and
consisted of one hundred and ten representative delegates. …
This large representation was owing to the rapid growth of the
Order since the name and objects had been made public. … The
membership of the Order was reported to this Assembly to be,
in round numbers, fifty-two thousand. In September, 1884, the
eighth annual Assembly convened at Philadelphia. Strikes and
boycotts were denounced. … The ninth General Assembly convened
at Hamilton, Ontario, in October, 1885, and adopted
legislation looking to the prevention of strikes and boycotts.
The session lasted eight days, the membership being reported
at one hundred and eleven thousand. … The tenth annual session
of the General Assembly was held at Richmond, Virginia, in
October, 1886. … Mr. Powderly, in his testimony before the
Strike Investigating Committee of Congress, April 21, 1886,
made the following statement as to membership: 'Our present
membership does not exceed 500,000, although we have been
credited with 5,000,000.' This statement indicates a growth of
nearly 400,000 in one year. The growth was so rapid that the
Executive Board of the Order felt constrained to call a halt
in the initiation of new members. To-day (December 10, 1886),
while the membership has fallen off in some localities, from
various causes, in the whole country it has increased, and is,
according to the best inside estimates, not much less than one
million."
Carroll D. Wright,
Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887).
"At the annual convention of the Knights of Labor, held at
Philadelphia, November 14-28 [1893], Grand Master Workman
Powderly, for fifteen years the head of the order, was
succeeded by J. R. Sovereign, of Iowa. The new leader's first
address to the organization, issued December 7, contained in
addition to the usual denunciation of capitalists, a strong
demand for the free coinage of silver and an expansion of the
currency."
Political Science Quarterly, June, 1894;
Record of Political Events.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1872-1886.
The International in America.
By the order of the congress of the International held at the
Hague in 1872, the General Council of the Association was
transferred to New York. "Modern socialism had then
undoubtedly begun to exist in America. The first proclamation
of the council from their new headquarters was an appeal to
workingmen 'to emancipate labor and eradicate all
international and national strife.' … The 'Exceptional Law'
passed against socialists by the German Parliament in 1878
drove many socialists from Germany to this country, and these
have strengthened the cause of American socialism through
membership in trades-unions and in the Socialistic Labor
Party. There have been several changes among the socialists in
party organization and name since 1873, and national
conventions or congresses have met from time to time. … The
name Socialistic Labor Party was adopted in 1877 at the Newark
Convention. In 1883 the split between the moderates and
extremists had become definite, and the latter held their
congress in Pittsburg, and the former in Baltimore. … The
terrible affair of May 4, 1886, when the Chicago
Internationalists endeavored to resist the police by the use
of dynamite, terminated all possibility of joint action—even
if there could previously have been any remote hope of it; for
that was denounced as criminal folly by the Socialistic Labor
Party. … The Internationalists, at their congress in
Pittsburg, adopted unanimously a manifesto or declaration of
motives and principles, often called the Pittsburg
Proclamation, in which they describe their ultimate goal in
these words:—'What we would achieve is, therefore, plainly
and simply,—First, Destruction of the existing class rule, by
all means, i. e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and
international action. Second, Establishment of a free society
based upon co-operative organization of production. Third,
Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the
productive organizations without commerce and profit-mongery.
Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and
equal basis for both sexes. Fifth, Equal rights for all
without distinction to sex or race. Sixth, Regulation of all
public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous
(independent} communes and associations, resting on a
federalistic basis.'"
R. T. Ely,
The Labor Movement in America,
chapters 8-9.
{2954}
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1875-1893.
Socialist parties in Germany.
Their increasing strength.
Before 1875, there existed in Germany two powerful Socialist
associations. The first was called the 'General Association of
German Working Men' (der allgemeine deutsche Arbeiterverein).
Founded by Lassalle in 1863, it afterwards had for president
the deputy Schweizer, and then the deputy Hasenclever. Its
principal centre of activity was North Germany. The second was
the 'Social-democratic Working Men's Party' (die
Social·democratische Arbeiterpartei), led by two well-known
deputies of the Reichstag, Herr Bebel and Herr Liebknecht. Its
adherents were chiefly in Saxony and Southern Germany. The
first took into account the ties of nationality, and claimed
the intervention of the State in order to bring about a
gradual transformation of society; the second, on the
contrary, expected the triumph of its cause only from a
revolutionary movement. These two associations existed for a
long time in open hostility towards each other; less, however,
from the difference of the aims they had in view than in
consequence of personal rivalry. Nevertheless, in May, 1875,
at the Congress of Gotha, they amalgamated under the title of
the 'Socialist Working Men's Party of Germany' (Socialistische
Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands). The deputy Hasenclever was
nominated president; but the union did not last long, or was
never complete, for as early as the month of August following
a separate meeting of the 'General Association of German
Working Men' was held at Hamburg. … The German Socialist party
does not confine itself to stating general principles. Now
that it has gained foothold on political soil, and sends
representatives to Parliament, it endeavours to make known the
means by which it hopes to realize the reforms it has in view.
This is what it claims:—'The German Socialist party demands,
in order to pave the way for the solution of the social
question, the creation of socialistic productive associations
aided by the State, under the democratic control of the
working people. These productive associations for manufacture
and agriculture should be created on a sufficiently large
scale to enable the socialistic organization of labour to
arise out of them. As basis of the State, it demands direct
and universal suffrage for all citizens of twenty years of
age, in all elections both of State and Commune; direct
legislation, by the people, including the decision of peace or
war; general liability to bear arms and a militia composed of
civilians instead of a standing army; the abolition of all
laws restricting the right of association, the right of
assembly, the free expression of opinion, free thought, and
free inquiry; gratuitous justice administered by the people;
compulsory education, the same for all and given by the State;
and a declaration that religion is an object of private
concern.'"
E. de Laveleye,
The Socialism of To-day,
introduction and chapter 1.
"The social democratic party [in Germany] advanced in
strength, as far as that is measured by votes, until 1878,
when the decrease was only slight. Two attempts were made on

the life of the Emperor William in that year, and the social
democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. … In the
Reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed, which
gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed
against social democracy. … Governmental persecution united
the divided members and gave new energy to all. … They all
became secret missionaries, distributing tracts and exhorting
individually their fellow-laborers to join the struggle for
the emancipation of labor. The German social democrats have
held two congresses since the socialistic law, both, of
course, on foreign soil, and both have indicated progress. The
first was held at Wyden, Switzerland, August 20-23, 1880. This
resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate party.
The two leading extremists, Hasselmann and Most, were both
expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes,
the latter by all save two. The next congress was held at
Copenhagen, Denmark, from March 29 to April 2, 1883. It
exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more
wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous
congress."
R. T. Ely,
French and German Socialism,
chapter 14.
At the general election, February, 1890, in Germany, the
Social Democratic party "polled more votes than any other
single party in the Empire, and returned to the Imperial Diet
a body of representatives strong enough, by skilful alliances,
to exercise an effective influence on the course of affairs.
The advance of the party may be seen in the increase of the
socialist vote at the successive elections since the creation
of the Empire:
In 1871 it was 101,927;
1874, 351,670;
1877, 493,447;
1878, 437,438;
1881, 311,961;
1884, 549,000;
1887, 774,128;
1890, 1,427,000.
The effect of the coercive laws of 1878, as shown by these
figures, is very noteworthy. … The first effect … was, as was
natural, to disorganize the socialist party for the time.
Hundreds of its leaders were expelled from the country;
hundreds were thrown into prison or placed under police
restriction; its clubs and newspapers were suppressed; it was
not allowed to hold meetings, to make speeches, or to
circulate literature of any kind. In the course of the twelve
years during which this exceptional legislation has subsisted,
it was stated at the recent Socialist Congress at Halle
[1890], that 155 socialist journals and 1,200 books or
pamphlets had been prohibited; 900 members of the party had
been banished without trial; 1,500 had been apprehended and
300 punished for contraventions of the Anti-Socialist Laws."
But this "policy of repression has ended in tripling the
strength of the party it was designed to crush, and placing it
in possession of one-fifth of the whole voting power of the
nation. It was high time, therefore, to abandon so ineffectual
a policy, and the socialist coercive laws expired on the 30th
September, 1890. … The strength of the party in Parliament has
never corresponded with its strength at the polls. … In 1890,
with an electoral vote which, under a system of proportional
representation, would have secured for it 80 members, it has
carried only 37."
J. Rae,
Contemporary Socialism,
pages 33-34.
The Social Democrats "retained their position as the strongest
party in the empire in the elections of 1893, casting nearly
1,800,000 votes, and electing 44 members of parliament. …
Another indication of the growth of social democracy, is the
fact that it has gained a foothold among the students of the
universities."
R. T. Ely,
Socialism,
page 59.
"The two principal leaders of the Social-Democratic party in
Germany—in fact, the only members of the party to whom the
term leader can properly be applied—are now Wilhelm Liebknecht
and August Bebel. Both men have lived eventful lives and have
suffered often and severely for the sake of their cause. …
Liebknecht has done a great deal to popularise the political
and social theories of men like Marx and Lassalle.
{2955}
He is through and through a Communist and a Republican, and he
is determined upon realising his ideals by hook or by crook. …
He works for the subversion of the monarchical principle and
for the establishment of a Free People's State. In this State
all subjects will stand upon the same level: there will be no
classes and no privileges. … Bebel once summarised his views
in a sentence which, so far as he spoke for himself, is as
true as it is short. 'We aim,' he said, 'in the domain of
politics at Republicanism, in the domain of economics at
Socialism, and in the domain of what is to-day called religion
at Atheism.' Here we see Bebel as in a mirror. He is a
Republican and a Socialist, and he is proud of it; he is
without religion, and he is never tired of parading the fact,
even having himself described in the Parliamentary Almanacs as
'religionslos.' Like his colleague Liebknecht he is a warm
admirer of England."
W. H. Dawson,
German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
chapter 15.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880.
Mr. Henry George, and the proposed confiscation of rent.
The Single-Tax movement.
The doctrine of Mr. Henry George, set forth in his famous
book, "Progress and Poverty," published in 1880, is stated in
his own language as follows: "We have traced the want and
suffering that everywhere prevail among the working classes,
the recurring paroxysms of industrial depression, the scarcity
of employment, the stagnation of capital, the tendency of
wages to the starvation point, that exhibit themselves more
and more strongly as material progress goes on, to the fact
that the land on which and from which all must live is made
the exclusive property of some. We have seen that there is no
possible remedy for these evils but the abolition of their
cause; we have seen that private property in land has no
warrant in justice, but stands condemned as the denial of
natural right—a subversion of the law of nature that as social
development goes on must condemn the masses of men to a
slavery the hardest and most degrading. … I do not propose
either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land.
The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the
individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to,
possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let
them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell,
and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the
shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to
confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Nor
to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State
should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the
chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption that
might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery
should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of
extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it.
By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would
probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in
attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making
use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock,
assert the common right to land by taking rent for public
uses. We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to
make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.
What I, therefore, propose, as the simple yet sovereign
remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of
capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, give
remunerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford free
scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, and
taste, and intelligence, purify government and carry
civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by
taxation. In this way, the State may become the universal
landlord without calling herself so, and without assuming a
single new function. In form, the ownership of land would
remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and
no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one
could hold. For, rent being taken by the State in taxes, land,
no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was
held, would be really common property, and every member of the
community would participate in the advantages of its
ownership. Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land
values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other
taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by
proposing—To abolish all taxation save that upon land values."
H. George,
Progress and Poverty,
book 8, chapter 2.
"Mr. George sent his 'Progress and Poverty' into the world
with the remarkable prediction that it would find not only
readers but apostles. … Mr. George's prediction is not more
remarkable than its fulfilment. His work has had an unusually
extensive sale; a hundred editions in America, and an edition
of 60,000 copies in this country [England, 1891] are
sufficient evidences of that; but the most striking feature in
its reception is precisely that which its author foretold; it
created an army of apostles, and was enthusiastically
circulated, like the testament of a new dispensation.
Societies were formed, journals were devised to propagate its
saving doctrines, and little companies of the faithful held
stated meetings for its reading and exposition. … The author
was hailed as a new and better Adam Smith, as at once a
reformer of science and a renovator of society."
J. Rae,
Contemporary Socialism,
chapter 12.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889.
State Socialistic measures of the German Government.
"Replying once to the accusation made by an opponent in the
Reichstag that his social-political measures were tainted with
Socialism, Prince Bismarck said, 'You will be compelled yet to
add a few drops of social oil in the recipe you prescribe for
the State; how many I cannot say.' In no measures has more of
the Chancellor's 'social oil' been introduced than in the
industrial insurance laws. These may be said to indicate the
high-water mark of German State Socialism. … The Sickness
Insurance Law of 1883. the Accident Insurance Laws of 1884 and
1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law of 1889 are based upon the
principle of compulsion which was introduced into the sick
insurance legislation of Prussia in 1854. … The trio of
insurance laws was completed in 1889 by the passing of a
measure providing for the insurance of workpeople against the
time of incapacity and old age (Invalidäts und
Altersversicherungsgesetz). This was no after-thought
suggested by the laws which preceded. It formed from the first
part of the complete plan of insurance foreshadowed by Prince
Bismarck over a decade ago, and in some of the Chancellor's
early speeches on the social question he regarded the
pensioning of old and incapacitated workpeople as at once
desirable and inevitable. …
{2956}
The Old Age Insurance Law is expected to apply to about twelve
million workpeople, including labourers, factory operatives,
journeymen, domestic servants, clerks, assistants, and
apprentices in handicrafts and in trade (apothecaries
excluded), and smaller officials (as on railways, etc.), so
long as their wages do not reach 2,000 marks (about £100) a
year; also persons employed in shipping, whether maritime,
river, or lake; and, if the Federal Council so determine,
certain classes of small independent undertakers. The
obligation to insure begins with the completion of the
sixteenth year, but there are exemptions, including persons
who, owing to physical or mental weakness, are unable to earn
fixed minimum wages, and persons already entitled to public
pensions, equal in amount to the benefits secured by the law,
or who are assured accident annuities. The contributions are
paid by the employers and work-people in equal shares, but the
State also guarantees a yearly subsidy of 50 marks (£2.10s.)
for every annuity paid. Contributions are only to be paid when
the insured is in work. The law fixes four wages classes, with
proportionate contributions as follows:
Wages. | Contributions.
| Weekly. | Yearly (47 weeks).
1st class 300 marks (£15) | 14 pfennig | 3'29 marks (3s. 3½d.)
2nd class 500 marks (£25) | 20 pfennig | 4'70 marks (4s. 8½d.)
3rd class 720 marks (£36) | 24 pfennig | 5'64 marks (5s. 7½d.)
4th class 960 marks (£78) | 30 pfennig | 7'05 marks (7s. ).
Of course, of these contributions the workpeople only pay
half. Old age annuities are first claimable at the beginning
of the seventy-first year, but annuities on account of
permanent incapacity may begin at any time after the workman
has been insured for five years. The minimum period of
contribution in the case of old age pensioning is thirty years
of forty-seven premiums each. Where a workman is prevented by
illness (exceeding a week but not exceeding a year), caused by
no fault of his own, or by military duties, from continuing
his contributions, the period of his absence from work is
reckoned part of the contributory year. … Contributions are
made in postage stamps affixed to yearly receipt cards
supplied to the insured. Annuities are to be paid through the
post-office monthly in advance."
W. H. Dawson,
Bismarck and State Socialism,
chapter 9.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1887-1888.
Development of the "New Trade Unionism."
"The elements composing what is termed the New Trade Unionism
are not to be found in the constitution, organization, and
rules of the Unions started within the last two or three
years. In these respects they either conform to the experience
of modern Unions, or they revive the practices of the older
Unions. There is scarcely a feature in which any of them
differ from types of Unions long in existence. In what, then,
consists the 'New Trade Unionism,' of which we hear so much?
Mainly in the aspirations, conduct, modes of advocacy, and
methods of procedure of, and also in the expressions used, and
principles inculcated by the new leaders in labour movements,
in their speeches and by their acts. This New Unionism has
been formulated and promulgated at Trades Union Congresses, at
other Congresses and Conferences, and at the meetings held in
various parts of the country; and in letters and articles
which have appeared in the newspaper, press, and public
journals from the pens of the new leaders. … The institution
of Labour Bureaus, or the establishment of Labour Registries,
is one of the acknowledged objects of the Dockers' Union.
Singularly enough this is the first time that any such project
has had the sanction of a bona-fide Trade Union. All the older
Unions repudiate every such scheme. It has hitherto been
regarded as opposed in principle to Trade Unionism. … At the
recent Trades Union Congress held in Liverpool, September
1890, the following resolution was moved by one of the London
delegates representing the 'South Side Labour Protection
League'—'That in the opinion of this Congress, in order to
carry on more effectually the organization of the large mass
of unorganized labour, to bring into closer combination those
sections of labour already organized, to provide means for
communication and the interchange of information between all
sections of industry, and the proper tabulation of statistics
as to employment, &c., of advantage to the workmen, it is
necessary that a labour exchange, on the model of the Paris
Bourse des Travail, should be provided and maintained by
public funds in every industrial centre in the kingdom." … The
mover said that 'not a single delegate could deny the
necessity for such an institution, in every industrial
centre.' The Congress evidently thought otherwise, for only 74
voted for the resolution, while 92 voted against it. … The
proposal, however, shows to what an extent the New Trade
Unionism seeks for Government aid, or municipal assistance, in
labour movements. The most astonishing resolution carried by
the Congress was the following—'Whereas the ever-changing
methods of manufacture affect large numbers of workers
adversely by throwing them out of employment, without
compensation for loss of situation, and whereas those persons
are in many instances driven to destitution, crime, and
pauperism: Resolved, that this Congress is of opinion that
power should at once be granted to each municipality or County
Council to establish workshops and factories under municipal
control, where such persons shall be put to useful employment,
and that it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee
to at once take the matter in hand.' … The proposal of all
others which the new Trade Unionists sought to ingraft upon,
and had determined to carry as a portion of the programme of
the Trades Union Congress, was the 'legal Eight Hour day;' and
they actually succeeded in their design after a stormy battle.
The new leaders, with their socialist allies, had been working
to that end for over two years."
G. Howell,
Trade Unionism, New and Old,
chapter 8, part. 2.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893.
Mr. Bellamy's "Looking Backward,"
and the Nationalist movement.
"The so-called 'Nationalist' movement, originating in an
ingenious novel called 'Looking Backward' [published in 1888],
is one of the most interesting phenomena of the present
condition of public opinion in this country. Mr. Edward
Bellamy, a novelist by profession, is the recognized father of
the Nationalist Clubs which have been formed in various parts
of the United States within the last twelve months. His
romance of the year 2000 A. D. is the reason for their
existence, and furnishes the inspiration of their
declarations. …
{2957}
The new society [depicted in Mr. Bellamy's romance] is
industrial, rather than militant, in every feature. There are
no wars or government war powers. But the function has been
assumed by the nation of directing the industry of every
citizen. Every man and woman is enrolled in the 'industrial
army,' this conception being fundamental. This universal
industrial service rests upon the recognized duty of every
citizen 'to contribute his quota of industrial or intellectual
work to the maintenance of the nation.' The period of service'
is twenty-four years, beginning at the close of the course of
education at twenty-one, and terminating at forty-five. After
forty-five, while discharged from labor, the citizen still
remains liable to special calls, in case of emergencies.'
There are, of course, no such numerous exemptions from this
industrial service as qualify very greatly the rigor of the
Continental military service of the present day. Every new
recruit belongs for three years to the class of unskilled or
common laborers. After this term, he is free to choose in what
branch of the service he will engage, to work with hand or
with brain:—'It is the business of the administration to seek
constantly to equalize the attractions of the trades, so far
as the conditions in them are concerned, so that all trades
shall be equally attractive to persons having natural tastes
for them. This is done by making the hours of labor in
different trades to differ according to their arduousness. The
principle is that no man's work ought to be, on the whole,
harder for him than any other man's for him, the workers
themselves to be the judges.' The headship of the industrial
army of the nation is the most important function of the
President of the United States. Promotion from the ranks lies
through three grades up to the officers. These officers are,
in ascending order, lieutenants, captains, or foremen,
colonels, or superintendents, and generals of the guilds. The
various trades are grouped into ten great departments, each of
which has a chief. These chiefs form the council of the
general-in-chief, who is the President. He must have passed
through all the grades, from the common laborers up. …
Congress has but little to do beyond passing upon the reports
of the President and the heads of departments at the end of
their terms of office. Any laws which one Congress enacts must
receive the assent of another, five years later, before going
into effect; but, as there are no parties or politicians in
the year 2000 A. D., this is a matter of little consequence.
In Mr. Bellamy's Utopia, money is unknown: there is,
therefore, no need of banks or bankers. Buying and selling are
processes entirely antiquated. The nation is the sole producer
of commodities. All persons being in the employment of the
nation, there is supposed to be no need of exchanges between
individuals. A credit-card is issued to each person, which he
presents at a national distributing shop when in need of
anything, and the amount due the government is punched out.
The yearly allowance made to each person Mr. Bellamy does not
put into figures. … Every person is free to spend his income
as he pleases; but it is the same for all, the sole basis on
which it is awarded being the fact that the person is a human
being. Consequently, cripples and idiots, as well as children,
are entitled to the same share of the products of the national
industries as is allowed the most stalwart or the most
capable, a certain amount of effort only being required, not
of performance. Such is the force of public opinion that no
one of able body or able mind refuses to exert himself: the
comparative results of his effort are not considered. Absolute
equality of recompense is thus the rule; and the notion of
charity with respect to the infirm in body or mind is
dismissed, a credit-card of the usual amount being issued to
every such person as his natural right. 'The account of every
person, man, woman, and child … is always with the nation
directly, and never through any intermediary, except, of
course, that parents to a certain extent act for children as
their guardians. … It is by virtue of the relation of
individuals to the nation, of their membership in it, that
they are entitled to support.' … The idea naturally occurred
to a considerable number of Bostonians, who had read Mr.
Bellamy's socialistic romance with an enthusiastic conviction
that here at last the true social gospel was delivered, that
associations for the purpose of disseminating the views set
forth in the book could not be formed too soon, as the
forerunners of this National party of the future. Accordingly,
a club, called 'The Boston Bellamy Club,' was started in
September, 1888, which was formally organized as 'The
Nationalist Club,' in the following December."
N. P. Gilman,
"Nationalism" in the United States
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oct., 1889).
The Nationalists "have very generally entered into the
Populist movement, not because they accept that in its present
form as ideal, but because that movement has seemed to give
them the best opportunity for the diffusion of their
principles; and there can be no doubt that they have given a
socialistic bias to this movement. They have also influenced
the labor movement, and, with the Socialistic Labor Party,
they have succeeded in producing a strong sentiment in favor
of independent political action on the part of the
wage-earners. Especially noteworthy was the platform for
independent political action offered at the meeting of the
American Federation of Labor in Chicago in December, 1893."
R. T. Ely,
Socialism,
page 69.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
The American Railway Union and the Pullman Strike.
In May, 1894, some 4,000 workmen, employed in the car shops of
the Pullman Company, at the town of Pullman, near Chicago,
stopped work, because of the refusal of the company to restore
their wages to the standard from which they had been cut down
during the previous year and because of its refusal to
arbitrate the question. While this strike was in progress, the
American Railway Union, a comparatively new but extensive
organization of railway employees, formed by and under the
presidency of Eugene V. Debs, met in convention at Chicago,
and was induced to make the cause of the Pullman workmen its
own. The result was a decision on the part of the Union to
"boycott" all Pullman cars, ordering its members to refuse to
handle cars of that company, on the railways which center at
Chicago. This order went into effect on the evening of June
26, and produced the most extensive and alarming paralysis of
traffic and business that has ever been experienced in the
United States. Acts of violence soon accompanied the strike of
the railway employees, but how far committed by the strikers
and how far by responsive mobs, has never been made clear.
{2958}
The interruption of mails brought the proceedings of the
strikers within the jurisdiction of the federal courts and
within reach of the arm of the United States government. The
powers of the national courts and of the national executive
were both promptly exercised, to restore order and to stop a
ruinous interference with the general commerce of the country.
The leaders of the strike were indicted and placed under
arrest; United States troops were sent to the scene; President
Cleveland, by two solemn proclamations, made known the
determination of the Government to suppress a combination
which obstructed the United States mails and the movements of
commerce between the states. Urgent appeals were addressed by
the leaders of the American Railway Union to other labor
organizations, with the hope of bringing about a universal
strike, in all departments of industry throughout the country;
but it failed. The good sense of workingmen in general
condemned so suicidal a measure. By the 15th of July the
Pullman strike was practically ended, and the traffic of the
railways was resumed. President Cleveland appointed a
commission to investigate and report on the occurrence and its
causes, but the report of the commission has not been
published at the time this is printed (November, 1894).
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
The Coxey Movement.
"A peculiar outcome of the social and political conditions of
the winter [of 1893-4] was the organization of various 'armies
of the unemployed' for the purpose of marching to Washington
and petitioning Congress for aid. The originator of the idea
seems to have been one Coxey, of Massillon, Ohio, who took up
the proposition that, as good roads and money were both much
needed in the country, the government should in the existing
crisis issue $500,000,000 in greenbacks, and devote it to the
employment of workers in the improvement of the roads. He
announced that he would lead an 'Army of the Commonweal of
Christ' to Washington to proclaim the wants of the people on
the steps of the Capitol on May 1, and he called upon the
unemployed and honest laboring classes to join him. On March
25 he set out from Massillon at the head of about a hundred
men and marched by easy stages and without disorder through
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, provisions being donated by
the towns and villages on the way, or purchased with funds
which had been subscribed by sympathizing friends. The numbers
of the army increased as it advanced, and groups of volunteers
set out to join it from distant states. On May 1 the
detachment, numbering about 350, marched to the Capitol, but
under an old District law was prevented by the police from
entering the grounds. Coxey and another of the leaders,
attempting to elude the police and address the assembled
crowds, were arrested and were afterwards convicted of a
misdemeanor. … Somewhat earlier than the start from Massillon,
another organization, 'The United States Industrial Army,'
headed by one Frye, had started from Los Angeles, California,
for Washington, with purposes similar to those of the Coxey
force, though not limiting their demands to work on the roads.
This force, numbering from six to eight hundred men, availed
themselves of the assistance, more or less involuntary, of
freight trains on the Southern Pacific Railway as far as St.
Louis, from which place they continued on foot. Though
observing a degree of military discipline, the various
'armies' were unarmed, and the disturbances that arose in
several places in the latter part of April were mostly due to
the efforts of the marchers, or their friends in their behalf,
to press the railroads into service for transportation. Thus a
band under a leader named Kelly, starting from San Francisco,
April 4, secured freight accommodations as far as Omaha by
simply refusing to leave Oakland until the cars were
furnished. The railroads eastward from Omaha refused
absolutely to carry them, and they went into camp near Council
Bluffs, in Iowa. Then sympathizing Knights of Labor seized a
train by force and offered it to Kelly, who refused, however,
to accept it under the circumstances, and ultimately continued
on foot as far as Des Moines, in Iowa. After a long stay at
that place he was finally supplied with flatboats, on which,
at the close of this Record, his band, now swollen to some
1,200 men, was floating southward. A band coming east on a
stolen train on the Northern Pacific, after overpowering a
squad of United States marshals, was captured by a detachment
of regular troops at Forsyth, Montana, April 26. Two days
later the militia were called out to rescue a train from a
band at Mount Sterling, Ohio."
Political Science Quarterly:
Record of Political Events, June, 1894.
There were straggling movements, from different quarters of
the country, in imitation of those described, prolonged
through most of the summer of 1894; but the public feeling
favorable to them was limited, and they commonly came to an
ignominious end.
----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: End--------
SOCIAL WAR:
In the Athenian Confederacy.
See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.
SOCIAL WAR:
Of the Achaian and Ætolian Leagues.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
SOCIAL WAR:
Of the Italians.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.
Some matter first placed under this title, and so referred to,
has been incorporated in the more general article above.
See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
SOCIETY OF JESUS.
See JESUITS.
SOCII, The.
The Italian subject-allies of Rome were called Socii before
the Roman franchise was extended to them.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
SOCMEN.
Mr. Hallam thinks the Socmen, enumerated in Domesday Book, to
have been ceorls who were small landowners.
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 8, note 3 (volume. 2).
SOCRATES:
As soldier and citizen.
See ATHENS: B. C. 424-406;
and GREECE: B. C. 406.
SOCRATES:
As teacher. See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.
SODALITATES.
"There were [among the Romans] … unions originally formed for
social purposes, which were named 'sodalitates,' 'sodalitia,'
and these may be compared with our clubs. These associations
finally were made the centres of political parties, and we may
assume that they were sometimes formed solely for political
purposes."
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 11.
See, also, COLLEGIA.
{2959}
SODOR AND MAN, The Bishopric of.
In the 11th century, the peculiar naval empire which the
Norsemen had established in the Hebrides, and on the
neighboring coasts of Ireland and Scotland, under the rulers
known as the Hy Ivar, became divided into two parts, called
Nordureyer or Norderies and Sudureyer or Suderies, the
northern and southern division. The dividing-line was at the
point of Ardnamurchan, the most westerly promontory of the
mainland of Scotland. "Hence the English bishopric of Sod or
and Man—Sodor being the southern division of the Scottish
Hebrides, and not now part of any English diocese.… The Bishop
of Sodor and Man has no seat in the House of Lords, owing, as
it is commonly said, to Man not having become an English
possession when bishops began to sit as Lords by tenure."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15, foot-note (volume 2).
See, also,
NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 10-13TH CENTURIES.
SOFT-SHELL DEMOCRATS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
SOGDIANA.
"North of the Bactrians, beyond the Oxus, on the western slope
of Belurdagh, in the valley of the Polytimetus (Zarefshan, i.
e. strewing gold), which flows towards the Oxus from the east,
but, instead of joining it, ends in Lake Dengis, lay the
Sogdiani of the Greeks, the Suguda of the Old Persian
inscriptions, and Çughdha of the Avesta, in the region of the
modern Sogd. As the Oxus in its upper course separates the
Bactrians from the Sogdiani, the Jaxartes, further to the
north, separates the latter from the Scyths. According to
Strabo, the manners of the Bactrians and Sogdiani were
similar, but the Bactrians were less rude. Maracanda
(Samarcand), the chief city of the Sogdiani, on the
Polytimetus, is said to have had a circuit of 70 stades in the
fourth century B. C."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).
See, also, BOKHARA.
SOGDIANA.
Occupied by the Huns.
See HUNS, THE WHITE.
SOHR, Battle of (1745).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
----------SOISSONS: Start--------
SOISSONS:
Origin of the name.
See BELGÆ.
SOISSONS: A. D. 457-486.
Capital of the kingdom of Syagrius.
See GAUL: A. D. 457-486;
also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
SOISSONS: A. D. 486.
The capital of Clovis.
See PARIS: THE CAPITAL OF CLOVIS.
SOISSONS: A. D. 511-752.
One of the Merovingian capitals.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
SOISSONS: A. D. 1414.
Pillage and destruction by the Armagnacs.
In the civil wars of Armagnacs and Burgundians, during the
reign of the insane king Charles VI., the Armagnacs, then
having the king in their hands, and pretendedly acting under
his commands, laid siege to Soissons and took the city by
storm, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1414. "In regard to the
destruction committed by the king's army in Soissons, it
cannot be estimated. … There is not a Christian but would have
shuddered at the atrocious excesses committed by this soldiery
in Soissons: married women violated before their husbands,
young damsels in the presence of their parents and relatives,
holy nuns, gentle women of all ranks, of whom there were many
in the town: all, or the greater part, were violated against
their wills, and known carnally by divers nobles and others,
who, after having satiated their own brutal passions,
delivered them over without mercy to their servants; and there
is no remembrance of such disorder and havoc being done by
Christians. … Thus was this grand and noble city of Soissons,
strong from its situation, walls and towers, full of wealth,
and embellished with fine churches and holy relics, totally
ruined and destroyed by the army of king Charles, and of the
princes who accompanied him. The king, however, before his
departure, gave orders for its rebuilding."
Monstrelet,
Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapter 120 (volume 1).
----------SOISSONS: Start--------
SOISSONS, Battle of (718).
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
SOISSONS, Battle of (923).
The revolt against Charles the Simple, which resulted in the
overthrow of the Carolingian dynasty, had its beginning in
918. In 922, Robert, Duke of France and Count of Paris,
grandfather of Hugh Capet, was chosen and crowned king by the
malcontents. On the 15th of June in the next year the most
desperate and sanguinary battle of the civil war was fought at
Soissons, where more than half of each army perished. The
Capetians won the field, but their newly crowned king was
among the slain.
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 2, page 40.
SOISSONS, Peace Congress of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
SOKEMANNI.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.
SOLEBAY, Naval battle of (1672).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
SOLES, Society of.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
SOLFERINO, Battle of (1859).
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
SOLIDUS, The.
"The solidus or aureus is computed equivalent in weight of
gold to twenty-one shillings one penny English money."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 32, foot-note.
SOLON, The Constitution of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594;
also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.
SOLWAY-FRITH,
SOLWAY MOSS,
The Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
SOLYMAN,
Caliph, A. D. 715-717.
Solyman I., Turkish Sultan, 1520-1566.
Solyman II., Turkish Sultan, 1687-1691.
SOLYMI, The.
See LYCIANS.
SOMA.
HAOMA.
"It is well known that both in the Veda and the Avesta a plant
is mentioned, called Soma (Zend, haoma). This plant, when
properly squeezed, yielded a juice, which was allowed to
ferment and, when mixed with milk and honey, produced an
exhilarating and intoxicating beverage. This Soma juice has
the same importance in Vedic and Avestic sacrifices as the
juice of the grape had in the worship of Bacchus. The question
has often been discussed what kind of plant this Soma could
have been. When Soma sacrifices are performed at present, it
is confessed that the real Soma can no longer be procured, and
that some ci-près, such as Pûtikâs, etc., must be used
instead." The Soma of later times seems to have been
identified with a species of Sarcostemma. The ancient Soma is
conjectured by some to have been the grape, and by others to
have been the hop plant.
F. Max Müller,
Biography of Words,
appendix 3.
See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.
{2960}
SOMASCINES, The.
The Somascines, or the Congregation of Somasca, so called from
the town of that name, were an order of regular clergy founded
in 1540 by a Venetian noble, Girolamo Miani. They devoted
themselves to the establishment and maintenance of hospitals,
asylums for orphans, and the education of the poor.
L. Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 2, section 3 (volume 1).
SOMATOPHYLAX.
"A somatophylax in the Macedonian army was no doubt at first,
as the word means, one of the officers who had to answer for
the king's safety; perhaps in modern language a colonel in the
body-guards or house-hold troops; but as, in unmixed
monarchies, the faithful officer who was nearest the king's
person, to whose watchfulness he trusted in the hour of
danger, often found himself the adviser in matters of state,
so, in the time of Alexander, the title of somatophylax was
given to those generals on whose wisdom the king chiefly
leaned, and by whose advice he was usually guided."
S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapter 6, section 18 (volume 1).
SOMERS, Lord,
and the shaping of constitutional government in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
SOMERSETT, The case of the negro.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.
SOMNAUTH, The gates of.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
SONCINO, Battle of (1431).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
SONDERBUND, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
SONOMA: A. D. 1846.
The raising of the Bear Flag.
See CALIFORNIA; A. D. 1846-1847.
SONS OF LIBERTY.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1765 THE RECEPTION OF THE NEWS.
SONS OF LIBERTY, Knights of the Order of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
SOPHENE, Kingdom of.
See ARMENIA.
SOPHERIM.
See SCRIBES.
SOPHI I.,
Shah of Persia, A. D. 1628-1641.
Sophi II., Shah of Persia, 1666-1694.
SOPHI, The.
See MEGISTANES.
SORA, The School of.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
SORABIANS, The.
A Sclavonic tribe which occupied, in the eighth century, the
country between the Elbe and the Saale. They were subdued by
Charlemagne in 806.
J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 11.
SORBIODUNUM.
A strong Roman fortress in Britain which is identified in site
with Old Sarum of the present day.
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
SORBONNE, The.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.
UNIVERSITY OF PARIS.
SORDONES, The.
A people of the same race as the ancient Aquitanians, who
inhabited the eastern Pyrenees and the Aude.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).
SOTIATES, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
SOTO, Hernando de, The expedition of.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
SOUDAN, The.
See SUDAN.
SOUFFRANCE, A.
"The word is translated as a truce, but it means something
very different from a modern truce. … The Souffrance was more
of the nature of a peace at the present day; and the reason
why of old it was treated as distinct from a peace was this:
The wars of the time generally arose from questions of
succession or of feudal superiority. When it became desirable
to cease fighting, while yet neither side was prepared to give
in to the other, there was an agreement to give up fighting in
the mean time, reserving all rights entire for future
discussion. A Souffrance or truce of this kind might last for
centuries."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 21 (volume 2).
SOULT, Marshal, Campaigns of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER) to 1812-1814;
GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST);
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
----------SOUTH AFRICA: Start--------
SOUTH AFRICA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
South Africa in its widest extent is peopled by two great and
perfectly distinct indigenous races—the Kafirs and the
Hottentots. The affinity of the Kafir tribes, ethnographically
including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based
upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct
representatives of a common but now extinct mother tongue. The
aggregate of languages is now conventionally known as the
A-bantu, or, more correctly, the Bantu linguistic system. The
more common term Kafir, from the Arabic Kâfir = infidel,
really represents but a small section of this great family,
and being otherwise a term of reproach imposed upon them by
strangers, is of course unknown to the people themselves. All
the Bantu tribes are distinguished by a dark skin and woolly
hair, which varies much in length and quality, but is never
sleek or straight. … According to its geographical position
the Bantu system is divided into the Eastern group, from its
principal representatives known as the Ama-Zulu and Ama-Khosa
or Kafir proper, the Central, or Be-tchuana group, and the
Western or O-va-Herero, or Damara group. … The northern
division of these Bantus bears the name of Ama-Zulu, and they
are amongst the best representatives of dark-coloured races.
The Zulus are relatively well developed and of large size,
though not surpassing the average height of Europeans, and
with decidedly better features than the Ama-Khosa. … The most
wide-spread and most numerous of all these Kafir tribes are
the Bechuanas [including the Basutos], their present domain
stretching from the upper Orange river northwards to the
Zambesi, and over the west coast highland north of
Namaqualand; of this vast region, however, they occupy the
outskirts only. … The Hottentots, or more correctly Koi-Koin
(men), have no material features in common with the great
Bantu family, except their woolly hair, though even this
presents some considerable points of difference. Their general
type is that of a people with a peculiar pale yellow-brown
complexion, very curly 'elf-lock' or matted hair, narrow
forehead, high cheek-bones projecting side-ways, pointed chin,
body of medium size, rather hardy than strong, with small
hands and feet, and platynocephalous cranium. … The Hottentots
are properly divided into three groups: the Colonial, or
Hottentots properly so called, dwelling in Cape Colony, and
thence eastwards to the borders of Kafirland …; the Korana,
settled mainly on the right bank of the Orange river …;
lastly, the Namaqua, whose domain embraces the western portion
of South Africa, bordering eastwards on the Kalahari desert."
Hellwald-Johnston,
Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
chapter 25.
See, also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
{2961}
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
Portuguese discovery.-
Dutch possession.
English acquisition.
The Cape of Good Hope, "as far as we know, was first doubled
by Bartholomew Diaz in 1486.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.
He, and some of the mariners with him, called it the Cape of
Torments, or Capo Tormentoso, from the miseries they endured.
The more comfortable name which it now bears was given to it
by King John of Portugal, as being the new way discovered by
his subjects to the glorious Indies. Diaz, it seems, never in
truth saw the Cape, but was carried past it to Algoa Bay. …
Vasco da Gama, another sailor hero, said to have been of royal
Portuguese descent, followed him in 1497. He landed to the
west of the Cape. … Vasco da Gama did not stay long at the
Cape, but proceeding on went up the East Coast as far as our
second South African colony, which bears the name which he
then gave to it. He called the land Tierra de Natal, because
he reached it on the day of our Lord's Nativity. The name has
stuck to it ever since and no doubt will now be preserved.
From thence Da Gama went on to India. … The Portuguese seem to
have made no settlement at the Cape intended even to be
permanent; but they did use the place during the 16th and
first half of the next century as a port at which they could
call for supplies and assistance on their way out to the East
Indies. The East had then become the great goal of commerce to
others besides the Portuguese. In 1600 our own East India
Company was formed, and in 1602 that of the Dutch. Previous to
those dates, in 1591, an English sailor, Captain Lancaster,
visited the Cape, and in 1620 Englishmen landed and took
possession of it in the name of James I. But nothing came of
these visitings and declarations, although an attempt was made
by Great Britain to establish a house of call for her trade
out to the East. For this purpose a small gang of convicts was
deposited on Robben Island, which is just off Capetown, but as
a matter of course the convicts quarrelled with themselves and
the Natives, and came to a speedy end. In 1595 the Dutch came,
but did not then remain. It was not till 1652 that the first
Europeans who were destined to be the pioneer occupants of the
new land were put on shore at the Cape of Good Hope, and thus
made the first Dutch settlement. Previous to that the Cape had
in fact been a place of call for vessels of all nations going
and coming to and from the East. But from this date, 1652, it
was to be used for the Dutch exclusively. … The home Authority
at this time was not the Dutch Government, but the Council of
Seventeen at Amsterdam, who were the Directors of the Dutch
East India Company. … From 1658, when the place was but six
years old, there comes a very sad record indeed. The first
cargo of slaves was landed at the Cape from the Guinea Coast.
In this year, out of an entire population of 360, more than a
half were slaves. The total number of these was 187. To
control them and to defend the place there were but 113
European men capable of bearing arms. This slave element at
once became antagonistic to any system of real colonization,
and from that day to this has done more than any other evil to
retard the progress of the people. It was extinguished, much
to the disgust of the old Dutch inhabitants, under Mr.
Buxton's Emancipation Act in 1834;—but its effects are still
felt." The new land of which the Dutch had taken possession
"was by no means unoccupied or unpossessed. There was a race
of savages in possession, to whom the Dutch soon gave the name
of Hottentots. [The name was probably taken from some sound in
their language which was of frequent occurrence; they seem to
have been called 'Ottentoos,' 'Hotnots," Hottentotes,'
'Hodmodods,' and 'Hadmandods,' promiscuously. —Foot-note.) …
Soon after the settlement was established the burghers were
forbidden to trade with these people at all, and then
hostilities commenced. The Hottentots found that much, in the
way of land, had been taken from them and that nothing was to
be got. They … have not received, as Savages, a bad character.
They are said to have possessed fidelity, attachment, and
intelligence. … But the Hottentot, with all his virtues, was
driven into rebellion. There was some fighting, in which the
natives of course were beaten, and rewards were offered, so
much for a live Hottentot, and so much for a dead one. This
went on till, in 1672, it was found expedient to purchase land
from the natives. A contract was made in that year to prevent
future cavilling, as was then alleged, between the Governor
and one of the native princes, by which the district of the
Cape of Good Hope was ceded to the Dutch for a certain nominal
price. … But after a very early period—1684 —there was no
further buying of land. … The land was then annexed by
Europeans as convenience required. In all this the Dutch of
those days did very much as the English have done since. … The
Hottentot … is said to be nearly gone, and, being a yellow
man, to have lacked strength to endure European seductions.
But as to the Hottentot and his fate there are varied
opinions. I have been told by some that I have never seen a
pure Hottentot. Using my own eyes and my own idea of what a
Hottentot is, I should have said that the bulk of the
population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is
Hottentot. The truth probably is that they have become so
mingled with other races as to have lost much of their
identity; but that the race has not perished, as have the
Indians of North America and the Maoris. … The last half of
the 17th and the whole of the 18th century saw the gradual
progress of the Dutch depôt,—a colony it could hardly be
called,—going on in the same slow determined way, and always
with the same purpose. It was no colony because those who
managed it at home in Holland, and they who at the Cape served

with admirable fidelity their Dutch masters, never entertained
an idea as to the colonization of the country. … In 1795 came
the English. In that year the French Republican troops had
taken possession of Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1795
(JUNE-DECEMBER)], and the Prince of Orange, after the manner
of dethroned potentates, took refuge in England. He_gave an
authority, which was dated from Kew, to the Governor of the
Cape to deliver up all and everything in his hands to the
English forces.
{2962}
On the arrival of the English fleet there was found to be, at
the same time, a colonist rebellion. … In this double
emergency the poor Dutch Governor, who does not seem to have
regarded the Prince's order as an authority, was sorely
puzzled. He fought a little, but only a little, and then the
English were in possession. … In 1797 Lord Macartney came out
as the first British Governor. Great Britain at this time took
possession of the Cape to prevent the French from doing so. No
doubt it was a most desirable possession, as being a half-way
house for us to India as it had been for the Dutch. But we
should not, at any rate then, have touched the place had it
not been that Holland, or rather the Dutch, were manifestly
unable to retain it. … Our rule over the Dutchmen was uneasy
and unprofitable. Something of rebellion seems to have been
going on during the whole time. … When at the peace of Amiens
in 1802 it was arranged that the Cape of Good Hope should be
restored to Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], English
Ministers of State did not probably grieve much at the loss. …
But the peace of Amiens was delusive, and there was soon war
between England and France. Then again Great Britain felt the
necessity of taking the Cape, and proceeded to do so on this
occasion without any semblance of Dutch authority. At that
time whatever belonged to Holland was almost certain to fall
in to the hands of France. In 1805 … Sir David Baird was sent
with half a dozen regiments to expel, not the Dutch, but the
Dutch Governor and the Dutch soldiers from the Cape. This he
did easily, having encountered some slender resistance; and
thus in 1806, on the 19th January, after a century and a half
of Dutch rule, the Cape of Good Hope became a British colony."
A. Trollope,
South Africa,
volume 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. Greswell,
Our South African Empire,
volume 1, chapters 1-4.
R. Russell,
Natal,
part 2, chapters 1-3.
Sir B. Frere,
Historical Sketch of South Africa
(Royal Historical Society Transactions N. S.,
volumes 2 and 4).
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
The English and the Dutch Boers.
The "Great Trek."
Successive Boer republics of Natal, Orange Free State,
and the Transvaal, absorbed in the British dominions.
The Boer War.
The early history of the Cape Colony, after it became a
dependency of the British Crown, "is a record of the struggles
of the settlers, both English and Dutch, against the despotic
system of government established by Lord Charles Somerset; of
Kaffir wars, in which the colonists were often hard put to it
to hold their own; and of the struggle for the liberty of the
Press, sustained with success by John Fairbairn, and Thomas
Pringle, the poet of South Africa, the Ovid of a self-chosen
exile. For a time the Dutch and English settlers lived in
peace and amity together, but the English efforts to alleviate
the condition of, and finally emancipate the slaves, severed
the two races. The Dutch settlers held the old Biblical
notions about slavery, and they resented fiercely the law of
1833 emancipating all slaves throughout the colony in 1834.
The Boers at once determined to 'trek,' to leave the colony
which was under the jurisdiction of the English law, and find
in the South African wilderness, where no human law prevailed,
food for their flocks, and the pastoral freedom of Jacob and
of Abraham. The Boers would live their own lives in their own
way. They had nothing in common with the Englishman, and they
wished for nothing in common. … They were a primitive people,
farming, hunting, reading the Bible, pious, sturdy, and
independent; and the colonial Government was by no means
willing to see them leaving the fields and farms that they had
colonised, in order to found fresh states outside the
boundaries of the newly acquired territory. But the Government
was powerless, it tried, and tried in vain, to prevent this
emigration. There was no law to prevent it. … So, with their
waggons, their horses, their cattle and sheep, their guns, and
their few household goods, the hardy Boers struck out into the
interior and to the north-east, in true patriarchal fashion
[the migration being known as the Great Trek], seeking their
promised land, and that 'desolate freedom of the wild ass'
which was dear to their hearts. They founded a colony at
Natal, fought and baptized the new colony in their own blood.
The Zulu chief, Dingaan, who sold them the territory, murdered
the Boer leader, Peter Retief, and his 79 followers as soon as
the deed was signed. This was the beginning of the Boer hatred
to the native races. The Boers fought with the Zulus
successfully enough, fought with the English who came upon
them less successfully. The Imperial Government decided that
it would not permit its subjects to establish any independent
Governments in any part of South Africa. In 1843, after no
slight struggle and bloodshed, the Dutch republic of Natal
ceased to be, and Natal became part of the British dominion.
Again the Boers, who were unwilling to remain under British
rule, 'trekked' northward; again a free Dutch state was
founded—the Orange Free State. Once again the English
Government persisted in regarding them as British subjects,
and as rebels if they refused to admit as much. Once again
there was strife and bloodshed, and in 1848 the Orange
settlement was placed under British authority, while the
leading Boers fled for their lives across the Vaal River, and,
obstinately independent, began to found the Transvaal
Republic. After six years, however, of British rule in the
Orange territory the Imperial Government decided to give it
back to the Boers, whose stubborn desire for self-government,
and unchanging dislike for foreign rule, made them practically
unmanageable as subjects. In April 1854 a convention was
entered into with the Boers of the Orange territory, by which
the Imperial Government guaranteed the future independence of
the Orange Free State. Across the Vaal River the Transvaal
Boers grew and flourished after their own fashion, fought the
natives, established their republic and their Volksraad. But
in 1877 the Transvaal republic, had been getting rather the
worst of it in some of these struggles, and certain of the
Transvaal Boers seem to have made suggestions to England that
she should take the Transvaal republic under her protection.
Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent out to investigate the
situation. He seems to have entirely misunderstood the
condition of things, and to have taken the frightened desires
of a few Boers as the honest sentiments of the whole Boer
nation. In an evil hour he hoisted the English flag in the
Transvaal, and declared the little republic a portion of the
territory of the British Crown.
{2963}
As a matter of fact, the majority of the Boers were a fierce,
independent people, very jealous of their liberty, and without
the least desire to come under the rule, to escape which they
had wandered so far from the earliest settlements of their
race. … The Boers of the Transvaal sent deputation after
deputation to England to appeal, and appeal in vain, against
the annexation. Lord Carnarvon had set his whole heart upon a
scheme of South African confederation; his belief in the ease
with which this confederation might be accomplished was
carefully fostered by judiciously coloured official reports. …
Sir Bartle Frere, 'as a friend,' advised the Boers 'not to
believe one word' of any statements to the effect that the
English people would be willing to give up the Transvaal.
'Never believe,' he said, 'that the English people will do
anything of the kind.' 'When the chief civil and military
command of the eastern part of South Africa was given to Sir
Garnet Wolseley, Sir Garnet Wolseley was not less explicit in
his statements. … In spite of the announcements of Sir Bartle
Frere, Sir Garnet Wolseley, and Sir Owen Lanyon, the
disaffected Boers were not without more or less direct English
encouragement. The Boer deputations had found many friends in
England. … One of those who thus sympathised was Mr.
Gladstone. In his Midlothian speeches he denounced again and
again the Conservative policy which had led to the annexation
of the Transvaal. … While all the winds of the world were
carrying Mr. Gladstone's words to every corner of the earth,
it is not surprising that the Boers of the Transvaal … should
have caught at these encouraging sentences, and been cheered
by them, and animated by them to rise against the despotism
denounced by a former Prime Minister of England. … For some
time there seemed to be no reasonable chance of liberty, but
in the end of 1880 the Boers saw their opportunity. … There
were few troops in the Transvaal. The Boer hour had come. As
in most insurrections, the immediate cause of the rising was
slight enough. A Boer named Bezhuidenot was summoned by the
landdrost of Potchefstrom to pay a claim made by the Treasury
officials at Pretoria. Bezhuidenot resisted the claim, which
certainly appears to have been illegal. … The landdrost
attached a waggon of Bezhuidenot's, and announced that it
would be sold to meet the claim. On November 11 the waggon was
brought into the open square of Potchefstrom, and the sheriff
was about to begin the sale, when a number of armed Boers
pulled him off and carried the waggon away in triumph. They
were unopposed, as there was no force in the town to resist
them. The incident, trifling in itself, of Bezhuidenot's cart,
was the match which fired the long-prepared train. Sir Owen
Lanyon sent some troops to Potchefstrom; a wholly unsuccessful
attempt was made to arrest the ringleaders of the Bezhuidenot
affair; it was obvious that a collision was close at hand. …
On Monday, December 13, 1880, almost exactly a month after the
affair of Bezhuidenot's waggon, a mass meeting of Boers at
Heidelberg proclaimed the Transvaal once again a republic,
established a triumvirate Government, and prepared to defend
their republic in arms. … The news of the insurrections
aroused the Cape Government to a sense of the seriousness of
the situation. Movements of British troops were at once made
to put the insurgents down with all speed. It is still an
unsettled point on which side the first shot was fired. There
were some shots exchanged at Potchefstrom on December 15. …
Previously to this the 94th regiment had marched from
Leydenberg to reinforce Pretoria on December 5, and had
reached Middleburgh about a week later. On the way came
rumours of the Boer rising. … Colonel Anstruther seems to have
felt convinced that the force he had with him was quite strong
enough to render a good account of any rebels who might
attempt to intercept its march. The whole strength of his
force, however, officers included, did not amount to quite 250
men. The troops crossed the Oliphants River, left it two days'
march behind them, and on the morning of the 20th were
marching quietly along with their long line of waggons and
their band playing 'God save the Queen' under the bright glare
of the sun. Suddenly, on the rising ground near the Bronkhorst
Spruit a body of armed Boers appeared. A man galloped out from
among them—Paul de Beer—with a flag of truce. Colonel
Anstruther rode out to meet him, and received a sealed
despatch warning the colonel that the British advance would be
considered as a declaration of war. Colonel Anstruther replied
simply that he was ordered to go to Pretoria, and that he
should do so. Each man galloped back to his own force, and
firing began. In ten minutes the fight, if fight it can be
called, was over. The Boers were unrivalled sharp-shooters,
had marked out every officer; every shot was aimed, and every
shot told. The Boers were well covered by trees on rising
ground; the English were beneath them, had no cover at all,
and were completely at their mercy. In ten minutes all the
officers had fallen, some forty men were killed, and nearly
double the number wounded. Colonel Anstruther, who was himself
badly wounded, saw that he must either surrender or have all
his men shot down, and he surrendered. … Colonel Anstruther,
who afterwards died of his wounds, bore high tribute in his
despatch to the kindness and humanity of the Boers when once
the fight was done. … Sir George Colley struggled bravely for
a while to make head against the Boers. At Lang's Nek and
Ingago he did his best, and the men under him fought
gallantly, but the superior positions and marksmanship of the
Boers gave them the advantage in both fights. Under their
murderous fire the officers and men fell helplessly. Officer
after officer of a regiment would be shot down by the unerring
aim of the Boers while trying to rally his men, while the
British fire did comparatively slight damage, and the troops
seldom came to sufficiently close quarters to use the bayonet.
But the most fatal battle of the campaign was yet to come. Sir
Evelyn Wood had arrived at the Cape with reinforcements, had
met Sir George Colley, and had gone to Pietermaritzburg to
await the coming of further reinforcements. On Saturday night,
February 26, Sir George Colley with a small force moved out of
the camp at Mount Prospect, and occupied the Majuba Hill,
which overlooked the Boer camps on the flat beyond Lang's Nek.
Early next morning the Boers attacked the hill; there was some
desultory firing for a while, under cover of which three Boer
storming parties ascended the hill almost unseen.
{2964}
The British were outflanked and surrounded, a deadly fire was
poured in upon them from all sides. The slaughter was
excessive. As usual the officers were soon shot down. Sir
George Colley, who was directing the movements as coolly as if
at review, was killed just as he was giving orders to cease
firing. The British broke and fled, fired upon as they fled by
the sharpshooters. Some escaped; a large number were taken
prisoners. So disastrous a defeat had seldom fallen upon
British arms. The recent memory of Maiwand was quite
obliterated. That was the last episode of the war. General
Wood agreed to a temporary armistice. There had been
negotiations going on between the Boers and the British before
the Majuba Hill defeat, which need never have occurred if
there had not been a delay in a reply of Kruger's to a letter
of Sir George Colley's. The negotiations were now resumed, and
concluded in the establishment of peace, on what may be called
a Boer basis. The republic of the Transvaal was to be
re-established, with a British protectorate and a British
Resident indeed, but practically granting the Boers the
self-government for which they took up arms."
J. H. McCarthy,
England under Gladstone,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
J. Nixon,
Complete Story of the Transvaal.
T. F. Carter,
Narrative of the Boer War.
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.
The Kafir wars.
British absorption of Kafraria.
"In 1811 the first Kafir war was brought on by the
depredations of those warlike natives on the Boers of the
eastern frontier; a war to the knife ensued, the Kafirs were
driven to the other side of the Great Fish River, and military
posts were formed along the border. A second war, however,
broke out in 1818, when the Kafirs invading the colony drove
the farmers completely out of the country west of the Great
Fish River, penetrating as far as Uitenhage. But the Kafirs
could not stand against the guns of the colonists, and the
second war terminated in the advance of an overwhelming force
into Kafirland, and the annexation of a large slice of
territory, east of the Great Fish River, to the colony. … For
a third time, in 1835, a horde of about 10,000 fighting men of
the Kafirs spread fire and slaughter and pillage over the
eastern districts, a war which led, as the previous ones had
done, to a more extended invasion of Kafraria by the British
troops, and the subjugation of the tribes east of the Kei
river. … A fourth great Kafir war in 1846, provoked by the
daring raids of these hostile tribes and their bold invasions
of the colony was also followed up by farther encroachments on
Kafir territory, and in 1847 a proclamation was issued
extending the frontier to the Orange river on the north and to
the Keiskamma river in the east, British sovereignty being
then also declared over the territory extending from the
latter river eastward to the Kei, though this space was at
first reserved for occupation by the Kafirs and named British
Kafraria. But peace was restored only for a brief time; in
1857 a fresh Kafir rebellion had broken out, and for two years
subsequently a sort of guerilla warfare was maintained along
the eastern frontier, involving great losses of life and
destruction of property. In 1863 this last Kafir war was
brought to a conclusion, and British Kafraria was placed under
the rule of European functionaries and incorporated with the
colony. In 1868 the Basutos [or Eastern Bechuanas], who occupy
the territory about the head of the Orange river, between its
tributary the Caledon and the summits of the Drakenberg range,
and who had lived under a semi-protectorate of the British
since 1848, were proclaimed British subjects. … Subsequently
large portions of formerly independent Kafraria between the
Kei river and the southern border of Natal have passed under
the government of the Cape."
Hellwald-Johnston,
Africa
(Stanford's Compendium),
chapter 23.
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1867-1871.
Discovery of Diamonds.
Annexation of Griqualand west to Cape Colony.
See GRIQUAS.
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.
The Zulu War.
"At this time [1877] besides the three English Colonies of
Cape Town, Natal, and the lately formed Griqualand, there were
two independent Dutch Republics,—the Orange Free State, and
the Transvaal. Much of the white population even of the
English Provinces was Dutch, and a still larger proportion
consisted of reclaimed or half-reclaimed natives. Thus … there
lay behind all disputes the question which invariably attends
frontier settlements—the treatment of the native population.
This difficulty had become prominent in the year 1873 and
1874, when the fear of treachery on the part of a chief of the
name of Langalibalele located in Natal had driven the European
inhabitants to unjustifiable violence. The tribe over which
the chief had ruled had been scattered and driven from its
territory, the chief himself brought to trial, and on most
insufficient evidence sentenced to transportation. It was the
persuasion that he was intriguing with external tribes which
had excited the unreasoning fear of the colonists. For beyond
the frontier there lay the Zulus, a remarkable nation,
organised entirely upon a military system, and forming a great
standing army under the despotic rule of their King Cetchwayo.
Along the frontier of Natal the English preserved friendly
relations with this threatening chief. But the Dutch Boers of
the Transvaal, harsh and arbitrary in their treatment of
natives, had already involved themselves in a war with a
neighbouring potentate of the name of Secocoeni, and had got
into disputes with Cetchwayo, which threatened to bring upon
the European Colonies an indiscriminate assault." Lord
Carnarvon thought it practicable to cure the troubles in South
Africa by a confederation of the colonies. "The difficulty of
the situation was so obvious to the Colonial Minister that he
had chosen as High Commissioner a man whose experience and
energy he could thoroughly trust. Unfortunately in Sir Bartle
Frere he had selected a man not only of great ability, but one
who carried self-reliance and imperialist views to an extreme.
… The danger caused by the reckless conduct of the Boers upon
the frontier, and their proved incapacity to resist their
native enemies, had made it a matter of the last importance
that they should join the proposed Confederation, and thus be
at once restrained and assisted by the central power. Sir
Theophilus Shepstone had been charged with the duty of
bringing the Transvaal Republic to consent to an arrangement
of this sort. … Unable to persuade the Boers to accept his
suggestions for an amicable arrangement, he proceeded, in
virtue of powers intrusted to him, to declare the Republic
annexed, and to take over the government. This high-handed act
brought with it, as some of its critics in the House of
Commons had prophesied, disastrous difficulties.
{2965}
Not only were the Boers themselves almost as a matter of
course disaffected, but they handed over to the Imperial
Government all their difficulties and hostilities. They were
involved in disputes with both their barbarous neighbours. …
In 1875 they had made demands upon Cetchwayo, the most
important of which was a rectification of frontier largely in
their own favour. … Commissioners were appointed in 1878 to
inquire into the rights of the case. … The Commissioners
arrived at a unanimous decision against the Dutch claims. …
But before the Treaty could be carried out it required
ratification from the High Commissioner, and it came back from
his hands clogged with formidable conditions. … While … he
accepted the boundary report, he determined to make it an
opportunity for the destruction of Cetchwayo's power. In
December a Special Commission was despatched to meet the Zulu
Envoys to explain the award, but at the same time to demand
corresponding guarantees from the King. When these were
unfolded they appeared to be the abolition of his military
system and the substitution of a system of tribal regiments
approved by the British Government, the acceptance of a
British Resident by whose advice he was to act, the protection
of missionaries, and the payment of certain fines for
irregularities committed by his subjects. These claims were
thrown into the form of an ultimatum, and Cetchwayo was given
thirty days to decide. … It was to be submission or war. It
proved to be war. Sir Bartle Frere had already prepared for
this contingency; he had detained in South Africa the troops
which should have returned to England, and had applied to the
Home Government for more. … Lord Chelmsford was appointed to
the command of the troops upon the frontier, and on the 12th,
the very day on which the time allowed for the acceptance of
the ultimatum expired, the frontier was crossed. The invasion
was directed towards Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … The first
step across the frontier produced a terrible disaster. The
troops under the immediate command of Lord Chelmsford encamped
at Isandlana without any of the ordinary precautions, and in a
bad position. … In this unprotected situation Lord Chelmsford,
while himself advancing to reconnoitre, left two battalions of
the 24th with some native allies under Colonel Pulleine, who
were subsequently joined by a body of 3,000 natives and a few
Europeans under Colonel Durnford. The forces left in the camp
were suddenly assaulted by the Zulus in overwhelming numbers
and entirely destroyed [January 22, 1879]. It was only the
magnificent defence by Chard and Bromhead of the post and
hospital at Rorke's Drift which prevented the victorious
savages from pouring into Natal. Lord Chelmsford on returning
from his advance hurried from the fearful scene of slaughter
back to the frontier. For the moment all was panic; an
immediate irruption of the enemy was expected. But when it was
found that Colonel Wood to the west could hold his own though
only with much rough fighting, and that Colonel Pearson,
towards the mouth of the river, after a successful battle had
occupied and held Ekowe, confidence was re-established. But
the troops in Ekowe were cut off from all communication except
by means of heliographic signals, and the interest of the war
was for a while centred upon the beleaguered garrison. With
extreme caution, in spite of the clamorous criticism levelled
against him, Lord Chelmsford refused to move to its rescue
till fully reinforced. Towards the end of March however it was
known that the provisions were running low, and on the 29th an
army of 6,000 men again crossed the frontier. On this occasion
there was no lack of precaution. … As they approached the
fortress, they were assaulted at Gingilovo, their strong
formation proved efficient against the wild bravery of their
assailants, a complete victory was won, and the garrison at
Ekowe rescued. A day or two earlier an even more reckless
assault upon Colonel Wood's camp at Kambula was encountered
with the same success. But for the re-establishment of the
English prestige it was thought necessary to undertake a fresh
invasion of the country. … Several attempts at peace had been
made on the part of the Zulus. But their ambassadors were
never, in the opinion of the English generals, sufficiently
accredited to allow negotiations to be opened. Yet it would
appear that Cetchwayo was really desirous of peace, according
to his own account even the assault at Isandlana was an
accident, and the two last great battles were the result of
local efforts. At length in July properly authorised envoys
came to the camp. Terms of submission were dictated to them,
but as they were not at once accepted a final battle was
fought resulting completely in favour of the English, who then
occupied and burnt Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … Sir Garnet
Wolseley was … again sent out with full powers to effect a
settlement. His first business was to capture the King. When
this was done he proceeded to divide Zululand into thirteen
districts, each under a separate chief; the military system
was destroyed; the people were disarmed and no importation of
arms allowed; a Resident was to decide disputes in which
British subjects were involved. The reception of missionaries
against the will of the people was not however insisted on."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, pages 545-550.
ALSO IN:
F. E. Colenso and E. Durnford,
History of the Zulu War.
A. Wilmot,
History of the Zulu War.
C. J. Norris-Newman,
In Zululand with the British.
C. Vijn,
Cetswayo's Dutchman.
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.
British acquisition of Matabeleland or Zambesia.
Dominion of the British South Africa Company.
War with King Lobengula.
"The Boers, ever on the lookout for new lands into which to
trek, had long ago fixed their eyes on the country north of
the Limpopo, known generally as Matabeleland, ruled over by
Lobengula, the son of the chief of the Matabeles. … The
reports of Mauch, Baines, and others, of the rich gold mines
contained in this territory, were well known. … Other
travellers and sportsmen, Mohr, Oates, Selous, gave the most
favourable accounts not only of the gold of the country, but
of the suitability of a large portion of the high plateau
known as Mashonaland for European settlement and agricultural
operations. When Sir Charles Warren was in Bechuanaland in
1885, several of his officers made journeys to Matabeleland,
and their reports all tended to show the desirability of
taking possession of that country; indeed Sir Charles was
assured that Lobengula would welcome a British alliance as a
protection against the Boers, of whose designs he was
afraid. …
{2966}
As a result of Sir Charles Warren's mission to Bechuanaland,
and of the reports furnished by the agents he sent into
Matabeleland, the attention of adventurers and prospectors was
more and more drawn towards the latter country. The Portuguese
… had been electrified into activity by the events of the past
two years. That the attention of the British Government was
directed to Matabeleland even in 1887 is evident from a
protest in August of that year, on the part of Lord Salisbury,
against an official Portuguese map claiming a section of that
country as within the Portuguese sphere. Lord Salisbury then
clearly stated that no pretensions of Portugal to Matabeleland
could be recognised, and that the Zambesi should be regarded
as the natural northern limit of British South Africa. The
British Prime Minister reminded the Portuguese Government that
according to the Berlin Act no claim to territory in Central
Africa could be recognised that was not supported by effective
occupation. The Portuguese Government maintained (it must be
admitted with justice) that this applied only to the coast,
but Lord Salisbury stood firmly to his position. … Germans,
Boers, Portuguese, were all ready to lay their hands on the
country claimed by Lobengula. England stepped in and took it
out of their hands; and at the worst she can only be accused
of obeying the law of the universe, 'Might is Right.' By the
end of 1887 the attempts of the Transvaal Boers to obtain a
hold over Matabeleland had reached a crisis. It became evident
that no time was to be lost if England was to secure the
Zambesi as the northern limit of extension of her South
African possessions. Lobengula himself was harassed and
anxious as to the designs of the Boers on the one hand, and
the doings of the Portuguese on the north of his territory on
the other. In the Rev. J. Smith Moffat, Assistant Commissioner
in Bechuanaland, England had a trusty agent who had formerly
been a missionary for many years in Matabeleland, and had
great influence with Lobengula. Under the circumstances, it
does not seem to have been difficult for Mr. Moffat to
persuade the King to put an end to his troubles by placing
himself under the protection of Great Britain. On 21st March
1888, Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of Cape Colony, and Her
Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was able to
inform the Home Government that on the previous 11th February
Lobengula had appended his mark to a brief document which
secured to England supremacy in Matabeleland over all her
rivals. … The publication of the treaty was, as might be
expected, followed by reclamations both on the part of the
Transvaal and of Portugal. Before the British hold was firmly
established over the country attempts were made by large
parties of Boers to trek into Matabeleland. … Individual Boers
as well, it must be said, as individual Englishmen at the
kraal of Lobengula, attempted to poison the mind of the latter
against the British. But the King remained throughout faithful
to his engagements. Indeed, it was not Lobengula himself who
gave any cause for anxiety during the initial stage of the
English occupation. He is, no doubt, a powerful chief, but
even he is obliged to defer to the wishes of his 'indunas' and
his army. … Lobengula himself kept a firm hand over his
warriors, but even he was at times apprehensive that they
might burst beyond all control. Happily this trying initial
period passed without disaster. … No sooner was the treaty
signed than Lobengula was besieged for concessions of land,
the main object of which was to obtain the gold with which the
country was said to abound, especially in the east, in
Mashonaland." The principal competitors for what was looked
upon as the great prize were two syndicates of capitalists,
which finally became amalgamated, in 1889, under the skilful
diplomacy of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, forming the great British
South Africa Company, about which much has been heard in
recent years. "The principal field of the operations of the
British South Africa Company was defined in the charter to be
'the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
dominions.' The Company was also empowered to acquire any
further concessions, if approved of by 'Our Secretary of
State.' … The Company was empowered to act as the
representative of the Imperial Government, without, however,
obtaining any assistance from the Government to bear the
expense of the administration. … The capital of the Company
was a million sterling. It is not easy to define the relations
of the Chartered Company to the various other companies which
had mining interests in the country. In itself it was not a
consolidation of the interests of those companies. Its
functions were to administer the country and to work the
concessions on behalf of the Concessionaires, in return for
which it was to retain fifty per cent. of the profits. … When
the British South African Company was prepared to enter into
active occupation of the territories which they were
authorised to exploit, they had on the one hand the impis of
Lobengula eager to wash their spears in white blood; on the
south the Boers of the Transvaal, embittered at being
prevented from trekking to the north of the Limpopo, and on
the east and on the north-east the Portuguese trying to raise
a wall of claims and historical pretensions against the tide
of English energy. … An agreement was concluded between
England and Portugal in August 1890, by which the eastern
limits of the South Africa Company's claims were fixed, and
the course of the unknown Sabi River, from north to south, was
taken as a boundary. But this did not satisfy either Portugal
or the Company, and the treaty was never ratified. … A new
agreement [was] signed on the 11th June 1891, under which
Portugal can hardly be said to have fared so well as she would
have done under the one repudiated by the Cortes in the
previous year. The boundary between the British Company's
territories was drawn farther east than in the previous
treaty. The line starting from the Zambesi near Zumbo runs in
a general south-east direction to a point where the Mazoe
River is cut by the 33rd degree of east longitude. The
boundary then runs in a generally south direction to the
junction of the Lunde and the Sabi, where it strikes
south-west to the north-east corner of the South African
Republic, on the Limpopo. In tracing the frontier along the
slope of the plateau, the Portuguese sphere was not allowed to
come farther west than 32° 30' East of Greenwich, nor the
British sphere east of 33° East. A slight deflection westwards
was made so as to include Massi Kessi in the Portuguese
sphere. … According to the terms of the arrangement, the
navigation of the Zambesi and the Shiré was declared free to
all nations."
J S. Keltie,
The Partition of Africa,
chapter 18.
{2967}
By the spring of 1893 the British South Africa Company had
fairly laid hands upon its great dominion of Zambesia.
Matabele was swarming with searchers for gold; a railroad from
the port of Beira, through Portuguese territory, was in
progress: a town at Fort Salisbury was rising. Lobengula, the
Matabele king, repented speedily of his treaty and repudiated
the construction put on it by the English. Quarrels arose over
the Mashonas, whom the Matabeles held in slavery and whom the
new lords of the country protected. Both parties showed
impatience for war, and it was not long in breaking out. The
first shots were exchanged early in October; before the end of
the year the British were complete masters of the country, and
Lobengula had fled from his lost kingdom, to die, it is said,
during the flight. There were two pitched battles, in which
the natives suffered terribly. They obtained revenge in one
instance, only, by cutting off a party of thirty men, not one
of whom survived.
----------SOUTH AFRICA: End--------
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY, The British.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891,
and SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
----------SOUTH CAROLINA: Start--------
SOUTH CAROLINA: The aboriginal in:habitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
CHEROKEES, MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
SHAWANESE, TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1520.
The coast explored by Vasquez de Ayllon and called Chicora.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1562-1563.
The short-lived Huguenot colony on Broad River.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others.
The first settlement.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
Locke's Constitution and its failure.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.
The founding of Charleston.
The growth of the Colony.
The expedition of Captain Sayle in 1670 (see NORTH CAROLINA:
A. D. 1663-1670) resulted in a settlement, made in 1671, which
is historically referred to as that of "Old Charleston." This
continued to be for some years the capital of the southern
colony: "but, as the commerce of the colony increased, the
disadvantages of the position were discovered. It could not be
approached by large vessels at low water. In 1680, by a formal
command of the proprietors, a second removal took place, the
government literally following the people, who had in numbers
anticipated the legislative action: and the seat of government
was transferred to a neck of land called Oyster Point,
admirably conceived for the purposes of commerce, at the
confluence of two spacious and deep rivers, the Kiawah and
Etiwan, which, in compliment to Lord Shaftesbury, had already
been called after him, Ashley and Cooper. Here the foundation
was laid of the present city of Charleston. In that year 30
houses were built, though this number could have met the wants
of but a small portion of the colony. The heads of families at
the Port Royal settlement alone, whose names are preserved to
us, are 48 in number: those brought from Clarendon by Yeamans
could not have been less numerous: and the additions which
they must have had from the mother-country, during the seven
or eight years of their stay at the Ashley river settlement,
were likely to have been very considerable. Roundheads and
cavaliers alike sought refuge in Carolina, which, for a long
time, remained a pet province of the proprietors. Liberty of
conscience, which the charter professed to guaranty,
encouraged emigration. The hopes of avarice, the rigor of
creditors, the fear of punishment and persecution, were equal
incentives to the settlement of this favored but foreign
region. … In 1674, when Nova Belgia, now New York, was
conquered by the English, a number of the Dutch from that
place sought refuge in Carolina. … Two vessels filled with
foreign, perhaps French, Protestants, were transported to
Carolina, at the expense of Charles II., in 1679; and the
revocation of the edict of Nantz, a few years afterwards, …
contributed still more largely to the infant settlement, and
provided Carolina with some of the best portions of her
growing population. … In 1696, a colony of Congregationalists,
from Dorchester in Massachusetts, ascended the Ashley river
nearly to its head, and there founded a town, to which they
gave the name of that which they had left. Dorchester became a
town of some importance. … It is now deserted; the habitations
and inhabitants have alike vanished; but the reverend spire,
rising through the forest trees which surround it, still
attests (1840) the place of their worship, and where so many
of them yet repose. Various other countries and causes
contributed to the growth and population of the new
settlement."
W. G. Simms,
History of South Carolina,
book 2, chapter 1.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
Spanish attack from Florida.
Indian and Negro Slavery.
"About 1680 a few leading Scotch Presbyterians planned the
establishment of a refuge for their persecuted brethren within
the bounds of Carolina. The plan shrunk to smaller dimensions
than those originally contemplated. Finally Lord Cardross,
with a colony of ten Scotch families, settled on the vacant
territory of Port Royal. The fate of the settlement
foreshadowed the miseries of Darien. It suffered alike from
the climate and from the jealousy of the English settlers. …
For nearly ten years the dread of a Spanish attack had hung
over South Carolina. … In 1680 the threatened storm broke upon
the colony. Three galleys landed an invading force at Edisto,
where the Governor and secretary had private houses, plundered
them of money, plate, and slaves, and killed the Governor's
brother-in-law. They then fell upon the Scotch settlement,
which had now shrunk to 25 men, and swept it clean out of
existence. The colonists did not sit down tamely under their
injuries. They raised a force of 400 men and were on the point
of making a retaliatory attack when they were checked by an
order from the Proprietors. …
{2968}
The Proprietors may have felt … that, although the immediate
attack was unprovoked, the colonists were not wholly blameless
in the matter. The Spaniards had suffered from the ravages of
pirates who were believed to be befriended by the inhabitants
of Charlestown. In another way too the settlers had placed a
weapon in the hands of their enemies. The Spaniards were but
little to be dreaded, unless strengthened by an Indian
alliance. … But from the first settlement of Carolina the
colony was tainted with a vice which imperilled its relations
with the Indians. Barbadoes … had a large share in the
original settlement of Carolina. In that colony negro slavery
was already firmly established as the one system of industry.
At the time when Yeamans and his followers set sail for the
shores of Carolina, Barbadoes had probably two negroes for
everyone white inhabitant. The soil and climate of the new
territory did everything to confirm the practice of slavery,
and South Carolina was from the outset what she ever after
remained, the peculiar home of that evil usage. To the West
India planter every man of dark colour seemed a natural and
proper object of traffic. The settler in Carolina soon learnt
the same view. In Virginia and Maryland there are but few
traces of any attempt to enslave the Indians. In Carolina …
the Indian was kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what
had once been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an
exile and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the
native population furnished a quarter of the whole body of
slaves. It would be unfair to attribute all the hostilities
between the Indians and the colonists to this one source, but
it is clear that it was an import:mt factor. From their very
earliest days the settlers were involved in troubles with
their savage neighbours."
J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, Maryland,
and the Carolinas,
chapter 12.
"Of the original thirteen states, South Carolina alone was
from its origin essentially a planting state with slave labor.
… The proprietaries tempted emigrants by the offer of land at
an easy quit-rent, and 150 acres were granted for every able
man-servant. 'In that they meant negroes as well as
Christians.' … It became the great object of the emigrant 'to
buy negro slaves, without which,' adds Wilson, 'a planter can
never do any great matter'; and the negro race was multiplied
so rapidly by importations that, in a few years, we are told,
the blacks in the low country were to the whites in the
proportion of 22 to 12."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1696.
Beginning of distinctions between the two Carolinas,
North and South.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
Prosperity of the colony.
Attack on St. Augustine.
French attack on Charleston.
"At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon
South Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling
for subsistence. While numerous slaves cultivated the
extensive plantations, their owners, educated gentlemen, and
here and there of noble families in England, had abundant
leisure for social intercourse, living as they did in
proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town,
where the Governor resided, the courts and legislature
convened, and the public offices were kept. … Hospitality,
refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher
class of gentlemen." But party strife at this period raged
bitterly, growing mainly out of an attempt to establish the
Church of England in the colony. Governor Moore, who had
gained power on this issue, sought to strengthen his position
by an attack on St. Augustine. "The assembly joined in the
scheme. They requested him to go as commander, instead of
Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and
thought ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be
a sufficient force. … Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and
Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians
march by land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard
of their coming, and had sent to Havana for reinforcements.
Retreating to their castle, they abandoned their town to
Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before Moore's fleet arrived.
Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their forces and laid
siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary artillery
for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for
it." Before the artillery arrived, "two Spanish ships appeared
off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned the town and all his
own ships and hastened back by land. … The expense entailed on
the colony was £6,000. When this attack on St. Augustine was
planned, it must have been anticipated in the colony that war
would be declared against Spain and France." Four years later,
the War of the Spanish Succession being then in progress, a
French fleet appeared (August, 1706) in the harbor of
Charleston and demanded the surrender of the town. Although
yellow fever was raging at the time, the governor, Sir
Nathaniel Johnson, organized so effective a resistance that
the invaders were driven off with considerable loss.
W. J. Rivers,
The Carolinas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 5, chapter 5).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
War with the Spaniards of Florida.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
The Cherokee War.
"The Cherokees, who had accompanied Forbes in his expedition
against Fort Du Quesne [see CANADA: A. D. 1758], returning
home along the mountains, had involved themselves in quarrels
with the back settlers of Virginia and the Carolinas, in which
several, both Indians and white men, had been killed. Some
chiefs, who had proceeded to Charleston to arrange this
dispute, were received by Governor Littleton in very haughty
style, and he presently marched into the Cherokee country at
the head of 1,500 men, contributed by Virginia and the
Carolinas, demanding the surrender of the murderers of the
English. He was soon glad, however, of any apology for
retiring. His troops proved very insubordinate; the small-pox
broke out among them; and, having accepted 22 Indian hostages
as security for peace and the future delivery of the
murderers, he broke up his camp, and fell back in haste and
confusion. … No sooner was Littleton's army gone, than the
Cherokees attempted to entrap into their power the commander
of [Fort Prince George, at the head of the Savannah], and,
apprehensive of some plan for the rescue of the hostages, he
gave orders to put them in irons. They resisted; and a soldier
having been wounded in the struggle, his infuriated companions
fell upon the prisoners and put them all to death.
{2969}
Indignant at this outrage, the Cherokees beleaguered the fort,
and sent out war parties in every direction to attack the
frontiers. The Assembly of South Carolina, in great alarm,
voted 1,000 men, and offered a premium of £25 for every Indian
scalp. North Carolina offered a similar premium, and
authorized, in addition, the holding of Indian captives as
slaves. An express, asking assistance, was sent to General
Amherst, who detached 1,200 men, under Colonel Montgomery,
chiefly Scotch Highlanders, lately stationed on the western
frontier, with orders to make a dash at the Cherokees, but to
return in season for the next campaign against Canada. …
Joining his forces with the provincial levies, Montgomery
entered the Cherokee country, raised the blockade of Fort
Prince George, and ravaged the neighboring district. Marching
then upon Etchoe, the chief village of the Middle Cherokees,
within five miles of that place he encountered [June, 1760] a
large body of Indians, strongly posted in a difficult defile,
from which they were only driven after a very severe struggle;
or, according to other accounts, "Montgomery was himself
repulsed. At all events, he retired to Charleston, and, in
obedience to his orders, prepared to embark for service at the
north. When this determination became known, the province was
thrown into the utmost consternation. The Assembly declared
themselves unable to raise men to protect the frontiers; and a
detachment of 400 regulars was presently conceded" to the
solicitations of lieutenant governor Bull, to whom the
administration of South Carolina had lately been resigned.
Before the year closed, the conquest of the French dominions
in America east of the Mississippi had been practically
finished and the French and Indian War at the north was
closed. But, "while the northern colonies exulted in safety,
the Cherokee war still kept the frontiers of Carolina in
alarm. Left to themselves by the withdrawal of Montgomery, the
Upper Cherokees had beleaguered Fort Loudon. After living for
some time on horse-flesh, the garrison, under a promise of
safe-conduct to the settlements, had been induced to
surrender. But this promise was broken; attacked on the way, a
part were killed, and the rest detained as prisoners; after
which, the Indians directed all their fury against the
frontiers. On a new application presently made to Amherst for
assistance, the Highland regiment, now commanded by Grant, was
ordered back to Carolina. New levies were also made in the
province, and Grant presently marched into the Cherokee
country [June, 1761] with 2,600 men. In a second battle, near
the same spot with the fight of the previous year, the Indians
were driven back with loss. … The Indians took refuge in the
defiles of the mountains, and, subdued and humbled, sued for
peace. As the condition on which alone it would be granted,
they were required to deliver up four warriors to be shot at
the head of the army, or to furnish four green Indian scalps
within twenty days. A personal application to Governor Bull,
by an old chief long known for his attachment to the English,
procured a relinquishment of this brutal demand, and peace was
presently made."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 27 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
D. Ramsay,
History of South Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 5, section 2.
S. G. Drake,
Aboriginal Races of North America,
book 4, chapter 4.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Stamp Act.
The first Continental Congress.
The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1774.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774;
and BOSTON: 1768, to 1773.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action taken on the news.
Ticonderoga.
The siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
Rapid progress of Revolution.
Flight of the Royal Governor.
In January, 1775, a provincial convention for South Carolina
was called together at Charleston, under the presidency of
Charles Pinckney. It appointed delegates to the second
Continental Congress, and took measures to enforce the
non-importation agreements in which the colony had joined. At
a second session, in June, this convention or Provincial
Congress of South Carolina "appointed a Committee of Safety,
issued $600,000, of paper money, and voted to raise two
regiments, of which Gadsden and Moultrie were chosen colonels.
Lieutenant-governor Bull was utterly powerless to prevent or
interrupt these proceedings. While the Convention was still in
session, Lord William Campbell, who had acquired by marriage
large possessions in the province, arrived at Charleston with
a commission as governor. Received with courtesy, he presently
summoned an Assembly; but that body declined to proceed to
business, and soon adjourned on its own authority. The
Committee of Safety pursued with energy measures for putting
the province in a state of defense. A good deal of resistance
was made to the Association [for commercial non-intercourse],
especially in the back counties. Persuasion failing, force was
used. … A vessel was fitted out by the Committee of Safety,
which seized an English powder ship off St. Augustine and
brought her into Charleston. Moultrie was presently sent to
take possession of the fort in Charleston harbor. No
resistance was made. The small garrison, in expectation of the
visit, had already [September] retired on board the ships of
war in the harbor. Lord Campbell, the governor, accused of
secret negotiations with the Cherokees and the disaffected in
the back counties, was soon obliged to seek the same shelter.
A regiment of artillery was voted; and measures were taken for
fortifying the harbor, from which the British ships were soon
expelled."

R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapters 30-31 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
D. Ramsay,
History of South Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 7, section 1.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (February-April).
Allegiance to King George renounced, independence
assumed, and a state constitution adopted.
"On the 8th of February 1776, the convention of South
Carolina, by Drayton their president, presented their thanks
to John Rutledge and Henry Middleton for their services in the
American congress, which had made its appeal to the King of
kings, established a navy, treasury, and general post-office,
exercised control over commerce, and granted to colonies
permission to create civil institutions, independent of the
regal authority.
{2970}
The next day arrived Gadsden, the highest officer in the army
of the province, and he in like manner received the welcome of
public gratitude. … When, on the 10th, the report on reforming
the provincial government was considered and many hesitated,
Gadsden spoke out for the absolute independence of America.
The majority had thus far refused to contemplate the end
toward which they were irresistibly impelled. … But the
criminal laws could not be enforced for want of officers;
public and private affairs were running into confusion; the
imminent danger of invasion was proved by intercepted letters,
so that necessity compelled the adoption of some adequate
system of rule. While a committee of eleven was preparing the
organic law, Gadsden, on the 13th, began to act as senior
officer of the army. Companies of militia were called down to
Charleston, and the military forces augmented by two regiments
of riflemen. In the early part of the year Sullivan's Island
was a wilderness, thickly covered with myrtle, live-oak, and
palmettos; there, on the 2d of March, William Moultrie was
ordered to complete a fort large enough to hold 1,000 men.
Within five days after the convention received the act of
parliament of the preceding December which authorized the
capture of American vessels and property, they gave up the
hope of reconciliation; and, on the 26th of March 1776,
asserting 'the good of the people to be the origin and end of
all government,' and enumerating the unwarrantable acts of the
British parliament, the implacability of the king, and the
violence of his officers, they established a constitution for
South Carolina. … On the 27th, John Rutledge was chosen
president, Henry Laurens vice-president, and William Henry
Drayton chief justice. … On the 23d of April the court was
opened at Charleston, and the chief justice after an elaborate
exposition charged the grand jury in these words: 'The law of
the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty to
declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has
abdicated the government, that he has no authority over us,
and we owe no obedience to him.'"
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last revision),
epoch 3, chapter 25 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
W. G. Simms,
History of South Carolina,
book 4, chapter 5.
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (June).
Sir Henry Clinton's repulse from Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1778.
The war in the North.
The Articles of Confederation.
The alliance with France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1778.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778.
State Constitution framed and adopted.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778-1779.
The war carried into the south.
Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.
Unsuccessful attempt to recover Savannah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
and 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
Siege and surrender of Charleston.
Defeat of Gates at Camden.
British subjugation of the state.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
Partisan warfare of Marion and his Men.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1781.
Greene's campaign.
King's Mountain.
The Cowpens.
Guilford Court House.
Hobkirk's Hill.
Eutaw springs.
The British shut up in Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1781-1783.
The campaign in Virginia.
Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1781 to 1783.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787.
Cession of Western land claims to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1788.
Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1828-1833.
The Nullification movement and threatened Secession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1831.
The first railroad.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The plotting of the Rebellion.
Passage of the Ordinance of Secession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860 (December).
Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER) MAJOR ANDERSON.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Beginning the War of Rebellion.
The bombardment of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
Capture of Hilton Head and occupation of the coast
islands by Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER:
SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
The arming of the Freedmen at Hilton Head.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
The repulse of the Monitor-fleet at Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
Lodgment of Union forces on Morris Island,
and assault on Fort Wagner.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).-
Siege of Fort Wagner.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).-
Sherman's march through the state.
The burning of Columbia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (June).
Provisional Government set up under
President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
{2971}
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.
Reconstruction.
"After the close of the war, two distinct and opposing plans
were applied for the reconstruction, or restoration to the
Union, of the State. The first, known as the Presidential plan
[see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY)], was
quickly superseded by the second, known as the Congressional
plan; but it had worked vast mischief by fostering delusive
hopes, the reaction of which was manifest in long enduring
bitterness. Under the latter plan, embodied in the Act of
Congress of March 2, 1867 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1867 (MARCH)], a convention was assembled in Charleston,
January 14, 1868, 'to frame a Constitution and Civil
Government.' The previous registration of voters made in
October, 1867, showed a total of 125,328, of whom 46,346 were
whites, and 78,982 blacks. … On the question of holding a
constitutional convention the vote cast in November, 1867, was
71,087; 130 whites and 68,876 blacks voting for it, and 2,801
whites against it. Of the delegates chosen to the convention
34 were whites and 63 blacks. The new Constitution was adopted
at an election held on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of April,
1868, all State officers to initiate its operation being
elected at the same time. At this election the registration
was 133,597; the vote for the Constitution 70,758; against it,
27,288; total vote. 98,046; not voting, 35,551. Against the
approval by Congress of this Constitution the Democratic State
Central Committee forwarded a protest," which declared: "The
Constitution was the work of Northern adventurers, Southern
renegades, and Ignorant negroes. Not one per cent. of the
white population of the State approves it, and not two per
cent. of the negroes who voted for its adoption understood
what this act of voting implied." "The new State officers took
office July 9, 1868. In the first Legislature, which assembled
on the same day, the Senate consisted of 33 members, of whom 9
were negroes and but 7 were Democrats. The House of
Representatives consisted of 124 members, of whom 48 were
white men, 14 only of these being Democrats. The whole
Legislature thus consisted of 72 white and 85 colored members.
At this date the entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted
to $5,407,306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms)
of Governor R. K. Scott's administration, December, 1872, the
funded debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including
past-due and unpaid interest for three years."
W. Allen,
Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina,
chapter 1.
"Mr. James S. Pike, late Minister of the United States at the
Hague, a Republican and an original abolitionist, who visited
the state in 1873, after five years' supremacy by Scott and
his successor Moses, and their allies, has published a pungent
and instructive account of public affairs during that trying
time, under the title of 'The Prostrate State.' The most
significant of the striking features of this book is that he
undertakes to write a correct history of the state by dividing
the principal frauds, already committed or then in process of
completion, into eight distinct classes, which he enumerates
as follows:
1. Those which relate to the increase of the state debt.
2. The frauds practiced in the purchase of lands for the
freedmen.
3. The railroad frauds.
4. The election frauds.
5. The frauds practiced in the redemption of the notes of the
Bank of South Carolina.
6. The census fraud.
7. The fraud in furnishing the legislative chamber.
8. General and legislative corruption. …
Mr. Pike in his 'Prostrate State,' speaking of the state
finances in 1873, says; 'But, as the treasury of South
Carolina has been so thoroughly gutted by the thieves who have
hitherto had possession of the state government, there is
nothing left to steal. The note of any negro in the state is
worth as much on the market as a South Carolina bond.'" This
reign of corruption was checked in 1874 by the election to the
governorship of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the regular Republican
nominee, who had been Attorney-General during Scott's
administration. "Governor Chamberlain, quite in contrast with
his predecessors, talked reform after his election as well as
before it," and was "able to accomplish some marked and
wholesome reforms in public expenditures." In 1876 the
Democrats succeeded in overpowering the negro vote and
acquired control of the state, electing General Wade Hampton
governor.
J. J. Hemphill,
Reconstruction in South Carolina
(Why the Solid South? chapter 4).
Generally, for an account of the measures connected with
"Reconstruction,"
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------SOUTH CAROLINA: End--------
SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.
Admission to the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
SOUTH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND)
LEE'S FIRST INVASION.
SOUTH RIVER, The.
The Delaware and the Hudson were called respectively the South
River and the North River by the Dutch, during their
occupation of the territory of New Netherland.
SOUTH SEA:
The name and its application.
See PACIFIC OCEAN.
SOUTH SEA BUBBLE, The.
"The South Sea Company was first formed by Harley [Earl of
Oxford, Lord Treasurer of England] in 1711, his object being
to improve public credit, and to provide for the floating
debts, which at that period amounted to nearly £10,000,000.
The Lord Treasurer, therefore, established a fund for that
sum. He secured the interest by making permanent the duties on
wine, vinegar, tobacco, and several others; he allured the
creditors by promising them the monopoly of trade to the
Spanish coasts in America; and the project was sanctioned both
by Royal Charter and by Act of Parliament. Nor were the
merchants slow in swallowing this gilded bait; and the fancied
Eldorado which shone before them dazzled even their discerning
eyes. … This spirit spread throughout the whole nation, and
many, who scarcely knew whereabouts America lies, felt
nevertheless quite certain of its being strewed with gold and
gems. … The negotiations of Utrecht, however, in this as in
other matters, fell far short of the Ministerial promises and
of the public expectation. Instead of a free trade, or any
approach to a free trade, with the American colonies, the
Court of Madrid granted only, besides the shameful Asiento for
negro slaves, the privilege of settling some factories, and
sending one annual ship. … This shadow of a trade was bestowed
by the British Government on the South Sea Company, but it was
very soon disturbed. Their first annual ship, the Royal
Prince, did not sail till 1717; and next year broke out the
war with Spain. … Still, however, the South Sea Company
continued, from its other resources, a flourishing and wealthy
corporation; its funds were high, its influence considerable,
and it was considered on every occasion the rival and
competitor of the Bank of England."
{2972}
At the close of 1719 the South Sea Company submitted to the
government proposals for buying up the public debt. "The great
object was to buy up and diminish the burthen of the
irredeemable annuities granted in the two last reigns, for the
term mostly of 99 years, and amounting at this time to nearly
£800,000 a year." The Bank of England became at once a
competitor for the same undertaking. "The two bodies now
displayed the utmost eagerness to outbid one another, each
seeming almost ready to ruin itself, so that it could but
disappoint its rival. They both went on enhancing their terms,
until at length the South Sea Company rose to the enormous
offer of seven millions and a half. … The South Sea Bill
finally passed the Commons by a division of 172 against 55. In
the Lords, on the 4th of April [1720], the minority was only
17. … On the passing of the Bill very many of the annuitants
hastened to carry their orders to the South Sea House, before
they even received any offer, or knew what terms would be
allowed them!—ready to yield a fixed and certain income for
even the smallest share in vast but visionary schemes. The
offer which was made to them on the 29th of May (eight years
and a quarter's purchase) was much less favourable than they
had hoped; yet nevertheless, six days afterwards, it is
computed that nearly two-thirds of the whole number of
annuitants had already agreed. In fact, it seems clear that,
during this time, and throughout the summer, the whole nation,
with extremely few exceptions, looked upon the South Sea
Scheme as promising and prosperous. Its funds rapidly rose
from 130 to above 300. … As soon as the South Sea Bill had
received the Royal Assent in April, the Directors proposed a
subscription of one million, which was so eagerly taken that
the sum subscribed exceeded two. A second subscription was
quickly opened, and no less quickly filled. … In August, the
stocks, which had been 130 in the winter, rose to 1,000. Such
general infatuation would have been happy for the Directors,
had they not themselves partaken of it. They opened a third,
and even a fourth subscription, larger than the former; they
passed a resolution, that from Christmas next their yearly
dividend should not be less than fifty per cent.; they assumed
an arrogant and overbearing tone. … But the public delusion
was not continued to the South Sea Scheme; a thousand other
mushroom projects sprung up in that teeming soil. … Change
Alley became a new edition of the Rue Quincampoix.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.
The crowds were so great within doors, that tables with clerks
were set in the street. … Some of the Companies hawked about
were for the most extravagant projects; we find amongst the
number,
'Wrecks to be fished for on the Irish Coast;
Insurance of Horses, and other Cattle (two millions);
Insurance of losses by servants;
To make Salt-Water Fresh;
For Building of Hospitals for Bastard Children;
For Building of Ships against Pirates;
For making of Oil from Sun-flower Seeds;
For improving of Malt Liquors;
For recovering of Seamen's Wages;
For extracting of Silver from Lead;
For the transmuting of Quicksilver into a malleable
and fine Metal;
For making of Iron with Pit-coal;
For importing a Number of large Jack Asses from Spain;
For trading in Human Hair;
For flitting of Hogs;
For a Wheel for a Perpetual Motion.'
But the most strange of all, perhaps, was 'For an Undertaking
which shall in due time be revealed.' Each subscriber was to
pay down two guineas, and hereafter to receive a share of one
hundred with a disclosure of the object; and so tempting was
the offer that 1,000 of these subscriptions were paid the same
morning, with which the projector went off in the afternoon. …
When the sums intended to be raised had grown altogether, it
is said, to the enormous amount of £300,000,000, the first
check to the public infatuation was given by the same body
whence it had first sprung. The South Sea Directors … obtained
an order from the Lords Justices, and writs of scire facias,
against several of the new bubble Companies. These fell, but
in falling drew down the whole fabric with them. As soon as
distrust was excited, all men became anxious to convert their
bonds into money. … Early in September, the South Sea stock
began to decline: its fall became more rapid from day to day,
and in less than a month it had sunk below 300. … The decline
progressively continued, and the news of the crash in France
[of the contemporary Mississippi Scheme of John Law-see
FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720] completed ours. Thousands of families
were reduced to beggary. … The resentment and rage were
universal."
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
A. Anderson,
History and Chronological Deduction
of the Origin of Commerce,
volume 3, page 43, and after.
J. Toland,
Secret History of the South Sea Scheme
(Works, volume 1).
C. Mackay,
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
chapter 2.
SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY, The.
The organization of the so called Confederate States of
America, formed among the states which attempted in 1861 to
secede from the American Union, is commonly referred to as the
Southern Confederacy. For an account of the Constitution of
the Confederacy, and the establishing of its government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
SOUTHERN CROSS, Order or the.
A Brazilian order of knighthood instituted in 1826 by the
Emperor, Pedro I.
SPA-FIELDS MEETING AND RIOT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
SPAHIS.
In the Turkish feudal system, organized by Mahomet II. (A. D.
1451-1481), "the general name for the holders of military
fiefs was Spahi, a Cavalier, a title which exactly answers to
those which we find in the feudal countries of Christian
Europe. … The Spahi was the feudal vassal of his Sultan and of
his Sultan alone. … Each Spahi … was not only bound to render
military service himself in person, but, if the value of his
fief exceeded a certain specified amount, he was required to
furnish and maintain an armed horseman for every multiple of
that sum."
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapters 6 and 10.
"The Spahis cannot properly be considered as a class of
nobles. In the villages they had neither estates nor dwellings
of their own; they had no right to jurisdiction or to feudal
service. … No real rights of property were ever bestowed on
them; but, for a specific service a certain revenue was
granted them."
L. Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 3.
See, also, TIMAR.
{2973}
----------SPAIN: Start--------
SPAIN:
Aboriginal Peoples.
"Spain must either have given birth to an aboriginal people,
or was peopled by way of the Pyrenees and by emigrants
crossing the narrow strait at the columns of Hercules. The
Iberian race actually forms the foundation of the populations
of Spain. The Basks, or Basques, now confined to a few
mountain valleys, formerly occupied the greater portion of the
peninsula, as is proved by its geographical nomenclature.
Celtic tribes subsequently crossed the Pyrenees, and
established themselves in various parts of the country, mixing
in many instances with the Iberians, and forming the so·called
Celtiberians. This mixed race is met with principally in the
two Castiles, whilst Galicia and the larger portion of
Portugal appear to be inhabited by pure Celts. The Iberians
had their original seat of civilisation in the south; they
thence moved northward along the coast of the Mediterranean,
penetrating as far as the Alps and the Apennines. These
original elements of the population were joined by colonists
from the great commercial peoples of the Mediterranean. Cadiz
and Malaga were founded by the Phœnicians, Cartagena by the
Carthaginians, Sagonte by immigrants from Zacynthe, Rosas is a
Rhodian colony, and the ruins of Ampurias recall the Emporium
of the Massilians. But it was the Romans who modified the
character of the Iberian and Celtic inhabitants of the
peninsula."
E. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
volume 1, page 372.
SPAIN: B. C. 237-202.
The rule of Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal in the south.-
Beginning of Roman conquest.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
Roman conquest.
"The nations of Spain were subjugated one after another by the
Romans. The contest began with the second Punic war [B. C.
218], and it ended with the defeat of the Cantabri and Astures
by Augustus, B. C. 25. From B. C. 205 the Romans had a
dominion in Spain. It was divided into two provinces, Hispania
Citerior, or Tarraconensis, and Hispania Ulterior, or Baetica.
At first extraordinary proconsuls were sent to Spain, but
afterwards two praetors were sent, generally with proconsular
authority and twelve fasces. During the Macedonian war the two
parts of Spain were placed under one governor, but in B. C.
167 the old division was restored, and so it remained to the
time of Augustus. The boundary between the two provinces was
originally the Iberus (Ebro). … The country south of the Ebro
was the Carthaginian territory, which came into the possession
of the Romans at the end of this [the second Punic] war. The
centre, the west, and north-west parts of the Spanish
peninsula were still independent. At a later time the boundary
of Hispania Citerior extended further south, and it was fixed
at last between Urci and Murgis, now Guardias Viejas, in 36°
41' North latitude."
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 1.
See, also, CELTIBERIANS;
LUSITANIA; and NUMANTIAN WAR.
SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.
Sertorius.
Quintus Sertorius, who was the ablest and the best of the
leaders of the Popular Party, or Italian Party, or Marian
Party, as it is variously designated, which contended against
Sulla and the senate, in the first Roman civil war, left
Italy and withdrew to Spain, or was sent thither (it is
uncertain which) in 83 or 82 B. C. before the triumph of Sulla
had been decided. His first attempts to make a stand in Spain
against the authority of Sulla failed complete]y, and he had
thoughts it is said of seeking a peaceful retreat in the
Madeira Islands, vaguely known at that period as the Fortunate
Isles, or Isles of the Blest. But after some adventures in
Mauritania, Sertorius accepted an invitation from the
Lusitanians to become their leader in a revolt against the
Romans which they meditated. Putting himself at the head of
the Lusitanians, and drawing with them other Iberian tribes,
Sertorius organized a power in Spain which held the Romans at
bay for nearly ten years and which came near to breaking the
peninsula from their dominion. He was joined, too, by a large
number of the fugitives from Rome of the proscribed party, who
formed a senate in Spain and instituted a government there
which aspired to displace, in time, the senate and the
republic on the Tiber, which Sulla had reduced to a shadow and
a mockery. First Metellus and then Pompey, who were sent
against Sertorius (see ROME: B. C. 78-68), suffered repeated
defeats at his hands. In the end, Sertorius was only overcome
by treachery among his own officers, who conspired against him
and assassinated him, B. C. 72.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapters 31-33.
ALSO IN:
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 62.
SPAIN: B. C. 49.
Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians.
See ROME: B. C. 49.
SPAIN: B. C. 45.
Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians.
His victory at Munda.
See ROME: B. C. 45.
SPAIN: 3d Century.
Early Christianity.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (SPAIN).
SPAIN: A. D. 408.
Under the usurper Constantine.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
Invasion of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans.
From the end of the year 406 to the autumn of 409, the
barbaric torrent of Alans, Sueves and Vandals which had swept
away the barriers of the Roman empire beyond the Alps, spent
its rage on the unhappy provinces of Gaul. On the 13th of
October, 409, the Pyrenees were passed and the same flood of
tempestuous invasion poured into Spain. "The misfortunes of
Spain may be described in the language of its most eloquent
historian [Mariana], who has concisely expressed the
passionate, and perhaps exaggerated, declamations of
contemporary writers. 'The irruption of these nations was
followed by the most dreadful calamities; as the barbarians
exercised their indiscriminate cruelty on the fortunes of the
Romans and the Spaniards, and ravaged with equal fury the
cities and the open country. The progress of famine reduced
the miserable inhabitants to feed on the flesh of their
fellow-creatures; and even the wild beasts, who multiplied
without control in the desert, were exasperated by the taste
of blood and the impatience of hunger boldly to attack and
devour their human prey. Pestilence soon appeared, the
inseparable companion of famine; a large proportion of the
people was swept away; and the groans of the dying excited
only the envy of their surviving friends. At length the
barbarians, satiated with carnage and rapine, and afflicted by
the contagious evils which they themselves had introduced,
fixed their permanent seats in the depopulated country.
{2974}
The ancient Galicia, whose limits included the kingdom of Old
Castile, was divided between the Suevi and the Vandals; the
Alani were scattered over the provinces of Carthagena and
Lusitania, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean; and
the fruitful territory of Bætica was allotted to the Silingi,
another branch of the Vandalic nation. … The lands were again
cultivated; and the towns and villages were again occupied by
a captive people. The greatest part of the Spaniards was even
disposed to prefer this new condition of poverty and barbarism
to the severe oppressions of the Roman government; yet there
were many who still asserted their native freedom, and who
refused, more especially in the mountains of Galicia, to
submit to the barbarian yoke.'"
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 31.
SPAIN: A. D. 414-418.
First conquests of the Visigoths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.
SPAIN: A. D. 428.
Conquests of the Vandals.
See VANDALS: A. D. 428.
SPAIN: A. D. 477-712.
The Gothic kingdom.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484; and 507-711.
SPAIN: A. D. 573.
The Suevi overcome by the Visigoths.
See SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.
SPAIN: A. D. 616.
First expulsion of the Jews.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
Conquest by the Arab-Moors.
The last century of the Gothic kingdom in Spain was, on the
whole, a period of decline. It gained some extension of
boundaries, it is true, by the expulsion of Byzantine
authority from one small southern corner of the Spanish
peninsula, in which it had lingered long; but repeated
usurpations had shaken the throne; the ascendancy of church
and clergy had weakened the Gothic nobility without
strengthening the people; frequent recurrences of political
disorder had interfered with a general prosperity and
demoralized society in many ways. The condition of Spain, in
fact, was such as might plainly invite the flushed armies of
Islam, which now stood on the African side of the narrow
strait of Gibraltar. That another invitation was needed to
bring them in is not probable. The story of the great treason
of Count Illan, or Ilyan, or Julian, and of the betrayed
daughter, Florinda, to whose wrongs he made a sacrifice of his
country, has been woven into the history of the Moorish
conquest of Spain by too many looms of romance and poetry to
be easily torn away,—and it may have some bottom of fact in
its composition; but sober reason requires us to believe that
no possible treason in the case could be more than a chance
incident of the inevitable catastrophe. The final conquest of
North Africa had been completed by the Arab general Musa Ibn
Nosseyr,—except that Ceuta, the one stronghold which the Goths
held on the African side of the straits, withstood them. They
had not only conquered the Berbers or Moors, but had
practically absorbed and affiliated them. Spain, as they
learned, was distracted by a fresh revolution, which had
brought to the throne Roderick —the last Gothic king. The
numerous Jews in the country were embittered by persecution
and looked to the more tolerant Moslems for their deliverance.
Probably their invitation proved more potent than any which
Count Ilyan could address to Musa, or to his master at
Damascus. But Ilyan commanded at Ceuta, and, after defending
the outpost for a time, he gave it up. It seems, too, that
when the movement of Invasion occurred, in the spring of 711,
Count Ilyan was with the invaders. The first expedition to
cross the narrow strait from Ceuta to Gibraltar came under the
command of the valiant one-eyed chieftain, Tarik Ibn Zeyud Ibn
Abdillah. "The landing of Tarik's forces was completed on the
30th of April, 711 (8th Regeb. A. H. 92), and his enthusiastic
followers at once named the promontory upon which he landed,
Dschebel-Tarik [or Gebel-Tarik], the rock of Tarik. The name
has been retained in the modernized form, Gibraltar. It is
also spoken of in the Arabian chronicles as Dschebalu-l-Fata,
the portal or mountain of victory." Tarik entered Spain with
but 7,000 men. He afterwards received reinforcements to the
extent of 5,000 from Musa. It was with this small army of
12,000 men that, after a little more than two months, he
encountered the far greater host which King Roderick had
levied hastily to oppose him. The Gothic king despised the
small numbers of his foe and rashly staked everything upon the
single field. Somewhere not far from Medina Sidonia, —or
nearer to the town of Xeres de la Frontera. —on the banks of
the Guadalete, the decisive battle began on the 19th day of
July, A. D. 711. It lasted obstinately for several days, and
success appeared first on the Gothic side; but treason among
the Christians and discipline among the Moslems turned the
scale. When the battle ended the conquest of Spain was
practically achieved. Its Gothic king had disappeared, whether
slain or fled was never known, and the organization of
resistance disappeared with him. Tarik pursued his success
with audacious vigor, even disobeying the commands of his
superior, Musa. Dividing his small army into detachments, he
pushed them out in all directions to seize the important
cities. Xeres, Moron, Carmona, Cordova, Malaga, and
Gharnatta—Granada—(the latter so extensively peopled with Jews
that it was called "Gharnatta-al-Yahood," or Granada of the
Jews) were speedily taken. Toledo, the Gothic capital,
surrendered and was occupied on Palm Sunday, 712. The same
spring, Musa, burning with envy of his subordinate's
unexpected success, crossed to Spain with an army of 18,00()
and took up the nearly finished task. He took Seville and laid
siege to Merida—the Emerita Augusta of the Romans—a great and
splendid city of unusual strength. Merida resisted with more
valor than other cities had shown, but surrendered in July.
Seville revolted and was punished terribly by the merciless
Moslem sword. Before the end of the second year after Tarik's
first landing at Gibraltar, the Arab, or Arab-Moorish,
invaders had swept the whole southern, central and eastern
parts of the peninsula, clear to the Pyrenees, reducing
Saragossa after a siege and receiving the surrender of
Barcelona, Valencia, and all the important cities. Then, in
the summer of 713, Musa and Tarik went away, under orders from
the Caliph, to settle their jealous dissensions at Damascus,
and to report the facts of the great conquest they made.
H. Coppée,
History of the Conquest of Spain,
books 2-3 (volume 1).
{2975}
ALSO IN:
J. A. Condé,
History of the Arabs in Spain,
chapters 8-17 (volume 1).
For preceding events;
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS);
and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.
SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.
The rally of the fugitive Christians.
"The first blow [of the Moslem conquest] had stunned Gothic
Spain; and, before she could recover her consciousness, the
skilful hands of the Moslemah had bound her, hand and foot.
From the first stupor they were not allowed to recover. The
very clemency of the Moslems robbed the Christians of
argument. If their swords were sharp, their conduct after
battle was far better than the inhabitants had any right to
expect, far better than that of the Roman or Gothic conquerors
had been, when they invaded Spain. Their religion, the defence
of which might have been the last rallying-point, was
respected under easy conditions; their lives rendered secure
and comfortable; they were under tribute, but a tribute no
more exacting than Roman taxes or Gothic subsidies. … It was
the Gothic element, and not the Hispano-Romans, that felt the
humiliation most. … The Spanish Goths, at first impelled by
the simple instinct of self-preservation, had fled in all
directions before the fiery march of the Moslemah, after the
first fatal battle in the plains of Sidonia. They had taken
with them in their flight all the movable property they could
carry and the treasures of the churches. Some had passed the
Pyrenees to join their kinsmen in Septimania; and others had
hidden in the mountain valleys of the great chain-barrier;
while a considerable number, variously stated, had collected
in the intricate territory of the Asturias and in Galicia,
where strength of position made amends for the lack of numbers
and organization, and where they could find shelter and time
for consultation as to the best manner of making head against
the enemy. The country is cut up in all directions by
inaccessible, scarped rocks, deep ravines, tangled thickets,
and narrow gorges and defiles." This band of refugees in the
Asturias—the forlorn hope of Christian Spain—are said to have
found a gallant leader in one Pelayo, whose origin and history
are so covered with myth that some historians even question
his reality. But whether by Pelayo or another prince, the
Asturian Spaniards were held together in their mountains and
began a struggle of resistance which ended only, eight
centuries later, in the recovery of the entire peninsula from
the Moors. Their place of retreat was an almost inaccessible
cavern—the Cave of Covadonga—in attacking which the Moslems
suffered a terrible and memorable repulse (A. D. 717). "In
Christian Spain the fame of this single battle will endure as
long as time shall last; and La Cueva de Covadonga, the cradle
of the monarchy, will be one of the proudest spots on the soil
of the Peninsula. … This little rising in the Asturias was the
indication of a new life, new interests, and a healthier
combination. … Pelayo was the usher and the representative of
this new order, and the Christian kingdom of Oviedo was its
first theatre. … The battle of Covadonga, in which it had its
origin, cleared the whole territory of the Asturias of every
Moslem soldier. The fame of its leader, and the glad tidings
that a safe retreat had been secured, attracted the numerous
Christians who were still hiding in the mountain fastnesses,
and infused a new spirit of patriotism throughout the land. …
Pelayo was now king in reality, as well as in name. … With
commendable prudence, he contented himself with securing and
slowly extending his mountain kingdom by descending cautiously
into the plains and valleys. … Adjacent territory, abandoned
by the Moslems, was occupied and annexed; and thus the new
nation was made ready to set forth on its reconquering march."
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 1).
"The small province thus preserved by Pelayo [whose death is
supposed to have occurred A. D. 737] grew into the germs of a
kingdom called at different times that of Gallicia, Oviedo,
and Leon. A constant border warfare fluctuated both ways, but
on the whole to the advantage of the Christians. Meanwhile to
the east other small states were growing up which developed
into the kingdom of Navarre and the more important realm of
Aragon. Castile and Portugal, the most famous among the
Spanish kingdoms, are the most recent in date. Portugal as yet
was unheard of, and Castile was known only as a line of
castles on the march between the Saracens and the kingdom of
Leon."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5.
"The States of Pelagio [Pelayo] continued, during his reign
and that of his son Favila, to be circumscribed to the
Asturian mountains; but … Alfonso I., the son-in-law of
Pelagio, ascended the throne after Favila, and he soon
penetrated into Galicia up to the Douro, and to Leon and Old
Castile. … Canicas, or Cangas, was the capital of the Asturias
since the time of Pelagio. Fruela (brother of Alfonso I.]
founded Oviedo, to the west, and this State became later on
the head of the monarchy." About a century later, in the reign
of the vigorous king Alfonso III. [A. D. 866-9101, the city of
Leon, the ancient Legio of the Romans, was raised from its
ruins, and Garcia, the eldest son of Alfonso, established his
court there. One of Garcia's brothers held the government of
the Asturias, and another one that of Galicia, "if not as
separate kingdoms, at least with a certain degree of
independence. This equivocal situation of the two princes was,
perchance, the reason why the King of Oviedo changed his title
to that of Leon, and which appears in the reign of Garcia as
the first attempt towards dismembering the Spanish Monarchy.
Previous to this, in the reign of King Alfonso III., Navarre,
always rebellious, had shaken off the Asturian yoke."
E. McMurdo,
History of Portugal,
introduction, part 3.
SPAIN: A. D. 756-1031.
The Caliphate of Cordova.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE:
A. D. 756-1031.
SPAIN: A. D. 778.
Charlemagne's conquests.
The invasion of Spain by Charlemagne, in 778, was invited by a
party among the Saracens, disaffected towards the reigning
Caliph, at Cordova, who proposed to place the northern Spanish
frontier under the protection of the Christian monarch and
acknowledge his suzerainty. He passed the Pyrenees with a
great army and advanced with little serious opposition to
Saragossa, apparently occupying the country to the Ebro with
garrisons and adding it to his dominions as the Spanish March.
At Saragossa he encountered resistance and undertook a siege,
the results of which are left uncertain.
{2976}
It would seem that he was called away, by threatening news
from the northern part of his dominions, and left the conquest
incomplete. The return march of the army, through a pass of
the Pyrenees, was made memorable by the perfidious ambuscade
and hopeless battle of Roncesvalles, which became immortalized
in romance and song. It was in the country of the Gascons or
Wascones (Basques) that this tragic event occurred, and the
assailants were not Saracens, as the story of the middle ages
would have it, but the Gascons themselves, who, in league with
their neighbors of Aquitaine, had fought for their
independence so obstinately before, against both Charlemagne
and his father. They suffered the Franks to pass into Spain
without a show of enmity, but laid a trap for the return, in
the narrow gorge called the Roscida Vallis—now Roncesvalles.
The van of the army, led by the king, went through in safety.
The rear-guard, "oppressed with baggage, loitered along the
rocky and narrow pathway, and as it entered the solitary gap
of Ibayeta, from the lofty precipices on either side an
unknown foe rolled suddenly down enormous rocks and trunks of
uprooted trees. Instantly many of the troops were crushed to
death, and the entire passage was blockaded. … The Franks who
escaped the horrible slaughter were at once assailed with
forks and pikes; their heavy armor, which had served them so
well in other fights, only encumbered them amid the bushes and
brambles of the ravine; and yet they fought with obstinate and
ferocious energy. Cheered on by the prowess of Eghihard, the
royal sencschal, of Anselm, Count of the Palace, of Roland,
the warden of the Marches of Brittany, and of many other
renowned chiefs, they did not desist till the last man had
fallen, covered with wounds and blood. … How many perished in
this fatal surprise was never told; but the event smote with
profound effect upon the imagination of Europe; it was kept
alive in a thousand shapes by tales and superstitions; heroic
songs and stories carried the remembrance of it from
generation to generation; Roland and his companions, the
Paladins of Karl, untimely slain, became, in the Middle Ages,
the types of chivalric valor and Christian heroism; and, seven
centuries after their only appearance in history, the genius
of Pulci, Boiardo, and Ariosto still preserved in immortal
verse the traditions of their glory. … Roland is but once
mentioned in authentic history, but the romance and songs,
which make him a nephew of Karl, compensate his memory for
this neglect."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 16, with foot-note.
ALSO IN:
J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 5.
G. P. R. James,
History of Charlemagne,
book 5.
J. O'Hagan,
Song of Roland.
T. Bulfinch,
Legends of Charlemagne.
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab·Moors,
book 7, chapter 3 (volume 2).
SPAIN: A. D. 778-885 (?).
Rise of the kingdom of Navarre.
See NAVARRE: ORIGIN OF THE KINGDOM.
SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
The rise of the kingdom of Castile.
"Ancient Cantabria, which the writers of the 8th century
usually termed Bardulia, and which, at this period [the 8th
century] stretched from the Biscayan sea to the Duero, towards
the close of the same century began to be called
Castella—doubtless from the numerous forts erected for the
defence of the country by Alfonso I. [the third king of
Oviedo, or Leon]. As the boundaries were gradually removed
towards the south, by the victories of the Christians, the
same denomination was applied to the new as well as to the
former conquests, and the whole continued subject to the same
governor, who had subordinate governors dependent on him. Of
the first governors or counts, from the period of its conquest
by that prince in 760, to the reign of Ordoño I. (a full
century), not even the names are mentioned in the old
chroniclers; the first we meet with is that of Count Rodrigo,
who is known to have possessed the dignity at least six
years,—viz. from 860 to 866." The last count of Castile,
Garcia Sanchez, who was the eighth of the line from Rodrigo,
perished in his youth by assassination (A. D. 1026), just as
he was at the point of receiving the title of king from the
sovereign of Leon, together with the hand of the latter's
daughter. Castile was then seized by Sancho el Mayor, king of
Navarre, in right of his queen, who was the elder sister of
Garcia. He assumed it to be a kingdom and associated the crown
with his own. On his death, in 1035, he bequeathed this new
kingdom of Castile to one of his sons, Fernando, while leaving
Navarre to another, and Aragon, then a lordship, to a third.
Fernando of Castile, being involved soon afterwards in war
with the young king of Leon, won the kingdom of the latter in
a single battle, where the last of the older royal dynasty of
Spain fell fighting like a valiant knight. The two kingdoms of
Castile and Leon were united under this prosperous king (see,
also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY) until his death, A. D. 1065,
when Castile passed to Sancho, the eldest of his sons, and
Leon to Alfonso, the second. But Sancho soon ousted Alfonso,
and Alfonso, biding his time, acquired both crowns in 1072,
when Sancho was assassinated. It was this Alfonso who
recovered the ancient capital city, Toledo, from the Moslems,
and it was in his reign that the famous Cid Campeador, Rodrigo
de Bivar, performed his fabulous exploits. The two kingdoms
were kept in union until 1157, when they fell apart again and
continued asunder until 1230. At that time a lasting union of
Castile and Leon took place, under Fernando III., whom the
church of Rome has canonized.
S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 2, chapter 1.
{2976a}
{2976b}